I don't think anything much is really new about the D800 or that anything is really clarified, except to those who do not read the forums and other sources. The same topics have been discussed in the past, back when the S/N was higher here.
You ain't see nothing yet!
What is the use of saying things like having too many Mega Pixels, needing different techniques, remorse due to ordering a product that one has not seen or use the actual product with the latest hardware and software.
When Canon was in the Mega Pixel lead, people always say that Nikon can't come out with anything better, but now Nikon did and people are saying we don't need anything more than 18 - 24 MP.
Well, the MP thing really depands on the users, some will like it small with higher frame rate (like the D300, D700 and D3) while others would like it big with slower frame rate (like the D3x and D800).
If one needs the lower MP and higher frame rate go for the D3s and D4. Why fuss about it?
For those who wants higher MP and slower frame rate, you have to wait a little because the technology is still in the process of maturing.
For needing different techniques for different pixel size and density.
Wouldn't that be the same as having different techniques for different grain size that comes along with different ISO speed films?
After all it is photography "The Art and Science of Capturing Light".
During the film days we use different techniques to shoot with slower and higher speed films, not only that we even have different techniques for buying and processing those higher speed films (ASA 1600 & 3200) meant for Hollywood. We buy through the mail that include return mailing envelopes to have the film process and sent back.
Finally, the stupidus thing to do is to announce to the world that one is remorseful of ordering a product that one has not even seen or actually used, and than cancelling the order because of rumors that it has too many MP and needing different techniques to operate it. Why order it when you don't meant to shoot with higher MP and expect to upgrade your tools and software?
Lastly, all those rumors were base on pictures that were posted or release using prototype cameras with prototype softwares.
What can one really tell from it? (Unless one is working for Nikon )
If we are going to keep up with technology we are going to need a new camera every couple of years. Technology continuous to improve and that is reflected in the new cameras with their new sensors.
The debate about megapixels has never been of interest to me and I know I could be wrong. I am perfectly happy with 12 megapixels and even with half of them. As the OP stated, I could easily be in that group for which more megapixels or more firing rate than 5 FPS is overkill. I do not make posters from my files and for me a 13x19 is a humongous enlargement. I seldom go beyond that.
The D800 could be the ideal camera for the portrait or product photographer, time will tell.
I am never in line when a new camera or lens hits the market and the majority of what I use came from the second hand market. My cameras do what I need them to do although I know eventually I will get something to control noise in those rare occasions when I shoot without flash in low light. I have not felt the need yet but I know it is coming.
I perfectly well know that the day when cameras will not use the AA filter is coming. I also know that the mirrorless camera could find its way into dSLRs. Sensors get better and better and perhaps the days of noise in the pictures are coming also to an end.
I do not really know if the market will continue to support both systems, DX and FX.
I am pretty happy with the DX format.
Perhaps the days of no dirt in the sensors is also coming although that could be slightly complicated to resolve since electricity is needed to generate power to the sensor.
This is a very interesting thread and I thank you for your explanations on the technical details.
daskibum wrote:
Well, if you go by the Canonites, the Nikon lenses are not capable of the resolving power required for this sensor. They even claim they can see it in the sample photos.
You mean the people who buy Nikon 14-24 lenses and EOS adapters for them?
To support my statement about "morie seldom happen away from center of screen because most of the time lenses perform better around the center and not so well off center due to distortion or CA thus minimizing the effect of morie off center", you can now find this statement supported by Nikon's own recommendation for better morie suppression for D800E on page 19 of 20.
Base on the below formula for Depth of Field vs. Focal Length:
DOF = [2Nc (m+1)] / [m^�� − (Nc/f)^2 ]
N = f-number
C = circle of confusion
m = magnification
F = focal length
There should not be any DOF difference if you use the same camera for full frame and 1.5 cropped mode using the same lens set at the same aperture, focal length and having the same circle of confusion & magnification factor.
What people is seeing is a perceived DOF due to using different cameras with different sensors having different pixel pitch and size, as well as using different lenses with different aperture, focal length, circle of confusion and magnification factor.
Most people are not aware of the processing even for RAW files to cater for different sensor’s pitch & size, filters like AA and so on sitting on top of sensors, correction of distortion, chromatic aberration, and diffraction to cater for the different lenses attached to the camera.
Because of the above reasoning people are miffing about seeing different DOF because they are comparing apples with oranges, like using a full frame and cropped frame camera with different sensor pitch & size to do the comparison or they attached a FF lens to the FF camera and a CF lens to a CF camera to do the comparison forgetting that the 2 lenses will not have the exact same aperture, focal length, circle of confusion and magnification factor (even if the focal length were set to be the same).
hans98ko wrote:
There should not be any DOF difference if you use the same camera for full frame and 1.5 cropped mode using the same lens set at the same aperture, focal length and having the same circle of confusion & magnification factor.
But then it would not be the same photo because it would have a different composition and the print would be smaller. If you change the distance to compensate then you radically alter the perspective. If you enlarge the crop print more you enlarge the blur disks.
The sensor pitch has nothing to do with depth of field. Nor does the number of pixels.
Circle of confusion projected onto the sensor / film is not a function of lens design. It relates to the focal length, the distance, and the aperture. Lenses set to the same focal length will produce the same CoC at the same distance and the same aperture. The discrepancies between indicated focal lengths and actual are almost never more than +/- 5% (except that close focusing does accentuate and create differences in focal length).
"enlargement factor", not "magnification factor". Also not to be neglected are print size, viewing distance, and visual acuity. The print size however is a function of sensor size and enlargement. If you change one of the three (sensor size, enlargement, print size) then you have to pick one of the remain two to change in response.
Monito wrote:
But then it would not be the same photo because it would have a different composition and the print would be smaller. If you change the distance to compensate then you radically alter the perspective. If you enlarge the crop print more you enlarge the blur disks.
The sensor pitch has nothing to do with depth of field. Nor does the number of pixels.
Circle of confusion projected onto the sensor / film is not a function of lens design. It relates to the focal length, the distance, and the aperture. Lenses set to the same focal length will produce the same CoC at the same distance and the same aperture. The discrepancies between indicated focal lengths and actual are almost never more than +/- 5% (except that close focusing does accentuate and create differences in focal length).
"enlargement factor", not "magnification factor". Also not to be neglected are print size, viewing distance, and visual acuity. The print size however is a function of sensor size and enlargement. If you change one of the three (sensor size, enlargement, print size) then you have to pick one of the remain two to change in response. ...Show more →
"But then it would not be the same photo because it would have a different composition and the print would be smaller. If you change the distance to compensate then you radically alter the perspective. If you enlarge the crop print more you enlarge the blur disks."
Depanding on how one wants to compare it, if one wants to compare a 1.5 crop mode from a FF camera with a 1.5 CF camera both having the same pixel pitch and size sensor, and using the same lens with the same setting they should both look the same (except for the slight difference caused by the in camera processing).
But if one wants to compare a FF picture to that of a CF picture, of cause it will be different due to the difference in AOV or like you said one having to move from its shooting position. This is what I would call comparing apples with oranges.
"The sensor pitch has nothing to do with depth of field. Nor does the number of pixels."
Well, it does because of the in camera processing that takes the pixel pitch and size into consideration to compensate for the spread of the distortion, CA and diffration. Because of this it will give what I would call a perceived difference, and that is why people are saying they see a difference when they are using sensors with different pitch and size, as in comparing pictures taken with a D700 and D7000..
Monito wrote:
The sensor pitch has nothing to do with depth of field. Nor does the number of pixels.
hans98ko wrote:
Well, it does because of the in camera processing that takes the pixel pitch and size into consideration to compensate for the spread of the distortion, CA and diffration. Because of this it will give what I would call a perceived difference, and that is why people are saying they see a difference when they are using sensors with different pitch and size, as in comparing pictures taken with a D700 and D7000..
Nope. Distortion, CA, and diffraction have nothing to do with Depth of Field. Pictures made with the same framing and distance and same print size will look subtly different between cameras due to pixel density, distortion, CA, and diffraction (if f/stop too high) but they will not affect the Depth of Field.
Sensor size and therefore the focal length required and degree of enlargement required directly affect Depth of Field. They will also have subtle effects on perception (due to image quality differences and pixel density differences), but the effect on Depth of Field will not be subtle; it will be easily visible and much more noticeable.
Monito wrote:
Nope. Distortion, CA, and diffraction have nothing to do with Depth of Field. Pictures made with the same framing and distance and same print size will look subtly different between cameras due to pixel density, distortion, CA, and diffraction (if f/stop too high) but they will not affect the Depth of Field.
Sensor size and therefore the focal length required and degree of enlargement required directly affect Depth of Field. They will also have subtle effects on perception (due to image quality differences and pixel density differences), but the effect on Depth of Field will not be subtle; it will be easily visible and much more noticeable....Show more →
No, I am in agreement with what you wrote, but there are people out there who think that they see a difference in the DOF because of the "perceived difference" in the look.
Maybe I should have highlighted the words "PERCEIVED DIFFERENCE".
The perceived difference caused by the variables and in camera processing is not a difference in DOF because the formula I listed in the beginning of this discussion does not cater for these variables, which you also stated very clearly above.
Yes, I must admit that I used the wrong words: "Well, it does" to start my statement. Cheers!
For what it's worth the D800e does have an AA filter in front of the sensor but the second layer is used to cancel the effect of the first. So one would inpute light transfer to the sensor similiar to the D800.
in real life both CoC and magnification change with crop factor. that is why DOF changes and for no other reason.
Herb...
hans98ko wrote:
There should not be any DOF difference if you use the same camera for full frame and 1.5 cropped mode using the same lens set at the same aperture, focal length and having the same circle of confusion & magnification factor.
Right Herb. "In real life", if you want a 50mm FOV with a crop camera you must shoot with a 35mm lens, and that is why DOF increases with crop sensors. In other words, for any given field of view you must shoot with a wider actual focal length (to match the FF equivalent focal length), and as actual focal length reduces DOF increases. It is for this reason that even though a compact like the S100 may have a f2.0 lens, you still can't get any serious subject isolation like you can shooting a full frame DSLR at the same apertures and equivalent focal lengths. The actual focal lengths of the compact lens are much shorter, therefore DOF much greater. The same principle applies to an APS-C sized sensor or m43 sensor versus a FF sensor but to a lesser degree.
Base on the below formula for Depth of Field vs. Focal Length:
DOF = [2Nc (m+1)] / [m^�� − (Nc/f)^2 ]
N = f-number
C = circle of confusion
m = magnification
F = focal length
There should not be any DOF difference if you use the same camera for full frame and 1.5 cropped mode using the same lens set at the same aperture, focal length and having the same circle of confusion & magnification factor.
What people is seeing is a perceived DOF due to using different cameras with different sensors having different pixel pitch and size, as well as using different lenses with different aperture, focal length, circle of confusion and magnification factor.
Most people are not aware of the processing even for RAW files to cater for different sensor’s pitch & size, filters like AA and so on sitting on top of sensors, correction of distortion, chromatic aberration, and diffraction to cater for the different lenses attached to the camera.
Because of the above reasoning people are miffing about seeing different DOF because they are comparing apples with oranges, like using a full frame and cropped frame camera with different sensor pitch & size to do the comparison or they attached a FF lens to the FF camera and a CF lens to a CF camera to do the comparison forgetting that the 2 lenses will not have the exact same aperture, focal length, circle of confusion and magnification factor (even if the focal length were set to be the same). ...Show more →
Wow, some miffing...
If I count all the inaccuracies, technical errors, conceptual misunderstandings, and wrong terminology in that passage they can fill a small book
Herb,
As I mentioned earlier:
1) Depanding on how one wants to compare it, if one wants to compare a 1.5 crop mode from a FF camera with a 1.5 CF camera both having the same pixel pitch and size sensor, and using the same lens with the same setting they should both look the same (except for the slight difference caused by the in camera processing).
2) But if one wants to compare a FF picture to that of a CF picture, of cause it will be different due to the difference in AOV or like you said one having to move from its shooting position. This is what I would call comparing apples with oranges.
For case 1 the coc and magnification factor will not change because we are using only the 1.5 crop area of the FF sensor. It is as if we are removing the FF sensor and replace it with a 1.5 crop sensor at the same location.
For case 2 Monito as well as ChristDM have already explained it real well.
)
