| Joined: | Thu Apr 5th, 2012 |
| Location: | Goose Creek, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 418 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
KirkP wrote:
Yes, I've got to decide if I want low noise at insane ISO levels, or crazy ridiculous insane levels. I've gotten to the point that I'm spending 90% or more of my photography time taking at ISO 800 or less, just because my cameras are old... while it might be nice to have ISO 50,000 I wonder if I'll ever use it.
Kirk, in my opinion that is not a valid criteria for the decision.
Having older bodies means you could (realistically) only use sub ISO800 and expect good IQ, so you had little choice, not surprising 90% of your images are ISO 800 or below. I would guess 99% of my images with the D200 and earlier bodies are ISO 400 and below.
If you could take the same (or better) quality images at higher ISO, giving you greater range of options for aperture and shutter speed, that would give your photography greater freedom.
Many is the time I wanted greater depth of focus but couldn't afford the slower shutter speed or a higher ISO.
With a D3 or D700 you can dial in the aperture and shutter speed YOU WANT (or your image needs) and let auto ISO adjust the exposure, even in relatively 'normal' lighting.
Personally I would prefer the D3 rather than the D700. The D3 is much nicer, smoother and heavier, which I consider a benefit for stability. The D3 has some useful features the D700 lacks.
But... If my choice is D400DX @ 25Mp or D700FX @ 12 Mp on cost grounds, I will go with the D700. If cost were not an issue D3s. Despite the wonderful images Graham has posted here I am far from convinced the ultra high pixel count has any *real* benefit in the normal use of images.
The images Graham has posted here are marvellous BUT we are only viewing them at 72dpi... They still look marvellous! It's the exposure, the composition and the skill of the photographer I am marvelling at, NOT the ultra high resolution which I can't even begin to see.
Sure Graham has seen the stunning detail on his screen and no doubt in the image with the cowboy in the distance at full resolution you will be able to see the exquisite detail of the tooling on the saddle but the image stands up well without that fine detail. Unless the image were printed at something like six foot wide or more, nobody will ever see the fine detail that has cost all those bucks, required the best lenses and perfect technique to capture (not to mention the larger HD to store the files on and a beefy computer to process the image with).
I have to agree with you Robert on this issue. I have not desire to go beyond 12 to 16 mp on the sensor. My dumb question for the day is, why can't Nikon offer the same body with a choice of two different sensors. D4 or D800/D600 and option for lower mp sensor or for more money more mp's. Seems to me there are many customers who don't want to be forced to 24-30+ mp's. I am happy with less in the mp range but would like better iso. Part of this is cost driven also, as we get pushed into higher mp's the cost of computer hardware goes up also. Not everyone can afford to upgrade camera body and computer and now entry level DSLR is going into the 20mp range.
Nikon needs to bundle RAM, graphics card, and TB hard drives with the camera.
____________________
--------------------------------------------
Gary