Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
36 Megapixels
#26
(Apr 1, 2012, 20:53)matthew Wrote: Perhaps this makes up for a certain lack of non-exotic telephoto lens options.

I would add poor choice in non-exotic quality wide and ultrawide primes (especially if you want a decent ultrawide lens that takes filters and is south in price from the Zeiss 15 mm
Please see my photos at http://mullerpavel.smugmug.com (fewer, better image quality, not updated lately)
or at http://www.flickr.com/photos/pavel_photophile2008/ (all photos)
#27
I have to say that the cropability of 36 megapixels is perhaps the biggest appeal to me. I often shoot wide with the intention of cropping to suit later. To be able to do a deep crop and still end up with a 15-odd megapixel image would be very cool. As matthew mentioned, the resolution essentially gives you a crop-telephoto lens for free.

I'll be interested to see how people use this resolution once the dust settles down. It has a great deal of potential I think.
Remember when the 5D2 was released and lots of people were adament the new video functions were just a passing gimmick... and then see what happened once it got in the hands of talented filmmakers. Now video is a major selling point of the camera and the video functions have been taken a lot more seriously in the 5D3.
We might find something similar happen with the D800 with regards to the amazing resolution. It could open up a new world for some people. For a start, I bet there are a lot of astrophotographers out there wetting their pants with excitement. Big Grin
Adrian Broughton
My Website: www.BroughtonPhoto.com.au
My Blog: blog.BroughtonPhoto.com.au
You can also visit me on Facebook!
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." - Einstein.
#28
Very interesting - here's a comparison video by The Camera Store, to see whether the D800 can compete with a Hasselblad.

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/04/29/niko...son-video/

Quote: This video, done by The Camera Store with help from Roth and Ramberg, is sure to stir up some controversy. One side will say that 35mm couldn’t possibly compete with medium format, while the other will point out that the price difference makes the whole debate moot. In a way, they’re both right; but this comparison video does a great job of pointing out the benefits and pitfalls of each camera when it comes to skin tone, low light performance, and dynamic range.

Bit of a funny moment at around the 7 min mark when the person holding the boom mic faints... oops!

But from their general comments it sounds like the Hasselblad does produce more resolution and detail, and better range in the tones. But here's the catch -- it's not by much. So the D800 does represent amazing value compared to medium format.
#29
It is important to appreciate, that D800 is capable of producing superb images. Undoubtedly they are or will be cameras that can do some things better. For most of us, this means little because:

1) It takes considerable expertise to get the most out of a camera of this caliber and complexity on a technical side of things. I suspect few of us are there yet.

2) Technical quality is just one of many factors that make out a great photo and provided that some more or less minimal technical quality standards are met, other factors like creativity, composition and post-processing skills probably contribute a great deal more to the success of the photo than an incremental improvement in technical quality.

3) Despite what I said above, there are special issues and circumstances when a great camera may make it possible to get a photo that would be hard or (for all practical purposes) nearly impossible to get with lesser cameras. Better viewfinder, better controls, better (brighter) LCD, better sensor, better/faster processor/focusing/exposure can make a difference in some circumstances or can make photography easier and more convenient. Overall however, I think that most of us would get greater bang for a buck by learning to post-process better or by improving composition and especially by going beyond cliche and trying for something creative. I think that if this is not your real goal, a good quality cell phone camera is all you really need. Forget about some relatively rare events (for most types of photos) where in expert hands Hassellblad could offer noticeable improvements over D800
Please see my photos at http://mullerpavel.smugmug.com (fewer, better image quality, not updated lately)
or at http://www.flickr.com/photos/pavel_photophile2008/ (all photos)
#30
I wasn't sure whether to post this here, or the "upgrading" thread, but here it is.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays...ches.shtml

An interesting take on the D800 by a landscape photographer - he's overall in love with the camera, but his worries are just as fascinating as his praises.

One of the things which caught my eye was that the "burdens" that came with the increased image quality and image size - his recommendation was to not only use a heavier tripod, but also a remote release and mirror up, to take full advantage of the resolution. Also:

Quote:I have also noticed a similar effect when shooting handheld. Shooting at the reciprocal of the focal length of the lens is not good enough-even with a VRII lens. I would recommend multiplying the focal length of the lens times 3X and using the reciprocal of this number as the minimum shutter speed for maximum handheld quality.
#31
(Apr 29, 2012, 20:10)Pavel Wrote: Forget about some relatively rare events (for most types of photos) where in expert hands Hassellblad could offer noticeable improvements over D800

Why?
Any statistic can be manipulated to make your/my/anyones point of view.

Even this statement is in Black and White (on this page at any rate.) Wink



Lumix LX5.
Canon 350 D.+ 18-55 Kit lens + Tamron 70-300 macro. + Canon 50mm f1.8 + Manfrotto tripod, in bag.
#32
(May 2, 2012, 04:46)NT73 Wrote: Why?
Any statistic can be manipulated to make your/my/anyones point of view.

Even this statement is in Black and White (on this page at any rate.) Wink

NT, I am not sure if you are trying to make a point and what it may be. I am just suggesting that a camera should be a good fit for photographer's level of skill and for the type of photography a photographer takes. Do you have an issue with that? If you do have an issue, what is it?

Please see my photos at http://mullerpavel.smugmug.com (fewer, better image quality, not updated lately)
or at http://www.flickr.com/photos/pavel_photophile2008/ (all photos)
#33
(May 2, 2012, 05:47)Pavel Wrote:
(May 2, 2012, 04:46)NT73 Wrote: Why?
Any statistic can be manipulated to make your/my/anyones point of view.

Even this statement is in Black and White (on this page at any rate.) Wink

NT, I am not sure if you are trying to make a point and what it may be. I am just suggesting that a camera should be a good fit for photographer's level of skill and for the type of photography a photographer takes. Do you have an issue with that? If you do have an issue, what is it?

No issue with that, Pavel.

You put "Forget about some relatively rare events (for most types of photos)"
Why forget something, that was all I was asking. If it is there, then it is there and can't be swept under the carpet, is all I was getting at. Smile


By the way, I never used a Hasselblad, even though I had the opportunity, I preferred (at the time) the much smaller Leica, Robot Royal or Contax, among quite a few others, all of which were part of the MOD's "armoury" for photographers.
But that was in the 1950's. Wink
Lumix LX5.
Canon 350 D.+ 18-55 Kit lens + Tamron 70-300 macro. + Canon 50mm f1.8 + Manfrotto tripod, in bag.
#34
Okay, this is just silly:

I was puttering around last weekend, and took this shot because I wanted to play around with the lines. I never expected anything from it, but it was an opportunity to learn more about the metering and highlight range of the camera.

[Image: i-s62xP46-L.jpg]

I was using the Nikon 50/1.4G at f/5.6. This is a pretty good lens, but it's not a macro, and it's not famous for corner-to-corner sharpness. It was also near its minimum-focusing distance. The distance across the frame, left-to-right, is about 30cm or so.

Then I brought it up to 100% on-screen, intending to clone out some dirt.

Look closer:

[Image: i-p7gJVFb-M.png]

This is a gnat, a tiny anonymous bug smaller than a mosquito. The blown-up image is actually a 200% enlargement over the original pixels; I like the way that even the shadows of its little legs are visible. To find this bug in the original image, look toward the middle of the large shard at the top-right of the frame.

And to think that the D800E has even more resolving power…
matthewpiers.com • @matthewpiers | robertsonphoto.blogspot.com | @thewsreviews • thewsreviews.com
#35
That's awesome...

All I can think of is ... ENHANCE!! Big Grin
#36
Here are some sample images which you can fully zoom in on, produced from a 41 Megapixel sensor on a SmartPhone - the Nokia 808 PureView.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/23/nokia...le-images/

What do you think? Comparable to the 36 Megapixels from a D800? Big Grin
#37
And of course if you are not satisfied with 36 mp resolution, there is always an option to get 41 mp on YOUR PHONE (!!!) http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13970_7-573...era-phone/ The image quality seems pretty decent. Sounds cool, actually.
Please see my photos at http://mullerpavel.smugmug.com (fewer, better image quality, not updated lately)
or at http://www.flickr.com/photos/pavel_photophile2008/ (all photos)
#38
Personally, I'm interested in seeing what 24Mpx can do. I assume that the D3200, the entry-level Nikon, is going to be incorporating the same sensor as the flagship Sony A77 and NEX7, which is an excellent chip. The DX (1.5x crop) format is half the area of the FX (1x, aka Full Frame / 135 format), so the next step is to imagine what a 48Mpx FX sensor would be like with the best sensor tech behind it… hello, D4x?

If there's one thing that Nikon has proven, it's that they're happy to undercut their own products if they're caught in the middle of the upgrade cycle. (D3, D700, D3s; D300s, D7000; D5000, D3100 / D5100, D3200; D3x, D800, _____.) They've certainly been in an aggressive mood lately, so I'm very interested to see where this one-company technology war will end up.
matthewpiers.com • @matthewpiers | robertsonphoto.blogspot.com | @thewsreviews • thewsreviews.com
#39
Engadget's review of the Pureview and camera quality. The phone software itself is pretty lacklustre but the image quality is phenomenal according to them.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/26/nokia...ew-review/

Quote: Forget the awkward industrial design. Ignore the frustrating mess that is Belle. Take one picture with Nokia's 808 PureView and all will be forgiven. We dare you. It's difficult to relay exactly how thoroughly awesome this camera is and how stupendously phenomenal the resulting shots are. This device instantly obliterates every other cameraphone, while simultaneously giving most dedicated point-and-shoots the proverbial finger. It's that good. So what's the special sauce? How is this possible? Welcome to the world of software photography, where lenses and motors and hardware are replaced with algorithms and code and wizardry.
  


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  12 Megapixels is enough for Olympus shuttertalk 9 4,601 Mar 14, 2009, 04:55
Last Post: shuttertalk
  How Many Megapixels is Right for You? shuttertalk 12 8,234 Nov 25, 2004, 08:01
Last Post: smelly

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

36 Megapixels00