splathrop
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.3 #12 · D800 megapixels: is it really a drawback? | |
Note: I'm a Canon shooter (pro) who has only shot the D800 a couple of times.
I have a friend (hobbyist) who has always used Nikon, and moved up from the D300. He has been struggling to get the best out of the camera. Found himself buying a tripod for the first time, and upgrading lenses. Looking at many of the images on Nikon picture threads, I suspect many of the posters would profit by following that course, but haven't yet realized how much potential capability they aren't using. But they're happy, and sing the camera's praises.
I can't imagine that the D800 would be an easy camera to use optimally for, say, birds in flight. Not that you couldn't get good pictures. But handholding it on a moving target in natural light probably isn't going to turn out as well as putting it on a tripod and using studio lighting.
As for resolution, I doubt you need the D800 for that (except severe cropping), unless you plan to print wider than 30 inches. If you are an event shooter, a wedding shooter, or a sports shooter, you probably ought to be looking at Canon anyway, because you aren't generally making extremely large prints in those applications, and the 5D 3 is faster and more versatile. That probably applies as well to the typical all-around family photographer.
That said, I suspect that for many users the high dynamic range is actually more of a drawback than the high resolution. It's not that I wouldn't like to have that dynamic range myself. But unless you are skilled at post processing, and ruthless about evaluating the graphic qualities of your images, lifting shadows offers all kinds of opportunities to mess up your files. The details from nominally opaque shadows can be brought to life, but where do you put them? When they are lifted into the dynamic range of your printer or display device, they can end up with tonal values identical to other details that are already visible, which your software will then try to push to yet other points along the dynamic scale. Something has to give, and in many instances the result has been dismayingly flat looking files. You can see hundreds of such images on various Nikon threads. The trick is to learn what is advantageous, what is harmful, and how often (the large majority of the time for me, and I shoot a camera with notably less dynamic capability than the D800) your great dynamic range isn't actually even a factor, because your available light is too flat to challenge the camera's limits.
Personally, as a person who shoots a lot off a tripod, prints up to 45-inches wide, and sells landscape images, I would have bought a D800 if it had better live view capability, and if Nikon made better tilt and shift lenses.
Instead, I bought a 5D 3, and I am so happy with its images and versatility that I wonder if considering the D800 was a mistake. I don't think the lower dynamic range is holding me back much. And while I would like to have the resolution for the big prints, gallery owners and buyers say they find my images plenty sharp. (I think I'm pushing the enlargement more than I would prefer, and also wonder whether more resolution might give me more keepers; to get that sharp appearance in large prints from my smaller files I need nearly perfect light conditions and natural contrast, together with costly lenses that make the most of it).
And of course for portraits, questions about resolution and dynamic range become less salient. You can shoot great head-and-shoulders portraits with 8 megapixels—for that 36 MP is portrait overkill. But high resolution can be great for group portraits or environmental portraits. And formal portraiture really ought to be done in studio lighting, where you control the dynamic range at the source.
So there's a lot to think about. Hope this somewhat unfocused comment helps a bit.
|
