D800 - the best affordable digital landscape camera yet?

Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Can someone please explain to me why so many digital amateurs have to foam at the mouth at the thought of a camera maker building cameras with more resolution?

I'm old enough to remember when everyone was shooting film, and back then if Kodak or Fuji introduced a film with more resolution, it was seen AS A GOOD THING...because IT IS. It is with digital too. Some of us have clients who want the resolution. some of us make large prints on occasion. Resolution matters for professionals like me, and for those amateurs who want to make big prints that don't look crappy because they had to use software interpolation to make the file big enough.
Click to expand...

It does matter for big prints, and I can see where those who shoot landscapes would be excited about this. And what percentage of people do this? What if 99% of how you display your work is on the web on a 72dpi monitor? What if your print work appears in magazines, small-size, a portion of a page printed at 180 dpi?

The so-called amatuers do have a point. For the vast majority of intents, the resolution barrier was broken for many professional and virtually amateur uses back in the 3-5 megapixel days.
 
Wow, still trying to figure out who is foaming at the mouth in this thread. More rez is always good, especially if you think you need it. Some feel they do and others don't at this point. If you are a Pro you may have no choice but to drop the coin on a D800 but amateurs may have a choice and feel differently and not based on PC power to manipulate larger file sizes either.

Bob
 
As always, it horses for courses. No-one in their right mind would buy a D800 for small web shots, or high speed, low light work. I doubt it will seriously challenge a 645D or an S2 either, but both of those cameras are many times more expensive. If the D800 is a BIT better than a D3X then I'll be very happy.
 
bobbyrab said:
This is just me thinking aloud really as I've never used the Pentax 645D nor have I seen any files from the D800. I have however used the Leica S2 on a couple of jobs and it seemed to me that the sensor size has a much bigger impact on IQ than just counting the mega pixels. The difference in the file quality from the S2 against my 5D mark2 was night and day, and led me to believe that a 35mm sensor is going to struggle for a while yet to match MF size sensors. Now I know most of you will be thinking at the price of an S2 it should be better, but I would guess that the Pentax will be a lot closer to the S2 than the 5D.
Click to expand...

Simple:

Alt.#1- The S2 with four lenses sum up somewhere around $50K... 🙄

Alt.#2- The 645D, the same sensor as on the S2 and I have six 645 lenses already at hand.. Cost $10K... (This option is available always..)

Alt.#3 - Nikon D800E with prime lenses cost almost the half, weigh less than the half, pack in a volume about the half of the Alt.#2 however with some extras like hi-ISO and video too.

Note that the differences in sensor sizes are not the same as the size difference between the MF format and the 35mm: 44x33mm vs 36x24mm; i.e. area size difference is almost the same as between the FX and DX formats. (Is the IQ difference between the Nex-7 and the A900 night and day?!)

Let's wait until some RAW samples from the D800E start to appear.. Let's be patient until some of them reach to the hands of the professionals to provide with us beautiful studio pictures as they used to do so far with the S2's and PhaseOne's... For the first time a 35mm sensor is coming with 36MP and no AA filter; the results could be quite surprising...
 
Range Loser said:
As always, it horses for courses. No-one in their right mind would buy a D800 for small web shots, or high speed, low light work.
Click to expand...

Depends on how high speed. But for low light it will be fine — one need only bin pixels and bring it down to say 12 mpix resolution. Binning pixels is the best way to eliminate pixel read noise and it's essentially equivalent to using big pixels with respect to shot noise.

But these theoretical considerations are a moot point. The D800 doesn't use small pixels. D800 pixels are exactly the same size as on the excellent, proven, and very sensitive D7000 sensor, which is also as good as they come with respect to dynamic range. Here's a comparison of 5DII, D700, and D7000. You can safely assume that at a per-pixel level the D800's performance will match or exceed the D7000, and that it will therefore match or exceed the D700 and 5DII at a per-pixel level for DR. With binning it will be at least as sensitive at equivalent resolution.

Not that I care. That's not the sort of camera I'd buy, anyway. DSLRs -- big FF DSLRs, anyway -- are now specialist cameras, not generalists as they once were. But I do have some interest in the progress of sensor development.
 
Dana B. said:
For the money, you could buy a vintage Pentax 6X7, a tripod, 55mm wide-angle lens, a bag of Velvia, and produce National Geographic landscape photos. Astill have $2,500 left over for expeditions.
Click to expand...

or you could just put a D800 in a bag with a few lenses and travel light.
 
What do you think the release of the Nikon D800 will do to the price of a Nikon D700? I think right now the D700 can be found in like new condition for maybe $1800. What do you think it might be after the release of the D800, maybe $1400? And how much do you think the Nikon D800 will sell for? Maybe $3000+?

Just curious, as I’m sure many of you have followed pricing shifts more closely than myself over the years. Thanks for the help. 😕
 
ankaka said:
What do you think the release of the Nikon D800 will do to the price of a Nikon D700? I think right now the D700 can be found in like new condition for maybe $1800. What do you think it might be after the release of the D800, maybe $1400? And how much do you think the Nikon D800 will sell for? Maybe $3000+?

Just curious, as I’m sure many of you have followed pricing shifts more closely than myself over the years. Thanks for the help. 😕
Click to expand...

Nikon has said the D800 will cost $3000.
 
Range Loser said:
I did title the post "best digital?".
Click to expand...


Actually, the wording suggests a finding in search for further corroboration.

Processing RAW files and keeping backups is also a hassle. "Film hassles" differ from "digital hassles", but they both have their hassles.

Unless, of course, "who cares!" is part of the equation --and if so, most recent micro 4/3 cameras do a very fine job, and they're smaller.
 
Range Loser said:
Yes I could shoot film, 5X4 and 10x8 would be better, but I'm just not that disciplined, large format is a completely different style of photography.
Yes I could get a medium format digital camera system, but I'm not that wealthy.
I know that the high ISO performance won't match a D4 or 1DX or probably 5D 3, but I shoot mostly still subjects.
So as a Nikon user, I have high hopes for some nicely detailed prints from the D800.
Anyone else selling other stuff to make the purchase?
Click to expand...

The level of details produced by D800 may compete with medium format film, but it won't replicate the look.

In other words, would the same subject, same background, same light *look* the same when shot with a D800 vs a Medium format (or larger) film?

I contend that they would *not* look similar.
 
OK, probably a stupid question, but why is this camera touted as a "landscape" camera? I really don't see that specific point. Anyone care to enlight me?
 
Spanik said:
OK, probably a stupid question, but why is this camera touted as a "landscape" camera? I really don't see that specific point. Anyone care to enlight me?
Click to expand...

Landscape tends to be demanding of detail, and was probably more suited to medium and large format in film. So this being the highest mp 35mm sensor it's assumed it will be a good choice for landscapes.
 
DR is also important for landscapes, and the D800 will have ~14 stops of dynamic range, per DxO's evaluation of the D7000 which uses an identical or at least highly similar photosite.
 
bobbyrab said:
Landscape tends to be demanding of detail, and was probably more suited to medium and large format in film. So this being the highest mp 35mm sensor it's assumed it will be a good choice for landscapes.
Click to expand...

Also the D800E has the anti-aliasing filter removed which is supposed to help increase sharpness. I think the biggest issue is with lens quality as the sensor will do justice to high quality lenses and punish lenses of lower quality. Take time to research those options. One resource I use is:

http://www.nikonians.org/

There are forums for both the D800, AF Lenses and Manual Lenses. It's worth a peak to get a sense of other peoples's experience. Keep in mind the site is heavily used by nikon fans ( a bit like leica folks).

Best regards,

Bob
 
rpsawin said:
Also the D800E has the anti-aliasing filter removed which is supposed to help increase sharpness. I think the biggest issue is with lens quality as the sensor will do justice to high quality lenses and punish lenses of lower quality.
Click to expand...

Somewhat. But again, these are not tiny pixels we're talking about. 4.7 µm pixels = 212 lines per mm. Cell phone sensors are routinely using 1.5 µm pixel pitch!

What can a really good lens do? Using a Tech Pan-like emulsion and Spur developer, Zeiss has shown that under laboratory conditions the ZM 25/2.8 Biogon can hit 400 lp/mm! A perfect optical system and detector operating at that resolution would, in full frame, require 800 lines/mm -- on FF, a 500 (five hundred) Mpix sensor...

Even moderately good lenses readily resolve 100+ line pairs per mm. That's roughly what you get with Fuji Velvia 100 (100 lp/mm @ MTF 30) or even Superia 1600 (@MTF25). TMAX100 and ACROS resolve 100 lp/mm at MTF70 and at lower contrast TMAX and ACROS resolve up to 200 lp/mm.

The D800E may show fine detail with higher contrast (at least on center; the corners will be another story), but if the lens and technique are good enough to generate that sort of detail, you'll also get aliasing of fine structures. I will go further: when people use M9s and claim that they don't see aliasing, that's simply an indication that their technique (focus, camera support) is not sufficient to see it.

If you want to shoot wide open, the lens will matter more, of course. But what these sensors (or TMAX100, or Velvia) will really reveal is poor technique. Holding the camera stable enough to actually resolve 5000 vertical lines (2500 lp) will demand a stable support, no wind, mirror up, and remote release.

For landscapes there are further limitations: the need for depth of field and (for distance shots) atmospheric haze. Stop down to f/11 or f/16 to keep the foreground in focus and you're well into diffraction-limited territory. Now that fancy lens's fancy rendering wide-open doesn't matter so much, eh? This camera is going to convince a lot of (serious) landscape photographers that what they really need is a T/S lens or two.

Sharpness is a bourgeois concept, anyway. I know this because a bunch of people on RFF told me so.
 
D800 - the best affordable digital landscape camera yet?

Maybe, if it's affordable to you and if it's a good camera.

For some, the first class of Sony full-frame DSRLS (A850/A900), which have 24mp and can be had for half the price of the D800, may be the answer. Still others might have to put together a kit that is under $1000, in which case, the answer is also a resounding "no". They might not get to make prints the size of a barn that you can examine at 17 inches, but they nonetheless do wonderful work.

As always I have trouble heaping superlatives on cameras that few have even seen in the...magnesium, and even fewer have used, let alone for a specific genre of photography with its unique requirements....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom