Publication quality from Nikon DSLRs

[dean_waters]

<p>Dear all, well I'm almost about to do it, after years of using Nikon film SLRs the time has almost come for me to make the transition. I've been selling more and more macro shots that have been taken on transparency, usually provia, but sometimes velvia and I'm now at the point that I need to either get a decent film scanner or go digital really based on economics. I'm keeping the film going for fun, and still use and will continue to use my RB67 for studio and landscape, but the macro is just easier and more economically viable with digital. So, after considerable research I'm in the market for a DSLR. Having talked to a few pro photographers, their basic message is get as many megapixels as possible as most publishers will want to crop the image how they like, but to be honest, a D3x is just not justifiable given the number of images I sell. Having tried a D300, I find the viewfinder small, dim and dingy compared with my F4 and F100, especially when manually focussing, which is fairly important when you're up at 4x magnification on a bellows. This leaves a D3 or D700. I'm leaning towards a D700 due to cost and since I don't need a high frame rate, but the core question is whether photo libraries and publishers are going to be happy with a 12 megapixel image. This is something that so far I have no experience with. I have no intention of turning pro, I enjoy my photography as an extra, but it's good if the equipment can at least earn its keep. What are your experiences/opinions?</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>You can use the tripod mode live view for focusing on the D300. You can zoom in all the way to any part of the image and adjust focus manually to get the details sharp where they need to be. This is a more accurate of focusing than using the focusing screen. I would not buy the D700 over the D300 for macro work.</p>

[niccoury]

<p>I'll put it simply:</p>

<p>The D3/D700, Canon 1D(not-s) Mark III ("only" 10mp), is good enough for Sports Illustrated, NewsWeek, etc., etc., etc., therefore it WILL be good enough for you.</p>

<p>Hell, the Nikon D2-series did the same job when shot right...</p>

[pete_harlan1]

<blockquote>

<p>question is whether photo libraries and publishers are going to be happy with a 12 megapixel image</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>It depends Dean.<br>

Publishers vary requirements depending on final use.<br>

Several stock agencies require that the file be non-destructively interpolated to 50Mb and are specific in the methodology.<br>

This is not a problem for 12 MP camera's.<br>

Some agencies (again, depending on final use) require the camera shoots natively at no less than 16Mb .</p>

<p>You'll have to look at the image guidelines for each publisher.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Depends on the magazine, of course. I have never had a magazine turn down a photo from me because of the camera I used. This year I had a cover shot on TRAINS Magazine (March 09) that I shot with my D80. It looked great. This is a "real" magazine that you can actually find on most full sized magazine stands, LOL. I also have shots pending in two other magazines this year, taken with my D300. I still sell stock/calendar photos too. I am VERY picky about what lenses I use, and I think the lenses are the big thing. As for the D300, quality from that is better than anything I ever got from my Bronica 645 system. It's been pointed out that Frans Lanting uses a D300. You didn't mention what lenses you have, but you just might be better off getting some new state of art lenses and using a D300 than trying to get by with "questionable" lenses on a D700. The new pro lenses from Nikon can give stunning performance! Finally, like you I too kept my F100 and Bronica ETRSi system when I bought my first DSLR, thinking I might sometimes want to still use them. I never used them again, and that was nearly three years ago.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>As Ilkka points out, if you shoot a lot of macro from a tripod, start using live view, which is available on all cameras in consideration in this thread: D300, D700, D3 and D3X. I wouldn't worry about the quality of the viewfinder any more.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>In general in outdoor conditions I do use the viewfinder since it provides a clear view of the subject without being contaminated by the ambient light. I only activate Live View for critical focusing, not composition or general scouting of the subject or shooting angles. I even do the preliminary adjustment of tilt using the optical viewfinder but usually refine it and the focus using live view, which adds a lot of confidence to this type of work. The D700 viewfinder is nice but at the same time the camera has some disadvantages when your subject is really small; with DX you can use shorter (and usually less expensive lenses) to get the working distance that you need and a clean background. It is of course debatable how important this is compared to the tonal richness of FX, but a DX camera with live view would be my first choice for primary macro camera (assuming I can't afford the D3X).</p>

[mfophotos]

<p>I think that in the end, it boils down to the size of the published image. I have had photographs published that were shot with 6 mp cameras, and some published that were 2800 dpi slide scans. The 6mp images were crisp and beautiful spread across two pages in a glossy magazine. The D700, being full-frame, should be just fine, especially for macro work, as you described. Nothing will ever beat the viewfinder in my F3HP, and of course, the cropped-sensor cameras are definitely not going to be in the same ballpark if you are used to shooting film. If you want to do a test, have a 20x30" print made by mpix.com -- that should reassure you...or not.</p>

[dean_waters]

<p>Thanks guys for the useful answers. Live view on a tripod would indeed be useful, though I often go for moving subjects like spiders, which at 2x magnification is a challenge, so a decent viewfinder for me is important. I've got a decent range of good lenses, mostly Nikon AIS, such as the 200mm F4 micro, 35mm F2, 24mm f2.8, AF 60mm f2.8 micro, plus a Tamron 90mm Macro so I'd not be looking to replace any of those soon, but it's encouraging that at least some publishers/agencies will accept files from 12 Megapixel cameras.</p>

[dave wyman]

<p>>Having tried a D300, I find the viewfinder small, dim and dingy compared with my F4 and F100<</p>

<p>Well, STOP comparing the cameras. Problem solved. ;-)</p>

<p>"it's encouraging that at least some publishers/agencies will accept files from 12 Megapixel cameras"</p>

<p>It's a mistake to think a 12 megapixel camera in needed in order to sell a photograph. Having produced two pictorial guidebooks for two publishers in the past few years, each containing many digital photographs (with less than 12 megapixel cameras), I can say finding a way to publish photographs has little - and probably nothing - to do with camera equipment, including the number of megapixels. </p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>I've shot Nikon for decades. I do most of my bellows macro with a D3 (it has liveview, and as Ilkka and Shun pointed out, once you try liveview, there's no going back). Personally, if the bellows were my main concern, I'd get a Canon 7D or 5D II. Canon has a wonderful feature called "electronic first curtain" shutter. It not only eliminates all mirror vibration from a tripod macro shot, but also most of the shutter vibration. Cleanest macros out there.</p>

<p>Not as much of a concern if you're chasing bugs handheld at 2x.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the core question is whether photo libraries and publishers are going to be happy with a 12 megapixel image.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, the D3 and D700 are on the approved list at Alamay and Getty Images. ;) I think Canon 5D II is, too. 7D is probably too new.</p>

[dean_waters]

<p>Always nice to hear the voice of experience, thanks guys.</p>