veroman
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.2 #14 · 800D crops better than Canon with supetele? | |
I've read this thread with great interest. But I'm getting the impression from most of the posts here that the lessons of the past are being forgotten or are being conveniently side-stepped.
The announcement of the D800/D800E has generated exactly the level of excitement and interest that Nikon had expected it to generate. The D800/D800E, a throwback to the megapixel race, is as much a tool for Nikon marketing as it is for taking photographs, transparently so. I can't recall a single Nikon product intro that was so obviously a marketing ploy as opposed to a real advance in digital photography. I mean, not even the D700 attempted to trump the competition as much as the D800 tries to. The D2x, then the D3 series, all seemed to have that aura of "great photography tools" about them. The D800 seems more commercial to me than anything else.
As far as I'm concerned, the D800 is overkill. It is SUBSTANTIAL overkill, regardless of the type of photography you do or how many "pixels per duck" you care to capture. It's been shown time and time again that pixel quantity and pixel size must go hand in hand if best results are to be obtained and PARTICULARLY if cropping room is needed due to FL limitations or other reasons. We saw this in the original 1D and 10D ... great sensors; large pixels, super sharp images; nearly zero cropping room. With the introduction of the 50D, we saw amazing detail; great color; lots of cropping room; rather lousy, manipulated RAW images that showed noise as early as ISO 200.
At least one poster here has stated that cropped results from the 5D Mark II are quite a bit better than native results from the 7D, all other things being equal; 5D II files are more "pliable," as we're so fond of saying.
So do we really need to wait for the testing and the reviews to know that the D800, due to its very small pixel size, is going to show less processing headroom and wiggle room than, say, a 21MP full frame? Do we really have to wait to see that its files are going to show levels of shadow noise at lower ISOs that many will find objectionable ... just as many did with the 7D, the 60D and the 5D II? Do we think Nikon has re-invented the wheel?
The tradeoffs encountered when increasing resolution and decreasing pixel size are, and always have been, the same and will always be the same. I don't need to read a single review to know that somewhere within the D800's internal imaging pipeline is some sort of file manipulation (RAW) that will alter the original in order to reduce or eliminate odd image characteristics but that will introduce an oddness of their own ... just as what happened with the 5D II. (But, please, let's not get into that discussion). My t3i, a great, great little camera, is no match for my ancient 5D at ISO 1600 (and up) and shows a slight amount of shadow noise at ISO 400, whereas my 5D at ISO 400 is super, super clean.
The real "issue" with the D800 (if one wants to call it an issue) is its resolution: 36MP is unnecessary and is not a valid response to the casual or pro photographer's real needs. Those 36MP will not show an advantage in IQ for any image printed smaller than 16" X 20" and will only BEGIN to show a detail advantage in prints 20" X 30". If you print to 8" X 10" or 11" X 14", the fine details that those extra pixels can capture will be lost at the point of printing. It's quite the same thing with a shot from a Canon G7 printed at 8" X 12." It's nearly indistinguishable from the same shot captured with a 1Ds II printed to the same size.
Of course, if you love to pixel peep, zooming in on 36MP should be quite a treat. You could spend all day scrolling back and forth on a landscape or duck shot and be amazed (hypnotized is more like it). Yes, there are cropping advantages, no doubt of that. I agree with one poster who suggests that a cropped image from a 300mm lens tacked onto the D800 is probably a more cost-effective solution than a 400mm on a 5D II. But does it take 36MP to deliver that advantage? Besides, as one who makes every effort to compose in-camera and who generally does little-to-no cropping, cropping room doesn't mean much to me.
If there's one truly positive, significant aspect of the D800 that I can appreciate, it's the price point. That's a lot of camera for $3k (or $3,300 if you opt for the D800E), and it's sure to make a lot of photographers happy ... in the beginning anyway. I still remember how thrilled I was to scroll my 13.9MP Kodak SLR/c images. But the honeymoon was over when the two of us reached ISO 400 .....
- Steve
|
(and they are right) but in reality cropping is an option for many photographers. As long as "digital zooming" is done within the margins of quality standards high megapixel models have their attraction. I have predicted the 100megapixel camera to come this decade. It is gonna happen and it's only two model generations away. I expected Canon to keep it's leadership position in the high resolution 35mm body style camera class because Canon in fact invented this class and killed the Hasselblad like MF film segment. But Canon, convinced by it's leadership and marketing power, made the mistake that they forgot the law that there is no substitute for megapixels. That is no EOSfun for us Canon photographers for a while. I am sure there are more photographers, with less loyalty or less investment in the Canon system, that will think like the OP of this thread. Let's face it, it is a logical way of thinking. There is more photofun than just EOSfun. If a Nikon system based on a set of lenses around a 36mp sensor can stop at 300mm to get the shots that someone needs, it will probably be a better solution than a Canon system build around a camera with a 16.7 mp sensor that needs a 400mm to get the same shot. It's a matter of costeffectiveness and size, and maybe even a few other factors that count. I think the D800 has more than enough crop headroom to satisfy the need of many enthusiasts to whom a 10K 400L IS mk II is just too much, while a 300/2.8 is within reach as their ultimate dreamlens.
So Canon has big pixels and big lenses and Nikon has them smaller? When I had to decide between Nikon D700 or Canon system most people said to me to choose 5DmkII or 1DsmkII or mkIII because more pixels is better.