Quick rebuttal

[amobi]

Look who is talking. You are one confused fellow.

We've always seen this going to higher MP cameras. I noticed is when moving from the 1Ds to the 1Ds2, and from the 40D to the 7D.

And by now, I'd hope realize that Qianp2k knowledge base is extremely limited. I'm surprised you even took the time to reply to him.

 

[Peter 13]

I am thinking about getting the new Nokia phone with the 41mp camera, and those threads got me really concerned. How will I ever be able to get a sharp shots with a senors having more pixels than the D800? Should I use it on a tripod only?

I have an older Nokia phone and I tried to mount it on my tripod. It was not easy - try to screw in a fast release plate on a cell phone. It seems that this would work however. Should I use duct tape?



In portrait mode, I can just do this:



Problem solved! I need to carry my tripod everywhere I take my cell phone!

 

[bobn2]

I cannot believe you start another thread just for that.

You still fail to answer this question - how a blurry 36mp photo looks and prints better than a tack sharp 22mp photo?

because for the same camera movement and same viewing conditions the 36MP picture will always be less blurry than the 22MP one. So, your question is irrelevant. I could just as well ask how a blurry 22mp photo looks and prints better than a tack sharp 36mp photo? , it has as much relevance to anything. fact is, you use the same technique with the 5DIII and D800, the D800 will produce more resolution. If your technique is very poor, not much, but still more.

I don't think you understand what I said. I don't dispute D800 has more resolution than 5D3, of course. However as DPR said you need faster shutter in order to fully leverage 36mp resolution.

Just like you need a higher shutter speed to 'leverage' L lenses.

For example under a non-ideal light, I can get a sharp 5D3 photo at ISO 200 at 1/20 hand-held while you likely must shoot under ISO 360 at 1/30 (just for an example may not exact number) in order to get similar sharpness when both viewed at 100% cropped.

There is the thing, who is interested in 100% crop? Mostly, the size of output people choose for their photos is pretty much unrelated to the sampling rate of the camera. It never has been, with the caveat, that if teh sampling rate is too low, you might not feel the quality is good enough to print large.

In another words, you need a better technique in order to achieve potential 36mp resolution. If you also shoot D800 in that scenario with ISO 200 at 1/20 you have higher chance to get a blurry photo.

Only if you choose to view them at different sizes. If you were to choose to view the 5DIII 28% bigger than the D800, that would look more blurry.

Now assuming we both shoot ISO 200 at 1/20, I have sharp 5D3 photo while you have blurry D800 photo when both viewed at 100% cropped. Can you still say your blurry D800 photo is better than my sharp 5D3 photo, by either downsampling to 22mp or upsampling to 36mp? That's exactly what DPR means,

I will say my D800 picture is better if it looks sharper viewed the same size.

Can the D800 make good on its pixel count and provide a level of fine detail that trumps its DSLR rivals? It can. We emphasize the word can, because if you're truly after 36MP performance, be prepared to do some work. Flawless technique, fast shutter speeds and top-shelf equipment (particularly lenses and a tripod) along with a low ISO are requirements not options.

You need even more technique to leverage 80mp Mamiya MF camera.

So what this better technique for high pixel camera means? It means in order to have the best possible quality when print big such as 60" from D800, you really need to shoot under faster shutter or on tripod with the nice lens, at the base ISO and optimized F number (such as 5.6). Otherwise you probably waste D800 potential if you only print to 30x20". How many landscape photog using 40-80mp MP camera will shoot in hand-held?

But you could choose not to 'leverage'. The advantage of the D800 is that it gives you the same or better image quality when used in the same way as the 5DIII (and that includes every aspect of image quality) and considerably more when you choose to take the effort for precision technique. In addition you get the added advantage of more than 2 stops more DR at base ISO (and I frequently see shadow noise at base ISO on the 5D), nearly ISOless charcteristic and usable auto-ISO. All in all it's a more flexible camera, the only operational downside for still photography is 1 FPS less, but I've used my camera in continuous drive mode precisely twice, so personally, I can live with that.

--
Bob

 

[rhlpetrus]

I cannot believe you start another thread just for that.

You still fail to answer this question - how a blurry 36mp photo looks and prints better than a tack sharp 22mp photo?

I don't think you understand what I said. I don't dispute D800 has more resolution than 5D3, of course. However as DPR said you need faster shutter in order to fully leverage 36mp resolution. For example under a non-ideal light, I can get a sharp 5D3 photo at ISO 200 at 1/20 hand-held while you likely must shoot under ISO 360 at 1/30 (just for an example may not exact number) in order to get similar sharpness when both viewed at 100% cropped. In another words, you need a better technique in order to achieve potential 36mp resolution. If you also shoot D800 in that scenario with ISO 200 at 1/20 you have higher chance to get a blurry photo.

Now assuming we both shoot ISO 200 at 1/20, I have sharp 5D3 photo while you have blurry D800 photo when both viewed at 100% cropped. Can you still say your blurry D800 photo is better than my sharp 5D3 photo, by either downsampling to 22mp or upsampling to 36mp?

Well, following your reasoning, the D800 will give at least same result at same printing size, and that's absolutely correct, everything else equal. That's it, better or equal, is that ok with you? Now, in real life, usually there's no equal, since everything is approximate. Thus, it looks like better is more likely, since you will likely use camera settings not at your exactly limit of steadyness.

--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

 

[qianp2k]

Nobody can understand Fuzzy's confusing logic. He compared Pentax K-X to D700 and claims FF has basically no advantage. He played IR samples and claims 5D2 has no advantage over 7D. Now he claims D800 has clear advantage over 5D3/5D2 when he usually only prints to 26x20". He never own 5D-5D3 and doubt he actually already owned D800 at this moment. He jumped into the threads are just for trolling, to get an attention but only let more people to realize he is a fool.

At other side, I can understand why some real photog like amboi need D800 or 5D3 that surpass 5D2/D700 in every aspect.

We've always seen this going to higher MP cameras. I noticed is when moving from the 1Ds to the 1Ds2, and from the 40D to the 7D.

And by now, I'd hope realize that Qianp2k knowledge base is extremely limited. I'm surprised you even took the time to reply to him.

--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

 

[qianp2k]

I cannot believe you start another thread just for that.

You still fail to answer this question - how a blurry 36mp photo looks and prints better than a tack sharp 22mp photo?

I don't think you understand what I said. I don't dispute D800 has more resolution than 5D3, of course. However as DPR said you need faster shutter in order to fully leverage 36mp resolution. For example under a non-ideal light, I can get a sharp 5D3 photo at ISO 200 at 1/20 hand-held while you likely must shoot under ISO 360 at 1/30 (just for an example may not exact number) in order to get similar sharpness when both viewed at 100% cropped. In another words, you need a better technique in order to achieve potential 36mp resolution. If you also shoot D800 in that scenario with ISO 200 at 1/20 you have higher chance to get a blurry photo.

Now assuming we both shoot ISO 200 at 1/20, I have sharp 5D3 photo while you have blurry D800 photo when both viewed at 100% cropped. Can you still say your blurry D800 photo is better than my sharp 5D3 photo, by either downsampling to 22mp or upsampling to 36mp?

Well, following your reasoning, the D800 will give at least same result at same printing size,

If use the same technique, this is basically correct but then you waste extra 24mp. 5D3 can shoot more photos in a given time if both in P&S hand-held. So I will not surprise 5D3 might have better photos sometime in this scenario such as from a vacation snap shooter.

and that's absolutely correct, everything else equal. That's it, better or equal, is that ok with you?

Nothing is absolutely. A very blurry FF 36mp photo cannot be better than a sharp 22mp FF photo. You can get better photos from D800 but also you need to spend more efforts as DPR suggested.

Now, in real life, usually there's no equal, since everything is approximate. Thus, it looks like better is more likely, since you will likely use camera settings not at your exactly limit of steadyness.

It depends. From serious photog who shoot mostly from tripod D800 will obviously trump 5D3. From casual P&S photog who shoot mostly in hand-held, the difference will be pretty small to print to normal size such as 30x20" or below. I don't think 99% of photog want to print 60" wide will shoot in hand-held.

--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

 

[qianp2k]

bobn2 wrote:

because for the same camera movement and same viewing conditions the 36MP picture will always be less blurry than the 22MP one.

Theoretically it's true if you view/print on the same size. However if you shoot under marginal hit or miss scenarios with the help of IS/VR, this might not true as the blurry level is not lineal when I shoot at 1/15 hand-held for example. I found usually is either hit (70% of sharp or better) or miss (30% of sharp or less). So my argument is that when you shoot D800 under such marginal shutter speed, you likely have more miss photos than 5D3. Then a 30% sharp D800 photo is unlikely better than a 70% sharp 5D3 photo

But even you can achieve the same sharpness level in less technique such as hand-held, although D800 still is at least as good as or better than 5D3 then the advantage of 24mp is compromised, you might only ended with a slightly better or indistinguishable rather a clear win. However 5D3 runs faster that means in a given time, 5D3 can take more photos than D800 that will only increases 5D3 hit rate. On paper or in lab yes D800 trumps 5D3 clearly but in real world photos I am not so sure.

--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

 

[Silverback1988]

I agree with this :

It depends. From serious photog who shoot mostly from tripod D800 will obviously trump 5D3. From casual P&S photog who shoot mostly in hand-held, the difference will be pretty small to print to normal size such as 30x20" or below. I don't think 99% of photog want to print 60" wide will shoot in hand-held.

BUT remember that ... some people in that 1 % category will appreciate D800's advantage over 5DIII.

-
Brian

 

[carlk]

has talent to use their gear to its maximum capabilities.
And I am sure that Joe is one of those people.
In other word,
I believe he knows how to make 36 MP full resolution from a 36 MP camera.

I think you make some valid points too in your post.
a blurry photo is more noticeable in high resolution.

And it is not easy to get a high resolution picture even if a high resolution gear is in your hand.

BUT Joe has valid point too.
What he said is true.
I believe you already knew that.

-
Brian

Is it tool drives skill or skill drives tool? It is both. People shooting cell phone or p&s may not know, even it already is there, how important skill is until they start to shoot higher end cameras and the differences look more obvious. People will explore new possibilities when they got their hands on a tool that allows them to do things they could not do, or not do as well, before. People will starts to learn how to use the high resolution cameras and how to take advantage of it (for example print very large and very sharp prints they have never tried before) when that tool is available to them and only when that tool is available to them.

That's is MY reason to get D800E, to explore the new possibilities. I think that is (my) photography all about.

 

[qianp2k]

qianp2k wrote:

It depends. From serious photog who shoot mostly from tripod D800 will obviously trump 5D3. From casual P&S photog who shoot mostly in hand-held, the difference will be pretty small to print to normal size such as 30x20" or below. I don't think 99% of photog want to print 60" wide will shoot in hand-held.

BUT remember that ... some people in that 1 % category will appreciate D800's advantage over 5DIII.

To print bigger or crop more but with less perfect technique, the 60" wide print doesn't look very good. At the end, that 1% likely will not print to 60" but only to 30" wide Also you gain something but also lose something, you miss 5D3 faster performance (not just two fps but overall performance) that is more noticeable in sports and events or in JPEG output if you're a PJ.

-
Brian

--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

 

[carlk]

We've always seen this going to higher MP cameras. I noticed is when moving from the 1Ds to the 1Ds2, and from the 40D to the 7D.

And by now, I'd hope realize that Qianp2k knowledge base is extremely limited. I'm surprised you even took the time to reply to him.

I like to keep discussion on the subject matter but I totally agree with you. He does not have any technical knowledge or photographic insights but set his tone purely on political bases.

 

[carlk]

amobi you're almost as clueless as qianp2k but you're still way better than him. Support of him will do nothing but pull yourself down a full level lower.

We've always seen this going to higher MP cameras. I noticed is when moving from the 1Ds to the 1Ds2, and from the 40D to the 7D.

And by now, I'd hope realize that Qianp2k knowledge base is extremely limited. I'm surprised you even took the time to reply to him.

 

[qianp2k]

hahaha, so funny. Not surprisingly you put yourself in the Fuzzy's club.

Both you and Fuzzy cannot generate good photos with your 7D or whatever other gears you have, and I don't think you suddenly can be great photog with D800. Does anyone like both your photos so far? Check threads I started you will know I got many compliments, jealous?

Both you and Fuzzy don't own any cameras this forum dedicated to. But both you frequently jumped into threads in this forum and hijacked threads only for trolling and flaming.

amobi you're almost as clueless as qianp2k but you're still way better than him. Support of him will do nothing but pull yourself down a full level lower.

We've always seen this going to higher MP cameras. I noticed is when moving from the 1Ds to the 1Ds2, and from the 40D to the 7D.

And by now, I'd hope realize that Qianp2k knowledge base is extremely limited. I'm surprised you even took the time to reply to him.

--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

 

[bobn2]

bobn2 wrote:

because for the same camera movement and same viewing conditions the 36MP picture will always be less blurry than the 22MP one.

Theoretically it's true if you view/print on the same size. However if you shoot under marginal hit or miss scenarios with the help of IS/VR, this might not true as the blurry level is not lineal when I shoot at 1/15 hand-held for example. I found usually is either hit (70% of sharp or better) or miss (30% of sharp or less). So my argument is that when you shoot D800 under such marginal shutter speed, you likely have more miss photos than 5D3. Then a 30% sharp D800 photo is unlikely better than a 70% sharp 5D3 photo

You really are struggling to find anti-D800 arguments now. This one is still wrong. Whatever the amount of blur in the image projected on the sensor, the D800 will add less extra sensor blur than does the 5DIII. It doesn't matter whether it's 'marginal hit or miss scenario' blur (whatever that is), 'lineal' blur (whatever that is) or venusian double genitoid blur, whatever the blur in the projected image, the D800 adds less.
.

But even you can achieve the same sharpness level in less technique such as hand-held, although D800 still is at least as good as or better than 5D3 then the advantage of 24mp is compromised, you might only ended with a slightly better or indistinguishable rather a clear win.

Certainly. That os always true of the best equipment. Take the best L lens, wobble it so it's blurred to b*ggery and you'll find it's hardly any better than a kit zoom similarly blurred to b*ggery.

However 5D3 runs faster that means in a given time, 5D3 can take more photos than D800 that will only increases 5D3 hit rate. On paper or in lab yes D800 trumps 5D3 clearly but in real world photos I am not so sure.

Original, I'll give you that. More FPS equals sharper photos. Never heard that before.

--
Bob

 

[mattr]

... venusian double genitoid blur

Glad you mention it - this is the blur that is totally removed by large Canon pixels using proprietary technology.

 

[brokensocialscenester]

Don't forget how 12 mp was excellent until 21 mp became available right here in Canonland ; D

I admire your patience and perseverence Great Bustard.

I fear some will not be deterred from believing 22MP is the holy grail...a resolution of magical qualities...and any more, especially and specifically 36MP is just horrible.

Of course, that will all change once Canon releases a 40+mp camera next year.

You are correct of course, just like when 12MP was the holy grail on a different forum until a 24MP machine dropped

--
dekalb wedding photography
chicago wedding photographer
http://www.mikeandfrida.com

 

[qianp2k]

bobn2 wrote:

because for the same camera movement and same viewing conditions the 36MP picture will always be less blurry than the 22MP one.

Theoretically it's true if you view/print on the same size. However if you shoot under marginal hit or miss scenarios with the help of IS/VR, this might not true as the blurry level is not lineal when I shoot at 1/15 hand-held for example. I found usually is either hit (70% of sharp or better) or miss (30% of sharp or less). So my argument is that when you shoot D800 under such marginal shutter speed, you likely have more miss photos than 5D3. Then a 30% sharp D800 photo is unlikely better than a 70% sharp 5D3 photo

You really are struggling to find anti-D800 arguments now. This one is still wrong. Whatever the amount of blur in the image projected on the sensor, the D800 will add less extra sensor blur than does the 5DIII. It doesn't matter whether it's 'marginal hit or miss scenario' blur (whatever that is), 'lineal' blur (whatever that is) or venusian double genitoid blur, whatever the blur in the projected image, the D800 adds less.
.

But even you can achieve the same sharpness level in less technique such as hand-held, although D800 still is at least as good as or better than 5D3 then the advantage of 24mp is compromised, you might only ended with a slightly better or indistinguishable rather a clear win.

Certainly. That os always true of the best equipment. Take the best L lens, wobble it so it's blurred to b*ggery and you'll find it's hardly any better than a kit zoom similarly blurred to b*ggery.

However 5D3 runs faster that means in a given time, 5D3 can take more photos than D800 that will only increases 5D3 hit rate. On paper or in lab yes D800 trumps 5D3 clearly but in real world photos I am not so sure.

Original, I'll give you that. More FPS equals sharper photos. Never heard that before.

You're a master to twister. I mean in hit or miss situation, 5D3 can have more hit photos in a given time that exactly I meant. Said both have 50% hit or miss chances in 10 sec. With 5D3 I probably will have few more hit photos.

I have no interests to play game of words with you again and again. But I believe what DPR said that does much better physical job than your empty paper work. Read carefully again that means you need better technique to fully leverage D800 36mp resolution.

Can the D800 make good on its pixel count and provide a level of fine detail that trumps its DSLR rivals? It can. We emphasize the word can, because if you're truly after 36MP performance, be prepared to do some work. Flawless technique , fast shutter speeds and top-shelf equipment (particularly lenses and a tripod) along with a low ISO are requirements not options .

And last I am NOT anti-D800 but I will stay in Canon for my choice. And I don't really need 36mp in my needs at this moment. You might have a different choice that I don't care.

--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

 

[John Mason]

and that is the key point that makes the more blurry comment irrelevant

The D800 would not be more blurry for any given output size. The clarity will be limited by whatever is most limiting of maximum sharpness. This could be shutter speed vs movement of the camera body, mirror/shutter vibration, lens quality at selected f stop, etc.

A higher resolution sensor is NOT a variable to the sharpness equation that will make a final output look more blurry.
--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

http://www.fototime.com/inv/407B931C53A9D9D

 

[Great Bustard]

I cannot believe you start another thread just for that.

Next you'll tell me you don't believe in Santa.

You still fail to answer this question - how a blurry 36mp photo looks and prints better than a tack sharp 22mp photo?

First of all, the premise of your question is bogus -- if the 36 MP photo is blurry, the 22 MP photo will not be tack sharp, nor will it print better. So, there is no answer to your question, as your question is meaningless.

Now, here's a question for you:

• Will a photo that suffers from minor motion blur and/or camera shake look better, worse, or the same if taken with a sharper lens?

I don't think you understand what I said. I don't dispute D800 has more resolution than 5D3, of course. However as DPR said you need faster shutter in order to fully leverage 36mp resolution.

Yes. But simply because the full resolution advanatge is not realized does not mean that some of the resolution advantage is realized, and there is never a situation in which the D800 will be at a disadvantage in terms of resolution due to more pixels.

For example under a non-ideal light, I can get a sharp 5D3 photo at ISO 200 at 1/20 hand-held while you likely must shoot under ISO 360 at 1/30 (just for an example may not exact number) in order to get similar sharpness when both viewed at 100% cropped.

It makes no sense to compare the IQ of a photo from two systems pixel by pixel when the photos are made from a (substantially) different number of pixels.

In another words, you need a better technique in order to achieve potential 36mp resolution.

But I don't need better technique to get at least the same IQ as the sensor with the fewer number of pixels.

If you also shoot D800 in that scenario with ISO 200 at 1/20 you have higher chance to get a blurry photo.

No. 100% wrong.

 

[bobn2]

bobn2 wrote:

because for the same camera movement and same viewing conditions the 36MP picture will always be less blurry than the 22MP one.

Theoretically it's true if you view/print on the same size. However if you shoot under marginal hit or miss scenarios with the help of IS/VR, this might not true as the blurry level is not lineal when I shoot at 1/15 hand-held for example. I found usually is either hit (70% of sharp or better) or miss (30% of sharp or less). So my argument is that when you shoot D800 under such marginal shutter speed, you likely have more miss photos than 5D3. Then a 30% sharp D800 photo is unlikely better than a 70% sharp 5D3 photo

You really are struggling to find anti-D800 arguments now. This one is still wrong. Whatever the amount of blur in the image projected on the sensor, the D800 will add less extra sensor blur than does the 5DIII. It doesn't matter whether it's 'marginal hit or miss scenario' blur (whatever that is), 'lineal' blur (whatever that is) or venusian double genitoid blur, whatever the blur in the projected image, the D800 adds less.
.

But even you can achieve the same sharpness level in less technique such as hand-held, although D800 still is at least as good as or better than 5D3 then the advantage of 24mp is compromised, you might only ended with a slightly better or indistinguishable rather a clear win.

Certainly. That os always true of the best equipment. Take the best L lens, wobble it so it's blurred to b*ggery and you'll find it's hardly any better than a kit zoom similarly blurred to b*ggery.

However 5D3 runs faster that means in a given time, 5D3 can take more photos than D800 that will only increases 5D3 hit rate. On paper or in lab yes D800 trumps 5D3 clearly but in real world photos I am not so sure.

Original, I'll give you that. More FPS equals sharper photos. Never heard that before.

You're a master to twister. I mean in hit or miss situation, 5D3 can have more hit photos in a given time that exactly I meant. Said both have 50% hit or miss chances in 10 sec. With 5D3 I probably will have few more hit photos.

So, for spray and pray, 5DIII is better. Maybe you are right, but a 7D would be better still and a lot cheaper.

I have no interests to play game of words with you again and again. But I believe what DPR said that does much better physical job than your empty paper work. Read carefully again that means you need better technique to fully leverage D800 36mp resolution.

Can the D800 make good on its pixel count and provide a level of fine detail that trumps its DSLR rivals? It can. We emphasize the word can, because if you're truly after 36MP performance, be prepared to do some work. Flawless technique , fast shutter speeds and top-shelf equipment (particularly lenses and a tripod) along with a low ISO are requirements not options .

And last I am NOT anti-D800 but I will stay in Canon for my choice. And I don't really need 36mp in my needs at this moment. You might have a different choice that I don't care.

But clearly you do care, since you have been in the forefront of trying to turn every disadvantage of the 5DIII into an advantage. I don't believe I have any right to criticise anyones equipment choice. All of us choose for our own reasons, and that should not be argued withe. If you like Canon that is a perfectly valid reason to buy Canon. It's not a reason to dismiss other people's choices or other brand's achievements.
--
Bob