| Joined: | Wed May 9th, 2012 |
| Location: | Colorado USA |
| Posts: | 21 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
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.I agree, that Graham took the photos. Cameras are tools, I'm quite aware of that, but I'm recognizing the chief differences between the D3 vs the D800 are the higher ISO capabilities of the D3 and the higher MP count of the D800. What I have to do, is decide if I actually NEED 50,000 ISO capability, and whether I NEED 36 megapixels.
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).
Judging from the current and recent past, Nikon may well have a camera out in another couple years that could give me both 50,000 ISO with low noise, as well as 36 megapixels. But, like you Robert, I'm unable to upgrade my camera every couple of years.
I did that with Adobe CS3, 4 and 5, and see where that got me? HA!
Now Photoshop is not the same as a new (to me) camera, but my point was, I have to take a hard hard look at where I am now in my photography, and where I want to go, for at least five years. When the D3 came out, I mentioned on the old forum that I was still doing well with my well used D200, and it was filling all my needs of my photography. Today however, I've come to realize that 800 ISO is holding me back. I've been on the macro side of life lately, taking shots at 1:3 or higher, especially with my tilt-shift bellows and a 17mm copy lens, giving me nearly 8:1 macros at full bellows draw. But holy crap, talk about a need for light... both my Cokin ring flash PLUS two SB-600s just to reach ISO 800 and 1/60th second. Then there is the simple fact that 36 MP would give me cropping choices that I very much lack, right now at 10 MP. Increased resolution to 36MP is better, because it increases my choices, not because it's a bigger number. I'm still old-school enough that I prefer to get it right in the camera as best I can, but I also recognize that digital darkroom work brings my photos to the best that they can be.
Like nearly everything in life, I have to find a balance between the two that satisfies both needs, without sacrificing too much in any other area. I also like heavy cameras, but not too heavy, otherwise I get problems with the camera sagging the bellows on one end. At this point, I'm mostly leaning towards the D800 because with DX lenses you still get 15MP, and cropping freedom gives me the ability to compose with more freedom AND the current reviews say that the D800 is marvelous at ISO 6400.
What I probably need to do, is rent each camera and force them both to perform their respective miracles of digital science, then evaluate which will give me what I need. I have to definitely include hard drive space as another cost to factor in, when speaking of 50+ megabyte photos. ISO 6400 is three extra stops... JK is using his D3 at 12,800 ISO, that's four stops and the D3s can go higher still.
Sure, I can take great photos with 10MP, my D200 is going to stay right here and will continue to be a good tool. Shucks, I can take good photos with my old Fuji S1 Pro at 3MP, or the Kodak DCS620 at 2MP. I'd be happy with 20-25 MP and the ability to go to 12,800 ISO, but I don't see that in the Nikon line. It's very obvious to me that Graham is a damned good photographer, the compositions show that very well. But I also know that if I buy that D800, the level of detail will be in my photos as well, and even though my monitor only goes to 96 dpi, the pixels are still there in the photo to crop and enlarge and still retain excellent image quality.
____________________
When you were born, you cried and the whole world rejoiced. Live your life so that when you die, the whole world cries and you rejoice.