Nikon full frame

[oleleclos]

To my eyes, the angle of the sun to the texture of the wall looks different - if indeed there is any sun on the left?

This would put the film shot at an unfair disadvantage.

Hi Dave, you're right of course, these two shots are not as similar as my earlier comparison with the leaves. I used what I had, and it's not entirely fair. But even without the benefit of better light I find that the D800 beats MF film hands down. I often enlarged 6x6 scans to 3x3 feet, and a recent 4x6 foot print from the D800 was at least as good.

You could be right about Channel Islands members; I haven't spotted anyone else either. Surprising really as there is no shortage of motives down here.

[oleleclos]

Found a better comparison. In fact, if anyting there's a little more directional light on the film exposure; the digital shot was taken on an overcast day. Raw image, so no JPEG artefacts as on the earlier picture.

The film shot was on a Hasselblad with 80 mm Planar and the NPS negative was scanned on an Imacon 848. Nothing wrong with them and prints look fantastic at 24x24" or even 36x36". It's just that the D800 is even better

[Glenn NK]

Glenn, thats teasing! you could of either posted a link or a synopsis!

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/fo...?topic=72403.0

I wasn't sure of the etiquette of linking to another forum, and thought it was easy to find.

And, a synopsis would not do it justice imo.

Glenn

[cienfuegos]

This is an "answer/question" I also have had many Nikon film cameras and even a Hasselblad. In film, the resolution was fixed depending on the emulsion. Now with CMOS sensors (mostly) it depends on MP's. Clearly S/N ratio's determine low light sensitivities/noise and if all things are otherwise equal, pixel size counts. But not all things are equal. I have a D90 and was considering the D7100 vs the D600. After some thought, I went with the 7100--for several reasons. Here is the question--your opinion on my "logic".

Lenses--DX format are superior because resolution is higher with smaller lenses than larger ones (complicated issue but adequate for generalization). Cost, and not the least, is my personal collection of lenses--I still have plenty of lenses from film days as well, FX--also, Nikon had said they were NEVER going to make a full frame DSLR. My D90 makes very acceptable enlargements with ISO 800. Finally, I have a Kodak DCR 14 that did not have the antialliasing filter-- and those pictures are super sharp--like the 7100's design. I could not think of any reason why I should buy the D600.

[Manfred M]

Lenses--DX format are superior because resolution is higher with smaller lenses than larger ones (complicated issue but adequate for generalization).

Could you please explain how you came to that generalization. All things being equal, would suggest that a lens with a smaller maximum aperture will tend to be sharper than one with a larger maximum aperture, but there are all kinds of caveats around that statement as well because frankly, all things are never equal. I have both a D90 and a D800 and shoot with both; there are advantages and disadvantages to both cameras and these are not limited to the sensor size. The one thing that I never really liked about the D90 (and all other crop frame cameras I've used) was the small viewfinder and that frankly was one of the main reasons I went to full-frame.

[cliffmccartney]

I've had my D800 since November 2012, and I love it. One of the nice things about having 36.3MP is that you have pixels to burn if you need to. I don't like to severely crop, but if it's that or ditch the shot I'll do it.

Here's a picture of a waxing gibbous moon I took last weekend at Fall Creek Falls State Park in Pikeville TN. It was about 6pm EDT. I used my D800 + a Nikon 300mm f/4:



Here's the same image, pretty severely cropped:



There's enough detail left to keep the image fairly interesting.

Now the great Ken Rockwell says if you go to full frame, you'll never go back to DX.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but hogwash. I shoot a lot of sports, and I mostly use my D7000 because (1) it turns my 70-200 into a 105-300, and (2) it has a much higher fps than the D800.

Full frame is wonderful - for what it's meant for - wider perspectives, quality at high ISO, and bigger viewfinder, to name a few.

Does the fact that I have a D800 mean I'll never shoot DX again? Not a chance.

Just my 2 cents.

[tclune]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but hogwash.

I'm pretty sure that's KR's middle name...

[cienfuegos]

Ok, but I have not read any legitimate argument pro or con Full frame. Basically, forget traditional photography. You are dealing with new technology and 24x36mm is as relevant for photography as for the "film" industry. (DLP Projectors).

If, as an engineer, you were starting from scratch, what would you want your format to be? 24x36 mm was an arbitrary format developed due to the availability of 35mm film. That format is irrelevant to consideration for the 21st century. Advantages of a larger sensor....... Disadvantages..... then compromise for best balance. My point is that DX or Canon's, or 4/3 formats are legitimate engineering designs. They offer the advantages of smaller lenses, reduced costs, sharper optics. Nikon was perfectly happy with the DX format but gave in to PR issues. After going over the pro's and con's of FX vs DX, I saw no reason to use anything other than DX.

[cienfuegos]

One thing that has not been brought up--Cameras are disposable--the glass you keep. I bought the D7100 not because of the MP, but it does not use an anti-aliasing filter. difference in resolution between 12, 24, 36 MP is trivial. I would rather have a great S/N ratio with minimal noise at high ISO's. There may be features you like in a camera, but this is getting bogged down by the MP and FX/DX question.

[Manfred M]

Ok, but I have not read any legitimate argument pro or con Full frame. Basically, forget traditional photography. You are dealing with new technology and 24x36mm is as relevant for photography as for the "film" industry. (DLP Projectors).

If, as an engineer, you were starting from scratch, what would you want your format to be? 24x36 mm was an arbitrary format developed due to the availability of 35mm film. That format is irrelevant to consideration for the 21st century. Advantages of a larger sensor....... Disadvantages..... then compromise for best balance. My point is that DX or Canon's, or 4/3 formats are legitimate engineering designs. They offer the advantages of smaller lenses, reduced costs, sharper optics. Nikon was perfectly happy with the DX format but gave in to PR issues. After going over the pro's and con's of FX vs DX, I saw no reason to use anything other than DX.

Design is all about managing tradeoffs (by the way I am an engineer), and while I understand what you are trying to say, but cannot agree with a number of your assumptions and statements. The smaller format lenses are NOT sharper than the professional model full-frame lenses. They are in fact generally not as nearly as good; check out the lens test results at the DxO Optics website. They are however good enough. Sharpness is not the only measure of a lens; distortion, drop-off, aberrations, etc. all come into play as well; and the full-frame pro lenses beat the crop frame lenses on this front too. Over and above that, I also look the build quality of a lens; well it wear out quickly or will it last for a very long time. By the way, I am not saying that the lens makers could not make high quality crop frame lenses, it’s just that there is no reason for them to as there is no market for them.

I do agree that crop frame and 4/3 formats are legitimate engineering designs; what else could they be. That being said, smaller sensors = lower cost and that is the primary reason for their popularity. By the way I do own full-frame, crop frame and micro 4/3 equipment as well as high end film cameras. The cost of producing larger sensors has come down as manufacturing technology has advanced. The reason that smaller sensors were used in the past in pro cameras and continue to be used in consumer cameras was cost. Canon, Nikon and Sony all produce full-frame sensor cameras and lenses. Their doing so has nothing to do with PR issues; larger sensors allow you to produce larger, cleaner prints. This exactly the same reason as to why medium (and large) format cameras exist. In my view, this is far more important than the MP of the sensor.

Over and above this, a full-frame camera offers a few other advantages; larger viewfinder, about 1 stop better DoF (shallower), ultra-wide angle lens performance and as a rule tend to be more robustly built. They are of course larger, heavier and cost more, as a downside.

These are obviously not important to you, and so your choice in camera makes sense for you. It is not necessarily the right choice for everybody. The vast majority of people taking pictures use camera phones. Hasselblad and Phase 1 have a dedicated market niche as well, and I know a few folks out there that shoot large format film view cameras, and in their view (and I believe they are correct) that they are still the best specialty camera for architectural and product shots.
With your D7100, you really should be shooting pro Nikon glass to get the best out of the fantastic sensor that your camera has. If it were a full-frame, you would be shooting with a 58MP sensor, and the amateur glass is not getting the maximum benefit out of that sensor.

[cienfuegos]

Design is all about managing tradeoffs (by the way I am an engineer), and while I understand what you are trying to say, but cannot agree with a number of your assumptions and statements. The smaller format lenses are NOT sharper than the professional model full-frame lenses. They are in fact generally not as nearly as good; check out the lens test results at the DxO Optics website. They are however good enough. Sharpness is not the only measure of a lens; distortion, drop-off, aberrations, etc. all come into play as well; and the full-frame pro lenses beat the crop frame lenses on this front too. Over and above that, I also look the build quality of a lens; well it wear out quickly or will it last for a very long time. By the way, I am not saying that the lens makers could not make high quality crop frame lenses, it’s just that there is no reason for them to as there is no market for them.

I do agree that crop frame and 4/3 formats are legitimate engineering designs; what else could they be. That being said, smaller sensors = lower cost and that is the primary reason for their popularity. By the way I do own full-frame, crop frame and micro 4/3 equipment as well as high end film cameras. The cost of producing larger sensors has come down as manufacturing technology has advanced. The reason that smaller sensors were used in the past in pro cameras and continue to be used in consumer cameras was cost. Canon, Nikon and Sony all produce full-frame sensor cameras and lenses. Their doing so has nothing to do with PR issues; larger sensors allow you to produce larger, cleaner prints. This exactly the same reason as to why medium (and large) format cameras exist. In my view, this is far more important than the MP of the sensor.

Over and above this, a full-frame camera offers a few other advantages; larger viewfinder, about 1 stop better DoF (shallower), ultra-wide angle lens performance and as a rule tend to be more robustly built. They are of course larger, heavier and cost more, as a downside.

These are obviously not important to you, and so your choice in camera makes sense for you. It is not necessarily the right choice for everybody. The vast majority of people taking pictures use camera phones. Hasselblad and Phase 1 have a dedicated market niche as well, and I know a few folks out there that shoot large format film view cameras, and in their view (and I believe they are correct) that they are still the best specialty camera for architectural and product shots.
With your D7100, you really should be shooting pro Nikon glass to get the best out of the fantastic sensor that your camera has. If it were a full-frame, you would be shooting with a 58MP sensor, and the amateur glass is not getting the maximum benefit out of that sensor.

[cienfuegos]

Thanks. That is the feedback I was looking for. I do have pro Nikon glass. And I will grant you that the noise of the d800 is considerably better than the D7100--I new that but I was not going to blurt it out.

I will repeat that you keep the glass and replace the camera. They do become dated rapidly.

But I have questions--why do you have so many different formats?

[Mark von Kanel]

Well, this is all very interesting stuff, and as the OP, im greatful to you all for all of the information and opinions that you all have expressed.

Its been a while since my OP and ive bought the D800 along with a 70-200 f 2.8 and a 24-70 f 2.8 and im enjoying it my results have been varied, but are getting better as i get used to the camera, I got a good offer for my d7000 and sold it and i regret that.... so i think ill be investing in a new DX at some point but im even less convinced at the 24mp DX than i was the 36 MP FX!! whats the point if you low light stuff is going to be as noisy as hell?

[Rhoads238]

Mark, good call on the d800. I have owned a d600 (and sold) and the 800 stomps it. With the d800 you really have to shoot at a faster shutter speed or on a tripod to get sharp images. All those megapixels can make take the slightest movement and cause a blur. The customization is really the best part of the camera and is superior to any camera I have owned.

How are you getting on with those large files?

[Manfred M]

With the d800 you really have to shoot at a faster shutter speed or on a tripod to get sharp images. All those megapixels can make take the slightest movement and cause a blur.

As a D800 shooter (I've had mine for almost a year now) I can verify that that statement is simply not correct. The number of MP has nothing to do with sharpness or being able to see sharpness in any normal sized work. Perhaps if I were to print at 3ft x 6ft and stuck my nose right up close, I would be able to tell. If I take the same shot on my 12MP D90 and my 36MP D800, the D800 produces superior results (most noticeable in the higher dynamic range, lower noise and overall the IQ is just plain better).

That being said; if I want to go to a super large print and have shot with a pro lens using a tripod under "ideal" conditions, I could print to a huge sized print; but as I don't generally exceed 17" x 22", the question is rather academic.

How are you getting on with those large files?

The only impact I have ever seen from size is that a Photoshop file with lots of layers takes a bit longer to save and I suspect that some complex Photoshop filters might take a bit longer to run. Hard disk storage space is cheap and I have lots of it. Again, another non-issue.

[Manfred M]

I will repeat that you keep the glass and replace the camera. They do become dated rapidly.

That has certainly been true over the past 10 to 15 years, and may continue to be the case (or at least the camera manufacturers will try to tell us as much), but I am not convinced that the replacement cycle will continue at the same rapid pace as it has over the recent past. The original Nikon F was out there for 14 years before being replaced by the F2.

Part of what we have seen is a typical growth curve brought about by the introduction of new technology with each successive model of camera being leaps and bounds better than the previous generation. Significant improvements included better dynamic range, higher usable ISO, larger sensors, more MP, etc. Then came the “bells and whistles”, live view, articulating screens, movie mode, etc. Future changes will become more incremental, rather than radical and in fact, I wonder how much longer the classical DSLR will be around. The mirror mechanism does limit burst mode (look at where Sony has gone with the fixed mirror) and of course the digital displays from Panasonic and Olympus.

From a pure image quality standpoint, with the latest generation of DSLRs we have gotten to a point where the cameras are “lens limited”, i.e. the weakest link in the performance chain is the lens, rather than the sensor (or film) as in the past.

I also wonder how long the modern glass will last, versus the legacy lenses without built in autofocus motors and anti-shake actuators. Being mechanically more complex, I expect that these items will not last as long as my old totally manual lenses. The length of time that they will be supported after they have been discontinued is anyone's guess.

But I have questions--why do you have so many different formats?

We have always had a vast number of formats in film cameras; just look at the film camera where there were dozens of different “standard” film sizes ranging from large sheet sizes used in view cameras down to the subminiature formats used in cameras like the Minox “spy camera”. My very first camera used 127 film.

To a large extent sensor manufacturing technology, market differentiation and legacy drive these factors. In a consumer camera, whether that is a camera phone right through the various mFT mirrorless designs and right up to consumer level DSLRs, these are price sensitive products. This is where the camera manufacturers make most of their money. A sensor is a very expensive component in a camera, so finding the “sweet spot” of affordability versus performance all goes back to how many sensors could be made out of a single silicon wafer at a fab. Once that decision has been made, this drove the lens development cycle and we are essentially “stuck” with these decisions because of the legacy lenses. All of the major camera manufacturers have invested a lot of development time and money into specific lenses for specific sensor sizes.

One of these standard formats is the full frame, 24mm x 36mm sensor. Nikon, Sony (through it’s acquisition of Konica-Minolta) and Leica all had considerable existing lens inventories out there and sticking with this format was the right decision for them as they supported both film and digital shooters for a number of years. Canon could have gone a whole different path with the introduction of the EF mount in 1987 as they essentially threw out their legacy cameras; but they chose to stick with 24mm x 36mm after offering (and discontinuing) the APS-H format.

[Mark von Kanel]

So far Jason i haven't noticed any significant increase in my post processing time apart from down load from the card to the PC, but this is mainly due to the lack of USB 3 support on my MAC book pro and will likely be offset when i permanently set up and use my windows desk top.

[bakravitz]

I moved from the D300 to the D800 the image size is not a problem. I am using a Dell XPS 8500 I7 processor. I have 3 separate 3 TB drives that I store images on. I do miss being to snap photos at a faster rate. but nothing really noticeable.
So far I am very impressed with the image quality.

[Rhoads238]

So far Jason i haven't noticed any significant increase in my post processing time apart from down load from the card to the PC, but this is mainly due to the lack of USB 3 support on my MAC book pro and will likely be offset when i permanently set up and use my windows desk top.

Honestly a lot of people seem to complain about the file size but as long as you have a decent computer it shouldn't be a problem. Although if you do a bracketed panorama I would imagine almost any computer would get bogged down. I actually had an instance where photoshop said that it couldn't save a file because it exceeded the maximum.

[gsqrd1]

Hello Mark,

I'm new to "Cambridgeincolor" and as a matter of fact this is my first post on any of the forums. I see you are in the U.K. I am here in the colonies (Texas to be exact) and found your comment: "the D600 ... is the same price as the 800 ... ." Interesting! Where have you found a merchant selling the D800 for the same price as the D600?