every time i bring this "proper viewing distance" thing with my gallery owner and painter friends, they all have a good laugh. the proper viewing distance is wherever the viewer wants to stand. as far as i am concerned, "proper viewing distance" is all about apologizing for photography's limitations compared to traditional media, and doubly so since small format cameras started being used more than medium or large format for gallery work. Weston contacted printed his 8x10 negatives because any enlargement lost too much image quality for him.
Herb...
sebboh wrote:
if the print is going to be at 300 dpi no matter what, it would be nice not to have to up res it, i imagine. also the limit of human vision is on average around 300 dpi at 12" viewing distance with a pretty big standard deviation. there are certainly some people who like to look at prints super close and people with much better than 20/20 vision (there are also lots of people who can't even focus at 12"). there is certainly a market for 36mp.
i use my D3x for landscape/fine art work and my D3 for event/portrait work. it will become D800E for landscape/fine art and D4 for events and portraits.
Herb...
chez wrote:
I also shoot events, and I would use a reduced resolution as photos from events are rarely printed larger than 16x20 or so.
HerbChong wrote:
every time i bring this "proper viewing distance" thing with my gallery owner and painter friends, they all have a good laugh. the proper viewing distance is wherever the viewer wants to stand. as far as i am concerned, "proper viewing distance" is all about apologizing for photography's limitations compared to traditional media, and doubly so since small format cameras started being used more than medium or large format for gallery work. W
Exactly. It's just a attempt to rationalize limitations.
HerbChong wrote:
the proper viewing distance is wherever the viewer wants to stand.
Well put. And there definitely is a market for huge prints with close viewing distances. Wide carriage inkjet output has really enabled this and it takes a lot of pixels to back it up (and good optics, and a rock solid camera mount, and more, and more, and more).
Thankfully I don't have to worry about that in my shots, so I can carry a weenie little camera around instead
For those not so blessed it will interesting to see a D800E with a good prime against say a 645D.
kwalsh wrote:
For those not so blessed it will interesting to see a D800E with a good prime against say a 645D.
Ken
Wayne posted this link in another thread which pits the D3X against the 645D. Given this test and the decent showing of the D3X, it really looks like the 645D will have met it's match with the D800E with regard to resolving ability. I think the Nikon really will put a lot of pressure on the low to mid end MF digital market.
Think about it, you have freedom to have MP100 and MP150 on the field. And use DX mode for soccer mom/dad with D4 type of AF with tele reaching.
I also love the fact it include 30M 5X4 format as D3/D4 does. To my surprise, alter forum looks not that exciting about this D800, which is really nothing wrong other than giving you option with high resolution if needed.
In terms of lens, we are peeped last bit of resolution, why suddenly people no longer care about the body, because of print, viewing distance. It is really fun to me once blow up the sample image from Nikon look at 100% MF like detail of the picture. Guilty as a gear head here.
NEX with 16M pixels has the same density of this one, why no complain on that. I thought people gonna love it for FF with this kind of sensor performance.
This is a Monster Camera. $3000 is a lot of money but given its performance/feature set: it is under priced.
I agree with you. I don't really like nikon camera bodies (I had a few, always ended up with canon bodies instead..) but this d800 looks like a killer camera. On every aspect it seems to go beyond my expectations and need.
Actually I'm already selling my canon mount lenses and converting others to nikon mount to be ready when the d800e launches
carstenw wrote:
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'm not sure why you believe this is true. To the best of my knowledge, the "enthusiast" segmentation between the D700 and D3, for example, was about absolute AF, speed, and to some extent, ruggedness. Are you aware of any substantive differences with the sensors?
The D800 camera makes the "pro/enthusiast even further by offering up a 100% viewfinder along with an generous helping of extra pixels.
To take a Canon analogy, most people would probably agree that the "enthusiast" 5D II is able to generate as good or better images than a 1Ds II, a "professional" body that was a generation behind it. and had about 20% fewer pixels.
bluetsunami wrote:
Downloaded the ISO6400 sample and extracted two crops from it... also downsampled the overall picture...
{snip}
I'm really impressed
That's easily as good as the original 5D and it has 3 times the number of pixels, and really not much worse than the 5Dll with over 50% more pixels -- downsampled to the 5Dll's pixel count and you might not see a noise difference at all.
Romain wrote:
I agree with you. I don't really like nikon camera bodies (I had a few, always ended up with canon bodies instead..) but this d800 looks like a killer camera. On every aspect it seems to go beyond my expectations and need.
Actually I'm already selling my canon mount lenses and converting others to nikon mount to be ready when the d800e launches
yeah, this think looks sweet and i actually like nikon bodies better than canon from the ergonomic perspective. i don't understand the complaints about high pixel count. more pixels make downsized images look better too. an 8x10 or for that matter a 1600 pixel long image both look better coming from 36mp than 21mp if both are downsized optimally. i'm totally willing to take the slight hit in processing time for that and since this is basically the same sensor as is in the NEX-5N, K5, and D7000 but FF i'm sure the dynamic range and high iso will be very good (especially with downsizing).
my only complaints are the lack of articulated screen, oversized body, and the f-mount that prevents me from using most of my favorite lenses. if i shot autofocus i would love this. as it is i'll wait to see if sony releases something with IBIS and a more lens friendly mount for me.
that's why i do resolution stacking with my D3x captures and intend to do so with my D800E ones too. 150MP captures are my target for enough resolution for the print sizes that i am interested in making. i would much rather a 150MP sensor in whatever format makes sense but that doesn't exist in anything except for the military. taking 6-8 captures from a D800E and resolution stack will get a 150MP capture. it's a bit tricky on technique but on the D3x it's easy to see real resolution gains with good enough lenses.
Herb...
kwalsh wrote:
Well put. And there definitely is a market for huge prints with close viewing distances. Wide carriage inkjet output has really enabled this and it takes a lot of pixels to back it up (and good optics, and a rock solid camera mount, and more, and more, and more).
sebboh wrote:
yeah, this think looks sweet and i actually like nikon bodies better than canon from the ergonomic perspective. i don't understand the complaints about high pixel count. more pixels make downsized images look better too. an 8x10 or for that matter a 1600 pixel long image both look better coming from 36mp than 21mp if both are downsized optimally. i'm totally willing to take the slight hit in processing time for that and since this is basically the same sensor as is in the NEX-5N, K5, and D7000 but FF i'm sure the dynamic range and high iso will be very good (especially with downsizing).
my only complaints are the lack of articulated screen, oversized body, and the f-mount that prevents me from using most of my favorite lenses. if i shot autofocus i would love this. as it is i'll wait to see if sony releases something with IBIS and a more lens friendly mount for me....Show more →
+100
Don't wait, you may need wait a year if you missed pre_order. As orders come all over from Nikon and Canon camp I have really hard time to track down a 85G since I missed pre-order.
BTW: from Spec, I think they might use the same Viewfinder as D4 with 100% coverage and 0.7X. Another feature I'd love to go with ZF
sebboh wrote:
...
my only complaints are the lack of articulated screen, oversized body, and the f-mount that prevents me from using most of my favorite lenses. if i shot autofocus i would love this. as it is i'll wait to see if sony releases something with IBIS and a more lens friendly mount for me.
If it weren't for the lack of articulated screen I would seriously think of switching system *almost* without waiting for what the 5D3 will bring. Sony have a clear lead in sensor tech, specifically for DR, so the 5D3 will hardly beat this new Nikon beast in that area anyway. Unless there's some Skunk work organization soon to be revealed. Sadly Nikon is a worse platform for alt-lenses, but I think I will head the Zeiss ZE/ZF path sooner or later anyway.
But hey, that really means that phase detection AF is soo yesterday so perhaps it's better to await the forthcoming non-Leica mirrorless FF 8-)
I'm wondering if the D800 viewfinder is going to be a noticeable step down from the one in my Sony A900 when used with manual focus lenses. It has a lower magnification and the focusing screen is not interchangeable. I would be interested to hear from anyone who has used both a current Nikon with a similar viewfinder and the A900 with manual focus lenses.
Which screen do you have in the 900? The precision screen?
Nikon has nothing to touch it, and we don't know yet how the focusing screen/lcd info panel in the VF works (this effects your chance to change your screen against a custom-works).
*I managed to convert an Eg-S screen for my D700.
The standard A900 screen is maybe slightly, slightly better than the D3x screen when it comes to ease of use in manual focus. The A850 that I had was maybe slightly, slightly worse.
theSuede wrote:
*I managed to convert an Eg-S screen for my D700.
I did the same thing for D700 and it is a life saver for fast glass manual focus by eyes.
If the new D800 design the same as D4/D3SX, then it won't be a option anymore
bluetsunami wrote:
Downloaded the ISO6400 sample and extracted two crops from it... also downsampled the overall picture...
I'm really impressed
That is impressive indeed for this monster 36MP sensor! Those who want 36MP will be thrilled I would imagine. Curious, if you resized the 36MP file to 18MP file and then did a 100% crop, I wonder how it would look compared to the original?
