I don't think you're quite there yet. I think 36 MP will certainly show the full capabilities of whatever you have, however. More than that kind of pixel density and it will start to become iffy. This is exciting times for digital photography though, as the digital stuff is finally getting the same sort of resolving power as really high quality 35mm film. Catching up to the resolving power of medium format film would be the next step I suppose.rmiddendorf wrote:I believe we're also now passing almost all of their lenses sharpness abilities with a few exceptions. To truely take advantage of the clarity of a 36mp camera I think you'll need to use prime lenses.
I respectfully disagree with you Jeremy. I have some pretty expensive Nikon zoom lenses- notably the 24-70 F2.8- that I see softness at certain points in the lens with a 12mp D300s. Now I'm also a wide open shooter so most of my work is done at 2.8 on that lens, however I have four prime lenses and three of them are still sharper than my D300s' chip at 12mp.Jeremy wrote:I don't think you're quite there yet. I think 36 MP will certainly show the full capabilities of whatever you have, however. More than that kind of pixel density and it will start to become iffy. This is exciting times for digital photography though, as the digital stuff is finally getting the same sort of resolving power as really high quality 35mm film. Catching up to the resolving power of medium format film would be the next step I suppose.rmiddendorf wrote:I believe we're also now passing almost all of their lenses sharpness abilities with a few exceptions. To truely take advantage of the clarity of a 36mp camera I think you'll need to use prime lenses.
BTW that's funny. But another E28 isn't covered by a warranty nor is it tax deductible.Lubehead wrote:You coulda hadda E28!
You know I was just hoping for a 16mp full frame camera for $3k. They really doubled my expectations. I hope they didn't push it too far and I also hope that there are not problems with the chip because it is so cutting edge. They're pushing up to the quality of the $19,000 Hasselblad body, although there are many arguments that could be made declaring the 'Blad a better camera for certain applications.Shawn D. wrote:Nice! I'm sure you were just trying to one-up my 5D MkII...
I still think that's a pretty sweet lens. All the optics I own and I don't have a single one over 200mm. I'll have to get something longer before OktoberFest at Mid-Ohio this year...Cory wrote:...but just ordered a 70-200 f4 IS today.
Its for my business though so I do have to work it off...bhopp wrote:Lucky Bastard
I think the D700 is a great camera. I have considered it as well but have had trouble stomaching the fact that is was $2700 for 12mp and the Canon 5D MII was $2000 for 24mp. But at this point I actually like having a DX and non-DX camera in my fleet. The DX is nice because my 80-200 becomes a 120-300. A true 300 is a 450. Plus my continuous rantings about the superb quality of the Tokina, which is DX only, reinforce my need for a DX body.wkohler wrote:I'm sticking with the D700. It's great for our needs. Surprised at the price-point, though. Many were expecting this to be well over $3k.
Rodney,rmiddendorf wrote:I think the D700 is a great camera. I have considered it as well but have had trouble stomaching the fact that is was $2700 for 12mp and the Canon 5D MII was $2000 for 24mp. But at this point I actually like having a DX and non-DX camera in my fleet. The DX is nice because my 80-200 becomes a 120-300. A true 300 is a 450. Plus my continuous rantings about the superb quality of the Tokina, which is DX only, reinforce my need for a DX body.wkohler wrote:I'm sticking with the D700. It's great for our needs. Surprised at the price-point, though. Many were expecting this to be well over $3k.
To be honest if they drop the D700 below $1700 I might consider that as well or instead. I think they would be smart to continue it in their line at a lower price point. I would use a D700 for Real Estate Photography but no way am I going to use a D800. That's only for my higher end needs. 36mp house photos would be a nightmare to archive and putting unnecessary wear on that body doesn't make good business sense to me. My Real Estate clients only like 2.5mp files anyway.
At $3k I think they're attacking Canon head on. Especially with the new video capability. I predict that more people will switch from Canon to Nikon than ever before giving Nikon an increased market share.
I'm also curious to see with what they will replace the D300s. It is also long overdue and, IMO, they probably could launch a D400 with the 16mp chip from the D7000. Its really not much of an increase but it just sounds better.
Anyway I'm just happy to finally see new stuff from Nikon hence all my chatter. I have considered switching to Canon on more than one occasion and I think this is the final nail in the coffin that will stop that thought process completely.
Rich-Rich Euro M5 wrote:Rodney,rmiddendorf wrote:I think the D700 is a great camera. I have considered it as well but have had trouble stomaching the fact that is was $2700 for 12mp and the Canon 5D MII was $2000 for 24mp. But at this point I actually like having a DX and non-DX camera in my fleet. The DX is nice because my 80-200 becomes a 120-300. A true 300 is a 450. Plus my continuous rantings about the superb quality of the Tokina, which is DX only, reinforce my need for a DX body.wkohler wrote:I'm sticking with the D700. It's great for our needs. Surprised at the price-point, though. Many were expecting this to be well over $3k.
To be honest if they drop the D700 below $1700 I might consider that as well or instead. I think they would be smart to continue it in their line at a lower price point. I would use a D700 for Real Estate Photography but no way am I going to use a D800. That's only for my higher end needs. 36mp house photos would be a nightmare to archive and putting unnecessary wear on that body doesn't make good business sense to me. My Real Estate clients only like 2.5mp files anyway.
At $3k I think they're attacking Canon head on. Especially with the new video capability. I predict that more people will switch from Canon to Nikon than ever before giving Nikon an increased market share.
I'm also curious to see with what they will replace the D300s. It is also long overdue and, IMO, they probably could launch a D400 with the 16mp chip from the D7000. Its really not much of an increase but it just sounds better.
Anyway I'm just happy to finally see new stuff from Nikon hence all my chatter. I have considered switching to Canon on more than one occasion and I think this is the final nail in the coffin that will stop that thought process completely.
I'm not a professional photographer so I can't comment on the nuances of lense soft spots, etc. But what I do know is electronics, and imaging, and one thing you need to consider is how small pixel size in a full frame detector impacts the sensitivity and noise figure of the detector. Basically as pixel count goes up in a given size detector, the size of the pixel decreases. With this decrease in size you also see a corresponding decrease in sensitivity and a increase in the noise figure. Before you make the actual purchase, you should spend some time reviewing the technical aspects of the detector, and how Nikon addresses the sensitivity and noise figure issues.
Rich
I like to talk, errr... post.FastFiver wrote:It's the 3rd result on google.1st 5er wrote:Impressed, especially with the last one.
HDR = ???
I want to add it to our Acronymsthread.
