D700 vs. D800 for smaller prints.

When I was

shooting film,

I was amazed

by medium

format the

moment I

developed

my

first print

from a 6×6

negative,

even though

it was only a

10×12 inch

print. Many

people keep

saying

medium

format has

no use unless

you go above

such and

such size, but

I think they

have serious

problems

with their

eyes. The

difference

between 6×6

and 35mm

film is so

obvious at

any print size,

it's not even

funny.

 

I still can't

make up my

mind

whether to

get a D700 or

D800,

because I

don't know if

digital works

the same

way. Is there

any

advantage to

having more

pixels to start

with if my

final output

size is such

that the files

from the

D700 would

not have to

be upscaled

anyway when

printing at

say 300dpi

(so up to

around 14"

on the long

side)? Do I

get added

sharpness,

colour depth,

dynamic

range, and

just generally

that

"smoothness"

that

characterizes

larger film

formats if I

downscale

the D800

files? Does it

make sense

to get the

800 over the

700 if most

of my prints

will be

around

10×15

inches, or

does it only

matter if I go

above that? I

do know

about the

slightly

improved

high ISO

performance,

but apart

from that?

<p>I defy you to see the difference between an identical well-shot photo at 10 x 15 from those cameras at normal viewing distances.</p>

<p>Same priciple. The D800 is vastly sharper than the D700. The D700 does not even take advantage of what your lenses are capable of, while the D800 will pull everything it can from them. So, not only is it pure pixel density but also maximizing resolution from the lenses.</p>

<p>If you even need to ask this question, it is very clear that you don't need a D800. I would say don't let NAS take over your purchase decision.</p>

<p>I have been using a D700 and a D800 (and now a D800E) almost as soon as they were available, respectively. It is actually the little things on that the D700 that bother me most: e.g. the non-100% viewfinder, lack of dual memory cards CF + SD, etc. Otherwise, the D700 is still a fine camera today and I continue to use it to avoid those huge 45M RAW files from the D800. Unless you have excellent shooting discipline, any sloppyness is more than enough to wipe out the differences between 12MP and 36MP.</p>

<p>Can the average serious photographer use more than 12MP? Absolutely. That is why Canon has been producing ~21MP full-35mm-frame DSLRs. While I wouldn't trust the details of the rumors, especially pricing, it looks like Nikon will, some day, provide more FX options besides the D4 and D800/D800E. If you are not in a hurry, I would wait until Photokina (September 18) and see what else Nikon has to announce this summer/fall. That is only like two months away. (Of course, potentially, Nikon might not have any more new FX bodies to announce in 2012.) Otherwise, you can always get a used D700 in good condition to bridge you until more options are available, this year or perhaps next year.</p>

<p>I dunno hey, I had a D700 and now the D800 from the day it came out....there is something pretty special about the D800s photos over the D700. I know I know everyone says they will be the same, but I don't think so. If you can afford it, I would go the D800 every time and it isn't just about the megapixels, recently i started shooting in live view for landscapes and WOW, try using live view on the D700 pffft it is crap. But then there is the high detail, the dynamic range...the D800 hands down, buy it you won't regret it!</p>

<p>My D40 makes pretty swell 11x14s that hang on my walls. I notice no difference between it and my D200 at a viewing distance greater than 1' ...<br>

<br />I imagine a D700 would be excessively good. </p>

Thanks for the responses so far. Shun, I appreciate your trying to help me make the right decision. I do think I have been resisting the NAS quite successfully so far, after all I have been using a D80, my very first DSLR, for six years now. However, I think you are assuming that I don't have shooting discipline because I lack theoretical understanding about digital image processing. Since I am an amateur, I don't "need" any camera per se, I want one because photography gives me joy, and I want to buy the tool that satisfies my desire to have those creamy looking pictures I used to get when I was using medium format film. Of course, I don't want to waste any money, so if you really think the D800 is not necessary for that, I honestly appreciate your advice.

 

Did you mean that 20 or so megapixels on a full frame sensor would be a good compromise for having good image quality, yet being forgiving enough for slight user errors? I really don't want to wait any longer, because I have already been waiting for the D800 to come out for quite a while, and I want to be taking pictures instead of constantly waiting for the latest and greatest gizmos.

 

I feel that if I go for the D700, I may be looking into an upgrade in another three-four years, while if I get the D800 now, it is likely that I will not want another camera until it breaks.

 

I guess my question is more theoretical: assuming perfect photographer skills (I know I don't have those, but it's what I am aiming for), is it physically possible to see the difference between a 12mp print that was downsized from 36mp and one that was 12mp to begin with?

<p>The DSLR pictures all look the same to me so far. I do not see many prints from digital camera's however. People that I know just post to the web, flickr and such. Not many prints around to see.</p>

<p>The idea that you need better photographic skills to get the most out of a high-res camera like the D800 is only true if you are always pixel peeping at 100%.</p>

<p>Again... if you take the same great (and properly exposed) photo from a D800 and D700... and print them at 11 x 14 and hang them on a wall next to each other... who will see the difference? Seriously?</p>

<p>Right now I'm going through the motions of comparing a 12mp body to a 24mp body. The differences in resolution would probably be more dramatic on an FX, rather than DX body, but I'm not sure that's true. <br /><br />While printing well-exposed, handled-with-care shots (with thoughtful post production work) at modest sizes (say, 12x18 and smaller), the differences between the two are going to be essentially meaningless for me, so far. <em>Unless</em>, that is, I have to crop after the fact. At which point, all bets are off. The extra resolution is quite handy, that way. I find myself more willing, with a higher-res sensor, to leave a bit more wiggle-room around my subject, the better to be able to print in different aspect ratios, etc.<br /><br />But if you're a slow-and-steady sort of photographer who's doing most of his post-production in advance (you know what I mean!), then some of those distinctions become pretty much non-issues unless you're going for very large prints.<br /><br />Your urge to procure a camera that you'll be using for several years, though, does change the priorities a bit.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The idea that you need better photographic skills to get the most out of a high-res camera like the D800 is only true if you are always pixel peeping at 100%.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Peter, I have hand held the D800 and D800E indoors at ISO 3200 with a 85mm/f1.8 lens at f2 or f2.8, 1/50 to 1/100 sec many many times. I get some slightly blurred images due to subject movement and/or camera vibration, and there is plenty of noise at high ISO to wipe out the fine details. In other words, a 36MP slightly unsharp image is not all that different from a 12MP slightly unsharp image. After down sampling, they can both produce a good JPEG that you can e-mail to friends. I have literally hundreds of such images from the D800. The D800 does have some advantages over the D700 at high ISO, after down sampling.</p>

<p>If you want to take full advantage of 36MP, you need to use base ISO 100 or at most 200, set the camera on a tripod, use a shutter release cable (I tend to use the 1-second shutter delay instead as I would rather not bring an extra cable), get high-quality lenses and only use them around f5.6 or so ... and then pixel peep.</p>

<p>Oliver, my ideal camera is more like a Nikon D4, with 16MP, that can capture 9, 10 frames/sec but in a smaller, more affordable package. IMO 16MP is more than enough, while the 4 frame/sec limition on the D800 makes it unsuitable in many situations, such as sports, wildlife (which I shoot a lot).</p>

<p>BTW, since you have been using a D80, I wonder which lenses you are planning to use on the D700/D800? If I were you, I would spend more budget on some good lenses and accessories rather than on one 36MP camera body, which I am sure will depreciate quickly.</p>

<p>Right now I am looking at the largest print I have ever made--a 58 inch print of a female lion taken in the Serengeti with a Nikon D 300s (a DX sensor) with a Nikon 500mm f 4.0 AFS II hand held on a bean bag from the roof of a Land Rover. The quality of the print is amazing. I attribute that quality to good long lens technique, excellent glass, excellent lighting, proper exposure and lastly the camera and its sensor size. I would first invest in good lenses, tripods and education and technique. Then the camera with the biggest sensor. I have not bought a D 800 yet in that I do not think I need it. I use a D 700 and a D 300s.<br>

Joe Smith </p>

I currently have the 24/2.8D, 50/1.8D, 85/1.8 (old, non-D version), and a Voigtlander 40/2.0. They are not the most recent lenses, I know, but not bad ones either. Whichever camera I end up getting, I am planning to buy a 24-120/4G and probably the 135/2DC. I am expecting to run into problems with the 24/2.8D on a D800, but I assume the others should hold up well.

<p>Oliver, maybe you can find the right answer yourself, and Rent those camera's one at a time ?</p>

With a properly made shot, you can certainly see the difference in sharpness at A4 and larger, but I usually pick the D700

when I intend to make a lot of images which will result in small prints or no prints. For more ambitious work the D800 and

D3X (in reasonably bright light) gets used.

 

The key to seeing the increased sharpness is for me the use of high shutter speeds. With the D3X and D800 when I do

people photography, my shutter speed is typically 1/1000s or faster, and I achieve that by using large apertures. I

normally photograph people at f/1.4 to f/4 (most candid work and individual portraits) with f/5.6 and f/8 used only for group

shots or in the studio with controlled background. I have no trouble seeing increased sharpness with 24/36 MP cameras

over 12MP at any apertures that I use in the ISO100-400 window that I typically use for outdoor work. I use ISO 800-3200

and even 6400 for indoor available light work but there I see little point in the higher resolution sensors and don't expect

to see much in terms of increased sharpness simply because I am often limited in the shutter speed I can use in such

contexts due to the low light. However, when motion blur doesn't severely limit the captures then increased sharpness is

likely to be there, I just don't have much experience using high res sensors at high ISO. I don't plan on getting much as I

don't see the point of wasting storage space on images that will not be printed large anyway. I have no doubt that the

D800 has some advantage in IQ at high ISO also, but for me the cost of post-processing time and storage space is too

high, so I intend to keep a 12 or 16 MP FX camera around for the next three to four years at least, after which I expect all

new cameras to be high res and computers sufficiently advanced that it makes little diffrence what the file size is.

 

Regarding 10x15 cm prints, it is reasonably safe to say that it makes little difference which FX DSLR you use. The D800

and D700 have the same sensor size actually, but the D800 sensor is a more advanced design so it has lower noise

especially at base ISO. From 5x7 inches up the D3X images show noticeably crispier rendition of fabrics, for example, but

I can still happily use D700 images to make 12x18 inch prints, given that the subject is suitable. The D800 does bring out

the best in even less perfect glass because of its high MTF. For example I am much happier with the 70-200II+TC-14EII

when used with the D800 (stopped down to f/5.6) than I was before this camera. It brings this combination into the world

of "good enough for me" while before I thought it was a bit so-so. On the other hand, I made the mistake of borrowing a

VR 300/2.8 II last week. I used it for one evening and when I saw the results on my computer I went all gaga over it, and

now I am anxious to get one. That dreamy bokeh and incredible sharpness! So while a high res camera will bring some

less perfect lenses into the world of 'now it works ok' and 'hey I can live with that' it can also tempt you to spend an

absurd amount of money on even better glass. Watch out. I think Nikon will make a killing on high priced lenses sold to

D800 users.

<p>Oliver, I wonder whether you want to buy an FX-format DSLR to begin with; perhaps a D7000 would serve you better. For making small prints, there is definitely no point to get 36MP, which can be a hinderance as apparently a lot of people are not aware of.</p>

<p>Maybe this recent discussion on the Nature Forum can give you more ideas: <a href="../nature-photography-forum/00aSMF">http://www.photo.net/nature-photography-forum/00aSMF</a><br>

In particular, <a name="00aTnJ"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1361719">Justin Black</a> teaches photo workshops; please click on his name to read his bio, and <a name="00aSga"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3989561">G Dan Mitchell</a> is also a very established landscape photographer. Those two definitely know what they are talking about.</p>

<p>I have the 24mm/f2.8 AF-D, whose optical design is dated back to the 1977 AI version of the 24mm/f2.8. It is still ok on the D700, but if you get any high-pixel-density DSLR, I would update that lens. My 50 and 85 are the AF-S versions. The 24-120mm/f4 is more for convenience rather than the absolute best optical quality, although it is quite sharp on the D800 also.</p>

Just to clarify, when I wrote 10×15, I meant inches :-)

Shun, if I am not mistaken, the D7000 has a slightly higher pixel density than the D800, so I don't see how it would be more forgiving against sloppy technique, while having less resolution. The D800 should produce similar results in DX crop mode (of course, that's not how I would be primarily using it).

<p>Oliver, the D7000 is far more forgiving because it costs $1100 instead of $3000. That will leave you $1900 for one expensive f2.8 zoom or 2, 3 very good lenses. Again, if you have just a tiny bit of unsharpness, 12MP, 16MP, 24MP and 36MP will give you essentially the same results, although 36MP will take up a lot more disk space.</p>

<p>Disk drives are indeed cheap in these days, but at least I replicate all of my images onto 4, 5 different sets of hard drives and store them at different locations. Therefore, those large file still add up, and I quickly delete any D800 images that are not good to save space.</p>

<p>But eventually it is your decision. If you can't be happy unless you have a D800, and you can't wait until September, I am afraid that there is only one camera (or two if you consider the D800E a separate model) that will satisfy you.</p>

<p>Oh-oh, I was reading the message on a bus and somehow mistook the dimensions for cm - sorry! :-) At 10x12 or 10x15 inches you can easily see differences between 12 and 36MP cameras in detail given appropriate technique, however at that size I would not see higher than 12MP "mandatory". Can see the difference? Yes. Makes or breaks the image? No. At 12x18 inches the D800 and D3X show an obvious advantage and if you were targeting that size then I would get the higher resolution camera.</p>

<p>You can download good quality comparison images here:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/28">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/28</a></p>

<p>Print them out and compare/decide for yourself. The results are quite interesting.</p>

<p>Based on testing I have done myself, I agree there is typically no advantage to getting a high megapixel camera for small prints, especially at the lower ISOs. But there are advantages to the newer, high megapixel cameras that add value to them as compared to older cameras. Along with the higher pixel count are improvements/enhancements that make them work better. If there is a specific feature (or several features) available on a newer body that you need that is/are not available on an older one, there would certainly be an advantage to getting it.</p>

<p><em>"</em><em>Do I get added sharpness, colour depth, dynamic range"</em> Yes, but you may have to use exceptional technique to take full advantage of these attributes.</p>

<p>Oliver,<br>

Everyone has made a big point of whether or not you'll see sharpness resolution from the D800 vs the D700. For me, I'm not worried about sharpness, 12MP is plenty sharp for me, what I am worried about is dynamic range, color reproduction, and if you are shooting at ISO 100 on the D800 vs ISO 200 on the D700 you'll see a huge improvement in high contrast situations with the D800 in all print sizes. I'm able to shoot people backlit by the sun, while still retaining 90% of the sky details and still retaining face details. It does require some post processing, but cameras like the D700 do not have the ability to capture such extreme contrast ratios, post processing or not, unless its an HDR. You'll see that kind of thing in any print sizes. Of course one could add a flash or other fill light or reposition your subject, but that's beside the point, the point is if you are shooting at ISO 100 on the D800 you are getting at least 2 stops of dynamic range above pretty much any other Nikon camera except the D7000 maybe the D3x. To me this is what makes the difference in prints and the reason to purchase the D800. Also its colors are much more vivid and accurate because there is more bit depth. Forget about sharpness, focus on the how to capture an image, and when I have two extra stops of dynamic range over the D700, that opens up all kinds of doors for me to capture an image that was previously not possible with the D700. Doesn't mean the D700 takes poor images, it means I have opportunities and new ways to capture images previously unavailable to me.</p>

<p>To note of course, the D800 was optimized for shooting at ISO 100, as soon as you get to ISO 400, you basically loose all dynamic range\color advantages over other DSLRs, so if you plan on shooting at higher ISOs, the difference becomes negligible. </p>

<p>The only time I've played with a D800, focusing in live-view was so-much better than my D700. As I didn't take the same pic on my D700, I can't compare the results, but they were pretty damn good.</p>

<p>I wonder how the same shot taken with the D7000 compare to the higher res D3200?</p>

<p>Pixel quality (esp Dynamic Range) and density are becoming the major issue here.... up to a 'certain size' it's not important......but with cropping being an option for lack-of-long-lens-length...it is!!</p>

<p>On a related note, I just noticed that Thom Hogan's D800 review is out: <a href="http://www.bythom.com/nikond800review.htm">http://www.bythom.com/nikond800review.htm</a></p>

<p>While I certainly do not agree with everything Thom writes, he has a lot of good points that should help the OP and others.</p>

<p>Additionally, his D800 eBook is also available for US$29.99; in this case you just download it. It looks like Thom does not ship you a CD plus a printed booklet any more.</p>

<p>Mike, according to the DXOMark site, the D7000 and D3200 should give basically the same results.</p>

<p>Based on comparison images at DP review per the link I posted above, the do look pretty much the same.</p>