Quick rebuttal

[Great Bustard]

I work for IBM as a software Engineer out here in Research Triangle Park. I have been with IBM for over 8 years and before that I worked for SAS institute as business computer programmer and briefly for Caterpillar as a Product Engineer. As you can see I am not as dumb as I sound.

I drive a taxi and run numbers for a few of the loan sharks around here.

Just because I don't like to get involved in this type of technical discussion does not make me technically incompetent.

I'm rather well rounded, as you may have noticed. Tech talk, photography, entertainment -- I'm in.

All I have to say is that after playing with D800 and 5DIII all day today, when my D800 arrives I will designate it to backup.

Already decided before even using the camera?

I don't care about DXO rating and all that technically stuff. 5DIII is a more rounded camera with superb AF.

I'd be interested how the AF compares between the two. I'd like to believe that the 5D3 were so much better that it "earned" it's $500 premium on that basis alone.

BTW as far as I am concerned Qianp2k is very very talented guy. I enjoyed his pictures a lot. Carl is also good but not even close to Qianp2k talent. Carl is also very close minded. Faintandfuzzy fits into those knowledgeable people who couldn't take a decent photo to save their life, and everywhere in between. The guy is just terrible.

Except for your pics, I haven't seen any of the others'. Still, as I said, technical competence and photographic skills are independent qualities.

Great Buster I can't argue with you. You are the master. I pick my fights.

I just like to fight. Maybe you've noticed?

 

[Great Bustard]

Just sold all my D7oo with all lenses for waiting and then upgrading, so i might be one of those rare photographers you mentioned.

Think i will buy the 5DMK3 because i mostly shoot handheld and cannot benefit of 36MP, will be better served with 22MP.

Just FYI -- the jump from 12 MP to 22 MP is the same as the jump from 22 MP to 36 MP (though the latter jump is more subject to the law of dimishing returns).

And: the range of Canon-lenses seems to be better for me: 17-40, 24-105 and 70-200 F4 IS. Nikon cannot deliver the same quality at this prize. The 24-120 of Nikon is much worse compared to the 24-105 of Canon.

The 17-40 / 4L is so-so, as is the 24-105 / 4L IS (PZ shows it about the same as the 24-120 / 4 VR) . The 70-200 / 4L IS, however, is spectacular.

Canon's upcoming 24-70 / 2.8L II, on the other hand, is supposed to be the bomb, so you might want to look into that.

And: Hate two things combined with the D800: the crumbled sky (reminds me on crop-sensors) and the greenish cast. Think, the Canon-colours are more pleasing.

RAW or jpg?

 

[bobn2]

I work for IBM as a software Engineer out here in Research Triangle Park. I have been with IBM for over 8 years and before that I worked for SAS institute as business computer programmer and briefly for Caterpillar as a Product Engineer. As you can see I am not as dumb as I sound.

There are several possible retorts to that, but I'll let you off today
--
Bob

 

[KLO82]

I really wish camera review sites could include resolution test done using some kind of robot hand or something that will emulate human hand movement/ shake. The same amount of movement will be done for testing different cameras that will emulate "typical" human hand movement at slower shutter speeds (say, 1/15, 1/30 sec etc.). And then we will print the photos at same size, as well as keep printing bigger and bigger from the higher MP body until it has the same perceived resolution per inch (from same viewing distance - more like comparing 100% crops to understand how much cropping advantage the higher MP body has) as the lower MP body.

 

[Brad Durack]

I too have been looking at the d800, haven't had one in my hands for long, have come to these conclusions though.

The extra res comes with too many sacrifices, even the rear screen is terrible, for live view shooters, it makes the d800 a very disappointing prospect. Whats the point of having a screen if the colour accuracy and res is ordinary, the goal i thought would be to have the screen match the file output as much as possible.. it simply doesn't
on the d800, and i won't be getting one

 

[Silverback1988]

That's worthy of a whole thread in and of itself, and others are far more qualified to answer than I.

Thanks.
I will start a new thread about that because I'm curious about that.

Maybe someone has been able to calculate the (approx) resolution in ISO and willing to share about that.
I want to hear your not so qualified answer there, Joe

-
Brian

 

[Peter 13]

LOL! You forgot to assign a grade...

Pretty stupid cool of you to fix my response, really. Try again. Thanks.

Your main point up on top is clearly wrong was crystal clear, I just seem to lack the capacity to understand. But thanks for your efforts.

 

[oysso]

I too have been looking at the d800, haven't had one in my hands for long, have come to these conclusions though.

The extra res comes with too many sacrifices, even the rear screen is terrible, for live view shooters, it makes the d800 a very disappointing prospect. Whats the point of having a screen if the colour accuracy and res is ordinary, the goal i thought would be to have the screen match the file output as much as possible.. it simply doesn't
on the d800, and i won't be getting one

When did any LCD match the output?
Why will higher resolution of screen make it better?

I simply do not understand those arguments. the output is the goal is it not? Not the output on the LCD.

 

[Silverback1988]

IMHO,
manual focusing is relying on the accuracy (or resolution) of the LCD.
And maybe he find that for him the D800's LCD is not convinience to use with.

I too have been looking at the d800, haven't had one in my hands for long, have come to these conclusions though.

The extra res comes with too many sacrifices, even the rear screen is terrible, for live view shooters, it makes the d800 a very disappointing prospect. Whats the point of having a screen if the colour accuracy and res is ordinary, the goal i thought would be to have the screen match the file output as much as possible.. it simply doesn't
on the d800, and i won't be getting one

When did any LCD match the output?
Why will higher resolution of screen make it better?

I simply do not understand those arguments. the output is the goal is it not? Not the output on the LCD.

 

[Slideshow Bob]

In a perfect lab such as DPR lab samples or on paper, it's true that with the same technique D800 will get better resolution than 5D3. But in real world that's not quite obvious. It's more likely you'd need better technique in order to show noticeable advantage from D800 over 5D3.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=41437180

Although D800 photo is bigger but not necessarily resolve much more fine details over 5d3/5D2 as the above test shows.

5D3 vs D800 in zoo

5D3 with 300L/2.8 IS II @f/2.8 wide open under appears cloudy day
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=41382780

D800 with 300G/2.8 VR stop down under bright sunny day. They are bit of oversharpening to me and show some moire.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=41252393

Unfortunately 5D3 zoo photos are too small to judge clearly but in real world D800 advantage is not that quite obvious.

The largest image in those threads is about 1.2mp. I'm not quite sure why you would think they would be useful in illustrating the difference between 22mp and 36mp. I was taking photos in 2004 with a 6mp camera that would look as sharp as those when resized. Does that make the 5DIII's extra 16mp (over and above my crappy old Nikon D70) worthless? What's your point?

My two pano photos recently from 5D2, hand-held so in less perfect technique. I wait to see how D800 in similar scenario from a regular tourist can knock my photos into water. Due to DPR limit I only can upload 13+ mb size. Original sizes are several times bigger.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7843305573/photos/1906938/_img_6686-panorama?inalbum=landscape

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7843305573/photos/1906713/_img_5663-panorama?inalbum=landscape

As DPR said D800 can produce 36mp resolution potential but you'd need perfect technique and more efforts to do that on the purpose of 36mp camera to print and view really big. Otherwise you just waste its potential and not really much better than 22mp 5D3 in real world photo. If you're not serious enough or with most times with less perfect technique then I'd argue much benefits of D800 over 5D3 and rumored 24mp D600 as you might gain benefits from latter two cameras in other areas.

Nice pano. But there's nothing there that the D800 couldn't, and most likely wouldn't, do slightly better. More resolution, more DR. It's all good.

Let go of this "22mp is easy, 36mp is almost impossible" thing. It's not worth getting hung up on. Every rise in MP has required a corresponding level of stability. Do all the 5DII photos in the world really have the same level of detail as 5D shots because photographers couldn't adapt to 21mp? No.

More than anything, I get the feeling that if Canon had made the 5DIII 36mp, and Nikon made the D800 22mp, you wouldn't be here bitchin' about the Canon. Let it go.

SB

I will bring 500L to zoo tomorrow. I have to prepare now (with a newly purchased pelican 1510 case) I cannot spend too much time in threads. Later...

By the way these are photos from my last visit in the zoo. Yah I am an amateur (not make live on photography) and must take poor photos as said by a few
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=38702551

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

 

[Slideshow Bob]

The only problem is that human eyes cannot resolve much more in a 30" or even 40" monitor with these much higher resolution. You'd need 60" monitor probably but you have a limited space in real world. I read the news recently that Panasonic is developing 4K resolution ultra HDTV. However to leverage that resolution, you'd need a large, really large TV set in your home. Right, prepare 152" TV

http://www.buy.com/videoclip/panasonic-ultra-hd-152-plasma-hdtv-d-series-led-lcd-vier/77388.html

Or you could just sit closer to the 4K TV, and get the full in-yer-face cinema effect!

Regarding monitors, I just wish they'd start producing 4:3 format displays again. I love the horizontal resolution of my monitor (2560 pixels wide), I just wish they would give me more in the vertical. 2560x1920 is what I want!

SB

NOt too long ago most monitors were 1280 pixels wide.

The new 17" MBP will be 3650 pixels wide.

In 3 or four years, the 30" LCD's will be ????? pixels wide.

The shots I was viewing and printing (A4) with my 6MP Canon 10D looked GREAT at the time.

6MP = 300 dpi at A4
16.3MP = 300 dpi at A3
32.8MP = 300 dpi at A2
65.7MP = 300 dpi at A1

My first external fire wire hard drive was 30GB. My first computer had 8mb of REM and I paid $500 for a 128mb RAM card.

In both cases I thought to my self, I'll NEVER need more than this.

Now we have laptops with 16GB of RAM and USB Flash drives at 512GB. CF cards at 64GB. All at fractions of the cost of the originals.

What does the future hold for DSLRs? I am pretty sure it is more megapixels.

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

 

[PhotoKhan]

I really wish camera review sites could include resolution test done using some kind of robot hand or something that will emulate human hand movement/ shake. The same amount of movement will be done for testing different cameras that will emulate "typical" human hand movement at slower shutter speeds (say, 1/15, 1/30 sec etc.). And then we will print the photos at same size, as well as keep printing bigger and bigger from the higher MP body until it has the same perceived resolution per inch (from same viewing distance - more like comparing 100% crops to understand how much cropping advantage the higher MP body has) as the lower MP body.

Yes...and auto review sites should drive Ferraris through dirt roads to see how they cope...

What a perversion...You feel that a better specified product should be taken through tests designed to demonstrate that the areas where it may be better specified can work against some types of use?...Do you feel menaced by other brands offerings to this illogical extent...?...Good grief...

People really have to stop with this insecurities and put into good use what they've got...in your case, for starters, how about letting us see what your photography is all about, instead of graphics in you DPR galleries.?..You know, photographs are taken to be seen...

PK

--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)

 

[Rick Knepper]

I am considering the purchase of an NEC 30" monitor 2560x1600 so more resolution at capture is good. I edit and present on the same monitor. 26" is good enough to edit on but I like the thought of presenting on such a grand display.

NOt too long ago most monitors were 1280 pixels wide.

The new 17" MBP will be 3650 pixels wide.

Is this the Mac Book Pro? If it is also some flavor of IPS, it may finally be the reason to buy an Apple laptop. If they could get this into a desktop display, how cool would that be? Don't know if there are any video cards capable of this resolution at this time though.

In 3 or four years, the 30" LCD's will be ????? pixels wide.

The shots I was viewing and printing (A4) with my 6MP Canon 10D looked GREAT at the time.

6MP = 300 dpi at A4
16.3MP = 300 dpi at A3
32.8MP = 300 dpi at A2
65.7MP = 300 dpi at A1

My first external fire wire hard drive was 30GB. My first computer had 8mb of REM and I paid $500 for a 128mb RAM card.

In both cases I thought to my self, I'll NEVER need more than this.

Now we have laptops with 16GB of RAM and USB Flash drives at 512GB. CF cards at 64GB. All at fractions of the cost of the originals.

What does the future hold for DSLRs? I am pretty sure it is more megapixels.

--

Rick Knepper, photographer, photography never for sale, check my profile for gear list and philosophy.

 

[bigpigbig]

Thoeretical resolution of 17 MacBook Pro with a Retina display.

The video card will need to be amazing. I agree. But the iMac would be even crazier with a retina display. Something like 5000 px across. Bring it.

I am considering the purchase of an NEC 30" monitor 2560x1600 so more resolution at capture is good. I edit and present on the same monitor. 26" is good enough to edit on but I like the thought of presenting on such a grand display.

NOt too long ago most monitors were 1280 pixels wide.

The new 17" MBP will be 3650 pixels wide.

Is this the Mac Book Pro? If it is also some flavor of IPS, it may finally be the reason to buy an Apple laptop. If they could get this into a desktop display, how cool would that be? Don't know if there are any video cards capable of this resolution at this time though.

In 3 or four years, the 30" LCD's will be ????? pixels wide.

The shots I was viewing and printing (A4) with my 6MP Canon 10D looked GREAT at the time.

6MP = 300 dpi at A4
16.3MP = 300 dpi at A3
32.8MP = 300 dpi at A2
65.7MP = 300 dpi at A1

My first external fire wire hard drive was 30GB. My first computer had 8mb of REM and I paid $500 for a 128mb RAM card.

In both cases I thought to my self, I'll NEVER need more than this.

Now we have laptops with 16GB of RAM and USB Flash drives at 512GB. CF cards at 64GB. All at fractions of the cost of the originals.

What does the future hold for DSLRs? I am pretty sure it is more megapixels.

--

Rick Knepper, photographer, photography never for sale, check my profile for gear list and philosophy.

 

[Logos007]

Raw.

Optically the new 24-70 surely will be the best. But an IS is very very good too as i do a lot of available light handheld (blue hour etc.). So it really depends, what occaisionally will give the best results. Perhaps buy the 24-105 as a cheaper kit-lens now and -when there is a successor - change the lens to mk2. Am pretty much aware, that the 24-105 is not the best lens and the 17-40 neither, but the alternatives are not so much better (zooms). And: the lenses are supported directly by dpp, perhaps kicks it up a notch...

Logos
--
http://www.whitewall.com/Logos

 

[KLO82]

I am failing to understand why my post made you so agitated. I am not suffering from any insecurities, I do not own 5D2, 5D3 or D800, and I am not a Canon fanboy. Your Ferrai on a dirt road analogy is wrong, Ferrari's are not made for dirt road, but a high MP camera like D800 is not made only for shooting on tripods (ideal condition in a testing studio). What some posters (GB, bobn2) is saying here that even on less than ideal conditions (eg handheld shooting), D800 will not show lower resolution than 5D3. D800's resolution advantage will keep on diminishing (but resolution will never be lower than 5D3) as we move away further from ideal condition. What I am really interested in knowing is, what to expect in less than ideal conditions - how much advantage a high MP camera will keep on retaining.

Yes photographs are meant to be seen, but I use DPR only for tech talks, and share my photographs with my family and friends. I really have to know how to better use the equipment I have, as I only own among the cheapest Canon SLRs and only the cheapest lenses.

I really wish camera review sites could include resolution test done using some kind of robot hand or something that will emulate human hand movement/ shake. The same amount of movement will be done for testing different cameras that will emulate "typical" human hand movement at slower shutter speeds (say, 1/15, 1/30 sec etc.). And then we will print the photos at same size, as well as keep printing bigger and bigger from the higher MP body until it has the same perceived resolution per inch (from same viewing distance - more like comparing 100% crops to understand how much cropping advantage the higher MP body has) as the lower MP body.

Yes...and auto review sites should drive Ferraris through dirt roads to see how they cope...

What a perversion...You feel that a better specified product should be taken through tests designed to demonstrate that the areas where it may be better specified can work against some types of use?...Do you feel menaced by other brands offerings to this illogical extent...?...Good grief...

People really have to stop with this insecurities and put into good use what they've got...in your case, for starters, how about letting us see what your photography is all about, instead of graphics in you DPR galleries.?..You know, photographs are taken to be seen...

PK

--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)
-------------------------------------------------

 

[amobi]

I work for IBM as a software Engineer out here in Research Triangle Park. I have been with IBM for over 8 years and before that I worked for SAS institute as business computer programmer and briefly for Caterpillar as a Product Engineer. As you can see I am not as dumb as I sound.

There are several possible retorts to that, but I'll let you off today
--
Bob

You guys are too smart for me. English is my third language. I had to look up the meaning of retort and still don't know how it applies to why you letting me off but thank you for letting me off today. You are another person that I will never argue with in technical matters.

Google definition of retort.

v. re·tort·ed, re·tort·ing, re·torts

1.

a. To reply, especially to answer in a quick, caustic, or witty manner. See Synonyms at answer.
b. To present a counterargument to.
2. To return in kind; pay back.

1. To make a reply, especially a quick, caustic, or witty one.
2. To present a counterargument.
3. To return like for like; retaliate.

1. A quick incisive reply, especially one that turns the first speaker's words to his or her own disadvantage.
2. The act or an instance of retorting.

.

 

[Victor Engel]

I really wish camera review sites could include resolution test done using some kind of robot hand or something that will emulate human hand movement/ shake.

What an absurd thing to want. If that's what you really want, just take the test photos and apply motion blur in Photoshop or something. Just make sure you apply the same amount as a function of picture height to each photo.

The same amount of movement will be done for testing different cameras that will emulate "typical" human hand movement at slower shutter speeds (say, 1/15, 1/30 sec etc.).

There's no such thing as typical human hand movement. Everyone moves their hands differently. Some of us can hold quite steadily, thank you very much. The 1/f rule, for example, is too conservative a guideline for me.

And then we will print the photos at same size, as well as keep printing bigger and bigger from the higher MP body until it has the same perceived resolution per inch (from same viewing distance - more like comparing 100% crops to understand how much cropping advantage the higher MP body has) as the lower MP body.

Knock yourself out. Is there something preventing you from doing so now?
--

 

[KLO82]

I really wish camera review sites could include resolution test done using some kind of robot hand or something that will emulate human hand movement/ shake.

What an absurd thing to want. If that's what you really want, just take the test photos and apply motion blur in Photoshop or something. Just make sure you apply the same amount as a function of picture height to each photo.

I was completely unaware of motion blur of photoshop, so yes it may be done in photoshop instead of doing it in studio [though as I know much about how this filter works, I do not know for sure]. But now what I am failing to understand if it is so easy to do, why is there so much debate here regarding the advantage (or lack of advantage) of higher MP body. It should be very easy to demonstrate it.

BTW, I can see that different ppl take different things as absurd.

The same amount of movement will be done for testing different cameras that will emulate "typical" human hand movement at slower shutter speeds (say, 1/15, 1/30 sec etc.).

There's no such thing as typical human hand movement. Everyone moves their hands differently. Some of us can hold quite steadily, thank you very much. The 1/f rule, for example, is too conservative a guideline for me.

Even though different ppl have different blood pressure, humans have a range which is called typical (aka normal) blood pressure, right?

And then we will print the photos at same size, as well as keep printing bigger and bigger from the higher MP body until it has the same perceived resolution per inch (from same viewing distance - more like comparing 100% crops to understand how much cropping advantage the higher MP body has) as the lower MP body.

Knock yourself out. Is there something preventing you from doing so now?

Unlike a review site I do not have many camera bodies to compare. And I do not have any resolution chart.

--

 

[carlk]

As you can see I am not as dumb as I sound.

Lol... But seriously you're getting much better than you were just a year ago.