p.11 #1 · D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out
I have alot invested in Canon, so I am here to stay until they release a new 5d model and show me what they have. But if it doesnt impress me with its AF, I think I may end up having to switch.
36 megapixels is insane though, thinking of the space needed on a decent memory card, I would think you would need to at least start at a 64GB card.
I dont think Wedding shooters will be too happy with it either unless Nikon implements sRAW at a later time through firmware....could you imagine the amount of HD space of 2000 images from a wedding on this camera? I shudder to think of how it would eat my computer alive.
p.11 #2 · D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out
I'm ok with the fact that after the D3 Nikon has been one step ahead of Canon with their bodies. The only exception was the D700 that never went head to head with the 5D2 because you couldn't compare 21mp with 12. I don't plan to jump ship and move to Nikon although they offer better bodies at the moment. I just don't plan to buy another camera until Canon HQ get their head straight and offer something worth buying.
By the way, the fact that they had to "join" the 1Ds and 1D lines just to drop the x1.3 crop sensor is just pathetic. And the price of that camera is just crazy. On the other hand Nikon didn't hesitate to offer the best iq and AF in a body at half the price of their flagship camera.. That's what i'd like to see from Canon sometime..
Ps: i dont consider all the above wining.. I just state the facts as i see them
p.11 #3 · D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out
vawill84 wrote:
I have alot invested in Canon, so I am here to stay until they release a new 5d model and show me what they have. But if it doesnt impress me with its AF, I think I may end up having to switch.
36 megapixels is insane though, thinking of the space needed on a decent memory card, I would think you would need to at least start at a 64GB card.
I dont think Wedding shooters will be too happy with it either unless Nikon implements sRAW at a later time through firmware....could you imagine the amount of HD space of 2000 images from a wedding on this camera? I shudder to think of how it would eat my computer alive. ...Show more →
150GB+ for a single gig! You'll have to start including the price of an external hard drive in your wedding packages
p.11 #7 · D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out
Jman13 wrote:
Challenge. There is no way you are seeing any appreciable increase in visible resolution from a 12MP print to a 21MP print on an 8x10. Just not happening. Unless you are examining the prints with a magnifying glass, there's just no way.
Not quite the same challenge, but I did a test using 8MP and 16MP 3:2 pics printed on letter sized paper and by far most people could tell the two apart, in fact many pointed out the difference after a two second glance before I even started the test!
Use a sharp printer and send it high PPI and it's not so hard.
A 12 MP print is 353 ppi on an 8x10. A 21 MP print is 467 ppi. That sounds huge. The thing is, the human eye at a normal viewing distance can't resolve that level of detail. You would need to be holding the print two inches from your face (and be able to focus) to see the difference. (At 12" viewing distance, the human eye can generally resolve about 300 dpi...do you often view photographs at 8x12" from 6"?)
That's a complete myth. An average human eye is considerably better than that. Once you get above 540PPI then differences begin to quickly diminish.
In fact, at a normal viewing distance, I bet you could have 24" prints from a 10 MP camera, a 20MP camera, and the D800 and you would not be able to see any difference in resolution.
Hah and yet a pile of 8x11" prints on my desk with one copy of each at 8MP and one each at 16MP had people walking up, taking a glance, and asking why some of my didn't look as sharp.
And you completely forget about cropping. Often needs to be done quite majorly for wildlife.
p.11 #8 · D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out
Ben Horne wrote:
The D800(e) pretty much satisfies my list of the ideal landscape camera. Looks like a beast!
I just wish the Nikon 24mm PC-E lens was a super-rotator like the Canon 24mm TS-E.... and that they had a 17mm PC-E.
My thoughts exactly! Although the 14-24 might make up for the lacking tilt/shifts. Is changing the tilt/shift orientation a simple procedure on the Nikkor? Like, could I do it in the field? I have a mental image of myself covered with mud from laying on the ground trying to adjust tilt and focus, and then opening up the lens with a grubby multi-tool.
p.11 #9 · D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out
Yohan Pamudji wrote:
150GB+ for a single gig! You'll have to start including the price of an external hard drive in your wedding packages
Externals run $50 for a terabyte at most. $150 or less for a 3 TB drive.
Really isn't a big deal. Just think what the film for 2,000 shots would cost! Even the negative file folders and gas to the lab would cost more than $25.
p.11 #10 · D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out
mmurph wrote:
Externals run $50 for a terabyte at most. $150 or less for a 3 TB drive.
Really isn't a big deal. Just think what the film for 2,000 shots would cost! Even the negative file folders and gas to the lab would cost more than $25.
p.11 #11 · D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out
Memory/storage isnt a problem. its cheap now, on another year or two it will be bigger and cheaper again.
Feb 07, 2012 at 07:40 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.11 #12 · D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out
vawill84 wrote:
I have alot invested in Canon, so I am here to stay until they release a new 5d model and show me what they have. But if it doesnt impress me with its AF, I think I may end up having to switch.
36 megapixels is insane though, thinking of the space needed on a decent memory card, I would think you would need to at least start at a 64GB card.
I dont think Wedding shooters will be too happy with it either unless Nikon implements sRAW at a later time through firmware....could you imagine the amount of HD space of 2000 images from a wedding on this camera? I shudder to think of how it would eat my computer alive. ...Show more →
That is just lame excuses A 2 TB harddrive from a good brand will cost you $ 130-140, with the very expensive prices at the moment. And those prices will go down a lot. It will store many many wedding gigs. So what's the big deal
32GB CF cards can be bought for less than $ 50. And 32GB SDHC cards cost less than $ 30. You don't really need the fast cards for weddings either
p.11 #13 · D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out
mmurph wrote:
Externals run $50 for a terabyte at most. $150 or less for a 3 TB drive.
Really isn't a big deal. Just think what the film for 2,000 shots would cost! Even the negative file folders and gas to the lab would cost more than $25.
Good times ... me happy!
Oh I'm not complaining about cost compared to film for sure--we've got it good. Just trying to imagine what a logistical nightmare it would be compared to dealing with the lowly 12MB RAW files I deal with now. If I wanted to maintain my cataloging system of keeping all files available at all times I'd have to buy a dedicated storage server. Man, that's just crazy talk! Pretty soon we'll all have server racks full of HDDs to manage.
p.11 #14 · D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out
Lars Johnsson wrote:
That is just lame excuses A 2 TB harddrive from a good brand will cost you $ 130-140, with the very expensive prices at the moment. And those prices will go down a lot. It will store many many wedding gigs. So what's the big deal
32GB CF cards can be bought for less than $ 50. And 32GB SDHC cards cost less than $ 30. You don't really need the fast cards for weddings either
What about the speed of the computer that will be needed unless you want to sit for a while as you process 200mb images? I have a dual core then go to a quad then a ? I do like the looks of the images though.
p.11 #15 · D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out
Lars Johnsson wrote:
That is just lame excuses A 2 TB harddrive from a good brand will cost you $ 130-140,
Yeah, especially when the alternative is a MF Digital Back, starting at $20K.
I'm not saying the Nikon will equal that, but I have been on the cusp, waiting for full frame to get closer, since 2004 with the 1DsII (that was what made me give up MF film, but not my 4x5.)
p.11 #16 · D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out
jamato8 wrote:
What about the speed of the computer that will be needed unless you want to sit for a while as you process 200mb images? I have a dual core then go to a quad then a ? I do like the looks of the images though.
I have a Dell desktp with an i7 processor and 8GB of RAM that I bought for $600 1.5 years ago.
I have been processing my 4x5 scans up to 1 TB with no problem. Digital always requires less power than the equivalent needed with film files. It was nice to stop scanning 6x7 and process my 16MP 1DsII files instead.
You have to compare apples to apples options to get near the same quality point. Even a Mamiya 22mp digital back would cost more, do less, and depreciate much more quickly.
Feb 07, 2012 at 08:04 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.11 #17 · D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out
RobDickinson wrote:
Memory/storage isnt a problem. its cheap now, on another year or two it will be bigger and cheaper again.
p.11 #18 · D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out
skibum5 wrote:
That's a complete myth. An average human eye is considerably better than that. Once you get above 540PPI then differences begin to quickly diminish.
Cite? According to John Russ in the The Image Processing Handbook (2006), "The upper limit (finest detail) visible with the human eye is about 50 cycles per degree" That's a 0.35mm line pair. Convert that to dpi resolution (4 pixels per line pair), and it comes out to a maximum acuity of 290 dpi at a viewing distance equal to the diagonal of the image. (so, 14" away from an 8x12" print).
Hah and yet a pile of 8x11" prints on my desk with one copy of each at 8MP and one each at 16MP had people walking up, taking a glance, and asking why some of my didn't look as sharp.
Uh huh. Amazing. And yet, I've never once had a SINGLE person comment that the 30" print from my 6MP digital Rebel looks worse than the 30" print RIGHT NEXT to it from my 16 MP 1Ds II. (though, if you go up close you can easily see a difference...though that's not the case for 8x10s or IMO, even 10x15s).
Methinks when you were using the 8MP camera you probably didn't process them in the way you should, or you were using a worse lens, etc.
Could you tell if they were printed on a very high res printer and they were pulling them right up to their face? Maybe...but if they're of different subjects, the difference would be so slight at that size to be extremely difficult to see anything.
And you completely forget about cropping. Often needs to be done quite majorly for wildlife.
Cropping is a different story. If you are regularly cropping for your shots, you might need the extra pixel density, though I'd say you'd probably be better off spending the money on the proper focal length glass you need than cropping the absolute heck out of your image. (And, in that case, why not go for a crop sensor camera with higher native pixel density to start with?)
p.11 #19 · D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out
Jman13 wrote:
Cite?
use google
(or get some special 180, 360,540,720PPI sample, there are sets on the net, i forget where and compare for yourself and if your eyes can't see it (and 2 people in my test could not, from any distance, even when it was pointed out, some people have lower density rods/cones than avg and some higher and some have out of date glasses or don't have any when they actually might need a tiny bit of correction and not realize it, etc.) get a few others to try)
Uh huh. Amazing. And yet, I've never once had a SINGLE person comment that the 30" print from my 6MP digital Rebel looks worse than the 30" print RIGHT NEXT to it from my 16 MP 1Ds II. (though, if you go up close you can easily see a difference...though that's not the case for 8x10s or IMO, even 10x15s).
Methinks when you were using the 8MP camera you probably didn't process them in the way you should, or you were using a worse lens, etc.
No, some super crisp 1Ds2 samples then downsized/sharpened using state of the art custom methods.
Cropping is a different story. If you are regularly cropping for your shots, you might need the extra pixel density, though I'd say you'd probably be better off spending the money on the proper focal length glass you need than cropping the absolute heck out of your image. (And, in that case, why not go for a crop sensor camera with higher native pixel density to start with?)
1. because 800mm lens weighs a ton and costs even more (and still may be short)
2. because of all the times when you don't need to crop and want the full full frame frame
p.11 #20 · D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out
Wow! What a camera!
I think it's fun to see how all the years of the dumb speculation about high MP, resolution, diffraction limitations, etc. evaporate in the face of awesome imaging.
I might be very glad I didn't sell every Nikon lens I own.
Jordan -- I'm glad you don't mind grain showing in your photos. 36MP makes M43 images seem like they are coming out of a Holga. Just kidding, but the little cameras are going to hit the IQ wall in the next few years.
I'm in the same boat as most everyone here -- waiting to see Canon's response before buying a D800. (Maybe by then there will be some aftermarket vertical grips!) I never thought I'd see Canon let the high tech advantage in cameras slip away. But it seems it has for now.
A 2 TB harddrive from a good brand will cost you $ 130-140, with the very expensive prices at the moment. And those prices will go down a lot. It will store many many wedding gigs. So what's the big deal