How important are megapixels?

[DavidTrap (David)]

Greg - it was all sales speak tonight, but the D800 is going to be "unbelievably sharp", and the D800E "just a little bit more unbelievably sharp".

The owner of the camera store (which is one of the pro dealers for Nikon) said they have lots of pre-orders for the D800, but not as many as they'd expected for the D800E.

I think we might be trying to use our knowledge and experience with dedicated astro CCDs and apply that to a DSLR, which is a completely different beast.

DT

[gregbradley]

I just saw a thread on DPreview where someone used tonal contrast and mild sharpening to the D800 snowy forest image that made it very very close to the D800E version.

I read conflicting reports about the effect of no AA filter on video.

I think I'll just go D800 and later if D800E users show the no AA filter is worth it I can always get the camera modified by MaxMax but as you point out it wouldn't be worth it. By then a 60mp medium format sensor in a DSLR body will be out and the D800 will be relegated to history!

The Leica M9 guy was saying though that Moire is a rare occurrence with his M9. About 1% of images. So it could be a lot of fuss about nothing but I feel Nikon has left a vaccuum of info on the subject making it too hard to evaluate clearly. The D800 is the safer bet.

What lenses are you using/getting for it?

Nikon rep I saw today said the new 85mm F1.8 with nano crystal coating is amazing and cheap at $650. Great for portraits. I'm geting one of those as well. I am thinking the 50mm F1.4 AF-S could be useful. 70-200mm F2.8 may be on the shopping list in the future but its a huge lens. I am not sure how often I would use something like that.

Greg.

[Adelastro1 (Wayne England)]

Lucky you! Please post details if you get a reply from the tech! Would be very interesting.

I emailed Nikon Sydney and got a reply from the Nikon Professional Services National manager but didn't give too much details. Here's what he said:

"Regarding the low light performance of the camera from the testing that I have been able to do the low light ability is similar to the D3 and D700 cameras while having the higher mega pixel count.
For the images that you are capturing I would think that the D800e variant would be best suited as the additional fine detail and sharpness would be beneficial.

I do not have example images of astro photography from the D800 yet if I receive some before the launch I will forward them on."


I wait patiently for some astrophoto examples but won't hold my breath! But the signs are good if what he says is true. Now for what the tech thinks....!

Originally Posted by DavidTrap

Guess who actually held a D800E and D4 today?

Very nice. Pre-Production models, so you couldn't take any files away unfortunately.

Have an email address of a Nikon tech to ask questions about effects of the antialiasing filter on chip sensitivity across the spectrum - was a bit beyond the knowlede of the sales reps!

DT

[gregbradley]

My conclusion regarding the extra megapixels and low light was to use fast lenses when deciding what type of lens to use. I know they cost more but fast F ratio lenses generally speaking have nice characteristics that you would want anyway. Also for widefield astro work fast f ratio lenses become pretty important regardless of the camera used.

With regards the 800E my main concern now would be how it performs in video, if moire is an issue in video. One post on DP review indicated it would not as the image is so heavily downsampled to arrive at 1080p. Another post conflicted this so I don't know what to believe. So I am going for the D800 as sharpening and tonal contrast will arrive at much the same sharpness and lens choice, accuracy of focus are possibly more important as factors in the final sharpness of the image. Mind you, your images are mostly landscape? In which case you have nothing to lose.

Greg.

[Octane (Humayun)]

Question 1: how many of you actually print images? (And, I don't mean 6x4s or 7x5s); and,
Question 2: how many of you will upload full resolution (that is, not downsampled) images to the web for people to pixel peep?

What's the point of the E, if the answers to the above are in the negative? Wouldn't the normal version suffice with careful sharpening of the raw data using the supplied software?

The E sounds like it's a studio photographer's tool. Even then, studio images are airbrushed. What woman wants to see pores within skin pores?

H

[gregbradley]

You are right of course. But I think the E is more aiming at the medium format market where no low pass filter is usual. It gets that extra sharpness. Also for landscape imagers who want that extra zing.

Its like refractors. Why get an AP or TEC or Tak etc when there are other cheaper great scopes. Its that last little bit.

Its funny how you want that last little bit even though as you say it probably won't make hardly any difference. The sample 800 photos are amazingly detailed.

Greg.

[Octane (Humayun)]

I understand.

Printing big is joyful.

H

[Marke (Mark)]

There is a little catch to going bigger in sensors in the future that I think
most manufactures will avoid as long as possible . It means you have to bring out a whole set of new lens that can cover it and possibly a new lens mount as well . Not something that they will want to do any time soon I would guess.

[DavidTrap (David)]

Originally Posted by Marke

There is a little catch to going bigger in sensors in the future that I think
most manufactures will avoid as long as possible . It means you have to bring out a whole set of new lens that can cover it and possibly a new lens mount as well . Not something that they will want to do any time soon I would guess.

Well if you want something bigger, there's always Medium Format!

DT

[Marke (Mark)]

Yep there is always medium true but where does it leave the current DSLR format and I dont think there is a huge selection of medium format lens available for either N or C ?

[gregbradley]

Yes I agree. To cram more pixels in they are going to have to do larger sensors. I wonder at what size they would need to do larger bodies and larger lenses. What are the corrected circle sizes of the better FX lenses?

Greg.

[Marke (Mark)]

I have all FX lens 14-24 24-70 70-200 80-400 and all the macros including the 200mm so was lucky there when I got the D700 but I doubt they would focus on a bigger sensor unless it was a small size increase. They do still work on a DX body so you have backward compatability.
In theory I guess they could increase the CCD - lens distance but I am sure that has inherent problems too . Not sure what the circle size is and I am guessing it may vary slightly between lens . The market for full frame is still pretty young so they will probably stick with them for some time yet . Who knows D5 may see a semi-medium format with a few new lens to suit ?

[gregbradley]

[QUOTE=Marke;820883]I have all FX lens 14-24 24-70 70-200 80-400 and all the macros including the 200mm

I am in the process of procuring Nikon lenses. How do you find the 70-200? It looks fantastic but its also quite large and heavy. Do you find yourself not using it because of that?

I have 14-24, 24-70, 50mm F1.8 for now. I am planning to get the new 85mm F2.8 with the D800.

What are your favourites?

Greg.

[Marke (Mark)]

I have had the 70-200 for a few years and love it and use it when ever I can . I use it for close-up with a Cannon 500d diopter on it. I dont think it big at all , try carrying the 200-400 for awhile ! I usually keep a 1.4tc handy when using it . The 80-400 is pretty big and I spend a lot of time with that on the camera as well . Get the 70-200 and you will not regret it

[DavidTrap (David)]

What are your thoughts on the teleconveters Mark.

I was thinking about the 1.7x. (However, I'll probably just end up cropping a lot with 36MP at my disposal!)

Agree the 70-200 is very nice.

DT

[Marke (Mark)]

David I find the 1.4x really good and have no hesitation using it , in fact use it a lot on both 70-200, 80-400 . From my understanding the 1.7x is better quality but I dont want to loose that extra stop of light . Maybe if I didnt have a 1.4 already then I may have gone with the 1.7 with fast glass at least. 70-200 is so sharp its very hard to pick any diff with or with out TC imho.

[DavidTrap (David)]

Thanks Mark,

That's what I've heard about the 1.7 vs 1.4. I'll see how I go in due course with the 70-200 on a full frame sensor.

DT

[Marke (Mark)]

I think you will like it

[gregbradley]

OK so 70-200 is a good lens. I'll have to get it to complete the trifecta.

I use a TEC110 flourite triplet 613mm as a telephoto as well as it also relatively light. I did a bird shot at home with a modest Canon 40D and it got published in an Italian Magazine. So I would use that before a long telephoto.

I got a Novoflex adapter today so I can use these fabulous Nikon lenses
on an EOS body ( I have a 40D and modified 20D I use for infrared). A very cool accessory ( I got it from Mainline Photographic in Crows Nest Sydney- Scott).

So I do a shoot out between Canon 50mm F1.8 and Nikon F1.8 on the weekend.

Also test the 14-24 and 24-70 more extensively.

Thanks for the input.

Greg.

[Marke (Mark)]

Like to see what you come up with Greg , I can tell you one thing the
14-24 is probably the best wide angle lens ever made and the 24-70 not far behind . What I like about the 14-24 is the close focus , I use it more for close ups than anything else.