p.12 #1 · D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out
skibum5 wrote:
use google
No, you show me. I have edited my post above to provide a cite for my claim...you were the one who made the assertion that it's a myth. Debates don't work by you throwing out a claim and then when I ask for substantiation of the claim, you say "go find it."
Look, if you need the resolution, go for it. I just find that in these forums SO many people are so obsessed with every single minute difference in theoretical image quality that they never think about whether the print or the image looks good. My basic assertion is that if you are printing 24" or smaller, and you create a wonderful photograph with ANY modern DLSR or large sensor compact or mirroless camera...no one is going to look at the print and say "hmm....not enough resolution...or "wow, great shot, but there's only 10.5 stops of dynamic range." If it's a good photo, it's a good photo. If you did your job as a photographer and captured an amazing scene or got the perfect expression and the light was perfectly captured or created....these extremely small differences in actual print quality are essentially irrelevant.
If the photo is only 'good' because it is super sharp and detailed, then it's not very good, IMO.
If part of the impact of your work is that you print HUGE, where these differences are magnified and become easily visible flaws in the lesser camera, then it can take away an otherwise good shot...but most people don't print large enough for this to be the case.
p.12 #2 · D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out
Jman13 wrote:
No, you show me. I have edited my post above to provide a cite for my claim...you were the one who made the assertion that it's a myth. Debates don't work by you throwing out a claim and then when I ask for substantiation of the claim, you say "go find it."
because I don't feel like tracking spending 5 or 20 or 40 minutes to track it down
i've read the data before and i've seen, first hand the differences so I don't need to waste my next half hour doing that, if I had it book marked or something I'd provide a link
if this was an official debate or i was getting paid to prove the point i spend the time, but as it is not, it[s my time and i don't feel like wasting it just to prove a point to someone else
(side note: not that 300ppi will look blurry to most, for most people it's generally around the point where it looks reasonably nice, but it's not at all the limit of human vision, the whole limit to human vision thing is a myth that got started from a certain type of old printing method and involed talk of 150 and 300 ppi and had nothing really to do with human vision limits but got associated with that concept and then some studies where they merely looked for the point where things started to look good and it got misconstrued into a human limit and that got endlessly requoted so many times until half the references, maybe 80% have been corrupted.)
That site refers to printer dpi and doesn't show anything other than 'more dpi = better'. Well, I know that....the question is can you see that on a reasonably sized print without sticking your nose to the paper? And print resolution is vastly different from image resolution...
Look, I am bummed I've let this get into a spitting match...it wasn't my intent. I've had a very long day at work and I'm a little irritable. I apologize if I've been rude.
p.12 #5 · D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out
Jman13 wrote:
That site refers to printer dpi and doesn't show anything other than 'more dpi = better'. Well, I know that....the question is can you see that on a reasonably sized print without sticking your nose to the paper? And print resolution is vastly different from image resolution...
as i said not the best source he mixes dpi with ppi at times but it does include a test where he uses different ppi and easily saw differences up to 600ppi and it also includes other references on the page
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.12 #6 · D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out
Jman13 wrote:
No, you show me. I have edited my post above to provide a cite for my claim...you were the one who made the assertion that it's a myth. Debates don't work by you throwing out a claim and then when I ask for substantiation of the claim, you say "go find it."
Look, if you need the resolution, go for it. I just find that in these forums SO many people are so obsessed with every single minute difference in theoretical image quality that they never think about whether the print or the image looks good. My basic assertion is that if you are printing 24" or smaller, and you create a wonderful photograph with ANY modern DLSR or large sensor compact or mirroless camera...no one is going to look at the print and say "hmm....not enough resolution...or "wow, great shot, but there's only 10.5 stops of dynamic range." If it's a good photo, it's a good photo. If you did your job as a photographer and captured an amazing scene or got the perfect expression and the light was perfectly captured or created....these extremely small differences in actual print quality are essentially irrelevant.
If the photo is only 'good' because it is super sharp and detailed, then it's not very good, IMO.
If part of the impact of your work is that you print HUGE, where these differences are magnified and become easily visible flaws in the lesser camera, then it can take away an otherwise good shot...but most people don't print large enough for this to be the case....Show more →
Of course you have a point. But when you buy a camera today. And a camera that you like to use for many years ahead. How can you know what print size you gonna make on every print in the future
If you buy this 36 MP camera, you have an option to print small, medium, large or very very large. Which not a camera with a few MP will give you
p.12 #7 · D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out
True, Lars....if you want to future proof like that, then that's certainly up to each individual photographer.
I'm not going to lose sleep over it though. The largest print I've ever made in 8 years of photography, from a single image, is 40" wide, and frankly I wish I'd have gotten in printed at 30" or 36", as it's just a bit unwieldy and too large for the wall it's on.
I do have a 60" panorama on canvas that I made from an 18 image stitch with a final image resolution of 102MP. It is cool to go up super close and see the super fine detail in the image, but frankly it would look essentially just as good if I downsized it to 30-40 MP...the texture of the canvas limits how much actual detail one can see in the print...effective resolution of the print is probably closer to 20-30MP in the printed version.
Feb 07, 2012 at 08:38 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.12 #8 · D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out
And don't forget that it will give you the option to crop your image, and still make a large print.
It will also give wildlife, bird shooters that can't afford the really long lenses, the option of cropping
p.12 #9 · D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out
interesting moment at the market, still happy with my canon 1ds mark2 for my personal use, but if canon not going introduce anything comparable then my jewelry photography will go with D800 i guess...
p.12 #10 · D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out
Any of the many people who've enjoyed the multi-image stitch panos or composites know the beauty of very clean, sharp, high MP images. It's a different world. Why not have that ability, or something akin to it, with one exposure? There is a definite alure to highly detailed images, whether they are ever to be printed or simply viewed on a monitor. I don't know why that seems so hard for some to understand or why they continually ask for justification of high MP imaging.
p.12 #11 · D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out
Gunzorro wrote:
Any of the many people who've enjoyed the multi-image stitch panos or composites know the beauty of very clean, sharp, high MP images. It's a different world. Why not have that ability, or something akin to it, with one exposure? There is a definite alure to highly detailed images, whether they are ever to be printed or simply viewed on a monitor. I don't know why that seems so hard for some to understand or why they continually ask for justification of high MP imaging.
+1
Lots of mp and good glass to take advantage, that is what I want, thx for saying. I've been stitching for resolution since owning a sony 707. Would love to get it in one frame, that is the appeal of this body.
p.12 #12 · D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out
for those complaining about too much mp... Dont the camera have an option: Small, Medium, Large, RAW.... etc?? Does it take to much time to select small?
p.12 #13 · D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out
M Lucca wrote:
So people are comparing the new D800 to a 5d2 that was released back in 2008 then go on to say Canon is on a fail path?
Seriously? I always thought FM has higher quality of posters than Dpreview. But I guess they have migrated here too.
Fanboys all over. I keep up on gear from both sides though I do shoot Nikon. There has been years of people here (meaning both Canon and Nikon forums) saying stupid stuff to claim the other brand is inferior. Though I do admit I love watching Canon fans say retarded things to try to justify they are still using the superior gear whenever a new Nikon comes out. Don't get to see it nearly as much when I am in the Nikon forums. Usually they just tech talk and post photos.
p.12 #15 · D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out
Complaining about your computer will be too slow with a 36 mp body is like saying you would love to own a Veyron, but, darn, gas prices just went up 9¢ and you are soooo glad you don't own the Bugatti because gas is too darn much.
Computer power and storage are cheap, darn cheap, like 79¢/gallon gas cheap. Computer power and storage should be the least of your considerations. Go buy the camera you want, sheesh.
p.12 #16 · D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out
Gunzorro wrote:
Any of the many people who've enjoyed the multi-image stitch panos or composites know the beauty of very clean, sharp, high MP images. It's a different world. Why not have that ability, or something akin to it, with one exposure? There is a definite alure to highly detailed images, whether they are ever to be printed or simply viewed on a monitor. I don't know why that seems so hard for some to understand or why they continually ask for justification of high MP imaging.
It's an illusion to think that with most of the current lenses one image taken with a high MP can rival that of an image of the same MP but then stitched together.
Most lenses out there can barely resolve the 21 MP of the 5D mark II already in all areas except the center. Stitching with a prime lens (e.g. a Zeiss 50 MP) and using only the sweet spot of the lens at an optimal aperture (e.g. f/5.6) will give far superior results in my experience.
Of-course you can also use the high MP camera for stitching. In that case a higher resolution image results of-course. The higher MP camera also offers advantages in the transformations that take place in the stitching process. This kind of defeats the purpose of the high MP camera. If you really want comparable 1 shot high megapixel images you need the likes of a Hasselblad MF with great glass (which in itself can be more expensive than a D800 already).
p.12 #17 · D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out
vuilang wrote:
for those complaining about too much mp... Dont the camera have an option: Small, Medium, Large, RAW.... etc?? Does it take to much time to select small?
p.12 #18 · D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out
Gunzorro wrote:
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.
Precisely. All these years, all those myths propagated, all those trolls... Sigh...
p.12 #19 · D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out
thw2 wrote:
Precisely. All these years, all those myths propagated, all those trolls... Sigh...
Agreed. It's a sad state of affairs. However, realistically, in a gear forum that's always going to happen...
I do find it amusing thought that people suddenly invent things they need to do with it though. On the Nikon side, all of the people who have been saying for years 12mp is enough suddenly believe everyone in the world needs 36mp. If you don't have 36mp you're no longer a photographer and can't be in "my club". Very school yard.
A camera is a tool which is designed to perform a function that a photographer needs - and the word is "needs". However, people consistently confuse need with want. My next camera will solve a "need" - specifically my 5dii is fine for wedding focussing 98% of the time, but there are times when it doesn't get it spot on and there's nothing that I can do about it. I've not decided whether that will be a 5diii (or whatever it is) or 1dx. I presume both will solve that particular problem.
I'm very happy that Nikon has (possibly - we've yet to see many samples) solved the major drawback of their semi-pro level system with the d800.
I'm glad Canon produced the original 5d which pushed high ISO.
I'm glad Nikon produced the d700 which showed better auto focus on that level of camera.
I'm glad Nikon produced the d3s which (hopefully) the 1dx is based on in many ways.
I'm glad Canon produced the 5dii which brought video to cameras and pushed high ISO AND resolution in the same body.
Although personally I don't even *want* 36mp never mind *need* it (18-24 is perfect for me), I'm glad for competition that it all creates and I don't care in the slightest that it's Nikon released it.
p.12 #20 · D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out
Canon need to put the crack pipe down now and stop screwing the prosumer with all these mediocre releases, as much as I love my 5D2 but man do they have a lot to learn from the other side!
