Pavel wrote:
I'd vote but there is no .... D700 (my third model) option. Some of us groan at more pixels.
Your argument is invalid... haha.
Sorry I don't get the more MP equals a negative. I would agree if it came at the expense of noise or IQ... but Nikon already fought that battle and finally decided that now is finally a good time to move to higher MP.
kipster wrote:
If moire was so fearsome, then the Leica M9 shooters would be upset wouldn't they?
Moire doesn't happen that often. And it's not "fearsome," just something to be aware of. Besides, I don't think too many M9 users are shooting fashion fabrics and other fine-patterned materials on a regular basis. It would be a good question to ask, though, in a Leica forum somewhere.
- Steve
veroman wrote:
You will always see "big" differences when you pixel peep. But looking at prints shrinks those differences. I'm not saying there aren't any differences. There are. But do these differences matter all that much? In my experience, no. I loved my filter-less Kodak SLR/c, but my 1Ds II does the job equally as well and in most instances better ... and, quite frankly, with good glass, proper post processing and large-ish print sizes, I don't think anyone could tell the difference between my filter-less Kodak and my rather heavily filtered Canon.
So why did Nikon release two versions? For the same reason they released a 36MP camera. They're in business to sell stuff and to make a profit. It makes great marketing sense. I'm not sure it makes good photographic sense. I feel the same way about 36MP, ie lots of tiny 4.88 micron pixels. I don't think that average size to large prints under 16" X 20" will see the benefit. Larger than that probably will. What about noise? Jury is still out. We'll have to wait and see.
I will admit that a 36MP camera at $3,000 is pretty tempting and quite a coupe for Nikon. But my 1Ds II is doing just fine, thank you ... as is my 5D Classic. With either of these cameras plus my best lenses, I'm getting all the detail and resolution I need and could hope for.
domdog31 wrote:
So in your honest opinion, removing the AA provides zero benefit to anyone who doesn't print over 16"x20"?
In my honest opinion, I would NOT say the benefit is zero. There is some benefit. How much the benefits can be seen depends on an awful lot of factors, not the least of which is the particular sensor and sensor design. The Kodak SLR/c and SLR/n cameras featured one of the best sensor designs ever. That particular camera/sensor benefitted from having no AA filter. Since I have zero experience with the D800E, I really have no idea whether or not Nikon has pushed things further than any other filter-less camera to date. We all shall see if they have.
So, there's benefit. How much? That depends. To date, the benefits have been negligible. Real ... but negligible and often offset by other factors. But there are also pitfalls. AA filters are there for a reason.
Sorry I don't get the more MP equals a negative. I would agree if it came at the expense of noise or IQ... but Nikon already fought that battle and finally decided that now is finally a good time to move to higher MP.
No .. you as a newbie advertising toad ... is invalid. Chasing the megapixels ... is sooo newbie.
veroman wrote:
In my honest opinion, I would NOT say the benefit is zero. There is some benefit. How much the benefits can be seen depends on an awful lot of factors, not the least of which is the particular sensor and sensor design. The Kodak SLR/c and SLR/n cameras featured one of the best sensor designs ever. That particular camera/sensor benefitted from having no AA filter. Since I have zero experience with the D800E, I really have no idea whether or not Nikon has pushed things further than any other filter-less camera to date. We all shall see if they have.
So, there's benefit. How much? That depends. To date, the benefits have been negligible. Real ... but negligible and often offset by other factors. But there are also pitfalls. AA filters are there for a reason.
Makes sense thank you...we will have to wait and see. btw Amazon apparently sold out of preorders and stopped accepting them for both the D800 and D800E
The Pentax D645 with 40MP sensor also doesn't have AA filter. The camera is for 10,000 though. And, lenses for it like 24-70mm f/2.8 goes for $5000.
I think Nikon will now get some other customers, not just those from Canon side.
Pavel wrote:
No .. you as a newbie advertising toad ... is invalid. Chasing the megapixels ... is sooo newbie.
Your argument is still invalid for the record.
I ordered the 800E. I want to be able to tweak as much image quality out of the sensor as I can.
You can automate the moire pattern image processing or other artifact processing in LR or other software, based on the serial number of the camera, or on the effects of a specific lens.
I have been waiting for the Canon 5D3 with this kind of MP for a while. I was on the border of buying a MF digital back, but I can't justify one any more. I had to close my studio a few years back because of hand/shoulder/arm pain.
I sold my 6x7 film camera after I got the Canon 1DsII. But I kept my 4x5 film camera for some images.
With the 1DsII I could print at 18x27 at 180dpi native resoltution. The 800E will be about 27x40 at around the same dpi, maybe 200? I forget exactly. I decided I could live with that as my maximum (native) print size. I usually do not rez up images.
If Canon releases a 5D3 soon with similar capabilities, I will probably stay with Canon to save the hassle of selling my whole kit. But this looks liker a nice camera on paper and similar to the Kodak 14n in many ways. Hopefully it won't struggle as much with moire as that one did.
ETA: 95% of my images will be shot at ISO 100. I don't need more frames per second, high ISO, etc. Just good solid image quality with a few key pieces of good glass.
mholdef wrote:
I have a good buddy who works for Nikon and he told me that if your photography is pretty broad , best go for the 800.
The E is more for specialized photography...
I am curious about your statement. What kind of specialized photography? I don't do portraits but I do landscapes (wide angle pictures of natural spaces like beaches and forests) and I do wildlife and birds. I don't know if a camera like the 800e would be a good choice for that kind of photography.
If I understand it right the D800E does have an AA filter it just has another filter over the AA to cancel it out. And that is why it cost more.
I myself am buying the D800, I mostly do landscapes but I do other work to.
Dennis
Lets clear the confusion here. According to Nikon, even D800E still comes with low-pass filter. D800E "features an optical low pass filter with anti-aliasing properties removed. "
