D800 vs D700

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, you downsample the D800 image to compare performance with D3s/D4.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Luke, thanks for the confirmation.</p>

<p>I have already made my points in the previous post at 9:21am.</p>

[luke_kaven]

<p>What did that have to do with the proposition in question? You said: "it is also quite clear that the D800's high-ISO is not at the same level as the D3S and D4"</p>

<p>Don't the theory, measurements, and research cited call into question this claim? </p>

[luke_kaven]

<p>If you were merely trying to say that the D800, at the pixel level, did not have as good low light response, then I apologize. In my mind, the low light camera is the one that aggregates photons into a relatively small number of pixels in order to provide maximum signal. So the only way a D800 would be a candidate for a low light camera is where the sensor pixels are aggregated into a relatively small number of pixels. On this measure, the D800 is on a par with the D3s, and within 1/3 stop of the D4, both of which collect photons at low pixel density. But we will see what other qualitative factors might intercede when the production cameras arrive, hopefully without further delay.</p>

[donbright]

<p>There isn't a camera in existence, other than a view camera, that needs a tripod all the time. Also, whats wrong with tripods?</p>

[sener]

<p>When downsampling the d800 images, assuming that the images have the same iso performance as that of a lower mp camera's outcomes such as the d3s, then in my opinion, the two cameras have their own characteristics.<br>

Having a low mp on an fx format has the advantages of being faster, ease on post processing (due to small file sizes) etc.. On the other hand, high mp gives the option that more details can be obtained from the images. This may be important when printing in larger sizes or cropping in small sizes.<br>

Hence, I think the preference of high or low mp cameras is dependent on the photographic needs. Personally, I would rather have a high mp camera such as the d800, because the 36 mp is just an extra detail that the others can never provide even though they all can produce the same iso performances . But this is just my preference, for someone else other factors such as speed may be more important.</p>

[scottelly]

<p>I really don't see what's so new. When Nikon went from 12 megapixels to 24 megapixels with the D3x, did everyone have to "start using tripods" to shoot every photo? NO. Does the D3x produce better quality images than the D3 at low ISO settings? YES.</p>

<p>Quit with the BS people! Gong from the 24 megapixel D3x to the 36 megapixel D800 is very little. It's only 50% more pixels. It's like going from 12 megapixels to 18 megapixels, and as a photographer who has shot with cameras that produce both of those numbers of megapixels, I can attest to the fact that there is not that much difference! In fact, if YOU look at the numbers, you'll see that the horizontal resolution has not increased very much from the D3x to the D800.</p>

<p>D3x = 6048 x 4032<br>

D800 = 7360 x 4912</p>

<p>Shooting with a D800 will not produce worse images than shooting with a D3x or a D700. If anything, it will produce BETTER images, but they just may look about the same, if they are blurry, because you moved. Of course, you can produce very good blurry images with a D200 or a D50 too! No need for a D700, if your purpose is to produce blurry images.</p>

<p>;)</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Scott, no, I did not "<strong>start</strong> using tripods" when I used the D3X. The key word is "start." I started using tripods as much as possible for serious work way before the D3X or even 12MP digital. I started using tripods with film SLRs. But every image I used in photo.net's D3X review was indeed captured with the D3X on a tripod, namely the Gitzo 1325: <a href="../equipment/nikon/D3X/review/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/D3X/review/</a></p>

<p>One thing that really surprised me (and perhaps surprised a lot of others also) is that when I switched from the 12MP D300 to the 16MP D7000, I thought it was merely a very modest pixel increase. It turns out that the D7000 is far more demanding on the quality of lenses and technique. I would imagine that the same is true when we go from 24MP FX to 36MP FX; the jump from 12MP FX (D3/D3S/D700) is clearly much bigger.</p>

[scottelly]

<p>Yes, it definitely is Shun, but good technique, as you know, from the film days, shows through, even though your image resolution may not be very high. As you know, a good scan from 35mm film is around 6 megapixels. Yes, you can get 15 megapixel scans, and they are very expensive, but for printing at 11x14 or 11x17, most digital scans from 35mm film tend to be about 6 megapixels. A landscape shot that was done well, with good technique (probably with a tripod), normally looks sharper than a hand-held shot, even at those small print sizes, and even with a 6 megapixel scan from film. 12 megapixel raw shots from a D700 will certainly show good technique vs. bad, as will just about any shot. Can you capture finer detail with a D800 than with a D700? Sure! Of course. To say that a camera is more demanding though, I think is a misconception. It has always been demanding to capture the finest detail in your images, whether it was with film, a 6 megapixel camera, a 12 megapixel camera, or whatever.</p>

<p>Just for comparison, you might find the detail in these screen captures interesting. I created a gallery of images from raw samples I found at Imaging Resource. The gallery compares images from a D800 (at ISO 100 and ISO 800) with almost identical images from a Sigma SD1 (the previous king of detail capture at a reasonable price range), also shot at ISO 100 and ISO 800. I found it surprising that the Sigma produces less noise at ISO 100 and even at ISO 800 too. The original screen captures are all downloadable. There is also a button in the gallery that allows you to view full-screen, though the images viewed are not full size (they are about 70%, and unfortunately have been compressed). It would be best do download the full-size screen captures, though even that will not tell the full story. The best way is to download View NX 2.3 from the Nikon Web site, Sigma Photo Pro 5.2 from the Sigma Web site, and the raw files from Imaging Resource, and then view the raw files for yourself.</p>

<p>Shun, I suspect you have probably already done this, so that was not directed to you.</p>