Yes, the raw files may be "heavy", but actually very few of them will see extensive PP work. I only work with the images I know will need "special treatment" at the highest resolutions (now on the D3x) - the others get their base exposure/contrast adjustments and that's about it before they're downsampled to ~8-10MP and exported to 16 bit ARGB tif's.
I often come home with 2-400 24MP files today, and I don't find that prohibitively cumbersome.
chez wrote:
Everytime I go to a gallery the people there are up close to the large prints.
I hear this a lot as an argument to my viewing distance claims.
1) I'm not talking about gallery prints. How many customers of this camera will ever hang something in a gallery? 1%? Less?
2) I attend gallery showings from time to time and have NEVER seen this. In fact usually there is a line or a rope about 1 to 1.5 meters back from the wall past which the public is not allowed.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Yes, even if -- as "the Suede" suggests -- it is crappy conversion, the improvement is visible.
Just a note; I was talking about the "flat-spotting" in the image, smaller areas of almost-equal values that they've NR'd the crap out of, and left "blank" from information.
At 36MP you can afford to keep some small grain in my opinion. But then again, then many DPR-type internet reviewers and experts would denounce the camera as being "excessively noisy at ISO100"...
theSuede wrote:
I actually think that in good light, many will shoot the camera at compressed raw + medium/fine jpeg setting.
One of the most important aspects of a high res camera (I know, I nag about this...) is that you can downsample the images. A downsampled image will - if it is done right - contain loads and loads more of actual real reality-based detail in the image file.
I've shown the difference between a D3x downsampled > 12MP file and a D700 native 12MP file many times. When you see them side by side the D700 at it's native resolution looks like something that's been up-sampled in comparison. It makes you wonder about the "12MP" label we put on the image, since it doesn't even closely resemble an image with all 12MP's filled with real resolution detail. And note the "real" part of that sentence, I want the detail to have some resemblance of reality. If it wasn't in front of the lens I don't want it in the file. I may then mess up reality based on MY wants and wills, but that's MY choice, not the camera's....Show more →
Yup! All true. And I think important for people printing large maybe too - where they wish to dote over their work as it hangs. But even that only goes so far I think.
36mp downscaled to 12 for example I guess isn't going to be noticeably different than 16 or 18mp downscaled to 12. So at what point has it gone too far for most common scenarios? In my estimation that would be at around 22mp. 22mp = too much for most common usages. Right? This isn't the D4 we're talking about is it? What's the intent of this camera?
theSuede wrote:
Yes, the raw files may be "heavy", but actually very few of them will see extensive PP work. I only work with the images I know will need "special treatment" at the highest resolutions (now on the D3x) - the others get their base exposure/contrast adjustments and that's about it before they're downsampled to ~8-10MP and exported to 16 bit ARGB tif's.
I often come home with 2-400 24MP files today, and I don't find that prohibitively cumbersome.
Hmm, Yeah. But... you know what you're doing too! I do think there is a market for this camera. I just think that if we apply the same market members from the camera this replaces there will be quite a lot of dissatisfaction or frustration. I think the market segment 36mp actually applies to is significantly smaller than the market segment for a 20 or less MP camera with similar features and price. No? (oh and by "significantly less" I mean about 1/4 to 1/8.) The others will know enough going into it what to expect and how they might need to modify their habits. Just guessing of course. Way off?
This thread looks like 5DII vs D700 years ago. But think about it, if 5dII has same clean pix and AF performance and feature set, which one you are going to pick. I guess no argument.
If D800 has the same per pix performance of D7000 with improvement, there is really nothing to complain. Digital is moving fast, I certainly don’t mind it is ahead of its time a little than backward.
I don’t need 36M, but I don’t mind to have it as well. Who knows the way represent foto may change in the future, we may not need print big to appreciate the resolution if we have ultra-resolution computer monitor to work with. Look those 330ppi crystal clear iphone’s screen. 10 year ago, I thought those high end TVs are good enough for my life time, but what happen now? There is nothing prevent it will come to us in the future.
It is a good thing to me to shoot less, think more and more picky about select keeper in the future
BTW, I agree with people tend to look close once they are in exhibition, especially people from Alter forum
Hmm, I was all set on a D3x upgrade from my D3, but the 100% viewfinder and smaller body with improved ergonomics have me thinking twice. That D3 sometimes sure does feel like a brick, and I still haven't found the perfect bag for that shape body + lens...
carstenw wrote:
Hmm, I was all set on a D3x upgrade from my D3, but the 100% viewfinder and smaller body with improved ergonomics have me thinking twice. That D3 sometimes sure does feel like a brick, and I still haven't found the perfect bag for that shape body + lens...
Realizing that no one here has used a D800 in the field yet, the paper specs make a D3x purchase unjustifiable at this point. I just ordered a D800, and will not shed a tear over the demise of the overpriced high-resolution bricks in either the Canon or Nikon camera lineups.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The resolution increase is really not that much is it? Maybe 20%? Remember you must quadruple MP's to double resolution.
Well, for computational time it is 2-3x... I recently bought a Mac mini server with SSD and hard drive in it, and for my D3 shots it is quite snappy. For D3x shots (I am considering a D3x upgrade) it would be twice as slow, and for the D800 3x as slow. Considering that I was happy finally to have caught up with my camera, I am more than a little reluctant to go down the slow processing path again, not to mention the fact that my photo library is already the biggest single thing on my two drives, and is only growing with time...
lordarka wrote:
Realizing that no one here has used a D800 in the field yet, the paper specs make a D3x purchase unjustifiable at this point. I just ordered a D800, and will not shed a tear over the demise of the overpriced high-resolution bricks in either the Canon or Nikon camera lineups.
The two things which make me hesitate are image quality and file size. I don't think anyone expects an enthusiast body to match the dynamic range, sharpness and colour of the D3x, even if it *might* do better in resolution and high ISO, and 50% extra pixels which I absolutely don't need are just making me think.
I am stuck between a rock (D3x) and a hard place (D800)
carstenw wrote:
Hmm, I was all set on a D3x upgrade from my D3, but the 100% viewfinder and smaller body with improved ergonomics have me thinking twice. That D3 sometimes sure does feel like a brick, and I still haven't found the perfect bag for that shape body + lens...
Thanks for bring this thread back to other perspective. This is the biggest reason I want this camera as listed in my very first post in this thread: ISO100, 100% viewfinder, lighter, with good video feature and best AF performance around. (though it is only will benefit from Nikkor AF lens)
MP could be the cherry on the top or not is up to individual. But with $3000ish price as D700 4 years ago with such a extensive feature set is really something to Nikon and Nikon shooter.
Amazon just run out of all preorder for both D800 and E.
carstenw wrote:
The two things which make me hesitate are image quality and file size. I don't think anyone expects an enthusiast body to match the dynamic range, sharpness and colour of the D3x, even if it *might* do better in resolution and high ISO, and 50% extra pixels which I absolutely don't need are just making me think.
I am stuck between a rock (D3x) and a hard place (D800)
Looks like you bring it back
Bifurcator wrote:
I would like to know of this consumer HDD you speak of that gets 60+MB/s throughput. Any links? Remember if you're talking about HS Server class drives they were also available 8 years ago and got about 50mb/s to 60mb/s too. SSD's are faster at reading but not so much at writing. They have an inverted profile from an HDD. And they're still insanely expensive AFAIK.
No, just cheap Samsung drives - Samsung 500 GB SATA II Hard Drive HD502HJ. I installed two 500GB drives in the computer I built back in 2010 and just checked the actual transfer speed between them. It took between 3-4 minutes to transfer 15GB of data between them. Doing the math, thats just over 60MB/s.
Bifurcator wrote:
Hmm, Yeah. But... you know what you're doing too! I do think there is a market for this camera. I just think that if we apply the same market members from the camera this replaces there will be quite a lot of dissatisfaction or frustration. I think the market segment 36mp actually applies to is significantly smaller than the market segment for a 20 or less MP camera with similar features and price. No? (oh and by "significantly less" I mean about 1/4 to 1/8.) The others will know enough going into it what to expect and how they might need to modify their habits. Just guessing of course. Way off?
No, probably spot on. But I can find it in me to understand why Nikon chose this path of model upgrades. They NEEDED the D4 to get out before the olympics, and they had already decided long ago that the D3x was the last of its' kind, the last "big-bodied" resolution-top-of-the-range camera.
The "need" to update the D700 with an equivalent body comes in a good third position. The 16MP FX sensors are all probably booked, long before production. If there's a new batch of D4-type D800 "s" sensor incoming, it's probably in production as we speak. I do hope so, 36MP is definitely not for everyone. And there's a LARGE step in prize (and size!) up to the D4.
chez wrote:
Everytime I go to a gallery the people there are up close to the large prints. This concept of standing back is totally false. Yes, people start looking at the print from far away to take in the entire image...then they move in to see the fine details and the image within the image. Just watch people in a gallery and you'll see this time and again.
+100 and I'm definitely guilty of this as well. Paintings, Photographs, whatever...it doesn't matter - We like to see things every way we can - far, close, from the side, etc.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
+100 and I'm definitely guilty of this as well. Paintings, Photographs, whatever...it doesn't matter - We like to see things every way we can - far, close, from the side, etc.
Agreed. It's one thing if we're talking about billboards for a soft drink, but in a fine art venue, I enjoy paintings, photographs, sculptors, etc. from various angles and distances. Just like with painters, some photographers are known for very fine "brush strokes," and others are known for wider and less detailed "brush strokes."
carstenw wrote:
The two things which make me hesitate are image quality and file size. I don't think anyone expects an enthusiast body to match the dynamic range, sharpness and colour of the D3x, even if it *might* do better in resolution and high ISO, and 50% extra pixels which I absolutely don't need are just making me think.
I am stuck between a rock (D3x) and a hard place (D800)
I believe dxomark has the D7000 (d800?) dynamic range as better than the D3x.
carstenw wrote:
Well, for computational time it is 2-3x... I recently bought a Mac mini server with SSD and hard drive in it, and for my D3 shots it is quite snappy. For D3x shots (I am considering a D3x upgrade) it would be twice as slow, and for the D800 3x as slow. Considering that I was happy finally to have caught up with my camera, I am more than a little reluctant to go down the slow processing path again, not to mention the fact that my photo library is already the biggest single thing on my two drives, and is only growing with time......Show more →
Carsten, the quote of mine here is about the actual image resolution increase (nothing about the processing debate) when going from the 5DII to the D800. IF the sensor technology was the same, the actual resolution increase would not be an improvement of 50 - 100%, which is what I was replying to.
chez wrote:
Everytime I go to a gallery the people there are up close to the large prints. This concept of standing back is totally false. Yes, people start looking at the print from far away to take in the entire image...then they move in to see the fine details and the image within the image. Just watch people in a gallery and you'll see this time and again.
Absolutely. This "normal viewing distance" and other equivalent "concepts" about image quality and size are just rubbish. I've been annoyed by this nonsense for a long time.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Absolutely. This "normal viewing distance" and other equivalent "concepts" about image quality and size are just rubbish. I've been annoyed by this nonsense for a long time.
I've been annoyed by the absolute obsession people have over extremely minute things. Do some people go up to a print? Sure...but the fact is that 16 MP still looks really good up close even on a 30" print. Can you see every tiny minute detail at that size up close? No, but you can see a LOT of detail, and it looks very good.
People have gotten a bit crazy. "Oh my gosh, there's some GRAIN at ISO 1600? What are we to do?" Nevermind that the shot still looks good. People have become so obsessed with these tiny insignificant differences in image quality that I frankly think they are failing to appreciate photography for what it is...expressing a vision of the photographer.
Show me a single instance where a 5D II shot printed at 20" wide looks poor up close, if the photographer did what they were supposed to do. It's gotten crazy.
carstenw wrote:
I don't think anyone expects an enthusiast body to match the dynamic range, sharpness and colour of the D3x
why on earth not? the d700 matches the d3 on all of those. the pro body doesn't add anything to a sensor. i think that nikon and canon just figured out that most of the groups that require high pixel cameras don't require pro bodies (e.g. studio and landscape shooters) and they would be better off with two high end cameras instead of 3 from an investment to return perspective.
the d700 matches the d3 on all of those. the pro body doesn't add anything to a sensor. i think that nikon and canon just figured out that most of the groups that require high pixel cameras don't require pro bodies (e.g. studio and landscape shooters) and they would be better off with two high end cameras instead of 3 from an investment to return perspective.