It's amazing how all those who claim to know better are not those that have actually used higher pixel full frame sensors. I'll chime in again as someone who has years of experience with photography. Please do not discount my observations. Going from a D700 to a D3X. You will see a difference in pixel level acuteness. When it's on, there is nothing better...when it's off, it's not pretty.
I was constantly frustrated by the randomness of some of the sharpness issues that would occur. I had pro quality lenses that almost always gave me excellent results with 12 megapixels. Same technique, same situations with 24 megapixels would give me inconsistent results.
I could care less about what most of the internet photographers think, those that have used these tools and printed large will agree. I'm not trying to say that you don't know what you're talking about, but I can only tell you what I saw. FWIW, I sold my D3X because the majority of my photography turned away from needing high resolution and I needed consistent, sharp results, handheld. So, when these awesome tools are available and people don't get as many keepers and when the results don't match their expectations...don't be surprised.
Samuel Morse wrote on his blog
"The D800 will demand skilled handling technique, the 36 megapixels are extremely unforgiving in terms of motion blur even at 1/100 on an 85 mm lens. (or maybe I was shaking with excitement!!!)"
All the pixels may make handheld shooting very tricky. I'm having second thoughts of parting with my D700.
It really doesn't matter how I provoke my D3x, it CONSTANTLY churns out files way sharper than what I got with the D700. And that's about it.
Really, really incompetent AD managers and stock agency quality inspectors moan about "pixel sharpness" and "pixel quality". People that know what they're doing know that a slightly unsharp 24MP raw image is quite probably just as sharp - if not sharper - than a very good 12MP raw image. Sometimes the average competence of people in my former line of work makes/made me ashamed for my vocation.
And since the ISO performance of the ISO-performance per pixel [in the D800] will match the D3x pound for pound, it will allow me to shorten my speeds by 1/3Ev, OR get a cleaner more detailed 24MP end image.
This is an image from a D800 raw taken at ISO6400, and then bumped 2/3Ev by me in post in the raw conversion (meaning that the actual ISO of the resulting converted image is 10,000). I also applied some shadow lift for good measure... The image was then scaled to 12MP and a slight colour noise reduction applied.
No matter how you see it, the detail and sharpness (in the stuff that's actually in focus) is way better than what I would have achieved with a D700 at the same shutter speed and aperture. And the noise levels are definitely not worse - they may even be a bit better (than the D700). I've linked the image in stead of adding it to the post, it's ~5MB in size so I thought to spare the mobile users that page download weight.
Listen to theSuede! All you doomsayers need to relax. The increased resolution is not going to be problem.
The only reason techniques would need to change is if you are going to crop more or print bigger. The techniques would need to change with the D700 as well if you were going to crop more or print bigger.
Regardless of print size, using the same techniques and the same image size, the D800 image will always be better. The larger the image, the more pronounced the difference will be in favor of the D800.
afm901 wrote:
You guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill. If your technique is getting you good shots with a D700, you will get good shots with a D800. You will not have to replace all of your lenses or shoot at higher shutter speeds.
To take advantage of the increased resolution, you may need to do things differently and you may need some better lenses. Notice the word "may".
Scott
Scott...Prepare to eat some serious crow! I hope you do get a D800/800E. If you guys think that you can use the same techniques and lenses and be just as satisfied with the results of the native file sizes...not downsampled, as the D700, you're in for a surprise! Nobody is saying that you can't or won't get amazing results from these new cameras or that all of your pics will be trash. Just that the key is that there is a difference. Again, from Lloyd Chambers blog:
The short story: only with the best lenses and impeccable technique will you obtain a real 36 megapixels of detail.
I hope that we can at least not argue about this point. I think that those making this investment need to at least understand this. Hey...nobody is more excited than me, I'm getting one as well. I just know the limitations, and I'm keeping my D700 as well!
locomacdaddy wrote:
Scott...Prepare to eat some serious crow! I hope you do get a D800/800E. If you guys think that you can use the same techniques and lenses and be just as satisfied with the results of the native file sizes...not downsampled, as the D700, you're in for a surprise! Nobody is saying that you can't or won't get amazing results from these new cameras or that all of your pics will be trash. Just that the key is that there is a difference. Again, from Lloyd Chambers blog:
The short story: only with the best lenses and impeccable technique will you obtain a real 36 megapixels of detail.
I hope that we can at least not argue about this point. I think that those making this investment need to at least understand this. Hey...nobody is more excited than me, I'm getting one as well. I just know the limitations, and I'm keeping my D700 as well! ...Show more →
locomacdaddy,
Why will I have to eat crow? Have read what I have been writing? Pixel density does not amplify camera shake or motion blur or defraction for that matter.
Yes, you will see more issues at 100% on D800 versus a D700 because there is more details to see. But, make the same size images or prints with a D700 and D800 using the same exact lenses, apertures, shutter speeds, and techniques, and the D800 images will look better.
It's only when you take advantage of the extra resolution that you might have to change techniques, etc. For example, if you increase the D800 shutter by the same percentage as the resolution, you should see the same motion blur at 100% pixel peeping as you do in the D700. So, if you used 1/250 on the D700, you would want to use 1/433 (so round up to 1/500) on the D800.
juicer wrote:
Definitely. I find that with the following stance and a plastic bag counter-weight in my stabilizing hand, I am able to handhold to absurd shutter speeds on even the densest sensor.
Best reply all day. I have that very same counter-weight. Better work on my stance and stop eating beans; that looks painful.
I know this horse has been beat-to-death, but the fact is: why would you ever take a photo with the D700 and one with the D800 and print at the exact same resolution? Yes, I could downsample the D800 image to any lower resolution I desire but, normally most people are going to print at the highest resolution possible, to avoid interpolation artifacts. After all, that is what higher native resolution is all about.
I assume that the majority of people buying the D800 are looking forward to utilizing the full resolution for printing purposes. I can tell you that if you are printing at native full resolution that each camera is capable of, all imperfections of lenses and technique are magnified. I have personally seen this, as have many others. This a a phenomenon that I don't see, or at least not as frequently with my D700. I'll quote Chambers again because he says it so much better than I can:
[c"]The viewfinder optical path and sensor optical path are already outside the required tolerances on many camera bodies (e.g. the two paths do not match in distance). Even shutter movement is a potential problem, so hopefully the D800 will work properly in Live View (no shutter movement, no mirror movement)."
He address the issue of shutter movement/mirror movement and all I'm saying is that if you shoot at any shutter speed around 1x the focal length (handheld) with the D700 and then try that with a higher density sensor camera, with the same settings...you won't get as many keepers with the higher density camera (again both being printed at native resolutions @ 300 dpi, as an example). Chambers also said:
"...today’s DSLRs have focus consistency and accuracy adequate for perhaps an eight (8) megapixel camera.
It is hopeless for a 36MP camera. Yes, such cameras can be accurate with some lenses a a good percentage of the time to within some tolerance deemed “reasonable”, but nowhere near accurate enough to be relied upon at wide apertures."
Again, the same techniques and lenses that made your/my D700 sing, don't have the same consistency (notice I said consistency) with these high MP machines. You are correct that downsampling will mask these defects but, I'm not paying for a 36 MP tool to be used at 12 MP.
I guess I don't understand why others don't agree with this. Anyone who has shot with high resolution senors has seen this and agree to the physics involved. No one is saying that you can't get great images from these, just that it's not as easy to get a sharp 16x24 print from a D800 (7360x4912@300dpi) as it is to get a sharp 9.5x14 print from a D700 (4246x2832@300dpi). Can't wait for mine!
You are crazy if you think everyone that buys a D800 is going use it differently than they do their D700 or D3. Can they use it differently? Yes. Will they use it differently? Sometimes. Will they use it differently all the time? Not likely.
By your logic, everyone that buys a D800 is going to use it for large prints only. And those large prints will be viewed at the same distances as the 12MP prints they make now.
That's not reality. The tool does not define the job. It is used on the job. The D800 can do more jobs better than the D700.
The 9.5 x 14 prints that are done with a D700 would look better if done by a D800 with everything done just like they were done with the D700. In fact, any print at any size is going to look better using the D800 when compared to the D700 making the same size prints using the same settings and techniques.
innovis wrote:
Scott... you really are... forget it no comment.
Then why did you comment.
Look, locomacdaddy is absolutely correct in saying that to take full advantage of the D800's increased resolution to make larger prints, more care will be required. I just don't agree with his premise that the D800 will be used only in such a manner. Most importantly, if one is not going to make larger prints, then the reality is that techniques will not need to change.
Nikon is not marketing this camera solely to people that make large prints.
The D800 is going to be a mainstream camera used by all kinds of photographers. It's the only full frame Nikon DSLR at a price tag the average Nikon enthusiast photographer can stomach.
I would be willing to bet that 3 years down the road, most D800 owners are not making large prints. D800 owners will, for the most part, be using the D800 like they would a D700. There will be a group of landscape photographers that will be using the D800 as locomacdaddy envisions. It just will be a much smaller group than he thinks in relation to overall D800 sales.
Fred Miranda wrote:
As Roman wrote, pretty much use the same technique for achieving sharp images: Sturdy tripod, decent ballhead, mirror lock, shutter release cable, low wind, live view loupe, etc. A higher MP sensor will record more diffraction and any motion blur will be magnified. It will also amplify your lenses shortcomings. If you know your lens strengths and weakness and their best aperture values you should be good.
I can think of at least two remedies to the problems you've described above.
1. Get Zeiss Lenses.
2. Get Photoshop CS6 (about to be released) as it has tool that can detect the motion blur and calculate the trajectory of that blur. Based on that info it can recreated your correct and sharp image. Of course this only applies to the motion blur, like your had shake etc. It maybe not the best solution but it can help.
I don't know what's going on here except I'll say this.
When the 12MP D2x came out, a lot of people initially struggled.
Not all, because some already had excellent technique (that argument seems a bit lost here).
We printed many MANY photos and people would first start to think their cameras were not as good as their D70's and D1x and D2H's. They complained that their lenses weren't good and a host of other things.
Pretty much everyone adapted to the camera. It wasn't that everyone had 'bad' technique, they just tightened it up a bit. I know, because we had the conversation over and over again, and we would show people how to adjust their techinque for a steadier shot (and a bloody good reason to sell them a cable release and a tripod! )
I know this sounds rather silly but if one shot the D800 at 9mp or 18mp (esp 18mp), would these "specific technique" apply? If I ever did buy the D800 I'd just shoot at 9 or 18 and save 36 for macro or images I have to blow up. Such a waste of a 36mp sensor..
I moved from a Canon 20D (8 mp) to a Canon 1DsMkIII (21 mp) and didn't experience any of the terrible potential problems being attributed here to the increase in pixels in the D800. In fact, just the opposite occurred. The files from the 21 mp body are much better and have much more latitude in PP than the 8 mp files. The 8 mp files are not "sharper" by any measure. The 8 mp files are not "better" because they haven't exceeded the capabilities of my lenses. More importantly, the prints from the 8 mp files are nowhere near as good as prints from the 21 mp - even at 8 x 11.
I like to think that I use good handling techniques and any camera, regardless of pixel density, demands that for maximum sharpness. But I will agree that if you don't know how to handle a D700 you are likely to be very unhappy with a D800. It is a camera that will demand a certain pretty basic skill level to produce the magic of which it is capable.
I guess it depends on how the camera does it. If it's cropping then nothing changes.
But just so people understand where I was coming from, it's not special technique. I'm not saying it would worry anyone here.
It's just the proper technique... that's been around for ever. It's a bit like now that everyone has a camera, and the camera is so good in auto mode, sometimes we don't 'think' about things.
Some people will not see or do anything different and get exactly the same result.
Others will.
Anyway, for kicks, if anyone wants to see just how little it takes for movement/vibrations etc try this.
If you've got live view,stick you're camera on a tripod (works better with a light tripod). Magnify all the way in. Then touch the tripod leg. Then see how softly you can touch the leg without getting ANY movement whatsoever. (Then give me a call to upgrade your tripod if you need. )
The image stabalised lenses today are brilliant so this whole thing is probably a fairly mute point anyway.
Along the same vain. Put your camera on a tripod, activate Live View and set for a 1/2 sec exposure. Set the timer to two secs and press the shutter release. Now do the same using a cable release. You'll see a big difference in sharpness and it isn't the cameras fault. As nikt said, it is just using proper technique.
you ought to. you are wrong. Thom and i have been discussing the number of people who think as you do and why there are so many. maybe you ought to tell Nikon as well that their statements that higher levels of technique required for best results are bogus too.
