Better technique is a needful skill but at such high resolution, it will present an issue with MF users and others who for whatever reason, cannot provide the perfectly stable platform for the rig. Nikon is clever by leaping to 36MP but not in a way that may please its customers. Many have already noted that much of the existing optics will not be up to snuff but now, even the best of the zooms at f/2.8 will do best on tripods. This will spawn a demand for newer (pricier) VR versions of the 24-70 and 14-24 zooms, not to mention new slower primes.
Sony's adoption of in-body IS adopted was indeed prescient.
nikt wrote:
Doesn't matter how anyone says it, the result is the same.
From the Nikon D800 Technical Manual...
"The superior resolution of the D800/D800E makes small
amounts of focus blur more obvious. Select a shutter speed
slightly faster than you would choose when photographing
the same subject with other cameras."
As an owner of a D7000, I had to start using a little faster shutter speeds and eliminate some of the lower shutter speeds when hand holding the camera. Once I did this, I really started to see very good results from the camera. I think the same will hold true for the D800. I wasn't happy with the D7000 at first, but once I really focused on technique and using the right settings, I really started to enjoy the camera. I sold the D7000 last week and I am eagerly awaiting the D800. This will be my first FX digital camera.
afm901 wrote:
At the same print size, the D700 is no more forgiving than the D3X. Again, motion blur and focus errors are the same on the same size sensors. larger prints and pixel peeping will show the blur or focus errors more clearly.
Scott
afm901 seems to be the only one that actually gets it around here. There is ZERO difference. The higher res just lets you "zoom" in on the problem areas a bit more.
Take a D700 shot that has some of these same issues that everyone is worried about. Now scale it down to some tiny 600px web version. Those problems go away for the most part right? Yup.
Now take a D800 image (hypothetically for now and scale it down to 12MP. Are you telling me that these issues will be more noticeable than the D700? (Hint: Nope)
crewshin wrote:
afm901 seems to be the only one that actually gets it around here. There is ZERO difference. The higher res just lets you "zoom" in on the problem areas a bit more.
Take a D700 shot that has some of these same issues that everyone is worried about. Now scale it down to some tiny 600px web version. Those problems go away for the most part right? Yup.
Now take a D800 image (hypothetically for now and scale it down to 12MP. Are you telling me that these issues will be more noticeable than the D700? (Hint: Nope)
Cheers
NOONE applies the discussion via downsampling for web. Everything on web is compensational. This thread was intended for photographers questioning rather or not the extra resolution magnifies their flaws further at its FULL POTENTIAL(yes, all 36mp and the REASON most are concerned when requiring EVERY SINGLE PIXEL).
Some pros are just advising AS A PRECAUTION, if you suffer from bad technique it WILL be AMPLIFIED solely BECAUSE(like you two said) the additional resolution MAGNIFIES the digital zoom(everyone understands how obvious this is, its not like we don't so try refraining from flattering yourself). Instead of going in the reverse order, try doing the opposite to get an idea of what some are trying to stress.
If you are having blurry images with the D700 at full view... expect to see it looking WORSE on a D800, UNLESS you plan on downsampling. Now do you get what everyone is trying to say? Why is conferring the idea of improving BETTER skills to prepare someone for what they worry about a bad idea?
"YOU CAN INFORM A KID THAT ONE CUPCAKE DOESNT HURT, BUT WITHOUT ADDED ADMONISHES HE WILL EAT MORE INADVERTENTLY AND DEVELOP A BAD HABIT".
Btw the caps DO NOT represent yelling, but more so words I felt should've been denoted. I thought it was fine a few studio photographers took the initiative to caution even if it won't be an obvious problem for some, but at least it could help raise awareness for those just starting out and suffering from these issues. Thanks and lets all get along guys.
Both the D3s/D700 and the D800 use the same sensor size. Sensor size is kind of like film size, but then again there are several differences - in digital you are not "grain limited" and so on, it's slightly more linear. But anyway...
Oldie but goodie:
Say you have a VERY, VERY good shot on reversal film, normal film format - 36x24mm
Does the image recorded on this film get less sharp (or or sharper?) if you use a 6x loupe to inspect it in stead of a 10x loupe?
Say you have a VERY SLIGHTLY BLURRED shot on reversal film, normal film format - 36x24mm
Does the image recorded on this film get more blurred (or less blurred?) if you use a 6x loupe to inspect it in stead of a 10x loupe?
I have read through this thread and wanted to share my summary understanding and solicit feedback. I will be purchasing a new camera body later this year and am considering a FF sensor.
In regards to technique needed for the D800/D800 relative to e.g. D700, I take the view of what I see different when comparing two identically sized prints and prints of a size/quality where I am not limited in evaluation of the results by printer resolution nor limited by too small an enlargement, nor too large a viewing distance of the print. This is somewhat simplified description of my understanding and will assume that the only limiters you have for sharpness is sensor resolution and motion/vibration blur (since that has been the main topic of the thread). I am only talking about sharpness at the focus point/plane.
I believe this can be broken into ~ 3 situations:
1) Motion Vibration Blur is larger than D700 sensor resolution.
In this case, both images made by the D700 and the D800 will look better by better technique
2) Motion/Vibration Blur is less than D700 sensor resolution yet larger than the D800 sensor resolution
In this case, improved technique will mostly not be noticed with the D700 image yet will be noticed with the D800 image
3) Motion/Vibration blur is less than both the D700 and D800 resolution.
In this case, improved technique will not be noticed in either the D700 or D800 image. Your technique is fine and no change is needed.
This is simplified and the value of better technique does not change abruptly at the resolution boundaries I mentioned above. Just trying to summarize my understanding when better technique makes a difference, and when it does not. Of course down sampling changes everything and I am not talking about that case.
Any feedback appreciated because that will help in my understanding and decision making for my future camera body.
*The (equal size) prints from each camera are LARGE enough to make the print camera-limited, not printer-limited
*You are allowed to inspect the prints from a very close (nose-pressing) distance
in that case:
1) yes.
2) yes.
3) yes.
And I would like to introduce a sub-point to item 1.
1b) Motion Vibration Blur is larger than D700 sensor resolution.
In this case the D800 will give the same result as the D700, no better, no worse.
..................
You are also very correctly assuming that there are no "sharp" cut-off boundaries. They are all floating boundaries.
theSuede wrote:
John; are you setting the parameters:
*The (equal size) prints from each camera are LARGE enough to make the print camera-limited, not printer-limited
*You are allowed to inspect the prints from a very close (nose-pressing) distance
in that case:
1) yes.
2) yes.
3) yes.
And I would like to introduce a sub-point to item 1.
1b) Motion Vibration Blur is larger than D700 sensor resolution.
In this case the D800 will give the same result as the D700, no better, no worse.
..................
You are also very correctly assuming that there are no "sharp" cut-off boundaries. They are all floating boundaries.
Yes Joakim, you correctly understood my parameters. Was just trying to make it as apples to apples comparison as possible in terms of usable results (at least for me). Your 1b addition is also my understanding as well. Thanks for the quick feedback. Interesting to note that we have both answers to if technique for the D800 makes a difference compared relative to D700. In cases 1 and 3 it is NO (though both images get better in case 1) and in case 2 it is YES.
BTW - I too am more on the technical side and need the most development on the artistic side. More MP unfortunately does not help with that
theSuede wrote:
John; are you setting the parameters:
*The (equal size) prints from each camera are LARGE enough to make the print camera-limited, not printer-limited
*You are allowed to inspect the prints from a very close (nose-pressing) distance
in that case:
1) yes.
2) yes.
3) yes.
And I would like to introduce a sub-point to item 1.
1b) Motion Vibration Blur is larger than D700 sensor resolution.
In this case the D800 will give the same result as the D700, no better, no worse.
..................
You are also very correctly assuming that there are no "sharp" cut-off boundaries. They are all floating boundaries.
Excuse me, but you guys are making a case that pixel density effects the motion blur across a sensor. That is simply impossible. The motion blur is going to be in both images. Motion blur does not stay inside pixel boundaries. At least not in real world images. Any D700 image that is acceptably sharp will be just as acceptably sharp using the D800 if printed to the same size and resolution and viewed from the same distance.
Let's say you make a D800 print large enough to see more motion blur detail. What do you think the D700 print is going to like at the same size and viewing distance. It's going to look like crap.
>>>quote]AtomicPunk wrote: nikt wrote:
As an owner of a D7000, I had to start using a little faster shutter speeds and eliminate some of the lower shutter speeds when hand holding the camera. Once I did this, I really started to see very good results from the camera. I think the same will hold true for the D800. I wasn't happy with the D7000 at first, but once I really focused on technique and using the right settings, I really started to enjoy the camera.quote<<<<
What I did not like about the D7000 at first was how it revealed my sloppy habits that I acquired from the the super fast and forgiving D3.
I think the larger pixel size, faster processor, AF, and other improvements will make the D800 a little easier to use. ...Show more →
innovis wrote:
NOONE applies the discussion via downsampling for web. Everything on web is compensational. This thread was intended for photographers questioning rather or not the extra resolution magnifies their flaws further at its FULL POTENTIAL(yes, all 36mp and the REASON most are concerned when requiring EVERY SINGLE PIXEL).
Some pros are just advising AS A PRECAUTION, if you suffer from bad technique it WILL be AMPLIFIED solely BECAUSE(like you two said) the additional resolution MAGNIFIES the digital zoom(everyone understands how obvious this is, its not like we don't so try refraining from flattering yourself). Instead of going in the reverse order, try doing the opposite to get an idea of what some are trying to stress.
If you are having blurry images with the D700 at full view... expect to see it looking WORSE on a D800, UNLESS you plan on downsampling. Now do you get what everyone is trying to say? Why is conferring the idea of improving BETTER skills to prepare someone for what they worry about a bad idea?
"YOU CAN INFORM A KID THAT ONE CUPCAKE DOESNT HURT, BUT WITHOUT ADDED ADMONISHES HE WILL EAT MORE INADVERTENTLY AND DEVELOP A BAD HABIT".
Btw the caps DO NOT represent yelling, but more so words I felt should've been denoted. I thought it was fine a few studio photographers took the initiative to caution even if it won't be an obvious problem for some, but at least it could help raise awareness for those just starting out and suffering from these issues. Thanks and lets all get along guys....Show more →
Naa, you took my entire post out of context. I was only comparing the resolutions because that's the only difference between the two (when talking about this specific topic that is).
Btw, "magnifying" is a very grey area word in this case. It doesn't exaggerate or magnify per se... it's just allowing you to see the issues more clearly because there is a higher resolution. That's different than magnifying the issues which makes it sound like the issues are getting bigger and stronger.
If anyone is confused by all of this and can only take away one bit of info from this entire thread it should be this........ the issues on topic are NOT any worse/better than the D700. They are identical... with the exception of being a bit clearer at higher resolutions. Just like they were from the D2H to the D3.
Also take this away from the convo... "relax, it's all good".
afm901 wrote:
Excuse me, but you guys are making a case that pixel density effects the motion blur across a sensor. That is simply impossible. The motion blur is going to be in both images. Motion blur does not stay inside pixel boundaries. At least not in real world images. Any D700 image that is acceptably sharp will be just as acceptably sharp using the D800 if printed to the same size and resolution and viewed from the same distance.
Scott
Well, read again - that's the basic gist of what we both said. I'm guessing you just mis-read, but as far as I can understand John, that is also exactly what he wrote. The D800 can get better resolution in a real image than the D700, but never "worse".
You seem to be limiting yourself before you even have your new camera. As someone else mentioned, the general rule is shutter speed over focal length. So if you're shooting with a 200 mm lens, a shutter speed of 250th of a second without IS should be sharp at the point of focus. This is a photographic rule of thumb and should have nothing to do with a higher megapixel sensor. This works with film with that being very high resolution.
afm901 wrote:
Excuse me, but you guys are making a case that pixel density effects the motion blur across a sensor. That is simply impossible. The motion blur is going to be in both images. Motion blur does not stay inside pixel boundaries. At least not in real world images. Any D700 image that is acceptably sharp will be just as acceptably sharp using the D800 if printed to the same size and resolution and viewed from the same distance.
Scott
Hi Scott
Not at all. I agree, on the same size sensor, the created vibration/motion blur would be the same independent of pixel density. All the discussion was saying is that when the motion/vibration blur keeps reducing down into the range of the resolution of the sensor, there ends up being a shift where the sensor resolution becomes dominant. And it becomes dominant first with a lower resolution sensors.
The pair of image columns below simulates this transition at 200% view. The image on the right is 2X the resolution of the images on the left. The same vibration/motion blur was added to both images (the math is correct). As you go down the image pairs, the vibration/image blur was reduced by 30% each step.
This shows as you move down you transitions from
1) At the top sets of images vibration/motion reduction helps images from both sensors
2) As you move down the image pairs vibration/motion reduction improves the 2X sensor more than the 1X sensor
3) Near the bottom of the image pairs, vibration/motion reduction improvement becomes nearly imperceptible for images from either sensor because we have already reached the sensor resolution limitations.
The amount of vibration/motion blur is the same in both. You just see continued improvement further down with the 2X resolution sensor because the sensor resolution limit is not reached as quickly.
The image example simulates 100 pixel width of the 1X sensor and 200 pixel width of a 2X sensor both blown up to a 30 inch print viewed at 10 inches. That size would be around 2/3 of an inch. To simulate what that would look like on your monitor, you would need to view this image at about 60 inches (assumes your display is around 95 dpi which is common for 20inche or larger monitors)
Sorry in advance for the large image
Hope this clarifies what was being said
bipod wrote:
You guys should have worked at Kodak. Maybe you could have saved them.
IMHO, Kodak failed because of lack of good leadership and lack of good business practices. Their technology was great. They relied too much on their cash cow of film and processing and did not make the tough business choices early enough even when it was clear the brick wall was dead ahead. Sad (had friends that worked there)
John Wheeler wrote:
IMHO, Kodak failed because of lack of good leadership and lack of good business practices. Their technology was great. They relied too much on their cash cow of film and processing and did not make the tough business choices early enough even when it was clear the brick wall was dead ahead. Sad (had friends that worked there)
Your statement was so true because our former CEO went over to become their CEO to try to change them from a chemical leader making films to an electronic leader making sensors and digital equipments, but was turned down by their board of directors
A total loss to both companies he lead making satellites and comunnication equipments for the US government and to the photographic industry.
This is the problem I'm having with this discussion (and apart from all the personal digs and name calling, I still call it a "discussion" for the moment )
I keep hearing this talk about downscaling the D800 to 12MP and upscaling the D700 to whatever.
This is how I see it. I have a car that does 160 km/h.
I now what to upgrade my car to do 300km/h. Why are we comparing the two cars at 160 km/h?
I am buying the car so that I CAN go faster. How does it handle at that speed.
Sure , there's lot's of people who are going to buy a car that goes WELLLLLLL beyond what they can get out of it. This topic is about those who WILL be getting the most of out their equipment.
It's NOT about those who want to pick up a Ferrari and drive it around the city in peak hour! (You notice I do like my Ferrari analogies )
and scale it down to 12MP. Are you telling me that these issues will be more noticeable than the D700? (Hint: Nope)