1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

D800 Sensor Poll

Discussion in 'Nikon Chat' started by AlecM, Feb 24, 2012.

  1. AlecM

    AlecM MiniMe

    There's a poll on Nikon Rumours at present, asking if people prefer the D800 as it is, or if they would rather have it with the 16mp sensor from the D4. Currently 56% appear to favour the 16mp option......
    Apart from the fact that very few people have any hands-on experience of either camera, I wondered what people here thought?
    Personally, I like the prospect of the '800 as it is, because it gives options in the range. :D
    In another thread, however, I did suggest the reverse - that the D4 should be available as is, or with the 36mp sensor (effectively replacing the D3s and x variants).

    Still saving the pennies.... I'm about £2390 short at present! :D
  2. TimF

    TimF With as stony a stare as ever Lord Reith could hav

    You could try buying a stocking mask and banana, then pay a visit to your local bank to see if they'll 'lend' you the balance! ;)
  3. rjbell

    rjbell Well-Known Member

    Would be nice to have the both options, why can't they do that? Set your d800 at 36MP when needed or 16MP when low noise etc.. is more important.
  4. NosamLuap

    NosamLuap Rebmem Roines

    even if you set the d800 to 16MP, each photo site will still be small compared to a sensor that has a native 16MP. So as I understand it, you won't get the high ISO benefit of larger photo sites unless they can do something clever by combining the data from adjoining photo does into one pixels worth of data?

    From what samples I've seen, the noise at a given ISO on the d800 is better than the equivalent ISO on a d700, which given the pixel density of the sensor is damned impressive.
  5. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    UK Base Rate at 0.5% - should be available at, say, 4.5%! ;)

  6. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    Megapixels seem to get photographers in something of a tizzy. On the one hand there are those who think you cannot make an A4 print without 45 or more and there are the others who are a bit aireydisconoculous who think that any more than about 10 (on a F/f camera) will mess up their images if they have to stop down past f4 for a bit of depth of field.

    I look forward to seeing how the D800 works in practice. If Nikon have got it right, it's a bit of a game ender.
  7. AlecM

    AlecM MiniMe

    ....as you say, if the D800 is better than the D700, even though it has a lower ceiling in terms of ISO, I don't actually go much beyond 2000 on the '700 anyway.
  8. AlecM

    AlecM MiniMe

    Exciting stuff if it delivers....
  9. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    Well, if you are a well-heeled, sort of photographer but ...

    Unless your computer is reasonably recent with some good extra storage or a tower/desktop with a spare bay for a new HDD, you may need an upgrade ...

    Now that may lead to a new OS (Win almost definitely, Mac possibly) and you may find some of your peripherals may not work so well or at least need new drivers and when you've sorted that out ...

    Anyway, all those megapixels will make you look at your printer's output hyper-critically and so a new A3+ printer will become necessary ...

    But then you may not find much difference between the output of your new printer and the old one so you start to wonder about your lenses and ...

    A programme of lens upgrading and testing is engaged in and after a lot of time and expense some new lenses are acquired and on the computer screen the output looks incredible and prints on the latest printer are fantastic so you think you will be making a lot more and to make the expense worthwhile and to minimise ink costs further decide to get an A2+ printer ...

    Just as Nikon announce at Photokina that they will be bring out a new full frame 2nd rank pro camera to replace the D900/D900E/D900X {yes, the D800 & variants was discontinued six months ago} in six to nine months time with a 60mp sensor ...


  10. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    Don't see why Nikon would go to all that trouble and cost - esp. in present Japan/world economy situation - without the thing working better than the D700.

    Can't remember how long I've been saying this but it probably goes back to the time of the duff/lacklustre/disappointing/defective 7.? and 8mp sensors but ...

    "All pixels are created equal but some pixels are more equal than others!"

    You probably know more about this digital malarkey than I do but guessing about the next development to allow workable massive mp counts, it may be necessary to get some really intelligent pixels in there that will talk to adjacent pixels depending on what is exciting :)rolleyes::confused:;):D) them at the time, and discuss what is important, what info can be chucked, what needs to be enhanced, what needs an electronic or chromogenic boost, what needs toning down, etc. I'm guessing again that this may already be going on - to an extent - in the big mp Sony and Nikon sensors anyway but probably over areas of the sensor rather than a per pixel basis.
  11. beejaybee

    beejaybee Marvin

    Nah, the actual performance of the sensors has hardly changed at all. There has been a modest improvement in photon capture efficiency by improvement of the microlens array, but the big "improvement" in high ISO performance over the last few years is almost completely down to software ... the relatively clean images produced are at the expense of noise reduction artifacts, which can have a serious impact in scientific imaging even if the results are generally satisfactory from the pictorial point of view. Ironically the "advances" in the software were driven by the appalling noise figures native to the tiny sensors used in compact cameras & their close relatives found in multifunction devices (i.e. smart phones), IMVHO they really shouldn't be necessary in DSLRs; the best place to apply such image mangling is in any case in post production software (late in the chain, just before sharpening) and not in the camera at all.

    High ISO and/or high pixel densities were, are and always will be the enemy of genuinely high quality images.
  12. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    I admit that I frequently look at the editorial on that website and occasionally have looked at the forums. From the evidence of the latter I would not attribute much credence to any poll on that site.
  13. AlecM

    AlecM MiniMe

    Oh, I agree. The site itself is full of all manner of dross, but I thought it was an interesting talking point.
    I'm actually having a bit of a foray (back) into the world of film at present. Strange how, when you strip all the tech away, there's something beautifully simple about using a fully manual film SLR. Technology has given us so much, but taken rather a lot away at the same time.....
  14. ChrisNewman

    ChrisNewman Well-Known Member

    If I see something interesting or attractive enough to want to take a photo, unless there are artistic reasons otherwise, I would like to capture it in as much detail as is practical. So I find 36MPx far more attractive than the excellent low-light performance of the D4. (But I would find the D800 far more attractive if it included in-body image stabilization. I guess the VR approach of putting it in the lens will provide better stabilization for the telephotos where it is most valuable. But Nikon do not seem to be adding it to short focal length, wide aperture lenses, and I guess that is mainly because trying to crowd further elements into such lenses would degrade their optical performance too much.)

    Of course there is no point in having a sensor with so many photosites that each is too small to give a good signal-to-noise output. But the D800 sensor has slightly large photosites, and of a slightly more recent design, than the D7000, so I expect it will be fine from that point of view. Also a high pixel count will not add much to the resolution of the final image if it out-resolves the lens, but I guess that Nikon’s better lenses would be good enough to see a substantial benefit from the D800.

    I “went digital” in 2010 after many years with a manual focus Pentax outfit. Most of my photos are taken when I’m out walking or visiting National Trust grounds, etc. I was reluctant to downgrade from full frame to APS-C, but (apart from the cost) I decided that a full frame outfit with the lenses I would have wanted would be too heavy to enjoy carrying it. At the time I did not think I was missing too much. I take most of my photos with a mid-range zoom, but also wanted wide-angle and telephoto zooms and a macro lens for versatility. I believe Nikon’s 24-70mm F2.8 is the best mid-range zoom available, and significantly better than my 17-55mm. But I did not think the D700’s 12MPx would be able to do it justice. From Canon, the 5DMkII had a better pixel count, but I don’t think Canon’s 24-70mm is one of their best lenses. From Sony, the A900 and 24-70mm f/2.8 ZA Carl Zeiss Vario Sonnar T* were a very attractive combination, with a similar pixel count to the D3x, and in-body image stabilization. But Sony did not offer nearly the same range for a potential outfit, and I was not nearly so confident that they would maintain their system into my older age as I would be with Canon or Nikon.

    I would relish taking most of my photos with a D800 and 24-70mm. If they replaced my D90 and 17-55mm, it would only add an acceptable pound or so in weight to my outfit, and the D800’s sensor is so densely populated that it should outperform my D90 with my remaining DX lenses. Of course the catch, other than the cost, is that if I had a D800, a 105mm macro would outperform my DX 85mm, a 70-300mm telephoto zoom would outperform my DX 55-200mm, etc, and I could end up with an excellent outfit that I was reluctant to carry.
  15. rhinog

    rhinog Active Member

    This is exactly the way my mind has been wandering
  16. AndyTake2

    AndyTake2 Well-Known Member

    In-body stabilisation would be a great addition to the Nikon system. It would help where stabilisation is difficult such as tilt/shift and if extension tubes were used.
    More important (to my mind) is the multi-shot capabilities if they could persuade hasselblad to licence their technology. mmm......
  17. beejaybee

    beejaybee Marvin

    Not sure about that. The sensitivity of the system needs to be proportional to the focal length of the lens, what is needed to work well with a 300mm tele lens is massive overkill for the sort of lenses that most users carry around most of the time ... the components are going to be large, heavy and power hungry.

    Also the stabilisation that is built into the bodies that have it works in pitch and yaw only, for useful help in a hand held macro lens you need linear stabilisation in lateral, vertical and distance-to-subject directions as well as rotational stabilisation in pitch and yaw axes.

    Not all lenses are equally good and, as you say, not all subjects are amenable to the use of a tripod or other support. However I'd never even attempt to criticise the sharpness of a lens unless a good solid support had been used throughout. But good technique (best learned without stabilisation!) never does any harm.
  18. AlecM

    AlecM MiniMe

    Stabilisation has allowed us to get sharper pictures where we previously have not been able to (lower light, hand-held telephoto etc). It may well be an old fashioned view of mine (but shared by a number of people on here) that IS / OS / VR and the like should not be seen as a way of avoiding or not having to bother with good technique and practice.:p
    My previous wide-angle lens had VR, my current one doesn't. I don't miss it and never really used it. I did (and do) use a tripod lots for wide-angle work. My 'standard' (24-70) zoom doesn't have VR either and I don't miss it on that. However, both my 70-200 and 300 prime have VR and I have used it on these lenses quite often (not always).
    I'm aware this is 'off-thread' but couldn't help respond;)
  19. AndyTake2

    AndyTake2 Well-Known Member

    That's why I said an addition - I certainly wouldn't want it to replace the in-lens stabilisation, but having the option to stabilise some of the non-IS lenses would be a good thing. I doubt that an in-body system (at present) could cope with the whole range of lenses available, but I have lenses like the 24-70 2.8 which would sometimes benefit.
  20. beatnik69

    beatnik69 Well-Known Member

    That's a googlewhack!:D

Share This Page