Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Nikon D600 v D800

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

LenShepherd
LenShepherd e2 Member 62513 forum postsLenShepherd vcard United Kingdom
6 Jan 2013 - 8:42 PM


Quote:
The pixel counts already exceed the capabilities of most lenses at most apertures,


The laws of optics and my experience over 40 years seem different.
The laws of optics say image resolution is part made up of sensor resolution and part made up of lens resolution, that increasing either results in increased image resolution and that increasing both results in even more image resolution.
Over the decades higher resolution films becoming available enabled me to get more resolution in my pictures using existing lenses, and over time being able to afford better lenses has enabled me to get more resolution from first my film and then my digital cameras.
To the best of my knowledge the laws of optics have not recently changed.
At low ISO's the file resolution I get with all my lenses went up when I got a 16 MP D7000 in addition to D300s and D3s; and went up again with all my FX lenses when I got a D800 Smile
My lenses include the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 II, 200-400, 300 f2.8 VR, 45mm PCE and 60mm micro G.
Using my wooden spoon, I also get more resolution at diffraction limited apertures such as F 22 (when available) with the D800 than with my lower MP bodies, which is what the law of optics predict, although of course I do not get as much resolution at f22 as at f11.
Edit PS
The D800 has 50% of more pixels than the D600. As this is an area measurement it equates to 25% more sensor resolution.
If the sensor and lens each have equal resolution this equates to a useful but not always significant 12.5% extra D800 file resolution.
At low ISO's the sensor resolution is likely to be a greater than the lens resolution, with maybe a 15% to 17.5% resolution and print dimension advantage (when viewed as close as they eye can accommodate) in favour of the D 800

Last Modified By LenShepherd at 6 Jan 2013 - 8:55 PM
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
6 Jan 2013 - 8:42 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

keithh
keithh e2 Member 1023203 forum postskeithh vcard Wallis and Futuna33 Constructive Critique Points
6 Jan 2013 - 9:31 PM

A million pixels do not a good photo make. Wink

Nick_w
Nick_w  73910 forum posts England99 Constructive Critique Points
6 Jan 2013 - 9:33 PM


Quote: A million pixels do not a good photo make. Wink

Wouldn't even get a 6x4 print Wink

keithh
keithh e2 Member 1023203 forum postskeithh vcard Wallis and Futuna33 Constructive Critique Points
6 Jan 2013 - 11:04 PM

SmileI can get a real good 6x4 off your EPZ images. Wink

However, maybe I should have said 36 million pixels do not a good photo make...........in all cases.

#hedgebetting

samueldilworth

LenShepherd: youíre right to protest at that unqualified phrase of mine, but the gist of my post remains. If you want lots of detail in your photos, today itís usually more productive to worry about the lenses you use (and your technique) than which full-frame camera you use.

The concept of resolution doesnít adequately convey the detail-recording capacity of a camera or lens or combination of the two. For that, MTF is the way to go. You can then simply multiply the MTF of the camera with the MTF of the lens (which varies dramatically with image height and f-number) to get the best-case MTF of your photograph.

Resolution as usually bandied about (i.e. cut-off resolution: resolution at an extremely low contrast transfer) isnít as useful, because even a poor lens (like a 50 mm double-Gauss at f/1.4) can produce very high resolution numbers if provided with a subject of sufficient contrast. But by the same token, a high-contrast lens can produce more usable detail on a lower-resolution camera than a weaker lens on a D800. You can see that in the outside thread I linked to; and thatís despite the Ďweakerí lens being the AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED stopped down to f/11! (Admittedly at the wide end.)

User_Removed
8 Jan 2013 - 10:36 AM


Quote: LenShepherd: youíre right to protest at that unqualified phrase of mine, but the gist of my post remains. If you want lots of detail in your photos, today itís usually more productive to worry about the lenses you use (and your technique) than which full-frame camera you use.

The concept of resolution doesnít adequately convey the detail-recording capacity of a camera or lens or combination of the two. For that, MTF is the way to go. You can then simply multiply the MTF of the camera with the MTF of the lens (which varies dramatically with image height and f-number) to get the best-case MTF of your photograph.

....

It is too easy to get caught up in the error of thinking about sensor megapixelage in terms of resolution. What 36Mp from the D800 (as opposed to 24Mp from the D600) really gives you, in any meaningful sense from a photographer's point of view, is far more data to play with. How that mass of additional data is used will depend upon a wide range of factors, not least of which are the type of photograph, the preferences and intentions of the photographer, and the degree of post-exposure processing being undertaken.

annettep38
annettep38 e2 Member 3188 forum postsannettep38 vcard France32 Constructive Critique Points
9 Jan 2013 - 10:07 AM

Even at 25 MP you get enough data to make a nice panorama. See some of my shots... a pano more than 6000 pixels wide is as wide as I used to get scanning my 6x7 trannies.I think those files are huge enough. And I have never regretted my d3x, the image quality and bit depth is excellent. Unlike the latest models, the build quality is excellent and it is easy to clean and de-dust.
Also, remember that the sensor in the D800 is quite dim.
So if it were me, I'd go for a 25 MP model and use the money to buy a vertical grip and some memory cards. Or upgrade a lens

User_Removed
9 Jan 2013 - 11:36 AM


Quote:
Also, remember that the sensor in the D800 is quite dim.

???????????????????????

Not sure what you mean by "quite dim" Annette?

Its high-ISO performance is superlative up to ISO 6400. Far better than either the D3s at that level.

When I bought the D3s three years ago, one of the "attractions" was the prospect of taking photographs at ISO 102800. In fact, in the time I had it, I could count on the fingers of one hand, the number of times I used anything over ISO 6400.

So, when I swapped to the D800 10 months ago, I was delighted to discover that, up to ISO 6400, it out-performed the D3s by a significant margin. Mainly because, at 6400, the noise that does start to come in is of a different quality to any other high-ISO noise I had seen - more like film grain that digital noise.

Above 6400, the D800 does start to drop below the quality of the equivalent D3s standard - but, as I say, I rarely feel any need to go there. If that is what you mean by "dim", I can live with that. I know that "image quality" is a somewhat subjective concept if we talk as photographers, rather than scientists, but there is no doubt whatsoever that the D800, from a photographer's perspective, is capable - in the right hands with the right techniques - of producing a hugely higher image quality than any of the D3* range. Whether that actually matters for most of the work we produce is, of course, a moot point.

Really all I can say is that when I moved from a D300 to a D3s I felt that the FX sensor and later processing engine gave me a slight increase in IQ potential. When I then moved from the D3s to the D800, the increase was hugely greater. (Possibly the one caveat I have to apply to that statement is that the move from D3s to D800 was at roughly the same time as the upgrade from Lightroom 3 to Lightroom 4 and that Raw converter upgrade might also have added something to the potential image quality.)

Last Modified By User_Removed at 9 Jan 2013 - 11:38 AM
keithh
keithh e2 Member 1023203 forum postskeithh vcard Wallis and Futuna33 Constructive Critique Points
9 Jan 2013 - 12:32 PM

Does a dim sensor know its a sensor?

Nick_w
Nick_w  73910 forum posts England99 Constructive Critique Points
9 Jan 2013 - 1:14 PM


Quote: Does a dim sensor know its a sensor?

but will the
Quote: slight increase in IQ

help ? Wink

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139544 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
9 Jan 2013 - 1:38 PM

Everything is 'dumbed down' these days! Wink

keithh
keithh e2 Member 1023203 forum postskeithh vcard Wallis and Futuna33 Constructive Critique Points
9 Jan 2013 - 2:18 PM

Innit tho

Nick_w
Nick_w  73910 forum posts England99 Constructive Critique Points
9 Jan 2013 - 7:06 PM

LOL... My daughter came home from school today, they had to record each other in conversation, then her homework was to transcribe it, every other word was like, or innit, 24/7, whatever.

Remind me so is it a D600 or D800 Wink

CaptivePhotons
CaptivePhotons e2 Member 111561 forum postsCaptivePhotons vcard England2 Constructive Critique Points
9 Jan 2013 - 7:14 PM

The D600 received an excellent review in the latest iPad version if the BJP. Probably swayed me to purchase it soon.

keithh
keithh e2 Member 1023203 forum postskeithh vcard Wallis and Futuna33 Constructive Critique Points
9 Jan 2013 - 7:35 PM

If you need to print A2+ photos that some geek can happily view from 3 inches.....the 800.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.