Highway 61
Revisited
A few years ago I knew nothing about digital so I wouldn't have participated at a thread like this one.
Now that I've learned the basics (and a bit more actually) and that I've been extensively using digital cameras and PP softwares, I know more about this.
What I know is that the number of pixels is just one of the multiple parameters of what makes the final image passing by the digital file which gets out of the camera after the sensor has captured raw data.
Resolution is not all. Some 5MP files are very clean and can produce stunning 40x50cm prints (you should see it to believe it).
OTOH some files got out a 12MP camera are crappy and a 20x30cm print out of them will be just ugly.
At my local store there are two mint- second hand Nikon DSLRS at the present time, both are tagged at $1200, one is a D2H and the other one is a D200.
The same $1200 for a 4MP or a 12MP camera both having DX-sized sensors ? Go figure.
EmilGil
Well-known
Here you go, these are all stabilized primes. Sure, not many of them are within financial reach of amateurs but they're still primes with image stabilizers:
Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR Micro, 200mm f/2 VR, 300mm f/2.8 VR, 400mm f/2.8 VR, 500mm f/4 VR, 600mm f/4 VR.
Canon 300mm f/2.8 IS, 300mm f/4 IS, 400mm f/2.8 IS, 400mm f/4 IS, 500mm f/4 IS, 600mm f/4 IS.
If you include lenses shorter than 100mm only in your definition of primes, you're correct but where do you need it the most, for your supertele shooting sports and wildlife or your wide angle street shots? Yes, I know there are exceptions if you're an "available darkness"-kind of guy etc etc but you get the point.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
I guess when you said professionals, I was thinking along the lines of Reportage/Sports/Events etc. I didn't think stock. But I have a few friends who assure me that their d2h images have been accepted by Getty/Alamy and Corbis. And based on my own experiences with Alamy, that if the image content is there, and the rest of the technicals are in place, an absolute kick based on capture resolution is rare.
user237428934
User deletion pending
Ok. Convinced.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
Well good.
Not trying to win an argument here. Just trying to get you to move away from worrying too much about megapixels as a measure of anything useful.
M. Valdemar
Well-known
I have a friend who shoots for numerous publications who demand files made with a certain size of "megapixels".
He shoots with all sorts of cameras, from ancient 1.3 megapixel Fujis, to Nikon D1 with 2.7 megapixels, etc.
What he does is upscale his small files with Genuine Fractals, save them as large tiffs, and he submits them. Nobody has any idea what camera he uses, and they are accepted and printed and look fine.
He shoots with all sorts of cameras, from ancient 1.3 megapixel Fujis, to Nikon D1 with 2.7 megapixels, etc.
What he does is upscale his small files with Genuine Fractals, save them as large tiffs, and he submits them. Nobody has any idea what camera he uses, and they are accepted and printed and look fine.
AusDLK
Famous Photographer
Just ordered me one of these.
Shipment to the store slated for July 25th.
Looking forward to using it with some Zeiss primes.
Shipment to the store slated for July 25th.
Looking forward to using it with some Zeiss primes.
willie_901
Veteran
D200 - Great for people who never use film faster than ISO 400. Otherwise the luma noise become annoying. I can't use it above ISO 640 for color. Also, a great backup for the D300. The AF is good, but not great. it took me quite a bit of practice before I was comfortable with it. Adequate for action photography.
D300 - IS0 800 is the new IS0 400. I use ISO 1250 without hesitation. The luma noise is very low at ISO 1600 and below. The color noise has a nice grain-like look to it. The 100% finder is nice. The LCD screen is excellent and chimping actually gives useful feedback about the fine details of focusing. AF is amazing. With 51 regions you can set the focal point where it has to be. I had more success with manual focus compared to the D200. Live-view is a real advantage for macro work. The speed (with a grip) is well-suited for action photography. Does not handle overexposure as well as the D200 resulting in noticeable purple fringing. However when not over exposed the resulting shadows in images that test dynamic range are easily recovered in PP. A useful backup for the D3 action (sports) photographer. I did a full frame 12 X 18 B&W print recently and am impressed with the detail and yummy tonality. For some reason I don't need to do as much work in post with this camera's images. It's easy to get images that resemble transparencies.
D700 - Finally a viable, affordable Nikon platform for wide-angle DSLR photography. While DOF with f 2.8 or even 2 wides will be inferior to faster lenses, the high ISO performance makes F2.8 viable in low light. A great tool for wedding photographers. With a grip, this should be the perfect backup camera for pro action photographers who use the D3.
D3 - I used one briefly. It's heavy. The finder is super.
I use RAW only and Lightroom for post. It's widely reported that Nikon's NX gives the best images and reduces CA on the D300 and D3. However I hate using NX so I won't buy it.
Bjørn Rørslett (http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html) has a credible summary of which Nikkor wides are poor, mediocre and great.
D300 - IS0 800 is the new IS0 400. I use ISO 1250 without hesitation. The luma noise is very low at ISO 1600 and below. The color noise has a nice grain-like look to it. The 100% finder is nice. The LCD screen is excellent and chimping actually gives useful feedback about the fine details of focusing. AF is amazing. With 51 regions you can set the focal point where it has to be. I had more success with manual focus compared to the D200. Live-view is a real advantage for macro work. The speed (with a grip) is well-suited for action photography. Does not handle overexposure as well as the D200 resulting in noticeable purple fringing. However when not over exposed the resulting shadows in images that test dynamic range are easily recovered in PP. A useful backup for the D3 action (sports) photographer. I did a full frame 12 X 18 B&W print recently and am impressed with the detail and yummy tonality. For some reason I don't need to do as much work in post with this camera's images. It's easy to get images that resemble transparencies.
D700 - Finally a viable, affordable Nikon platform for wide-angle DSLR photography. While DOF with f 2.8 or even 2 wides will be inferior to faster lenses, the high ISO performance makes F2.8 viable in low light. A great tool for wedding photographers. With a grip, this should be the perfect backup camera for pro action photographers who use the D3.
D3 - I used one briefly. It's heavy. The finder is super.
I use RAW only and Lightroom for post. It's widely reported that Nikon's NX gives the best images and reduces CA on the D300 and D3. However I hate using NX so I won't buy it.
Bjørn Rørslett (http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html) has a credible summary of which Nikkor wides are poor, mediocre and great.
This is absolutely true.
I have been extremely pleased with D300 high ISO performance in low light with max apertures of f/2.8; I can't wait to see D700 in these situations.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
Since digital prices are dropping fast, I'm usually about a year to 18 months behind everyone else. I'm thinking of going to 10 megapixels now that everyone is moving up to 12, 14 and beyond.
amateriat
We're all light!
I'm totally outta this horse race (other than my OM-2 with Sigma ultrawide zoom, I'm fully RF n' Holga 135, but I'm happy to see Nikon doing its best to give Canon more than a few sleepless nights. Were I inclined toward (1) high-end digital and (2) SLRs, the D700 would certainly make my shortlist, since I can't abide the D3's size.
- Barrett
- Barrett
Last edited:
IGMeanwell
Well-known
Because those cameras were big, cumbersome, and had various image quality issues that the RAW processors of the day couldn't handle
Times have changed and the Kodak DSLRs are much easier to manage thanks to Adobe RAW, Aperture, and Lightroom ... many of the down falls, moire, CA, Italian Flag syndrome ... can be corrected or sometimes eliminated due to the modern RAW processors.
Though I have met a few studio photographers who still use the Kodak Pro SLR/N ... mainly because its full frame, produces very sharp images, excellent latitude/dynamic range, and excellent colors (especially in an easily controlled studio). They are good studio performers and an potentially excellent landscape camera (contrasty conditions will show its flaws).
Still doesn't change the fact they are generally very slow cameras, with relatively shallow buffers, and quite a bit of noise over ISO 800 ... this is coming from someone who uses a Fuji S5 on a daily basis
Highway 61
Revisited
You said it all.
Digital imaging is digital. This is not analog photography. People obsessed with that "full frame" matter still have to improve their knowledge about how digital imaging works.
Rather than dropping $2500 on this new camera (which will be outdated in a few months by their D700X or whatever they will release to be up to date with the new Canon etc) I'd rather stick with my "old" Canon 350D/Rebel XT on which I can mount my Nikon Ai-S primes thanks to a cheap F-EOS bayonets adapter (which allow me to meter with no problems) and buy me the last LightRoom version to get the most off my RAW files.
Two years ago I was about to buy a D200, finally didn't.
Six months ago I was about to buy a D300, finally didn't.
I'm now tempted to buy that D700, but "thanks to" Nikon who keeps outdating their recent cameras one after another I probably won't.
Will see what is on the market when my actual plastic yet more than satisfying for my needs DSLR dies and that's it.
Colman
Established
Except for the little matter of actually getting light onto the sensor, which is still an analogue process and which affects things like DOF and the FOV of lenses. You might be right if you were talking about pixel-counts, but the people here who want FF either want it for DOF control, FO V or the available improvements in noise. I really like a 20mm to be have a 20mm FOV, not a 35mm FOV.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
You may very well be right about how the ais wides perform but by the time I have saved the cash for a D700 I am sure all that will be out in the open. I would like to think that Nikon took into consideration that the D700 would appeal to shooters wanting to use their older lenses. If the older lenses won't work well there will be much howling. Time and user testing will tell. OTH I have seen decent photos take with old lenses on DSLRs.
Yea, I don't like the fact that you can't get simple D50 like camera that meters with ai lenses. I guess they want to make money which is a strange motive for a company to have. It is the old saying "love it or leave it".
Bob
Highway 61
Revisited
Beats me.
A 20mm lens has a 20mm FOV in front of any kind of film or sensor of any kind.
The people having told you that a 20mm lens had a 35mm lens FOV once in front of a 17x24mm sensor would need to go back to college and learn their optics physics once and again.
That boring debate about the sensors sizes has happened already back in 1928 when Leitz imposed the 24x36 as the new popular standard, and back then the defenders of largers formats told this was an infamy.
If Oskar Barnack had chosen to go the 18x24 route, everybody would be happy now with the DX sensors, so what ?
"People here" should think more of taking better pictures and think less of testing their vintage 50mm lenses bokeh in front of the same redundant-sticky-steady subject.
When I'm dead I will have enough time to think of DOF and bokeh as some "image quality" criteria by themselves. Now that I'm not yet, I prefer to try to take good pictures with what I have, was it with a compact digital camera fitted 1 1/8" digital sensor like my 24/24 carry-around Canon G9.
yanidel
Well-known
Again, this is asuming you have known the Full frame format before.
Most digital users now either owned simple analogue cameras in the past (compacts) or came to photography with the digital advances. The crop factors and full frame requests are only the ones of a small fragment of the customer base. Pushed by the lobbying of analogue users and the specialized press, customers now feel that having a full frame is very important, same for pixel count. It has become more a marketing argument that a real need for 99% of users.
Highway 61
Revisited
I too have seen (and too have taken) decent photos from old lenses on a DLSR but only (in terms on getting on par with what modern zooms can produce on the same DSLR's...) once the PP had been properly done (mainly to correct sharpness, saturation, colours balance, purple fringing and CA issues - le'ts talk of about a 2 hours job to change a single ducky image into a brilliant, sharp, colourful and vivid picture).
As for Nikon not making a simple DSLR (let's say, with just some A and M shutter modes, only two metering modes like center-weighted and spot, a mechanical DOF tester button, and interchangeable focusing screens and with a Ai/Ai-S lenses prong), well it's IMO the proof that the D700 is by no means aimed to "appeal shooters wanting to use their old lenses".
That said, as rogue_designer wrote, no big deal, since the second hand market now offers D200 bodies for about $800.
V
varjag
Guest
A 20mm lens in front of 24x36mm sensor has about 90 degree field of view, and less than that on cropped sensors. Of course the coverage circle of the lens stays the same, but it's not the same as saying "it has same field of view on any given format".
Highway 61
Revisited
Yeah yeah yeah, I know all of this.
But - those recurrent "heck my 20mm becomes a 35mm on my DLSR" just get on me.
What it would "become" anyway would "be" a 30mm not a 35mm.
And - so what ? Use a 14mm or a 16mm or whatever you want in front of your DX sensor if you like the FOV and perspective of the 20mm with 24x36 film, and you're done.
People wanting a FF DSLR so that their 20/2.8 will still be the same 20/2.8 as what it is on a film SLR will be disappointed with how that lens will perform anyway, so, "whazzup"...
In a few years maybe - microlenses arrays and sensor field curvature techniques may get us rid of these pesky purple fringing and CA problems in the corners of the images. When ? In 2027 ? Good for 2027 people.
2008 people should use what the ingeneers make now (that is, DSLRs-designed high-end zooms) with their DX DSLRS rather than moaning about compact, affordable and the like "FF" digital reflex cameras.
"FF" in digital is just something the manufacturers would have preferred not to release IMO but this marketing point came from the market itself not the marketing specialists (interesting concept nonetheless, seems that regarding this "FF" fashion this is the market that edicted a rule the ingeneers had to obey, while it's the contrary, in general).
Canon released the 5D three years ago now. AFAIK Canon sold more of their 350D, 20D, 30D and 400D than 5D. Although the 5D isn't big and isn't that expensive. There is a good reason for this and people thinking that the D700 is the long-waited Messiah might think of the 5D limited sales and of the reasons for this before thinking of spending two months salary on a D700.
Last edited: