When size matters (D800 pixel count)

Started May 23, 2013 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Klaas de Bruin New Member • Posts: 11
Re: When size matters (D800 pixel count)

digitalman4242 wrote:

Nice.  But is it worth paying for and having your files be huge? How often will most people use a crop like that?  Most people would rather have a few less megapixels and a little more low light/high iso capability.

To be honest, the files are huge. However, memory is a lot cheaper than it used to be. The D800 has a lot of DR, more than sufficient for me and way more than Canon 5D MK-III users get. ( and they ( rightfully ) are also happy.) FPS is my only concern, 4fps is slower than i sometimes want.

Low light and high iso can allways be better. No matter how good it is allready.

If you want less MP and higher fps, there is the D600 now..

 Klaas de Bruin's gear list:Klaas de Bruin's gear list
Nikon D100 Nikon D200 Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR +5 more
Klaas de Bruin New Member • Posts: 11
Re: When size matters (D800 pixel count)

Bottom line, we are blessed with some recent cameras...D600, D4, D7100, D800, etc.  All have features that were unheard of just a few years ago.  It's a shame we feel a need to bash one over the other.

Regards,

-- hide signature --

+ 1

 Klaas de Bruin's gear list:Klaas de Bruin's gear list
Nikon D100 Nikon D200 Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR +5 more
tundracamper Senior Member • Posts: 1,818
Re: When size matters (D800 pixel count)

So a few years ago this forum board was filled with posts by folks wanting an affordable full frame camera. Now that we have affordable full frame cameras, folks are ranting about cropping. Can't you do that with a DX camera?  Just sayin....

Rick Knepper Forum Pro • Posts: 13,310
Absolutely nice. nt

Vettori wrote:

It's nice to have such a crop capability, what do you think ?

-- hide signature --

Rick Knepper, photographer, non-professional, shooting for pleasure, check my profile for gear list and philosophy. TJ said, "Every generation needs a new revolution".

 Rick Knepper's gear list:Rick Knepper's gear list
Pentax 645Z Canon EOS 5DS R +2 more
JimPearce
JimPearce Veteran Member • Posts: 8,923
Really Reilly?
1

And you know this...how? Clearly not from doing wildlife photography with the D7100 and long lenses.

-- hide signature --

Jim

 JimPearce's gear list:JimPearce's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon D500
Klaas de Bruin New Member • Posts: 11
Re: When size matters (D800 pixel count)

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

I would say nay to that.  The D800e cropped a bit smokes the D7100 for clean and sharp, with a lot less noise and way fewer artifacts to deal with, especially as you get up over ISO 400 or so.  The D7100 is only really good at very low ISO.

I would say noisewise the D800 and D7100 are on par, the D600 being slightly better.

But what are we talking about? They are all better than one generation ago. And new ones will be better still. Anyone trowing away their D200 and D90 pics now because they can't stand the noise? Not me.They are still as good as they ever were. Sure, i have less noise now, but noise is only a small part of the picture.

My advise is to take some pictures and enjoy them. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, not in extreme blowups on the computer.

Happy shooting!

 Klaas de Bruin's gear list:Klaas de Bruin's gear list
Nikon D100 Nikon D200 Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR +5 more
Klaas de Bruin New Member • Posts: 11
Re: When size matters (D800 pixel count)

tundracamper wrote:

So a few years ago this forum board was filled with posts by folks wanting an affordable full frame camera. Now that we have affordable full frame cameras, folks are ranting about cropping. Can't you do that with a DX camera?  Just sayin....

People changeĀ 

When i got my D700 i was very happy with the possibility to actually use all the glass, especially inside. My 17- was 17 again. Happy! Now with the D800 that is still the case. But occasionally i am also happy when i am outside and the fitted lens is a bit short, i do not need to change first, but can take the shot and worry about it later. That said, if i would mainly shoot birds and so i would now go for the 7100 for that. But 1- i don't and 2- There was no D7100 when i bought my D800 ( which is when these just came out )

Happy shooting to you all!

 Klaas de Bruin's gear list:Klaas de Bruin's gear list
Nikon D100 Nikon D200 Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR +5 more
Geomaticsman
Geomaticsman Senior Member • Posts: 1,856
Re: When size matters (D800 pixel count)

jjnik wrote

In my experience, you also lose much of the IQ advantage that allows the croppability of the D800E once you get much above ISO 400-800.  I have a D800E and a D4 and once the ISO needs to start ticking up above those levels, I find the D4 to be a much better camera - but at ISO 100, the D800E is unmatched (and is quite good to ISO 6400 as long as you don't need to crop).

Agree with this. My "base" ISO on my D800 is 400. I'll only go higher if I know I can downres in post.

-- hide signature --

Gary -- Some Nikon stuff -- and a preference for wildlife in natural light
www.pbase.com/garyirwin

 Geomaticsman's gear list:Geomaticsman's gear list
Nikon D810 Nikon D500 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR +6 more
AZBlue
AZBlue Contributing Member • Posts: 866
Re: When size matters (D800 pixel count)

digitalman4242 wrote:

Most people would rather have a few less megapixels and a little more low light/high iso capability.

Huh, I wonder where you get this information? How did you determine this?

I certainly want as many pixels and as detailed an image as possible. The D800 low noise capability is more than adequate for the number of pixels. Remember, high ISO film had grain, too, which gave it a certain character.

-- hide signature --

"I've been in more laps than a napkin" - Mae West

 AZBlue's gear list:AZBlue's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG OS Macro HSM +1 more
AZBlue
AZBlue Contributing Member • Posts: 866
Re: When size matters (D800 pixel count)

shaunly wrote:
It call a D600 and D4. Even then, those camera are barely 1/2 stop better at handling noise over 6400ISO.

Do your research again, the D800 has the best IQ up to 6400ISO.

-- hide signature --

www.flickr.com/shaunly

Actually the D800 beats the D600 at all ISO settings. Each D600 pixel is 150% larger than a D800 pixel, therefore noise will also appear 150% larger at the same output size. A D800 photo output to the same dimensions as a D600 photo will have a much finer noise profile, therefore less perceptible noise.

-- hide signature --

"I've been in more laps than a napkin" - Mae West

 AZBlue's gear list:AZBlue's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG OS Macro HSM +1 more
yray
yray Senior Member • Posts: 1,508
Re: When size matters (D800 pixel count)

ormdig wrote:

digitalman4242 wrote:

Nice.  But is it worth paying for and having your files be huge? How often will most people use a crop like that?  Most people would rather have a few less megapixels and a little more low light/high iso capability.

I strongly disagree. I find the ability to crop heavily with the D800 worth every bit of the cost of storage. Look at the detail in the OP's second post. You can't do that with "less megapixels". It essentially extends the long end of any lens, making possible shots that were heretofore impossible without a longer lens.

If the ability to crop is the entire point -- why not just get a nice and relatively cheap D7000 or D7100 ?.. Or is the real issue here the inability to frame?

As for low light/high ISO capability, what are you comparing it with? I can auto focus in low light in a consistent manner I only dreamed of before. The noise at ISO 4000 is easily taken care of in PP with no apparent loss of detail, again only a dream before. I have seen posted shots at ISO6400 that are very detailed.

Try to crop at ISO 6400 and see how much you like the results...

The truth is that you can't have the cake and eat it too. If you want high ISO you can't crop much, and if you want to crop a lot then your high ISO performance degrades quite a bit.

What I find really amazing is that the D800 still remains as controversial as it is. It is as if its owners want to put it on a pedestal as the ultimate in IQ for all times. I personally get it, D800 is a fine camera for those who need its capabilities, I don't question it, but I do wonder what kind of insecurity drives this need to defend D800 at every turn and where it comes from. What if D800 is not the ultimate, what if the king has no clothes... oh dear...

ormdig
ormdig Senior Member • Posts: 1,233
Re: When size matters (D800 pixel count)

yray wrote:

ormdig wrote:

I strongly disagree. I find the ability to crop heavily with the D800 worth every bit of the cost of storage. Look at the detail in the OP's second post. You can't do that with "less megapixels". It essentially extends the long end of any lens, making possible shots that were heretofore impossible without a longer lens.

If the ability to crop is the entire point -- why not just get a nice and relatively cheap D7000 or D7100 ?.. Or is the real issue here the inability to frame?

I have a D7000, a very good camera. My point was the ability to extend the long end of a lens with the D800 and still have remarkable detail. A much appreciated asset for those of us who can't afford every lens in the store and make do with what we can afford. I saved and saved and bought this camera, a 24-70 and a 70-200 while I had a 105macro and a 50 f/1.8, all Nikon. That is it for the foreseeable future.

As for the inability to frame, I shoot thousands of images of sports in season (not for money and I don't have the resources for both fast frame rate and IQ). The only people I know of who don't crop sports images have their cameras set up in fixed positions or have very long lenses that capture close-ups in camera. My longest lens is a 70-200 and I make do with it and the cropping made possible by the camera.

As for low light/high ISO capability, what are you comparing it with? I can auto focus in low light in a consistent manner I only dreamed of before. The noise at ISO 4000 is easily taken care of in PP with no apparent loss of detail, again only a dream before. I have seen posted shots at ISO6400 that are very detailed.

Try to crop at ISO 6400 and see how much you like the results...

The truth is that you can't have the cake and eat it too. If you want high ISO you can't crop much, and if you want to crop a lot then your high ISO performance degrades quite a bit.

What I find really amazing is that the D800 still remains as controversial as it is. It is as if its owners want to put it on a pedestal as the ultimate in IQ for all times. I personally get it, D800 is a fine camera for those who need its capabilities, I don't question it, but I do wonder what kind of insecurity drives this need to defend D800 at every turn and where it comes from. What if D800 is not the ultimate, what if the king has no clothes... oh dear...

I didn't say anything about cropping a 6400 ISO image, in fact I don't use ISO6400. I do use ISO4000 in small, poorly lit gyms where it is a boon to action shooting without uncorrectable noise. I totally agree that high ISO degrades the image, it is how much detail can be retained, at least with the software I use, that is different here.

It is the unexpected bonuses I have discovered with this camera that I delight in and have pointed out, especially in making do with what I have available. If that qualifies as insecurity so be it.

-- hide signature --

Pete

 ormdig's gear list:ormdig's gear list
Nikon D7000 Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR +6 more
Kaj E Veteran Member • Posts: 9,181
Re: When size matters (D800 pixel count)
1

How large do you intend to print the squirrel?

-- hide signature --

Kind regards
Kaj
http://www.pbase.com/kaj_e
WSSA member #13
It's about time we started to take photography seriously and treat it as a hobby.- Elliott Erwitt

eNo
eNo Forum Pro • Posts: 11,744
Not so exciting
2

Come back when your crop grabs Big Foot.

-- hide signature --

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://imagesbyeduardo.com/
Los Angeles wedding photography that seeks the heart and spirit in each image

Reilly Diefenbach
Reilly Diefenbach Forum Pro • Posts: 10,148
Yes.

Pixel count of 24MP is nice and detailed if carefully processed, but it's no great secret that the D7100 is a lot harder camera than the D800 to avoid noise and notchy sharpening artifacts.  I've seen a lot of D7100 bird pics (not yours) with crunchies and smeared detail.  For said detail, 36MP beats 24, and FX beats DX for overall cleanliness, no doubt about that.  I have yet to see any D7100 pic that equals what the D800e can do, given the same subject framing and a top quality lens.  I would go further and say that cropping the D800e to 24MP gives a better 24MP picture than what the DX item can output.

JimPearce
JimPearce Veteran Member • Posts: 8,923
"same framing"?

Oops! That causes a world of trouble. To get the same framing as my 500 f4 & TC-14E with the D7100 you'll need a 600 f4 & TC-17E or the new 800 f5.6 & TC-125E on a D800/E. Anyway, I agree with you that the D7100 requires ETTR, very sharp focus and careful processing to get close to the same results. But I'm not sure I'm seeing much difference between ISO 400 and ISO 800, and that was what I was really questioning.

P.S. To be fair to the D7100 I think you should be looking at shots from Anton, Humanoid  and me - not the enthusiasts here who really don't know what a compression artifact is.

-- hide signature --

Jim

 JimPearce's gear list:JimPearce's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon D500
Liviu Namolovan Contributing Member • Posts: 568
Re: Nothing matters when composition is lacking

No point at all in showing such a failure snapshhot

Reilly Diefenbach
Reilly Diefenbach Forum Pro • Posts: 10,148
Re: "same framing"?

JimPearce wrote:

Oops! That causes a world of trouble. To get the same framing as my 500 f4 & TC-14E with the D7100 you'll need a 600 f4 & TC-17E or the new 800 f5.6 & TC-125E on a D800/E.

Yes, I'm hiring a bearer for my rented 600VR to get the same framing you get while tripping the light fantastic with your 500VR :^)

Anyway, I agree with you that the D7100 requires ETTR, very sharp focus and careful processing to get close to the same results. But I'm not sure I'm seeing much difference between ISO 400 and ISO 800, and that was what I was really questioning.

I'll revise and defer to someone who knows bird shooting and actually has the camera!

P.S. To be fair to the D7100 I think you should be looking at shots from Anton, Humanoid  and me - not the enthusiasts here who really don't know what a compression artifact is.

-- hide signature --

Jim

AZBlue
AZBlue Contributing Member • Posts: 866
Re: When size matters (D800 pixel count)

Geomaticsman wrote:
Agree with this. My "base" ISO on my D800 is 400. I'll only go higher if I know I can downres in post.

-- hide signature --

Gary -- Some Nikon stuff -- and a preference for wildlife in natural light
www.pbase.com/garyirwin

I'm curious as to why you would use ISO 400 - arguably noisier than ISO 100 - as your "base" ISO when the D800's noise profile is much cleaner at ISO 100?

-- hide signature --

"I've been in more laps than a napkin" - Mae West

 AZBlue's gear list:AZBlue's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG OS Macro HSM +1 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads