tonybeach_1961

As a practical matter, set the aperture on you Z7 a third of a stop wider at ISO 800 and above. That's where the extra "reach" of the Z7 probably has an advantage.

That's not technically correct. There are different priorities for each, so the Z7 actually has less noise at its lowest ISO (64) and pretty much matches the Z6 up to ISO 360 and is actually a third of a stop better than the Z6 at ISO 400 but then the Z6 gets a boost at ISO 800 and has the third of a stop advantage at higher ISOs. See: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon Z 6,Nikon Z 7 I would go further and point out that you can sharpen a higher pixel density file more than a lower one, and you can be more aggressive in applying NR too. In practice, there is often some advantage to using the higher pixel density file because it ends up with greater acuity. Of course that begs the question, if your shooting at high ISOs and both pixel densities have nearly equal results than what's the point of using a camera that produces larger files? Nonetheless, the bottom line here is that pixel density plays no role in how much light you gather with a modern FX sensor.

To me it means that a photograph has an intrinsic value (i.e., compositional elements) separate from its subject. I can, for instance, consider a photograph compelling of an unremarkable rock that I wouldn't give much or any thought to as I walked past it, and I often find such a photograph more interesting than one of an interesting person I could engage for hours of discussion with that was photographed poorly.

I find that my issue is I care about the photograph as a photograph, but most people (other photographers included) care about who are what they see in the photograph.

So sorry to hear about you being victimized. I bought my girlfriend a Lumix DC-ZS70 last year so she would have better reach and lowlight performance than her Blackberry (so obviously not an iPhone). My thinking when I chose it was I wanted the reach, Raw files, decent video, and some connectivity. Without the connectivity she would probably never use it, and I only use it to video her and her dogs when they are doing Agility or Sheepherding. My biggest issue is that after spending a couple of days learning how to use it before giving it to her for her birthday I have since forgotten how to use it. Sure I can point and shoot, and it doesn't take me long to configure it to share the photos or videos on Facebook, but I'm having a hard time getting clutter off the back LCD screen or being able to quickly make a change to some esoteric setting when she wants that done. She barely uses the Lumix and much prefers her Blackberry unless I'm around to get it up and going for her, and when we went out to watch whales it was less useful than her phone (narrowing the FOV and getting it to focus was far to difficult, and it didn't hold a candle to my D800).

6x or 600%.

A little of this, and a little of that: D500, Pentax 67 55mm f/4 @ f/8, 1/100s, ISO 100, with diffused flash fill. D500, Tokina AT-X Macro 90mm f/2.5 @ f/16, ISO 100 with diffused lighting. D500, Rokinon T-S 24mm f/3.5 @ f/11, 1s, ISO 100.

Technically, I bought a small, configurable, padded tote bag so I could throw some gear into a larger backpack in a hurry -- but I would rather mention two others. Just before the price went up I bought a copy of Capture One 21 (for Nikon only), but a few days before that I bought a Tokina AT-X 14-20mm f/2 Pro DX which actually came a few days after I had installed Capture One on my computer, and that lens really sings on my D500 that I acquired used last November (so I've been on a bit of a buying spree lately).

The D300 has more headroom than its predecessor because about 2/3rds of the boost from ISO 100 to ISO 200 came by increasing the default Brightness setting in the Picture Controls (D300 was the first generation of DSLRs that went from Image Settings to Picture Controls). Consequently, as a result of the better performance at the same exposure, Nikon set the meter to expose more to the left than the D200 or D2x. I used to routinely set EC to +.7 on my D300 so that extra image quality showed up in the shadows and in practice my D300 files were exposed a third of a stop faster than my D200 files at base ISO. As for my regrets, I can't honestly say I have any. I went from a D300 to a Sony A850 and over the next few years sold a lot of great NIKKORs for less than I had paid for them, but that was dictated by finances and the rent had to be paid. I replaced my A850 with a Nikon D800 and am working on getting back the lens capabilities I had with my NIKKORs. The one lens I had then that am looking forward to buying again (again, finances and other priorities are the reason I have to wait) is the PC Micro-NIKKOR 85mm f/2.8D.

I see color moiré in downsized displays if it covers a large enough area. As I understand it, the phenomenon has to do with the Bayer Filter Array (BFA) and overlapping detail being recorded by different colors and that causing confusion for the demosaicing. It will always show up on repeating patterns if the lens can resolve more than the sensor can record; but being out-of-focus, or any vibration (camera shake, shutter or mirror shock) can negate the need for an AA filter (and even AA filters aren't an absolute solution because there's a balancing act between eliminating all color moiré and not losing too much resolution). The solution is to make the lenses the AA filter. That is, if the sensor resolves more than the lens can resolve and not the other way around then you won't get any color moiré. The main reason you don't see it with your Sony cameras probably isn't the lenses as much as it's vibration, which is why you want to have a solid tripod with the mirror up and the shutter up before the exposure begins.

I'm not the only one who has experienced color moiré using various older lenses on my D800, so my experience is that the D800 sensor isn't resolving as much as some of the older lenses I put in front of it. All my D800 files can be sharp or dull depending on the Sharpness setting. What you are describing here sounds like a function of the Raw conversion and not the sensors' resolution. Right, and a file with more resolution can be sharpened more easily or requires less sharpening than a file with less resolution. By "legacy" do you mean lenses like the: AF-S 50mm f1/4G and the three PC-E Micro-NIKKOR lenses (24mm, 45mm, & 85mm) that came out in 2008? AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G and AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G that came out in 2007? AF-S Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G VR that came out in 2006? AF-S NIKKOR 200mm f/2G VR and AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G VR that came out in 2005? AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G VR and AF-NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8D that came out in 2002? That's eleven legacy lenses that came out well before the D800 or even the D7000 (which has the same pixel density) that can easily trigger color moiré on a D800. There are a bunch of other lenses that will also resolve more than what a D800 can record, like all the exotic telephoto lenses, the Micro-NIKKOR 85mm f/2.8, etcetera.

FWIW, I find that on my sub-optimal copy of the AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G VR that I can shoot wide open up to about 135mm (195mm with my TC-14eII attached) and can essentially recover lost contrast in post with resolution being the same, but after that things get dicey at f/4 and if I actually want the extra reach I need to stop the lens down to f/5.6 and then it's great (considering that I would rather being shooting with the latest 70-200/2.8 NIKKOR).

The D800 has plenty of resolution for you, which is one answer to the question you posed. For me I'm going to go with 72 MP, and in the article by Thom Hogan on this topic that I link to below he writes that "...for most full frame purchasers [it] is almost certainly the 24mp cameras and a modern convenience lens (e.g. 24-105mm f/4 for Sony FE, 24-70mm f/4 for Nikon Z)." Where are you getting that number? At what aperture? Acuity and resolution are not the same. I've seen lots of detail that has low micro-contrast and needs additional sharpening to give it some snap. I'm sure there is a resolution number attached to the AA filter, but I doubt it ever reaches 33% at any aperture, and by the time I'm working at f/11 I suspect it amounts to zero. Another consideration is color moiré, which is triggered by the lens resolving more than the sensor, and which is why Nikon put a relatively weak AA filter on the D800. Well, I will direct you back to what I wrote above about color moiré and to this article by Thom Hogan on the subject: http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/2019-mirrorless-camera/july-september-2019-mirrorl/more-sampling-is-always.html I think Thom's article sums up this discussion rather well. Also see Roger Cicala's response here to Marianna Oelund: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60254934 My take on this is in the center of the lens' image circle at wide apertures there are a few lenses made before the D800/D800E came out that can take advantage of at least some of that level of sensor resolution.

That's incorrect. Noise and DR are mainly a function of exposure and sensor area, so if you have a large sensor that is well exposed it doesn't matter much if it's 12 MP or 46 MP. In fact, often a higher pixel density sensor has more DR than a lower pixel density sensor -- for instance, see: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon D4S(DX),Nikon D5(DX),Nikon D500 Cropped to the same sensor area the D4s and D5 both lose out to the D500, and even using the entire FX frame the D500 has less noise and more DR at base ISO than these two cameras with their larger photosites.

When I go somewhere to gather shots I don't want to play around with using a longer focal length and bringing home multiple files to be stitched when I envision making a larger print, and I want the ability to decide after the fact how large I want to print. Ironically, having a higher MP camera with me has made gathering photographs much easier (same is true of having more DR in my current cameras than what I had before). As for software solutions, I'm not interested in creating false detail and I don't like it when viewing a photograph closely reveals its flaws. It costs less today to store and process my D800 files than it cost to do the same with my D300 files when I bought it. I'm pretty sure the same is true if I doubled the D800 file sizes. I mentioned my D500 versus my D800, and when push comes to shove I will take the D500 over the D800 in part because going from 21 MP to 36 MP isn't as much of a jump as it looks like on paper, thus why I would ultimately want twice as many megapixels as I get from my D800. OTOH, I remember shooting with my D200 and D300 cameras and always wishing I had more megapixels, and going to 24 MP felt liberating whereas 16 MP was just an incremental advantage.

I appreciate higher MP for when I want to do a large print (30x20 inches), for when I want reach (e.g., shots of birds with my current maximum 280mm focal length that require cropping), and having more pixels makes editing fine details easier. I do find my 21 MP D500 to be a great all-arounder, excelling at many things; and conversely I find my 36 MP D800 to be a bit lacking in MP and wouldn't mind having 70+ MP which would come close to eliminating color moiré.

It's no different for me with my digital cameras. I absolutely obsess about light, composition, focus, and exposure. Nonetheless, for me what I get from all of that is a shot, a starting point, and more is required to make it into a photograph -- indeed, as I showed above, you can take control of that or you can just let the camera do it for you; but regardless, there's a lot that has to be done after the shutter button is pressed. More power to you Alan. I would just say here that "computer art" isn't actually photography, though it might use photography as a starting point. One isn't inherently better than the other, and either or both or neither may be the best way to convey one's artistry.

Many people believe a lot of things that aren't true. The camera captures a completely unreal scene prior to it being processed: The same is true with film too.