Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


D700 or wait for new Nikon body - e.g D600


26 Aug 2012 7:27AM

Quote:Even 150ppi (not dpi !) is acceptable for very large prints. If you think of billboard-size, the ppi is even less than that.

I do not think anybody is disputing this.
What is under discussion in this sub thread is what detail is required when viewing a fine quality print at 12-15 inches - an area where the D800 can excel.
When it comes to 30 inch wide prints viewed in this way it is perfectly obvious in side by side comparison 12 MP falls clearly short of either medium format film or 30-80 MP.
Viewing billboards with minimal image content to get the advertising message across in an instant where the center of the image is typically a few feet above eye level and the image is intended to be viewed at a distance greater than 20 feet is about as far as it is possible to get from viewing a fine photographic print in the hand.
I premier reason for buying a D800 is, for many, the ability to go on to make larger prints. without losing out on fine detail when viewed in the hand.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Scottelly 2 35 United States
26 Aug 2012 3:54PM
Where the D800 will excel (other than in its amazing dynamic range) is in large prints. Often, people inspect them closely. For general, overall viewing, a large print like a 40x60 is fine, when printed from a 10 or 12 megapixel JPEG. But when inspected closely, for its fine detail, a person viewing it will see that it is not as clear in detail as they may have seen somewhere else, when viewing a print created from a medium format image. There is a very good reason that landscape photographers like Peter Lik and others go to the trouble and expense of using large format cameras and medium format digital cameras. (The reason I mention Peter Lik is that his South Beach gallery is not far from where I live, and I have been there many times, admiring the huge prints, wishing I could afford a D800E, a 14-24mm f2.8 G, and a few trips to go capture photos more like his. Yes, I know there is more to it than just shooting with better equipment, but that is an essential part of the equation.)
User_Removed 4 4.6k 1 Scotland
26 Aug 2012 5:21PM

Quote:
I premier reason for buying a D800 is, for many, the ability to go on to make larger prints. without losing out on fine detail when viewed in the hand.



For some that may well be true, Len.

In my case, I never print larger than A3+, simply because that is what my printer does. (Could go a bit larger with rolls of paper but have never been inclined to try).

Even with my 10Mp D80 or my 12Mp D300 or D3s, I was able to make great A3+ prints provided that I used at least half of the image area. With the D800, of course, I can crop much more than that if I want.

One thing that is often missed or misunderstood about modern photographic printing is that the dots-per-inch of the printer is not as limiting as many folk think. Partly this is because the dots of ink splurted by the print head on to the paper actually flow into each other to a certain extent, producing a much more "continuous" image than other forms of printing.

If you remember back to the olden days of litho printing, if we sent prints or transparencies to magazines, they were scanned through a dot screen to produce the printing plate and it was the dot pitch of that screen (and the paper quality) that determined the quality of the printed picture.

With those images, you could actually see the dots if you examined the picture with a magnifying glass.

With proper photographic prints, produced from a negative on silver halide paper, the "grain" of the photograph was determined by the particle size of the coating of the film and/or paper.

I think that the relationship between the resolution of a digital image file (or maybe I should just say the pixel dimensions of the image) and the visual quality of a print of any size made from that image file is possibly less straightforward that we imagine.

The larger we print (or, conversely, the tighter we crop), the more obvious basic photographic errors such as poor focus, camera shake and subject movement will show. But a higher-resolution sensor ain't going to help with those. At least not directly. It may be, however, that the larger amount of data provided by the sensor of a D800 will allow more scope for corrections/manipulations in software processing.

I think that what we are experiencing is an interesting train of development in photography that will tax our brains and exercise our imaginations increasingly.
Scottelly 2 35 United States
26 Aug 2012 8:49PM
All I know is that I have printed this image at 20x30.

http://ffphotos.zenfolio.com/img/s3/v7/p589009737-5.jpg

It contains fine detail, as you can see. I shot it with a Canon 5 D using a Canon 17-40mm f4 L lens set at f8 for better depth. I was hand-holding it, and it was a slow shutter speed (1/60 second) captured at ISO 400, but there does not seem to be noticeable motion blur or noise, when I pixel peep at the image. A 40x60 print would theoretically require 4 times as many pixels, or 48 megapixels to match the detail of my 20x30 print, though we really need to take into account the ultimate resolution of the lens too, when trying to predict such things. I would guess the new Nikon D800E, with a really good lens like the 14-24mm f2.8 G would come close to producing such fine detail, even at 40x60 print size. That is certainly something I would like to see. I don't think the D700 could perform even close to so well as the D800E for such a large print. This is where you need to be considering the D800 or D800E over the D700. If you are NOT going to be printing larger, then take all the advantages of the D700 and save yourself some money. In fact, you might get a D700 for shooting stills AND a Nikon D5100, with 18-105mm kit lens, for shooting video and getting more creative (using that fold-out screen). Both together would probably cost you less than the D800 body alone.
26 Aug 2012 9:17PM
Trying to bring this sub thread to a reasonable conclusion the long dimension of a D800 is 7360 pixels - enough for 36 inch wide print at 200 ppi printing a 3:2 format image.
The D3s has 4256 pixels - enough for a 21 inch wide print at 200 ppi.
For the same level of detail in a print viewed close the D800 print can be bigger.
Canon have for some time had pro or near pro grade cameras with more than 12 MP. Prior to the D4 and D800 Nikon had only the D3x at over 5,000. The gap between recent Canon to D800 is smaller than D700/3s to D800.
Whether the photographer has the skill, inclination or need to go the extra mile to get the best results from 21 MP or 36 MP is another topic.
photofrenzy 7 424 2 United Kingdom
2 Sep 2012 11:35AM
THE GADGET SHOW did a comparison between 35mm and digital full frame they used a Nikon D700 and fuji 400 iso colour film to do the comparison .The quest was to see if film is better than digital.

They took two identical images of one of the presenters dressed in ablack tuxido suit and blew them up to approx 60ft x20ft , They then draped the images over the side of a huge building to see the differences in quality .

The quality from the D700 was spectacular ,Way better than the film ,But the szse they printed the image to for comparison was remarkable .Wink
photofrenzy 7 424 2 United Kingdom
2 Sep 2012 11:48AM
ps you can see the blow up test on youtube.
just type in. nikon d700 v f5 analogue
5 Sep 2012 9:36AM

Quote:They took two identical images of one of the presenters dressed in ablack tuxido suit and blew them up to approx 60ft x20ft , They then draped the images over the side of a huge building to see the differences in quality .


I do not see what this has to do with should the OP buy into 2007 technology at the still relatively expensive (for the technology in 2012) D700 price, or wait to see what is announced at Photokina.
That aside negative film is better at highlight detail such as a white tuxedp, and digital is better at shadows - seems like the subject was chosen to fit the result the authors wanted to portray Wink
That aside even with digital interpolation (including of a scanned negative) a 60 foot blow up might look OK at 100 yards viewing distance, but it would be a bit of a detail disaster viewed at 1-2 feet Sad
User_Removed 4 4.6k 1 Scotland
5 Sep 2012 9:37AM

Quote:They took two identical images of one of the presenters dressed in ablack tuxido suit and blew them up to approx 60ft x20ft , They then draped the images over the side of a huge building to see the differences in quality .

I do not see what this has to do with should the OP buy into 2007 technology at the still relatively expensive (for the technology in 2012) D700 price, or wait to see what is announced at Photokina.
That aside negative film is better at highlight detail such as a white tuxedp, and digital is better at shadows - seems like the subject was chosen to fit the result the authors wanted to portray Wink
That aside even with digital interpolation (including of a scanned negative) a 60 foot blow up might look OK at 100 yards viewing distance, but it would be a bit of a detail disaster viewed at 1-2 feet Sad



Precisely.
woodworth 2 25 United Kingdom
5 Sep 2012 10:16PM
Just my pennies worth!

The OP asked whether to buy the new D600 or get a D700.

In my opinion the D600 (or whatever comes) is bound to be the best bet as it will be newer and higher spec, that said the D700 will be dropping in price secondhand once the D600 is out and so will represent something of a bargain (imo)!

I use a D800 but plan to get a D600 as a second camera. If money was an issue, the D700 would also be a great option. For weddings and other high volume shooting, the 12mp D700 may even be a bonus when it comes to editing (time).
Cagey75 3 42 Ireland
10 Sep 2012 3:49PM
As the D600 isn't even out yet, go with the D700. The 600 is going to be smaller, more expensive than a D700 currently and may not be any better in terms of image quality or noise performance.

Me, I'm going to go for the D800 as my first FX body. May as well go the whole hog.
SEMANON 2 95 United Kingdom
17 Sep 2012 9:57PM
The D600 is out now but much more than I thought, it's just too close to the D800 which I know less about than the D600 somehow, I am now considering D800, or waiting for D600 to drop in price a few hundred quid. Whatever I'm going to forget about for a while and just enjoy taking pictures!

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.