Nikon D750 & D780

[sk66]

So who does need all those tiny dots on 35mm sensor? IQ obsessives? People who would really should be using medium format but can't afford it?

The thing that gets me is that when you display a high resolution file at smaller sizes you actually compress/degrade the resolution (i.e. you use two pixels to display as one dot). And there are very few lenses that can actually resolve to those levels and very few ways to use them in order to achieve it (i.e. the Zeiss 135mm f/2 *can* deliver 36MP on the D800e/D810 when used at f/2, but I'm not aware of any others that can).

That said, in any direct comparison more MP's will deliver more detail. But we shouldn't confuse detail/resolution with "sharpness." They're interdependent but not quite "the same thing."

 

[Pookeyhead]

Don't play the politician, David. Who DOES need 36mp files from a 35mm sensor? Who is it aimed at? It can't really be the majority of DSLR users.

I find it useful actually. Even if not, I'd always opt for slightly more than needed than the other way around. Regardless of who it's aimed at, or whether it's needed, the D810 is a great replacement for the D700. So what if you don't NEED the resolution? Resize it.

Just not at 1/8000 - lol

Which you use all the time of course.

 

[dinorock]

I never said there was anything WRONG with it.

your quote
All this because I called the D700 old and past it's prime... LOL... seriously.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I never said there was anything WRONG with it.

your quote
All this because I called the D700 old and past it's prime... LOL... seriously.

And? I said it's old and past it's prime... not that there's anything wrong with it. I'M old and past my prime.. nothing wrong with me though.

Let me guess... you have a D700.. correct? You're just upset because I said something negative about your camera. You'll get over it. It's just a camera - it's not a reflection of you.. it doesn't represent you in any way... I hope... as that would be quite tragic.

 

[Joeturner11]

Why do you think you need 1/8000 for sports? With an f2.8 lens I don't see it as much of an issue in this country?

I didn't say for sports did I There is faster subjects which require that speed other than sport which I never mentioned

 

[sk66]

I find it useful actually. Even if not, I'd always opt for slightly more than needed than the other way around. Regardless of who it's aimed at, or whether it's needed, the D810 is a great replacement for the D700. So what if you don't NEED the resolution? Resize it.

Given a "single camera situation" I would agree with you for most uses/situations.

 

[Joeturner11]

another thread ruined by the same old BS. Can't believe people are still harping on about the D8** range having too many mp.

Happens every time

 

[Joeturner11]

Who DOES need 36mp files from a 35mm sensor? Who is it aimed at?

Have you ever used a D8xx camera?

 

[Moreorless]

I didn't say for sports did I There is faster subjects which require that speed other than sport which I never mentioned

If your shooting subjects that fast of course any current FPS is going to be pretty meaningless as your going to need things synched so not real disadvantage of the slightly slower D810, the same with shooting large aperture primes for DOF control in good light.

 

[Joeturner11]

If your shooting subjects that fast of course any current FPS is going to be pretty meaningless as your going to need things synched so not real disadvantage of the slightly slower D810, the same with shooting large aperture primes for DOF control in good light.

I was on about the 1/4000 maximum shutter speed

 

[Gary Coyle]

Well I have ordered one so I hope the NHS can make me hand smaller before it arrives.

Your hand needs to be much smaller if its gonna fit .................................. erm, better not.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Given a "single camera situation" I would agree with you for most uses/situations.

But that describes by far and away the majority of people in this forum.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Have you ever used a D8xx camera?

Of course not. The frame rate is way too slow.

So what if you don't NEED the resolution? Resize it.

Or use a D700.

It's a funny old world. All this choice of cameras and people can never find what they want. I'll stick with my P7800 for now.

 

[Joeturner11]

Of course not. The frame rate is way too slow.

So how can you say the 36mp is not needed etc and slag it of when you never even used a one?

 

[Cagey75]

I love having 36mp, it means I can be lazy and not care about framing knowing I can crop down to about 30% and still have a usable image

 

[Ed Sutton]

So how can you say the 36mp is not needed etc and slag it of when you never even used a one?

I'm not slagging it. The D800 series are great cameras. If I had to replace one of my DSLRs I'd probably get one myself. Which doesn't alter the fact that they have more pixels than the majority of people need to output their photos.

Why do you think you need 36mp?

 

[Ed Sutton]

I love having 36mp, it means I can be lazy and not care about framing knowing I can crop down to about 30% and still have a usable image

I deleted a bit abut people who use the extra pixels so they can crop being idiots. Shall I put it back in?

 

[BillN_33]

what I do not understand is that if you look at DxOMark, even the best Nikon glass can only resolve up to 20 odd Mpix

Can anyone explain the relevance of Mpix versus resolving power

so why does anyone need 36Mpix

 

[Joeturner11]

Why do you think you need 36mp?

Think this sums it up, something my 12mp D3 can't simply do.

Before crop.

View attachment 20472

After crop.
View attachment 20473

Images look far sharper on computer just took screenshots on photoshop so I can upload them on here at such low sizes.

 

[Ed Sutton]

 

[sk66]

what I do not understand is that if you look at DxOMark, even the best Nikon glass can only resolve up to 20 odd Mpix

Can anyone explain the relevance of Mpix versus resolving power

so why does anyone need 36Mpix

When the glass is the limitation it will limit all sensors equally. For instance the 70-200mm f/4 can deliver ~ 30MP on the D800e/D810, it can only deliver ~ 20MP on the D610. Both are reduced by the lens, but you still get more from the camera that has more to offer.

BUT, when the way the glass is used (i.e. aperture/SS) is the limit then it will limit the camera with more MP's disproportionately (the losses may be largely hidden though).

 

[BillN_33]

When the glass is the limitation it will limit all sensors equally. For instance the 70-200mm f/4 can deliver ~ 30MP on the D800e/D810, it can only deliver ~ 20MP on the D610. Both are reduced by the lens, but you still get more from the camera that has more to offer.

BUT, when the way the glass is used (i.e. aperture/SS) is the limit then it will limit the camera with more MP's disproportionately.

Thanks

so can any Nikon lens deliver 36 Mpix

………. the 200mm f2 maybe??? and if so would that be a f2 and not f8

 

[Cagey75]

I deleted a bit abut people who use the extra pixels so they can crop being idiots. Shall I put it back in?

Nah, I never bought the D800E for the 36mp, I was aiming for the D700 for a long time when using DX models tbh. The D800 just happened to come out when I had the funds And since I rarely use anything outside of single shot mode, I don't require anything faster.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Nah, I never bought the D800E for the 36mp, I was aiming for the D700 for a long time when using DX models tbh. The D800 just happened to come out when I had the funds And since I rarely use anything outside of single shot mode, I don't require anything faster.

Good enough reasons.

 

[sk66]

But that describes by far and away the majority of people in this forum.

Sure, but I did say for "most uses."
Today I was trying to catch swallows banging off of the water... in that situation FPS is a significant consideration. As is 1:1 ISO performance... I'd rather use a TC and higher ISO to get a clean image than crop into a noisier D8xx image. Yes, the D800 could be used at a lower ISO but it's not a 1:1 trade. At 1:1 resolution I would put the D8xx at 1600 as being ~ equiv to my D4 at 6400.

But I have to admit, the D810 did pretty well comparatively w/ good light (Dx mode, the buggers are tiny).

 

[Pookeyhead]

what I do not understand is that if you look at DxOMark, even the best Nikon glass can only resolve up to 20 odd Mpix

Can anyone explain the relevance of Mpix versus resolving power

so why does anyone need 36Mpix

Yes. I can.

You see.. you're mistake is t look at figures. I on the other hand tend to rely on actual imagery taken with actual cameras.

Test image.

D800E

D600

Both images were taken with a Nikkor 50mm f1.8G @ F5.6. A lens that according to Dx0 can resolve only 16MP on a D800.

Both were manually focused with a zoomed in live view. Tripod, remote release and mirror lock up used.


I know what's coming too. "Well, the D800E has no anti-aliasing filter".... well, sorry... but this is MY D600 that I use for astro-photography, and it has had the filter removed, so both of these are full frame with no anti-alias filter, and the same lens, at the same aperture. The D800E can even show the print half-toning, whereas it's not even visible on the D600 shot.

Myth busted.

Next?

 

[sk66]

I deleted a bit abut people who use the extra pixels so they can crop being idiots. Shall I put it back in?

Well, I would agree if you add the caveat of "people who think they get the same IQ/sensor performance with cropping."

 

[BillN_33]

Yes. I can.

You see.. you're mistake is t look at figures. I on the other hand tend to rely on actual imagery taken with actual cameras.

I know what's coming too. "Well, the D800E has no anti-aliasing filter".... well, sorry... but this is MY D600 that I use for astro-photography, and it has had the filter removed, so both of these are full frame with no anti-alias filter, and the same lens, at the same aperture. The D800E can even show the print half-toning, whereas it's not even visible on the D600 shot.

Myth busted.

Next?

You are really arrogance personified

I never said anything like that ……. I would not really know about whatever you care to try to prove your "superiority" with

How the hell do you know what's coming in your closed world?

your views are really worth very little

Next! as you arrogantly say

 

[Cagey75]

Good read David?

That is an interesting one [not the book! ] I see all these numbers chucked about too, we all do, it's the kind of stuff we look up and some of us [me, because I'm s**t with numbers in general] just get more confuzzled. I see all this about lenses only resolving X amount of pixels and do wonder why I need 36mp [I don't, it's just ... there as a bonus for me]

I wonder how much worth I get from the few lenses I own on the monster sensor.

End of the day though, I'm happy with what my combo's do, for me.

 

[jj_glos]

I didn't say for sports did I There is faster subjects which require that speed other than sport which I never mentioned

Like what?

 

[Pookeyhead]

You are really arrogance personified

I never said anything like that ……. I would not really know about whatever you care to try to prove your "superiority" with

You mean real images taken with real cameras? 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.

How the hell do you know what's coming in your closed world?

Sorry.. I don't even know what that means.

your views are really worth very little

My VIEWS? I've provided photographic evidence you numpty.. LOL My VIEWS are irrelevant, as I've not posted my VIEWS.

Next! as you arrogantly say

You're just ranting now. There is no next. The images are proof. Carry on reading numbers if you like (as many will). As I said.. there's only one real test of these things... and that's to look at the photographs the equipment produces... after all.... that's what you intend to actually use the cameras for I hope.

 

[Cagey75]

So ... who is actually going to buy this camera?

 

[Joeturner11]

Like what?

Water droplets and water in general subjects, just google 1/8000 and your see what I mean and can get some pretty special images with it, Hummingbirds, small garden bird size birdies and other fast birds in flight for example and shooting kingfisher's coming out the water is normally shot with 1/8000 or 1/6400 and a flash setup up, I personally like to use it with a flash setup sometimes or if light is good to get the motion of the water frozen under the birds or when they come into land etc.

So ... who is actually going to buy this camera?

Good question

 

[jj_glos]

So ... who is actually going to buy this camera?

I might, I really don't know if I can actually be arsed selling all my Fuji and Canon gear though... I'm going to try one in a shop and have a think. On paper it ticks a lot if boxes for me.

 

[BillN_33]

Images - annoyed me - no, quite the reverse - they are just images on a computer screen

Annoyed because the images contradict me - not in any way - I asked a simple question and said nothing to contradict

You seem to be constantly trying to prove a point and your attitude indicates that you are frustrated with your photography or what you have achieved?

It cannot be that bad surely

 

[jj_glos]

Water droplets and water in general subjects, just google 1/8000 and your see what I mean and can get some pretty special images with it, Hummingbirds, small garden bird size birdies and other fast birds in flight for example and shooting kingfisher's coming out the water is normally shot with 1/8000 or 1/6400 and a flash setup up, I personally like to use it with a flash setup sometimes or if light is good to get the motion of the water frozen under the birds or when they come into land etc.



Good question

How do you sync your Flash at 1/8000?

 

[sk66]

You mean real images taken with real cameras? Sorry if that annoyed you, but clearly figures on Dx0 don't mean sh*t.

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.

 

[Cagey75]

I'm actually pondering : when this is out, the prices on the likes of the D610 should drop, especially used ... and I'd love a second body. The D800E is always going to be my baby ... I mean, main cam, right! Much as I'd love a D810 alongside, that aint happening anytime soon. There could be bargains made because of this D750

 

[Yv]

Men are from Mars = debating over numbers and minutiae

Women are from Venus = I still hate that bloody mode dial, but in every other way the camera makes sense for what I want to take picture of


Now, can we get away from the personal digs at each other please

 

[sk66]

How do you sync your Flash at 1/8000?

D70?