Nikon D800

N

Nikonos

Messages
27
It's been a long time coming, but Nikon announced the replacement for the D700 several days ago. I've taken some really excellent pics with the latter and the low light performance is amazing. However, the new camera has 36 megapixels - that's an awful lot of data - especially as a 16 bit tiff file! Anyone else considering purchasing one of these beasties?

Nikonos
 
That will be a massive file.

First thing I had to buy after I got my 5D II which is 21.1 megapixels, was a new PC to handle the bigger files.

The NIKON stuff is great though, if the D800 has retained the excellent low light capability that will be a stunning piece of kit, I haven't looked at any reviews though in case it is too good and makes me want to switch systems, that would just be too expensive.
 
Lose the beard said:
That will be a massive file.

First thing I had to buy after I got my 5D II which is 21.1 megapixels, was a new PC to handle the bigger files.

The NIKON stuff is great though, if the D800 has retained the excellent low light capability that will be a stunning piece of kit, I haven't looked at any reviews though in case it is too good and makes me want to switch systems, that would just be too expensive.
Click to expand...

Well, I've already ordered one but will almost certainly have to replace my ageing Mac as well, which struggles at times with files from the D700... 2012 is shaping up to be an expensive year... :icon_cry2:
 
I think a lot of people get to caught up with this pixel thing, it's the quality of the sensor, and the lens that really make all the difference, I have always had a interest in photgraphy, right from an early age, and this is my opinion, but why would anyone want to print anything above A4, I have heard many people using this as a argument to defend higher and higher pixels, but everyone i know using this argument have never printed higher than A4 in their life! what I want is a max 12 to 15 million pixel camera, with a sensor the size of a 35mm film, at an affordable price. For me it's a case of the camera manufactures now realise they can seduce a lot of buyers with pixels that quite frankly you dont need.

Jamie.
 
pugh-the-special-one said:
I think a lot of people get to caught up with this pixel thing, it's the quality of the sensor, and the lens that really make all the difference, I have always had a interest in photgraphy, right from an early age, and this is my opinion, but why would anyone want to print anything above A4, I have heard many people using this as a argument to defend higher and higher pixels, but everyone i know using this argument have never printed higher than A4 in their life! what I want is a max 12 to 15 million pixel camera, with a sensor the size of a 35mm film, at an affordable price. For me it's a case of the camera manufactures now realise they can seduce a lot of buyers with pixels that quite frankly you dont need.

Jamie.
Click to expand...

To back this up. I have a Sony A230, cheap entry to DSLR model, and only 10.2 million pixels which shots in RAW & JPEG. I have a shot I took which I am interested in printing off bigger than A4. A friend of mine has a business that does just this. He examined the photo in RAW, and said he could get it to 2 Meters squared with out any loss of definition. So for an ordinary bod like me that will do just fine. With a bit of tweaking no doubt it would go larger.

To me it's all in the way the picture was taken.

Please don't get me wrong and enjoy your new camera.
 
Jamie

I agree with you on many levels, and that from a 21 megapixel man.

I didn't buy my camera for the pixels, I bought it for the low light capability, which is where sensor quality comes into things.

I don't think you even need 10 megapigels, I get fantastic prints from my EOS 30D which is only 8 megapixels, on a cropped sensor, and at A4 printing it is hard to tell the difference between that and the EOS 5DII.

More pixels do have their place, Sometimes I print much much larger than A4, so it does reduce the amount of upscaling you have to do, but really for me it's the low light capabilities that are important for the type of photography I do.

As for a small pocket camera, they would be better off having a high quality 4 megapixel camera that isn't noisy above 100 ISO.

I also agreee about lenses, the lens is where you should sped the money, not the camera. There is no point buying an expensive camera body and chucking a cheap 28 - 300 zoom on the front. Expensive lenses cost serious money, but are worth the investment over the camera body. The camera you will probably replace every 3 - 4 years, the lenses will last a lot longer. This is why I am stuck with Canon, too much L-Series glass.
 
We are talking pro equipment here though, Nikon aren't aiming this at people who want to point and shoot then brag about how many megapixels the camera has. Remember that the pro guys will need to submit images in huge file sizes and also print a lot bigger than A4, not to mention the amount of cropping they will be able to do with that amount of data in the pic. The argument about pixels just doesn't hold up in this case, it's not a compact and the selling point is not about cramming as many pixels as possible into a sensor. I would be worried about the noise at high ISO though.
 
Boab said:
We are talking pro equipment here though, Nikon aren't aiming this at people who want to point and shoot then brag about how many megapixels the camera has. Remember that the pro guys will need to submit images in huge file sizes and also print a lot bigger than A4, not to mention the amount of cropping they will be able to do with that amount of data in the pic. The argument about pixels just doesn't hold up in this case, it's not a compact and the selling point is not about cramming as many pixels as possible into a sensor. I would be worried about the noise at high ISO though.
Click to expand...

What he said.

Nikon have made massive improvements over the years with high ISO noise, so I suspect it'll be alright.

Ian
 
Northam Saint said:
pugh-the-special-one said:
I think a lot of people get to caught up with this pixel thing, it's the quality of the sensor, and the lens that really make all the difference, I have always had a interest in photgraphy, right from an early age, and this is my opinion, but why would anyone want to print anything above A4, I have heard many people using this as a argument to defend higher and higher pixels, but everyone i know using this argument have never printed higher than A4 in their life! what I want is a max 12 to 15 million pixel camera, with a sensor the size of a 35mm film, at an affordable price. For me it's a case of the camera manufactures now realise they can seduce a lot of buyers with pixels that quite frankly you dont need.

Jamie.
Click to expand...

To back this up. I have a Sony A230, cheap entry to DSLR model, and only 10.2 million pixels which shots in RAW & JPEG. I have a shot I took which I am interested in printing off bigger than A4. A friend of mine has a business that does just this. He examined the photo in RAW, and said he could get it to 2 Meters squared with out any loss of definition. So for an ordinary bod like me that will do just fine. With a bit of tweaking no doubt it would go larger.

To me it's all in the way the picture was taken.

Please don't get me wrong and enjoy your new camera.
Click to expand...

It's not quite so straightforward in my case as I'm a pro and have been for the best part of 40 years.... I have a 24inch HP Designjet Pro printer. So printing to 24 inches is no problem. To get your 10.2 megs worth of data to 2 metres squared you have to interpolate - there is no way around that, whatever image editing program you use. You could certainly get an acceptable result, but it would not compare with a sensor actually producing the equivalent amount of data. However, as you rightly point out. The quality of the lens becomes paramount and pro lenses are not cheap (I should know as I have a bagful!).

As your friend implied, you will get a better result from a RAW file. But it won't increase the amount of data available - it will enable you to get the best out of what you have captured though...

Incidentally, Nokia have just announced a 41 megapixel camera phone! :)

Nikonos

PS The attached image "touchdown" was taken on a D700 - it is cropped from the full-frame. A3 prints are quite acceptable, but more than that and the fine detail is lost. This is when the extra resolution of a D800 would have been useful....

[attachment=4443]
 

Attachments

  • touchdown.jpg
    touchdown.jpg
    88.9 KB · Views: 37
Nikonos said:
Northam Saint said:
pugh-the-special-one said:
I think a lot of people get to caught up with this pixel thing, it's the quality of the sensor, and the lens that really make all the difference, I have always had a interest in photgraphy, right from an early age, and this is my opinion, but why would anyone want to print anything above A4, I have heard many people using this as a argument to defend higher and higher pixels, but everyone i know using this argument have never printed higher than A4 in their life! what I want is a max 12 to 15 million pixel camera, with a sensor the size of a 35mm film, at an affordable price. For me it's a case of the camera manufactures now realise they can seduce a lot of buyers with pixels that quite frankly you dont need.

Jamie.
Click to expand...

To back this up. I have a Sony A230, cheap entry to DSLR model, and only 10.2 million pixels which shots in RAW & JPEG. I have a shot I took which I am interested in printing off bigger than A4. A friend of mine has a business that does just this. He examined the photo in RAW, and said he could get it to 2 Meters squared with out any loss of definition. So for an ordinary bod like me that will do just fine. With a bit of tweaking no doubt it would go larger.

To me it's all in the way the picture was taken.

Please don't get me wrong and enjoy your new camera.
Click to expand...

It's not quite so straightforward in my case as I'm a pro and have been for the best part of 40 years.... I have a 24inch HP Designjet Pro printer. So printing to 24 inches is no problem. To get your 10.2 megs worth of data to 2 metres squared you have to interpolate - there is no way around that, whatever image editing program you use. You could certainly get an acceptable result, but it would not compare with a sensor actually producing the equivalent amount of data. However, as you rightly point out. The quality of the lens becomes paramount and pro lenses are not cheap (I should know as I have a bagful!).

As your friend implied, you will get a better result from a RAW file. But it won't increase the amount of data available - it will enable you to get the best out of what you have captured though...

Incidentally, Nokia have just announced a 41 megapixel camera phone! :)

Nikonos

PS The attached image "touchdown" was taken on a D700 - it is cropped from the full-frame. A3 prints are quite acceptable, but more than that and the fine detail is lost. This is when the extra resolution of a D800 would have been useful....
Click to expand...

Ahhh !!! As your a pro I can see why you need something of that spec. Thats a lovely capture of the owl. Do you have a website with your images for us to check out ?
 
hunnymonster said:
pugh-the-special-one said:
but why would anyone want to print anything above A4
Click to expand...

Oh I don't know, perhaps they want a 16"x20" (or larger) frame filled... I know I've done it several times in the past - up to 30"x40" (conversely down to 2"x1½")

Just because you don't doesn't mean nobody does.
Click to expand...

Yes but you dont need a zillion pixel camera to print that size, a good 10 million pixel camera could easily do that size and bigger.

Jamie.
 
smiley-bangheadonwall-yellow.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom