Nikon D750 & D780

sk66 said:
I don't think you've shown anything that disagrees with DXo measurements...
It would be interesting to see an image at 1:1 and an actual 36MP of detail resolved (and a subject that benefits from it)... I don't believe I've ever seen one. I know I've never taken one.
Click to expand...


That's exactly what I've just done. The D800 shows more detail than the 24MP D600 image, despite a lens that according to Dx0 can only resolve 16MP. If the numbers tell the whole story, BOTH cameras should be clearly lens limited with the D800 showing no more detail than the D600. As you can see... that's clearly not the case.


LOL@ people not believing their eyes. Those crops ARE 1:1 BTW, well the D800 one is.. I've sized the D600 one to match for clarity, but I've used bilenear... there's nothing hidden there.

Fine... believe what you want if it makes you feel better, but I'll carry on believe what the actual cameras actually do, because that's what actually matters in real life.
 
Last edited:
[QUOTE="Pookeyhead, post: 6470337, member: 57603"Sorry if that annoyed you, but clearly figures on Dx0 don't mean sh*t. If you're not prepared to believe what your own eyes are showing you, then fine, but what has this got to do with superiority or not? I'm correcting an incorrect assumption for the benefit of pthers. There's far too much BS spouted in here... so I've put up evidence... actual images. When I do, I get accused of superiority? You're just annoyed because I've posted something that contradicts you. Grow up.
[/QUOTE]

Why do you feel that Dx0 don't mean sh*t ….. do not quite understand that sentence

Does that mean you think they are sh*t and that they are of no value
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
Thanks

so can any Nikon lens deliver 36 Mpix

………. the 200mm f2 maybe??? and if so would that be a f2 and not f8
Click to expand...
I'm not aware of a Nikon lens that can resolve 36MP... I certainly don't own one. And it would have to be at/below f/5.6 for all wavelengths (colors) to resolve at 36MP; quite possibly at f/2. (f/5.6 being the aperture for a theoretical perfect lens).
 
BillN_33 said:
Why do you feel that Dx0 don't mean sh*t ….. do not quite understand that

Does that mean you think they are sh*t and that they are of no value
Click to expand...

As a comparative test of one lens against another... no.. they're valid. As an indication of what you'll actually SEE in real life, yes they are sh*t... as my images clearly, and irrefutably demonstrate. Again... can you not believe what your eyes show you?
 
jj_glos said:
I asked how you do it, as you rubbish a camera with only 1/4000. You don't have any examples yourself where you need 1/8000?
Click to expand...

I do but there on my desktop which I can't be f***ed to go and downsize etc. and upload to show examples to show you to prove my point in this petty argument to waist my time with :) You asked how to do it so I showed gave you link and told you how to find more info :)
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
As a comparative test of one lens against another... no.. they're valid. As an indication of what you'll actually SEE in real life, yes they are sh*t... as my images clearly, and irrefutably demonstrate. Again... can you not believe what your eyes show you?
Click to expand...

Don't your images confirm the results that Dx0 illustrate …. although it is always difficult to comment on any images posted on the internet as you can never be sure that they are taken under exactly the same conditions plus they are usually reduced in quality and viewed on somewhat imperfect devices.

I'll use Dx0 as it is intended to be used and would regard them as a more reliable source than anything that you may say or illustrate as being purely of your opinion
 
Joeturner11 said:
I do but there on my desktop which I can't be f***ed to go and downsize etc. and upload to show examples to show you to prove my point in this petty argument to waist my time with :) You asked how to do it so I showed gave you link and told you how to find more info :)
Click to expand...

I asked how you do it. Let's cut to the chase, I think your kingfisher example is a good one (water drops and hummingbirds not so), I want to see kingfisher shots dammit, because they're awesome! :D
 
jj_glos said:
I asked how you do it. Let's cut to the chase, I think your kingfisher example is a good one (water drops and hummingbirds not so), I want to see kingfisher shots dammit, because they're awesome! :D
Click to expand...

Thanks :p & Water stuff like THIS I was on about, not sure if you found this type of stuff, & Thanks for reminding me I still need to do a blog on the Kingfisher diving shots which I haven't still got around to yet :confused:
 
BillN_33 said:
Don't your images confirm the results that Dx0 illustrate
Click to expand...


No. Going off what Dx0's figures would have you believe, then BOTH cameras should have been identical, as the lens can only resolve 16MP.. meaning that no advantage would be had from any camera significantly greater than 16MP... which both cameras are.


BillN_33 said:
…. although it is always difficult to comment on any images posted on the internet as you can never be sure that they are taken under exactly the same conditions plus they are usually reduced in quality and viewed on somewhat imperfect devices.
Click to expand...

I've told you how they were taken: Same scene (static objects), cameras on tripod, mirror lock up used, remote release used. Both camera manually focused using live view. Identical lighting. Identical distance. Identical metering (hand held incident meter).. identical everything. no sharpening, no lens profile used... just a straight from camera raw file converted to JPEG at maximum quality. I have no axe to grind: I own both cameras, so I'm not behaving in a biased fashion. They are saved as 100% JPEGs and correctly colour managed, and embedded with sRGB to ensure identical viewing conditions despite monitor gamut. As for viewing conditions, the differences are clear here on a £2000 Eizo ColorEdge monitor, hardware calibrated with a i1 Display Pro, and there's no technical reason why it shouldn't be clear on equipment less than this. The lower the quality of the viewing equipment, the more it will HIDE... not REVEAL.


BillN_33 said:
I'll use Dx0 as it is intended to be used and would regard them as a more reliable source than anything that you may say or illustrate as being purely of your opinion
Click to expand...


It's not my opinion. If I was just writing words.... fine, it could be misconstrued as opinion, however, I posted IMAGES. That's clearly not my OPINION is it? LOL.

Continue denying the evidence right before your eyes if you want. That's clearly not the product of a rational mind though is it? Carry on believing what you want if it makes you feel better. I'm not doing any of this for your benefit, I'm doing so to have some rationality in a thread full of b****x.
 
Joeturner11 said:
Thanks :p & Water stuff like THIS I was on about, not sure if you found this type of stuff, & Thanks for reminding me I still need to do a blog on the Kingfisher diving shots which I haven't still got around to yet :confused:
Click to expand...

The shutter speed is irrelevant there though. It's the flash that's freezing the action, so even a relatively slow shutter speed would give identical results.
 
Pookeyhead said:
That's exactly what I've just done. The D800 shows more detail than the 24MP D600 image, despite a lens that according to Dx0 can only resolve 16MP.
Click to expand...
What you've shown is that a lens that limits resolution limits both sensors somewhat proportionally. The higher MP camera always has an advantage (the worse the lens, the less the advantage). Think of a point of light (detail) as being a fairly steep mountain... however round/flat the top of the mountain the more MP's on the top have an advantage as they define the edges where it starts to fall off more rapidly.

The perceptual MP is a bit misleading (just like all of DXo's ratings are) because it's for a normalized 8x10 print and the entire sensor area. You're showing more of a pixel level comparison. Interestingly DXo has 16pMP for that lens on both the D800 and D610... which just means that when both test shots are printed at 8x10 the resolution advantage of the D800 is hidden. Just like there's no discerning the D810 detail in the overall image as presented in your post.
 
sk66 said:
The perceptual MP is a bit misleading (just like all of DXo's ratings are).
Click to expand...

Which is what I was hoping to, and indeed did demonstrate: That those numbers on Dx0 are just that. They give no real idea of how a lens will perform. Dx0 can be used to compare one lens to another, but it can not be used to give ANY indication of what you will actually SEE using any given lens. The fact that it says 16MP for a Nikkor 50mm lens does NOT mean that a camera greater than 16MP will show no benefit. However... far too many people in here seem to think that is the case, and hopefully those images will demonstrate that it is not the case. I have no argument with what you're saying here Steven. In fact, I took the images to actually make the point you are making yourself: That Dx0 data is misleading and not to be taken literally.
 
Joeturner11 said:
Thanks :p & Water stuff like THIS I was on about, not sure if you found this type of stuff, & Thanks for reminding me I still need to do a blog on the Kingfisher diving shots which I haven't still got around to yet :confused:
Click to expand...

I know about the water drop stuff, but pretty much everything I've seen and like is created by flash at low power and a low shutter speed around 1/160. The flash freezes the image not the shutter speed.
 
Coming from a d700, the 1/4000 shutter with a lower base ISO is surely the same?

This camera is everything i want in a backup body. Ill definitely be getting at least one.
 
Pookeyhead said:
No. Going off what Dx0's figures would have you believe, then BOTH cameras should have been identical, as the lens can only resolve 16MP.. meaning that no advantage would be had from any camera significantly greater than 16MP... which both cameras are.




I've told you how they were taken: Same scene (static objects), cameras on tripod, mirror lock up used, remote release used. Both camera manually focused using live view. Identical lighting. Identical distance. Identical metering (hand held incident meter).. identical everything. no sharpening, no lens profile used... just a straight from camera raw file converted to JPEG at maximum quality. I have no axe to grind: I own both cameras, so I'm not behaving in a biased fashion. They are saved as 100% JPEGs and correctly colour managed, and embedded with sRGB to ensure identical viewing conditions despite monitor gamut. As for viewing conditions, the differences are clear here on a £2000 Eizo ColorEdge monitor, hardware calibrated with a i1 Display Pro, and there's no technical reason why it shouldn't be clear on equipment less than this. The lower the quality of the viewing equipment, the more it will HIDE... not REVEAL.





It's not my opinion. If I was just writing words.... fine, it could be misconstrued as opinion, however, I posted IMAGES. That's clearly not my OPINION is it? LOL.

Continue denying the evidence right before your eyes if you want. That's clearly not the product of a rational mind though is it? Carry on believing what you want if it makes you feel better. I'm not doing any of this for your benefit, I'm doing so to have some rationality in a thread full of b****x.
Click to expand...

I wish life was as simple as two of your images and a few of your words on an Internet forum, but if that is all you need fine.

What is important is not only what you say but the way you say it. You seem to have a constant need to state that you have superior knowledge and that your opinion is the only one that matters.

What you say seems to me to be more for your benefit than for that of others

To then go on to state;

“I'm doing so to have some rationality in a thread full of b****x”

is again an illustration of your arrogance towards many who contributed in good faith and good humour.

I am surprised by your total arrogance and constant need for self promotion and self justification.

What you say may have some merit but you do not even wish to discuss it in a civilized and intelligent manner as you only see what you have to say as being correct.

The world would be a very sad place if other people had your blinkered opinions and arrogance.

One could continue the debate, but honestly, IMHO, you are not worth it.

Now if you will excuse me I need to go off and "polish" my 300mm f2.8VR and TC20Elll, as there is a very small paint chip on the body, and even if I have this only sub consciously on my mine it may influence the quality of my images …… but at least I can use it knowing that it has a relatively high Dx0 rating
 
Last edited:
You carry on polishing your lenses then. The rest of us photographers will just use the actual photographs the gear produces to make up our minds. My opinion is neither here nor there.... The images speak for themselves regardless of what I, you, or anyone else thinks. Carry on being in denial if you wish, frankly I couldn't care less.

Why do you always sign off by telling us what you're doing?


Anyway.... I need to go for a dump.
 
Last edited:
Just read that the D750 has the AA filter. That's a poor decision if you ask me.
 
I remember people writing the off Df a year ago. Most hadn't used it. The handling was poo. It was rubbish. It was a fail.

I bought 2. Love them. Have now shot 35 weddings on them. Haven't missed a beat.

Plenty of options. Body too small? Buy an 810. Want a full pro body? D3s/4/4s. Want some thing small and light? D750 or 610.

Everything is a compromise somewhere. Work out where and if it's an issue for you. What anyone else thinks means little.

I'll say again. For my field the 750 could well be the best Nikon option out there now.
 
Another Nikon thread delivers :) people still haven't finnished moaning about and picking apart the 810. I think the net would crash if nikon released a D350 next week
 
Pookeyhead said:
You carry on polishing your lenses then. The rest of us photographers will just use the actual photographs the gear produces to make up our minds. My opinion is neither here nor there.... The images speak for themselves regardless of what I, you, or anyone else thinks. Carry on being in denial if you wish, frankly I couldn't care less.

Why do you always sign off by telling us what you're doing?


Anyway.... I need to go for a dump.
Click to expand...

David, obviously photography is very important to you, why can you not try to express your views in a more constructive and less personal way.

I don't is the answer to your last question ……. this was purely for your benefit as I know that it is a subject that would interest you - You don't think I polish my lens do you?…... ……… no way



…………. far too important to leave to me as my wife is far more skilled at using Windowleane and similar glass cleaning materials

Must get a go with a Nikon 200mm f2 VR ……… that lens seems to "rock" the Dx0 charts
 
Last edited:
Radiohead said:
I remember people writing the off Df a year ago. Most hadn't used it. The handling was poo. It was rubbish. It was a fail.

I bought 2. Love them. Have now shot 35 weddings on them. Haven't missed a beat.

Plenty of options. Body too small? Buy an 810. Want a full pro body? D3s/4/4s. Want some thing small and light? D750 or 610.

Everything is a compromise somewhere. Work out where and if it's an issue for you. What anyone else thinks means little.

I'll say again. For my field the 750 could well be the best Nikon option out there now.
Click to expand...
I bought a DF and loved it even though it was a "small" camera and im one who thinks the D750 is too small for me, both cameras would be used totally differently by me but unfortunatly i had to send the DF back as it had some terrible AF issues
 
BillN_33 said:
David, obviously photography is very important to you, why can you not try to express your views in a more constructive and less personal way.
Click to expand...


There was starting to be a prevailing opinion that having a high resolution camera is pointless because Dx0 gives figures in MP for lenses that seem to suggest anything more than 20MP is pointless. I posted some evidence to illustrate that such an opinion is misguided at best. That's constructive. My tone of voice, or the fact that I've expressed an opinion about how tiring it is to hear people moan ceaselessly about every new Nikon released is neither here nor there... my images still provide the same evidence, and make the same point. If you don't like me, just place me on ignore.

I'm not interested in what anyone in here thinks of me as a person. In these technical forums, all that matters to me is facts and cutting through the bull sh*t, hyperbole and rhetoric.

A lens that Dx0 says can resolve 16MP can clearly resolve a great deal more. Fact. You can not read those figures out of context, and they are intended as a means of comparing one lens to another lens. Nothing more. If you don't like that... tough... it's still a fact.

I go to great lengths to help people who are actually interested in photography, and not just moaning and talking b****x. I research on their behalf, conduct tests, have extensive discussions on a personal basis via PM, spend inordinately long periods of time I can actually ill afford creating tutorials, diagrams, screen shots etc. I'm constantly solving other people's problems and providing real, measurable help. I do this to help people because that's what I do, and I do a great deal more than most, What do YOU do?

So quite frankly.... I don't need to expend any time whatsoever justifying myself in here to you, and I certainly don't give a damn what you, or anyone else thinks. Those I help see the value in my contributions, and those people are the only ones who's opinions about me count, because they are judging me by my actual contributions. You just don't like me.. boohoo... you'll get over it, as will all the other moaning old farts.

I really must take that dump.... almost a turtle's head situation here.
 
Last edited:
All I can say is that "I tried" …. which probably means nothing to you ….. I don't need to put you on the ignore list

to quote you - "A lens that Dx0 says can resolve 16MP can clearly resolve a great deal more. Fact. You can not read those figures out of context, and they are intended as a means of comparing one lens to another lens. Nothing more. If you don't like that... tough... it's still a fact.

I do appreciate and understand what Dx0 say …. that was not my point or it could well be my point

I am more interested to know if Nikon can produce a lens that will resolve at 36 Mpix from a technical standpoint, or even at the full sensors MP's whether it be 10, 20 or 36 ……. OK you may say that I've have missed the point in that more MPs give a higher resolution with the same lens than a lower MP sensor and that is all that is important … but that was never my point, I don't think so anyway

but lets just leave this as it's doing no good
 
Last edited:
I found the df to be a good size and weight. I found the controls counter intuitive and the AF went hunting and was never seen again in challenging light. I also like the comfort of 2 cards.

Im delighted that we are getting a small and light, yet capable camera (on paper). Ill probably buy one as a backup but could equally use it as a main body. Thats something the d8**, d6** and df bodies could never satisfy.
 
BillN_33 said:
All I can say is that "I tried" …. which probably means nothing to you ….. I don't need to put you on the ignore list

to quote you - "A lens that Dx0 says can resolve 16MP can clearly resolve a great deal more. Fact. You can not read those figures out of context, and they are intended as a means of comparing one lens to another lens. Nothing more. If you don't like that... tough... it's still a fact.

I do appreciate and understand what Dx0 say …. that was not my point or it could well be my point

I am more interested to know if Nikon can produce a lens that will resolve at 36 Mpix from a technical standpoint, or even at the full sensors MP's whether it be 10, 20 or 36 ……. OK you may say that I've have missed the point in that more MPs give a higher resolution with the same lens than a lower MP sensor and that is all that is important … but that was never my point, I don't think so anyway

but lets just leave this as it's doing no good
Click to expand...

The Zeiss 135 f/2 APO sharpness is 36Mpix according to DxO so I'm sure Nikon could do it if they wanted. I've got the 200 VR although never really bothered about it resolving test charts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top