Nikon D800

[Nikonos]

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.

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.

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....

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 ?

Thanks for your comment. I'm not a wildlife photographer as such. That pic was a lucky break (we all get them from time to time!). Never got around to doing a website, something for when retirement looms. A few of my pics are on Flickr though (http://www.flickr.com/photos/13481191@N06/). I still have a load more to upload. I like photographing almost anything that takes my fancy - landscape, people, whatever. I really regard the present time as a "golden age" for photography. Digital capture has liberated photography from the darkroom and now even a relative novice can achieve good results - at least technically!

 

[hunnymonster]

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.

10 Megapixels - assuming it's perfect aspect for 30x40 inches is roughly 3000x4000 pixels... something around 100dpi? it's doable but will never be as good as a similar 20 (or even a mediocre 20) - that would give 140dpi (personally I aim for 300dpi on my prints). The rule is that a mediocre big one usually trumps a good small one.

If you don't get that - translate it to film - a 35mm frame is a small blotchy smudge in comparison to a 6x7 frame and is not aesthetically enlargeable as far as the 6x7 frame.

If you're happy with a huge enlargement that looks like it was taken through a bathroom window when you're close to it, carry on.

 

[pugh-the-special-one]

Fact the more pixels you pack into a sensor, the lower quality the picture becomes, unless your senor is getting bigger your image quality is dropping, for instance, two camera's both with the same size sensors, one with 12 million pixels the other with twenty million, because pixels in the in the twenty million are a lot smaller and more tightly packed together the quality of the photo drops off big time. that's why, there's only so far you can go with packing pixels into a digital camera because you can't go on making your sensor bigger.

Jamie.

 

[hunnymonster]

No, fact: as time passes smaller and smaller pixels are possible because of advances in the fabrication process. Hence more and more pixels are possible in the same surface area.

No different to the size of grain in films over time. Processes improve, results follow the same curve.

Notwithstanding the above - I'd take an SLR with a 6MP sensor over a compact with a 12. I'd take a Canon/Nikon/similar compact with 6MP sensor over a no-namer of any alleged sensor size.

 

[pugh-the-special-one]

Well Hunnymonster we will have to agree to disagree, there's nothing to say that I wont upgrade to a higher pixel count from my Nikon D80, but until all DSLR have 35mm sized sensor, and we get back to the days when the main objective was choosing mostly the best lens i wouldn't uprgade, I dont think the technology is quite there yet unless you want to spend a fortune, but it's not that far away for the photographer like myself.

Jamie.

 

[CMOT]

I love shooting landscape as a hobby and like to print to A3+ most of the time. My intention was to get either the D800 or 5Dmk3 however having played with some downloadable D800 files I'm not sure now. I've printed the same file to A3+ at 360dpi 300dpi and even 240dpi and would struggle to spot any difference between them in terms of detail and sharpness. My test theory being that this is effectively 14.2, 22.2 and 32MP worth of data, and they all look great.
My query to those in the know is whether the full frame sensor has noticeable benefit over APS-C in an A3+ print given equally good glass on each?

 

[Nikonos]

I would say it does, as I have a D300 as well to compare it with. In low light situations particularly, the full frame sensor has a distinct advantage. Hopefully, this will be something that is maintained by the new D800. It is likely that use of a tripod and the best available optics will be needed to take full advantage of the 36 meg sensor. If you are moving to a full frame sensor you will need the best glass anyway - something that others here have mentioned.

We all try to achieve perfection (not only in shaving!) and like most other things it is a law of diminishing returns. You will get marginally better prints from a full frame camera all things being equal. Whether it is worth the considerable extra outlay is only something you can decide. Who wants to be the richest guy in the graveyard anyway? :icon_rolleyes:

 

[Lose the beard]

One of my favourite landscape photographers still uses a Canon EOS 5D, which he has had now for many years. I think they are about 7 years old now. It was the first camera that Canon produced with a full fram sensor, and at the time was certainly one of the best DSLRs on the market. It only has 12.8 megapixels, but even by todays standard they are 12.8 extremely good megapixels.

For most of the time doing landscape you will probably be using a tripod, personally I think a tripod is a very important piece of kit as it makes you think more about framing the shot properly before taking the picture, and gets you to give a bit more thought to the overall composition.

Once on a tripod the next important thing is a good piece of glass, from a Canon perspective this would mean anything from the L Series range, although some are better than others. Saying that a Sigma 10 - 20 is excellent on a cropped sensor.

Once you have a good tripod, a good piece of glass, some Lee Filters, a cable/remote release, the actual camera body becomes less important.

If you are a sports photographer then it's a different story as you need the camera to respond to everything very quickly, and to capture the image fast, but with landscape you usually have plenty of time, so it's not so critical.

If money isn't an concern I'd go for a Full Frame camera, but not before you've got a good tripod and lenses first.

 

[Nikonos]

Got my D800 about a week ago. Now had a chance to give it a try out ( the stills side, not touched the video functions yet). The detail captured is quite awesome. I ran off a 30 inch wide print yesterday and you would swear it came off a medium format camera. There isn't much around that will handle the RAW files yet though. Nikon's own Capture NX and a beta version (6.7) of Adobe Camera Raw is about it. My favourite RAW software, Dxo Optics Pro don't currently support it either. I heard somewhere that they might have to re-jig the core software engine to cope with the mega file sizes. I'm certain that this particular camera will be considered a milestone in D-SLRs. It's not the ideal choice for action or sports photography due to the relatively low frame rate for rapid sequences. Apart from that, there is little to criticise if you have the geld.....

Nikon's

 

[pugh-the-special-one]

Well would I like one of those Nikon D800, yes please, but at £2500 for the body even the most hardline amateur photographer would find it difficult shelling out that sort of dough, great camera not so great price.

Jamie.

 

[Nikonos]

It went up £200 quid a few days after launch (the D4 went up £500!). Nikon say they "made a mistake" in their pricing. Yeh, "pull the other one...".