It probably not solely an AF issue. An integral part is likely to be the pixelpitch. I have several lenses which I see performing better on the 5D2 (FF 21MP) than on the NEX 5N (APS-C 16MP, same pixelpitch as the D800 - ie much higher than the 5D2).
When Canon released the 7D I got it (APS-C with the same pixelpitch equivalent to a 44MP FF) and did not like what I saw when pixel-peeping the result some (good) lenses.
Several factors are involved, one being the resolution limit of a lens. Some lenses will cope, some wont. The second is a mix of usage factors. Nikon users used to 12MP are more likely to get more disappointed than e.g. 5D2 owners taking the step as it is - frankly - hell of a step going from 12 to 36MP. Nikon users with 12MP bodies claiming their AF is dead-on has no experience of high pixel pitch and dont know what it means.
The D800 will act like a strong magnification glass compared to e.g. the D700. Both for judging the precision in AF and also much more easily reveal less-than-perfect usage such as micro-shakes coming from slightly too long shutter times or too large apertures. Or in the case of MF, finally find out that the slight misfocus the D700 forgave the D800 wont tolerate. These things are exactly what the Canon 7D revealed compared to the 5D2.
Now, higher resolution is not a bad thing, as long as it does not cost ISO performance, DR or anything else which normally are considered paramount things. The final product, being it a websized image or a print will look as good. And - when the lens allows and a perfect handled situation - it will deliver a higher detailed image. The promo crops we\'ve seen are of that nature. Real world - we have yet to see.
---
Siddhu, I can see no reason beyond cost (and perhaps ignorance of people like us) why Canon let go of the interchangeable screen. I guess most people (97%?) do use AF. EDIT: Lars had additional info..
It probably not solely an AF issue. An integral part is likely to be the pixelpitch. I have several lenses which I see performing better on the 5D2 (FF 21MP) than on the NEX 5N (APS-C 16MP, same pixelpitch as the D800 - ie much higher than the 5D2).
When Canon released the 7D I got it (APS-C with the same pixelpitch equivalent to a 44MP FF) and did not like what I saw when pixel-peeping mode from some lenses.
Several factors are involved, one being the resolution limit of a lens. Some lenses will cope, some wont. The second is a mix of usage factors. Nikon users used to 12MP are more likely to get more disappointed than e.g. 5D2 owners taking the step as it is - frankly - hell of a step going from 12 to 36MP. Nikon users with 12MP bodies claiming their AF is dead-on has no experience of high pixel pitch and dont know what it means.
The D800 will act like a strong magnification glass compared to e.g. the D700. Both for judging the precision in AF and also much more easily reveal less-than-perfect usage such as micro-shakes coming from slightly too long shutter times or too large apertures. Or in the case of MF, finally find out that the slight misfocus the D700 forgave the D800 wont tolerate. These things are exactly what the Canon 7D revealed compared to the 5D2.
Now, higher resolution is not a bad thing, as long as it does not cost ISO performance, DR or anything else which normally are considered paramount things. The final product, being it a websized image or a print will look as good. And - when the lens allows and a perfect handled situation - it will deliver a higher detailed image. The promo crops we\'ve seen are of that nature. Real world - we have yet to see.
---
Siddhu, I can see no reason beyond cost (and perhaps ignorance of people like us) why Canon let go of the interchangeable screen. I guess most people (97%?) do use AF. EDIT: Lars had additional info..
It probably not solely an AF issue. An integral part is likely to be the pixelpitch. I have several lenses which I see performing better on the 5D2 (FF 21MP) than on the NEX 5N (APS-C 16MP, same pixelpitch as the D800 - ie much higher than the 5D2).
When Canon released the 7D I got it (APS-C with the same pixelpitch equivalent to a 44MP FF) and did not like what I saw when pixel-peeping mode from some lenses.
Several factors are involved, one being the resolution limit of a lens. Some lenses will cope, some wont. The second is a mix of usage factors. Nikon users used to 12MP are more likely to get more disappointed than e.g. 5D2 owners taking the step as it is - frankly - hell of a step going from 12 to 36MP. Nikon users with 12MP bodies claiming their AF is dead-on has no experience of high pixel pitch and dont know what it means.
The D800 will act like a strong magnification glass compared to e.g. the D700. Both for judging the precision in AF and also much more easily reveal less-than-perfect usage such as micro-shakes coming from slightly too long shutter times or too large apertures. Or in the case of MF, finally find out that the slight misfocus the D700 forgave the D800 wont tolerate. These things are exactly what the Canon 7D revealed compared to the 5D2.
Now, higher resolution is not a bad thing, as long as it does not cost ISO performance, DR or anything else which normally are considered paramount things. The final product, being it a websized image or a print will look as good. And - when the lens allows and a perfect handled situation - it will deliver a higher detailed image. The promo crops we\'ve seen are of that nature. Real world - we have yet to see.
---
Siddhu, I can see no reason beyond cost (and perhaps ignorance of people like us) why Canon let go of the interchangeable screen. I guess most people (97%?) do use AF. EDIT: Lars had additional info..
It probably not solely an AF issue. An integral part is likely to be the pixelpitch. I have several lenses which I see performing better on the 5D2 (FF 21MP) than on the NEX 5N (APS-C 16MP, same pixelpitch as the D800 - ie much higher than the 5D2).
When Canon released the 7D I got it (APS-C with the same pixelpitch equivalent to a 44MP FF) and did not like what I saw when pixel-peeping mode from some lenses.
Several factors are involved, one being the resolution limit of a lens. Some lenses will cope, some wont. The second is a mix of usage factors. Nikon users used to 12MP are more likely to get more disappointed than e.g. 5D2 owners taking the step as it is - frankly - hell of a step going from 12 to 36MP. Nikon users with 12MP bodies claiming their AF is dead-on has no experience of high pixel pitch and dont know what it means.
The D800 will act like a strong magnification glass compared to e.g. the D700. Both for judging the precision in AF and also much more easily reveal less-than-perfect usage such as micro-shakes coming from slightly too long shutter times or too large apertures. Or in the case of MF, finally find out that the slight misfocus the D700 forgave the D800 wont tolerate. These things are exactly what the Canon 7D revealed compared to the 5D2.
Now, higher resolution is not a bad thing, as long as it does not cost ISO performance, DR or anything else which normally are considered paramount things. The final product, being it a websized image or a print will look as good. And - when the lens allows and a perfect handled situation - it will deliver a higher detailed image. The promo crops we\'ve seen are of that nature. Real world - we have yet to see.
---
Siddhu, I can see no reason beyond cost (and perhaps ignorance of people like us) why Canon let go of the interchangeable screen. I guess most people (97%?) do use AF.
Apr 12, 2012 at 03:40 PM
Previous versions of wfrank's message #10536981 « 5D III for alt and MF lenses: a game changer! »
