nikt wrote:
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. )
Of course. Comparing 100% view shake on a D800 to a D700 is like comparing 100% view shake of a 300mm lens and a 519mm lens on a D700. If you plan on taking full advantage of that extra resolution, you may need a better tripod!
HerbChong wrote:
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.
Herb...
Herb,
You are not paying attention to what people are saying. Yes, to take full advantage of the extra resolution, techniques and equipment may need to change. But, use a D800 just like you use a D700 today and nothing must change to get the same results.
A wedding photog that buys a D800 and uses the same lenses and same print sizes will see better photos with no technique change.
You like to metaphorically speak Scott... engaging your arguments based off ASSUMPTIONS. The OP never mentioned anything about downsampling so those points from you correlating to that is moot. Also, you agree that at the FULL POTENTIAL 36mp(which the OP clearly stated) is going to require a bit of technique.
Bare in mind, I commented in hopes of your ability to re-evaluate your posts because the ego you poccess displays how much you are willing to argue with ANYTHING even if you agree on circumstances. I hang out with a weird bunch since I'm part of an association called NAPP.
Guys like Scott Kelby, Matt Klosklowski, and Billy blah blah blah is who I'm frequent with all the time. We have a buddy... an amazing photographer named Joe McNally who just so happen, to have a wife that surprisingly knows everything about Nikon and their initiatives.
In regards to that, the D800 WAS intended for large size prints(as if the MP wasn't obvious enough) and that it was geared toward landscape/studio shooters(hence why no huge iso improvements?). So just to be clear, the D800 is NOT a D700 replacement Scott... it IS NOT. Sorry if that hurts to hear... and you may well start ranting again... but at least you could think about this and just agree with some guys who are ON THE SAME BOAT as you.
These are YOUR words: Yes, to take full advantage of the extra resolution, techniques and equipment may need to change. Cheers.
HerbChong wrote:
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.
Herb...
Herb, did you actually read anything I said? If you re-read what I said earlier, I was in agreement that the D800 will require more stringent technique to get great results at large print sizes. I went from a D700 to a D7000 and found that getting sharp shots at 100% required significantly more thought around technique. The reason is not because the D7000 has 25% more pixels, it's because the D7000's pixels are packed three times as densely as the D700's. The fundamental part you seem to disagree with me on is the effect of pixel density (pixels/mm or pixels/mm2). The smaller the pixels, the greater effect poor technique will have when those pixels are viewed at 100%. You can't just state that someone's wrong without a sensible argument to the contrary. That's arrogant and rude.
I have been consistent in my statements that to take advantage of the extra resolution of the D800, techniques and equipment may need to change.
I never said the D800 WAS NOT intended for large size prints (as if the MP wasn't obvious enough) and that it was geared toward landscape/studio shooters.
Now, as much as you, Nikon, Herb, Joe McNally's wife, etc., want to say the D800 is not a D700 replacement, is that a market reality? As things sit today, the D800 is the only camera in the Nikon line up that can replace the discontinued D700. Will that change soon? I have not seen anything to indicate that Nikon has another FX body coming out any time soon. Have you?
If I want to buy a new full frame Nikon DSLR and don't have $6000, what are my options? If I am not a landscape/studio shooter, what am I going to buy? Hmmm....the D800.
I'm not the most technical of photographers, but let me sum up my understanding of the "issue" with the D800 here - and someone please tell me if I'm wrong or oversimplifying.
If I take the EXACT same photo with a D700 and a D800 with the EXACT same imperfect technique (say, a wee bit of camera shake). I know, not possible but work with me here - let's say it's a "usable" photo but not perfect due to the shake.
The photos will look exactly the same at normal viewing sizes. The D800 will look a lot worse at 100% pixel for pixel view is all.
So, to get the MOST out of each camera, the D800 will require better technique. But same technique, same result really on the 12mp vs the 36mp camera.
I think people are starting to catch on to the correct notion finally. This is all about science... How much "error" are you acceptable of.
If you were using "good" technique on both cameras, a 12mp camera will show less error than a 36mp camera if you zoom in and nitpick.... or print some gigantic prints.
The Hubble space telescope used the "best" mirror - the smoothest man made surface ever created -at the time (it took something like 10 years to polish it)... but if you zoomed in close enough to it with a good enough microscope you would have seen some error.
EVERYTHING has error... how much is acceptable is up to you.
Back to the main point - It is all science... If it was possible to capture the same image, same lighting, same shutter speed on 2 different sensors (d700 and d800) you would get the same image - but the d800 would "show" more error than the d700 will... because it allows us to take a much closer look.
I have been consistent in my statements that to take advantage of the extra resolution of the D800, techniques and equipment may need to change.
I never said the D800 WAS NOT intended for large size prints (as if the MP wasn't obvious enough) and that it was geared toward landscape/studio shooters.
Now, as much as you, Nikon, Herb, Joe McNally's wife, etc., want to say the D800 is not a D700 replacement, is that a market reality? As things sit today, the D800 is the only camera in the Nikon line up that can replace the discontinued D700. Will that change soon? I have not seen anything to indicate that Nikon has another FX body coming out any time soon. Have you?
If I want to buy a new full frame Nikon DSLR and don't have $6000, what are my options? If I am not a landscape/studio shooter, what am I going to buy? Hmmm....the D800.
Like I said... no point in arguing with you because you argue for the sake of arguing. Goodluck with shooting sports/action like you would with a D700 Scott. Because we all know that D800 will do MORE than a D700(like you said) when encountering concerts with low light as well.
I'm not even going to explain the market strategy and Nikon's affect on macro economy because you are too insular to comprehend. The ego you poccess... astonishing. Have a great day... I'm done contributing to hijacking a thread.
This is really the first I've ever read about needing a technique to use a camera. Why is there so much of a debate about how to use a camera and what shutter must be used and if you use one camera you will have a hard time using a higher pixel camera, etc.? I've always used the fastest shutter possible given the shooting environments unless I want a longer exposure for some reason. Am I doing it wrong?
innovis wrote:
Like I said... no point in arguing with you because you argue for the sake of arguing. Goodluck with shooting sports/action like you would with a D700 Scott. Because we all know that D800 will do MORE than a D700(like you said) when encountering concerts with low light as well.
I'm not even going to explain the market strategy and Nikon's affect on macro economy because you are too insular to comprehend. The ego you poccess... astonishing. Have a great day... I'm done contributing to hijacking a thread.
innovis,
You are too funny. Just because I disagree with you and am willing to defend my position, I am insular and argue for the sake of arguing.
Here is a quote from Thom Hogan:
"The notion that the D800 isn't an upgrade for D700 users is mistaken. It is. Clearly it is (video, exposure, focus, new menu features, better Live View, etc.)."
The D700 is not a great sports camera as it is if you need high FPS. The D800, having lower FPS, certainly won't be better in that regard.
The D700 is not better than the D800 in low light based on what we have seen of higher ISO images from the D800 so far. Of course, we haven't seen enough images to know for sure. But the early indications are good.
A replacement isn't always better at everything than the camera it replaces.
@diavolo, yes, It's pretty silly. I equate it to a fine rifle, or a racing car - ordinary people with reasonable technique will be able to get very good results that they are happy with and thrill themselves. Truly skilled users will be able to really push the envelope, and thrill the world.
workerdrone wrote:
I'm not the most technical of photographers, but let me sum up my understanding of the "issue" with the D800 here - and someone please tell me if I'm wrong or oversimplifying.
If I take the EXACT same photo with a D700 and a D800 with the EXACT same imperfect technique (say, a wee bit of camera shake). I know, not possible but work with me here - let's say it's a "usable" photo but not perfect due to the shake.
The photos will look exactly the same at normal viewing sizes. The D800 will look a lot worse at 100% pixel for pixel view is all.
So, to get the MOST out of each camera, the D800 will require better technique. But same technique, same result really on the 12mp vs the 36mp camera.
Well, unless you are already using good technique, then it's a non-issue. The only issue comes in if your current technique is flawed or needs improvement. As I mentioned earlier, I had zero issues going from a D3 to a D3x - but I'm a tripod, cable release, mirror lockup kind of guy. You may very well find what you're doing now is perfect for the D800.
I think people are worrying about it too much. If you get bad photos with the D800, find ways to improve your technique, simple as that.
Well, then I'm guessing that people should really ditch their 16MP D7000 bodies (same pixel pitch as the D800) and go back to using the D70/40 6MP bodies (about the same pixel pitch as the D700). They would get SO much sharper and better images, without even thinking about changing a thing about their technique.
()
(note: IF the D40/50/70 6MP bodies had the same ISO performance, which they of course don't - since they're older constructions. But that's kind of beside the point in this thread, isn't it?)
Was there this much issue with an increase in megapixels when the 5D Mark II came out? Assuming the same print size, same lens, same technique, the prints from a D800 should be as good as a D700. How is this not a replacement? Just because it has potential doesn't mean you have to use it.
Did people groan this much when film improved? Oh no, the grain is too fine on this new film, you have to use a tripod now! Really?
Computers have come a long way since the D700 was released so I don't understand the beef from a processing stand point either.
)
)