ct8282
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #10 · I think Nikon has delivered | |
JohnBrose wrote:
I really like the recent offerings from Nikon. Doubt I'll switch due to my lenses, but wish Canon had announced something more than an update to the 24-70 at almost DOUBLE the price of the old one. I wouldn't want 75+mb files all the time, but it would be nice to have the high res option for landscapes at least. I do think it's funny how they kept saying that high res wasn't important and then they triple the pixels on the camera.
Many many people have said that 36mp is too much and they wouldn't want or need such high resolutions all the time. The interesting thing is that you have 18 possible resolutions you can choose...
FX format (36 x 24): 7,360 x 4,912 (L), 5,520 x 3,680 (M), 3,680 x 2,456 (S)
1.2x (30 x 20): 6,144 x 4,080 (L), 4,608 x 3,056 (M), 3,072 x 2,040 (S)
DX format (24 x 16): 4,800 x 3,200 (L), 3,600 x 2,400 (M), 2,400 x 1,600 (S)
5:4 (30 x 24): 6,144 x 4,912 (L), 4,608 x 3,680 (M), 3,072 x 2,456 (S)
FX-format photographs taken in movie live view*: 6,720 x 3,776 (L), 5,040 x 2,832 (M), 3,360 x 1,888 (S)
DX-format photographs taken in movie live view*: 4,800 x 2,704 (L), 3,600 x 2,024 (M), 2,400 x 1,352 (S)
Don't want 36mp's, switch to medium FX and enjoy 20mp, switch the small and you have effectively 9mp.
If I bought the D800 I would probably use it in medium FX mode but crank it up when I was doing some serious landscape or studio work. I think the camera is more versatile than people give it credit for.
|
