Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 02 Feb 2012 (Thursday) 01:21
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Would You Switch to D800 for more MP?

 
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
Avatar
13,483 posts
Likes: 201
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Gesher Haziv, Israel
     
Feb 02, 2012 07:31 |  #16

In fact the native resolution of the 1DS3 (or 5D2) is 16x20.

3744 pixels / 16 inches = 234 ppi, call it 240.
For what printer is that the native resolution?


Elie / אלי

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Lowner
"I'm the original idiot"
Avatar
12,924 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Salisbury, UK.
     
Feb 02, 2012 07:50 as a reply to  @ tzalman's post |  #17

As Elie has pointed out, there are some rather odd interpretations of "natural" print size flying about.

I've just been playing with the 5616 x 3744 pixels of my 5D2. At the R2880's natural 360ppi, it only produces a print of 15.6" x 10.4" (Our maths agree Elie!). Even to push it to A3+ paper means lowering the res. to around 300ppi.

So boys and girls, we have a long way to go before we reach an MP count that will naturally allow an A2 print at these sorts of ppi levels. How does the D800 stack up at 360 ppi?


Richard

http://rcb4344.zenfoli​o.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Echo ­ Johnson
Senior Member
Avatar
433 posts
Joined Aug 2011
Location: UK
     
Feb 02, 2012 08:02 |  #18

Lowner wrote in post #13811443 (external link)
Whoever thinks that the race for more MP is over or that we will never need more is living in a dream world. Technology will always be improving, thats the nature of the beast.

Ah yes, but the mad dash to up the pixel count seems to be petering out - c.f. 1Ds Mark III vs 1D X.

Of course the MP counts will keep going up, because as you say, technology will always be improving, but now it seems that the companies are content with letting them creep up more slowly than before.

The race is over, the march is still on.

And to answer the OP: no, I wouldn't switch. The 12.8 megapixels my 5D produces are enough for me.


Canon 5D3 | 17-40 | 50/1.4 | 135/2
...and other stuff.
Flickr (external link) | EchoJ.deviantART (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
"spouting off stupid things"
Avatar
56,125 posts
Likes: 2822
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Feb 02, 2012 08:16 |  #19

I don't plan on switching as I'm heavily invested in Canon already, but I don't see how one can make a determination without seeing the final product. But common sense tells me that with a pixel density lower than a 50D or 7D the noise should be a bit better per pixel than those two bodies. It will be interesting to see how much of an improvement Nikon has made in noise reduction.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
"spouting off stupid things"
Avatar
56,125 posts
Likes: 2822
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Feb 02, 2012 08:19 |  #20

Echo Johnson wrote in post #13812072 (external link)
Of course the MP counts will keep going up, because as you say, technology will always be improving, but now it seems that the companies are content with letting them creep up more slowly than before..

Maybe the MP count is coming down because technology is not improving as much as we think and Canon has realized that to get a really clean high ISO picture your going to need bigger pixels.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mark2Mark
Member
136 posts
Joined Jan 2010
     
Feb 02, 2012 08:36 |  #21

The D700 will look very, very old tech if the D800 has 36MP and full HD video.


Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rick_reno
Cream of the Crop
44,642 posts
Likes: 134
Joined Dec 2010
     
Feb 02, 2012 09:57 |  #22

No, I wouldn't switch. I've drank the Canon Kool-aid and I'm hooked.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Preeb
Goldmember
Avatar
2,642 posts
Gallery: 131 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 980
Joined Sep 2011
Location: Logan County, CO
     
Feb 02, 2012 10:08 as a reply to  @ rick_reno's post |  #23

The way I look at it, Canon had to have a solid reason for putting an 18mp sensor in the 1Dx. It will be interesting when both are out to see how the comparisons stack up. I'm betting on the Canon to win low light going away. ;)


Rick
6D Mark II - EF 17-40 f4 L -- EF 100mm f2.8 L IS Macro -- EF 70-200 f4 L IS w/1.4 II TC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mcluckie
I play with fire, run with scissors and skate on thin ice all at once!
Avatar
2,065 posts
Gallery: 97 photos
Likes: 324
Joined Jul 2009
Location: Chicago, Hong Kong
     
Feb 02, 2012 10:23 |  #24

snaphappyphotography wrote in post #13811229 (external link)
Nikon Rumors is pretty sure the D800 will be 36MP, due for announcement within the next few days, I'm hearing 7th or 9th.

If the new 5D was only 22MP, would you consider switching to the D800 as a portrait or landscape photographer?

The D800 will very likely have superior AF and possibly superior ISO, so if it has far superior resolution I worry Canon might lose market share...

Thats ridiculous. Quantities of pixels has little to do with IQ over maybe 12. A 36MP on a crop sensor (not that this is what Nikon is doing) would suck. Pixel size and spacing are more important than pure population. Sheer pixel population does not equal superior resolution. Put 36 MP on a medium format sensor in a system in a compact body with great noise and lenses and I'd be interested.


multidisciplinary visual guy | traveler on the 8-fold path | seeker of the spark | walker of the dog
all dingus | dslr canon 5D4, 70-200LII zeiss distagon 15, 21, 25, 28, 50ƒ1.4 milvus; vario-sonnar N 24-85; makro planar 50, 100 mirrorless leica Q2 fujifilm XT-2, 16, 56; zeiss distagon 12, planar 32 film canon 1n hasselblad 501cm, 50, 80

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
h4ppydaze
Goldmember
1,329 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2011
     
Feb 02, 2012 11:22 |  #25

Lowner wrote in post #13812020 (external link)
As Elie has pointed out, there are some rather odd interpretations of "natural" print size flying about.

I've just been playing with the 5616 x 3744 pixels of my 5D2. At the R2880's natural 360ppi, it only produces a print of 15.6" x 10.4" (Our maths agree Elie!). Even to push it to A3+ paper means lowering the res. to around 300ppi.

So boys and girls, we have a long way to go before we reach an MP count that will naturally allow an A2 print at these sorts of ppi levels. How does the D800 stack up at 360 ppi?

How much print experience do you have? Because 360ppi is considered overkill even in professional printing. The industry standard is 300ppi for print, but that's for viewing distances under a foot. If you have a large image, you'd have to be inches away to notice that an image was printed at 150ppi or lower. Also if major pixelation is an issue, you can always upconvert, though that won't affect you until you're printing huge and you need very specialized printers to begin with. 4MP images have been blown up to poster size (or even billboard, though the viewing distance/size ratio is larger) for years, and they look great. That is by no means an exaggeration.

Also, keep in mind that double the pixels does NOT equal double the dimensions. If 21mp prints safely at 300ppi to 16x24, 36mp will print safely to 22x33, and detail will not be greater.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
h4ppydaze
Goldmember
1,329 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2011
     
Feb 02, 2012 11:27 |  #26

cristphoto wrote in post #13811870 (external link)
To me it's about print size. Most of my work is 16x20 with occasional 30x40. My 1DS3 handles this fine. In fact the native resolution of the 1DS3 (or 5D2) is 16x20. I use the analogy from my film days. Many years ago you needed 4x5 film to get a decent 16x20. As technology improved you could move down to 120 film for the same output and ultimately you could get by with 35mm. If Canon or Nikon released a 30, 40, or 50mp camera I'm not going to start selling billboards. Sure there would be more headroom, but at what cost?

Billboards are viewed from huge distances, so you could print one at 3 megapixels and be fine, easily.

Also 36MP files, though about 1.3x the pixels per dimension, are about DOUBLE the size, and are unwieldly to process, and will fill your hard drive fast. I am looking forward to 10.1mp files from my 1Diii as even the 18mp files from my T2i don't really give me much real world benefit compared to how much it bogs down my system. When I need and I mean absolutely need the MP, I'll use the T2i, but for 99% of my stuff it's 1Diii all day.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
snaphappyphotography
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
251 posts
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Olive Branch, Ms
     
Feb 02, 2012 11:32 |  #27

mcluckie wrote in post #13812727 (external link)
(not that this is what Nikon is doing)

You could be right, but according to Nikon Rumors, the resolution on the sample images, which have since been taken down, is 7360 x 4912! Which is just crazy!

He also just posted the official invite and it's 2-7, so in 5 days we'll know for sure


D800, D700, MB D10, 85 1.4G, 70-200 2.8G VR II, 16-35 f4G VR II, 60 2.8G Micro, SB 910 (x4), SB 900, Radio Popper PX Trans (x2), Radio Popper PX Rec (x3)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
snaphappyphotography
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
251 posts
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Olive Branch, Ms
     
Feb 02, 2012 11:39 |  #28

Also, if anyone with solid technical knowledge could explain this to me I would love to understand, but I've always been led to believe that more MP = thinner DOF. Perhaps that's an oversimplification, so if anyone can explain this concept, or debunk the myth, that would be great.


D800, D700, MB D10, 85 1.4G, 70-200 2.8G VR II, 16-35 f4G VR II, 60 2.8G Micro, SB 910 (x4), SB 900, Radio Popper PX Trans (x2), Radio Popper PX Rec (x3)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
delhi
Goldmember
Avatar
2,483 posts
Joined Feb 2005
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun
     
Feb 02, 2012 11:42 as a reply to  @ snaphappyphotography's post |  #29

Nope. Not because of MP for sure. But mostly because my Canon system gets the job done for me. ;)

So I would rather wait for the 5dIII.


Vancouver Portrait Photographer (external link)
No toys. Just tools. (external link) :lol:

5d3/1dx AF Guidebook | What AF Points to use for my 5d3/1dx?! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
h4ppydaze
Goldmember
1,329 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2011
     
Feb 02, 2012 12:14 |  #30

snaphappyphotography wrote in post #13813188 (external link)
Also, if anyone with solid technical knowledge could explain this to me I would love to understand, but I've always been led to believe that more MP = thinner DOF. Perhaps that's an oversimplification, so if anyone can explain this concept, or debunk the myth, that would be great.

larger sensor = thinner DOF, megapixels have nothing to do with it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,423 views & 0 likes for this thread
Would You Switch to D800 for more MP?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is twistedsugarphotography
673 guests, 208 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.