MicrostockGroup

Microstock Photography Forum - General => Photography Equipment => Cameras / Lenses => Topic started by: velocicarpo on March 19, 2012, 20:56

Title: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: velocicarpo on March 19, 2012, 20:56
Hi all,

I am really struggling with my decision if I should buy the mkIII or switch to the Nikon D800. I am one of those who really could use some extra MP, mostly for postprocessing concerns. Has anyone a good link for full res comparison pics? To be honest I don`t know too much about the Nikon (dark side of the force :D) universe beyond the basic numbers, but the price tag of the d800 is tempting.
What are you plan on doing? What would you do if you would want to spend the money now?
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: traveler1116 on March 19, 2012, 21:34
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikonD800/7 (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikonD800/7)

dpreview just came out with this, I think it looks comparable to 5d mark II quality with a lot more megapixels.  I won't switch but hopefully Canon will come up with something to match Nikon with soon.
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: velocicarpo on March 19, 2012, 21:41
[url]http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikonD800/7[/url] ([url]http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikonD800/7[/url])

dpreview just came out with this, I think it looks comparable to 5d mark II quality with a lot more megapixels.  I won't switch but hopefully Canon will come up with something to match Nikon with soon.


Ver cool, thanks! Since I think I will be able to continue to use my 5D mkii a lot longer it may look like a good opportunity to get a bit into the Nikon world...basically shooting mainly with the 5D and using the Nikon as a second cam until I am convinced....

I have to say that I basically agree with the step of canon not to go further with the MP. There are other things more important. It is just that me personally with my style could use them a lot. The other reason is this incredible stupid "Rate" button  ;D
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: velocicarpo on March 19, 2012, 21:52
Wow, I am really impressed by the fullsize image comparison D800 vs 5D mark ii. The D800 has incredible rich detail...a LOT better than the mkii ! Lets wait and see what the mk iii is bringing...
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: lagereek on March 20, 2012, 00:59
I have spent the better part of my life switching camera brands, so I got fed-up and today I work with all of them, Canon, Nikon, Leicas, HD4, the lot. So let me be blunt! in six months time we will find there isnt any differance at all between the D800 and the Canon MIII,  exactly the same nonsense differance we expected between the MII and the Nikon D3X, when in fact the little MII, gives a far cleaner file then the D3X.
The minute you get over 20MPs, you are working with quality equal to MF and more, so whats the point?  the logical step to take is ofcourse to embark on MF and digital backs with far more MPs.
On an A3 print, from lets say a D800, MIII, D3X, MII,  you wont see any differance at all. Only when you get to 50MP, then you will notice a slight improvement, if you are trained to see it, that is.

We need optics!  the more high-res cameras demands the very best of optics!  just try and stick a mediocre zoom onto a D3X and see what happens? youve just wasted the camera to gutter-level.
Before running away wasting hard earnt cash,  wait six months and see what the general opinion is.
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: CarlssonInc on March 20, 2012, 01:16
I have spent the better part of my life switching camera brands, so I got fed-up and today I work with all of them, Canon, Nikon, Leicas, HD4, the lot. So let me be blunt! in six months time we will find there isnt any differance at all between the D800 and the Canon MIII,  exactly the same nonsense differance we expected between the MII and the Nikon D3X, when in fact the little MII, gives a far cleaner file then the D3X.
The minute you get over 20MPs, you are working with quality equal to MF and more, so whats the point?  the logical step to take is ofcourse to embark on MF and digital backs with far more MPs.
On an A3 print, from lets say a D800, MIII, D3X, MII,  you wont see any differance at all. Only when you get to 50MP, then you will notice a slight improvement, if you are trained to see it, that is.

We need optics!  the more high-res cameras demands the very best of optics!  just try and stick a mediocre zoom onto a D3X and see what happens? youve just wasted the camera to gutter-level.
Before running away wasting hard earnt cash,  wait six months and see what the general opinion is.

I agree with almost everything you are saying here, except saying that just because you go above 20MP you are in MF land - not exactly true. A MF sensor is a lot larger than D800, MII, D3X and gives a lot of advantages/increases ("better" pixels) in quality similiar to the step from a APS-C or small sensor compact up to full frame sensors.

For stock photographers, micro and traditional, the MP race is now ridiculous - there is no real justification alone in the increase in MPs to go ahead with any of the super high MP cameras. Only thing I can think of would be greater allowance for cropping, that's it, but a photographer with basic skills should at least be able to frame/compose properly and stop being so lazy, utilize their feet more, alternatively a longer lens and/or charm to get in close enough to their subjects.

Both in microstock and traditional outlets my experience is that the overwhelming majority of images sold are on the medium to small side, and trending in that direction.
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: Tabimura on March 20, 2012, 01:45
For stock photographers, micro and traditional, the MP race is now ridiculous - there is no real justification alone in the increase in MPs to go ahead with any of the super high MP cameras. Only thing I can think of would be greater allowance for cropping, that's it, but a photographer with basic skills should at least be able to frame/compose properly and stop being so lazy, utilize their feet more, alternatively a longer lens and/or charm to get in close enough to their subjects.

That's the truth. I find simply amusing the excuse to "be able to crop more" from the image, I would send these guys back to school for that.
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: lagereek on March 20, 2012, 02:11
Yes indeed!   the cropping argument is a joke!   its the arguments of diletants.

Martin!  many times have I blown up gigantic enlargements, even up to 90x70, cm, thats large and the standard affish-format. Ive compared these from MF.HD4, Nikon D3X, the Canon MII and the Leica-S2 and you know what, there is a differance but its so incredibly small it just isnt justyfiable to spend thousands extra.

Its like in the old days with LF, comparing Schneider optics to Rodenstock, one gives a slightly softer image then the other but they are both superb. Its all about the glass!
Stick a crappy lens on a top DSLR, and you got rubbish coming out in the other end. This is what the average guy simply dont understand, top notch cams, will need the best optics and in our cases, Primes, are probably the only answer.
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: CarlssonInc on March 20, 2012, 03:45
Yes indeed!   the cropping argument is a joke!   its the arguments of diletants.

Martin!  many times have I blown up gigantic enlargements, even up to 90x70, cm, thats large and the standard affish-format. Ive compared these from MF.HD4, Nikon D3X, the Canon MII and the Leica-S2 and you know what, there is a differance but its so incredibly small it just isnt justyfiable to spend thousands extra.

Its like in the old days with LF, comparing Schneider optics to Rodenstock, one gives a slightly softer image then the other but they are both superb. Its all about the glass!
Stick a crappy lens on a top DSLR, and you got rubbish coming out in the other end. This is what the average guy simply dont understand, top notch cams, will need the best optics and in our cases, Primes, are probably the only answer.

Christian, I think you misunderstood me slightly, or perhaps I wasn't very clear. Blowing things up you get away with a lot less then most people expect, as you naturally view whatever images progressively from further away. Hell, 4-6MP can go REALLY big with proper interpolation and still look good.

What I meant in essence is that I rather have fewer/the same MP on a larger sensor than more MP on a smaller....the size of the sensor is way more interesting. And in other words, nothing really interests me after 20MPs+, I rather move up to MF territory where for example the Hasselblad 31MP sensor is more interesting than the 200MP one.
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: fotoVoyager on March 20, 2012, 04:05
[url]http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikonD800/7[/url] ([url]http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikonD800/7[/url])

dpreview just came out with this, I think it looks comparable to 5d mark II quality with a lot more megapixels.  I won't switch but hopefully Canon will come up with something to match Nikon with soon.


That's really useful. The D4 and the D800 don't look that much better than the D3s or D700 for shadow noise at ISO800 which is where I want improvement. Waiting to see the video tests now.
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: lagereek on March 20, 2012, 04:14
Yes indeed!   the cropping argument is a joke!   its the arguments of diletants.

Martin!  many times have I blown up gigantic enlargements, even up to 90x70, cm, thats large and the standard affish-format. Ive compared these from MF.HD4, Nikon D3X, the Canon MII and the Leica-S2 and you know what, there is a differance but its so incredibly small it just isnt justyfiable to spend thousands extra.

Its like in the old days with LF, comparing Schneider optics to Rodenstock, one gives a slightly softer image then the other but they are both superb. Its all about the glass!
Stick a crappy lens on a top DSLR, and you got rubbish coming out in the other end. This is what the average guy simply dont understand, top notch cams, will need the best optics and in our cases, Primes, are probably the only answer.

Christian, I think you misunderstood me slightly, or perhaps I wasn't very clear. Blowing things up you get away with a lot less then most people expect, as you naturally view whatever images progressively from further away. Hell, 4-6MP can go REALLY big with proper interpolation and still look good.

What I meant in essence is that I rather have fewer/the same MP on a larger sensor than more MP on a smaller....the size of the sensor is way more interesting. And in other words, nothing really interests me after 20MPs+, I rather move up to MF territory where for example the Hasselblad 31MP sensor is more interesting than the 200MP one.

Sure!  Im with you. :)
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: lagereek on March 20, 2012, 04:15
[url]http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikonD800/7[/url] ([url]http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikonD800/7[/url])

dpreview just came out with this, I think it looks comparable to 5d mark II quality with a lot more megapixels.  I won't switch but hopefully Canon will come up with something to match Nikon with soon.


That's really useful. The D4 and the D800 don't look that much better than the D3s or D700 for shadow noise at ISO800 which is where I want improvement. Waiting to see the video tests now.


Yes and thats exactly no more, no less then I expected.
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: aeonf on March 20, 2012, 04:46
lagereek: Are you saying that the canon zoom L's (for example) aren't good enough for modern high MP cameras ?
Most already have a new and better MK II version.
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: sharpshot on March 20, 2012, 05:19
So people that want more MP's so they can crop occasionally are lazy amateurs?  I did give some good reasons in another thread, I'm not wasting my time on that again.  Low noise at high ISO isn't an essential for me, I rarely go above 400 ISO, some of us want different things from a camera.

I'm sure Canon will have a higher MP full frame option later this year and I'll wait and see what that's like.  If they have stuck with pleasing the high ISO people only, then I'll be looking elsewhere.
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: lagereek on March 20, 2012, 05:30
lagereek: Are you saying that the canon zoom L's (for example) aren't good enough for modern high MP cameras ?
Most already have a new and better MK II version.

The Canon L-zooms are splendid and they sure perform well on the MII, BUT! when I compare each of the zooms focal lengths to my fixed primes!  the primes, are well superior ( so they should be).

However, when you get sensors with say around 30 MPs,  well, who knows?

Many poor sod is now running for the D800, 36MPs, etc, without even knowing they have to opt all their lenses.
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: Perry on March 20, 2012, 07:37
lagereek: Are you saying that the canon zoom L's (for example) aren't good enough for modern high MP cameras ?

I'm not lagereek but I'll still answer :)

Zooms are always zooms, they are compromized. I have a couple of zooms, but almost never use them because I get better quality (and larger apertures) with primes.

Sure, if you shoot with medium apertures and use shutter speeds that are borderline (regarding to camera shake), and with a low megapixel camera there might not be any real difference. But with 20+ Mp and strobes you really need primes to get every detail resolved as good as possible.
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: velocicarpo on March 20, 2012, 08:54

For stock photographers, micro and traditional, the MP race is now ridiculous - there is no real justification alone in the increase in MPs to go ahead with any of the super high MP cameras.

Well, if you are doing HDRI and extreme postprocessing you will need every MP you get. For quality reasons you have to downsize later a lot. Currently, when I heavily postprocess, the final image has around 4000x2666 or less.
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: velocicarpo on March 20, 2012, 08:56
So people that want more MP's so they can crop occasionally are lazy amateurs?  I did give some good reasons in another thread, I'm not wasting my time on that again.  Low noise at high ISO isn't an essential for me, I rarely go above 400 ISO, some of us want different things from a camera.

I'm sure Canon will have a higher MP full frame option later this year and I'll wait and see what that's like.  If they have stuck with pleasing the high ISO people only, then I'll be looking elsewhere.

+1
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: stockastic on March 20, 2012, 10:27
I don't get the putdowns of cropping.  A 'real' artist - like a painter - can spend hours thinking about a composition, make sketches, throw them away, start over - all part of the process.   A lowly photographer is expected to do his composition in a split second and get it right the first time, otherwise he's a loser.  Sorry, but that's not how my brain works.  I see 'something' I like, I get a photo that includes all of it, with room to spare, then I work on framing it later.  And I'm very conscious of framing, of what goes in and how the elements balance.   So yes I'd love to have 36 mp, but a D800 is way out of my price range. 
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: CarlssonInc on March 20, 2012, 10:47
Didn't know that the cropping/framing was this sensitive. So before everyone gets their knickers in a twist, I state that this was just MY opinion - that the ability to crop heavily would not be justification alone to make me jump ship for the D800 or any forthcoming high MP cameras - for ME it would feel that such "obstacles" could most often easily be overcome by using ones feet, longer lens, charm and wit to get closer to the actual subject - you can never get close enough, but not necessarily by cropping.

For sales reason, micro and traditional alike there is also no justification to move up based on my experience to be able to sell larger files in the RF market - sales of really large files are really really really few and far in between and one would not re-coup an investment based purely on being able to provide super humongous file sizes.

Also, I don't like Nikons, they are ugly! ;)
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: stockastic on March 20, 2012, 10:58

Also, I don't like Nikons, they are ugly! ;)

I'm a Nikon guy, and I agree, they are sort of ugly.  The logo is shouting, the red 'chevron' trim piece is tacky and the overall shape, while functional, does not exactly inspire .  Apple has introduced the technology sector to the importance of real design and eventually they'll all get on the bandwagon.  This would be a good time to be a young and talented industrial designer.
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: velocicarpo on March 20, 2012, 13:19
How does the sensors compare? Is the Canon sensor usually less noisy?
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: contrastaddict on March 20, 2012, 15:15
I would like to have the 36 mp to push the edits at ISO 100 then downsize to XXXL or XXL.
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: gostwyck on March 20, 2012, 16:16
I don't get the putdowns of cropping.  A 'real' artist - like a painter - can spend hours thinking about a composition, make sketches, throw them away, start over - all part of the process.   A lowly photographer is expected to do his composition in a split second and get it right the first time, otherwise he's a loser.  Sorry, but that's not how my brain works.  I see 'something' I like, I get a photo that includes all of it, with room to spare, then I work on framing it later.  And I'm very conscious of framing, of what goes in and how the elements balance.   So yes I'd love to have 36 mp, but a D800 is way out of my price range. 

I'd agree. Sometimes I only see the real 'money shot' when viewing the images well after the shoot. Occasionally it has actually been months later, when on my 3rd or 4th pass of the images for stock potential, that a megga-crop jumps out as a best-seller. I'd certainly pay for more MP and would be confident of getting a return from the investment.
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: velocicarpo on March 20, 2012, 17:25
A nice pure spec comparison:
http://nikonrumors.com/2012/03/02/nikon-d800-vs-canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-specs-comparison.aspx/ (http://nikonrumors.com/2012/03/02/nikon-d800-vs-canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-specs-comparison.aspx/)
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: rinderart on March 20, 2012, 20:26
I have spent the better part of my life switching camera brands, so I got fed-up and today I work with all of them, Canon, Nikon, Leicas, HD4, the lot. So let me be blunt! in six months time we will find there isnt any differance at all between the D800 and the Canon MIII,  exactly the same nonsense differance we expected between the MII and the Nikon D3X, when in fact the little MII, gives a far cleaner file then the D3X.
The minute you get over 20MPs, you are working with quality equal to MF and more, so whats the point?  the logical step to take is ofcourse to embark on MF and digital backs with far more MPs.
On an A3 print, from lets say a D800, MIII, D3X, MII,  you wont see any differance at all. Only when you get to 50MP, then you will notice a slight improvement, if you are trained to see it, that is.

We need optics!  the more high-res cameras demands the very best of optics!  just try and stick a mediocre zoom onto a D3X and see what happens? youve just wasted the camera to gutter-level.
Before running away wasting hard earnt cash,  wait six months and see what the general opinion is.

I couldn't agree more. bottom line is Nikon and canon do NOT have the glass to resolve this information Period. 

Something to consider.

I just spent a week in Hawaii with the undisputed expert on the planet on Optics who works for the government On top secret Jobs he can't even tell his wife. Hubble and the keck observatory to name just 2.Many Phds in Physics,astronomy and so forth. We were talking about the new Nikon D800 36 MP Camera, he found a site that has all the optics and sensor specs that aren't usually Published. He got out his calculator and said that camera with the current Lineup Of top glass from nikon will be useless and go Backwards past F8.If your talking Optimum Resolution.
He referred to the Nyquist-Shannon Theorem

And supports my and others Theory that past 18MP, All the DSLR makers other than Leica don't have the optics necessary to resolve that detail.Zeiss and mamiya, Med format are slightly better.Perceived sharpness is quite different Than actual detail and resolving Power. it's about the optics and making a purchase decision based on what you see posted is downright silly. BTW, My friend is not a Photographer but a leading Optics expert.
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: ShadySue on March 20, 2012, 21:36
Only thing I can think of would be greater allowance for cropping, that's it, but a photographer with basic skills should at least be able to frame/compose properly and stop being so lazy, utilize their feet more, alternatively a longer lens and/or charm to get in close enough to their subjects.

I never heard of charming a Goldcrest, but no doubt you'll publish a tutorial.
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: CarlssonInc on March 20, 2012, 23:47
Only thing I can think of would be greater allowance for cropping, that's it, but a photographer with basic skills should at least be able to frame/compose properly and stop being so lazy, utilize their feet more, alternatively a longer lens and/or charm to get in close enough to their subjects.

I never heard of charming a Goldcrest, but no doubt you'll publish a tutorial.

Look out for Animal Planet's "The Goldcrest Whisperer"...
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: traveler1116 on March 20, 2012, 23:59

I couldn't agree more. bottom line is Nikon and canon do NOT have the glass to resolve this information Period. 

Something to consider.

I just spent a week in Hawaii with the undisputed expert on the planet on Optics who works for the government On top secret Jobs he can't even tell his wife. Hubble and the keck observatory to name just 2.Many Phds in Physics,astronomy and so forth. We were talking about the new Nikon D800 36 MP Camera, he found a site that has all the optics and sensor specs that aren't usually Published. He got out his calculator and said that camera with the current Lineup Of top glass from nikon will be useless and go Backwards past F8.If your talking Optimum Resolution.
He referred to the Nyquist-Shannon Theorem

And supports my and others Theory that past 18MP, All the DSLR makers other than Leica don't have the optics necessary to resolve that detail.Zeiss and mamiya, Med format are slightly better.Perceived sharpness is quite different Than actual detail and resolving Power. it's about the optics and making a purchase decision based on what you see posted is downright silly. BTW, My friend is not a Photographer but a leading Optics expert.

Myth #4.  Who to believe?  http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/02/d800-megapixels.html (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/02/d800-megapixels.html)
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: CarlssonInc on March 21, 2012, 01:44
We are all different and work differently. I'm a stock photographer - to me and my work that means that 95% of the time I'm in control of the image/subject/light etc. Grabshots where control is more limited I consider bonus shots. Of course I will eventually move up in MPs when the MKII is worn out and I'm confident that there is the RIGHT glass to match.

Togs that agrees/thinks the following should/could consider the D800

- Confident that the investment will pay-off/increase revenue making it a sound business decision to upgrade.
- Confident that their existing or planned glass line-up is up to the task
- Have a need for the ability for extreme crops due to either being grab/snapshot togs, physically unable to move closer to subjects or are unable/don't like (or can't get long enough) longer glass.
- Feel that their high ISO shooting is best combated with extreme downsizing (instead of other perhaps better performing sensors under such circumstances).

Did I miss anything?
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: lagereek on March 21, 2012, 02:38
I have spent the better part of my life switching camera brands, so I got fed-up and today I work with all of them, Canon, Nikon, Leicas, HD4, the lot. So let me be blunt! in six months time we will find there isnt any differance at all between the D800 and the Canon MIII,  exactly the same nonsense differance we expected between the MII and the Nikon D3X, when in fact the little MII, gives a far cleaner file then the D3X.
The minute you get over 20MPs, you are working with quality equal to MF and more, so whats the point?  the logical step to take is ofcourse to embark on MF and digital backs with far more MPs.
On an A3 print, from lets say a D800, MIII, D3X, MII,  you wont see any differance at all. Only when you get to 50MP, then you will notice a slight improvement, if you are trained to see it, that is.

We need optics!  the more high-res cameras demands the very best of optics!  just try and stick a mediocre zoom onto a D3X and see what happens? youve just wasted the camera to gutter-level.
Before running away wasting hard earnt cash,  wait six months and see what the general opinion is.

I couldn't agree more. bottom line is Nikon and canon do NOT have the glass to resolve this information Period. 

Something to consider.

I just spent a week in Hawaii with the undisputed expert on the planet on Optics who works for the government On top secret Jobs he can't even tell his wife. Hubble and the keck observatory to name just 2.Many Phds in Physics,astronomy and so forth. We were talking about the new Nikon D800 36 MP Camera, he found a site that has all the optics and sensor specs that aren't usually Published. He got out his calculator and said that camera with the current Lineup Of top glass from nikon will be useless and go Backwards past F8.If your talking Optimum Resolution.
He referred to the Nyquist-Shannon Theorem

And supports my and others Theory that past 18MP, All the DSLR makers other than Leica don't have the optics necessary to resolve that detail.Zeiss and mamiya, Med format are slightly better.Perceived sharpness is quite different Than actual detail and resolving Power. it's about the optics and making a purchase decision based on what you see posted is downright silly. BTW, My friend is not a Photographer but a leading Optics expert.


Too true!  we dont have the glass, simple as that, we simply have to make do with whats on offer.It is possible though, to manufacture glass which is totally flawless, trouble is, the prices would be astronomical.
Strictly on a personal basis and out of interest, a few Schneiders, the 38 mil, Biogon, fixed on the Hasselblad SWC and the 80 mil, Planar optics, I would say are as close to perfection as todays science will permit.
A few years back I converted a Schneider lens to the D3X and the differance was just incredible. :)
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: sharpshot on March 21, 2012, 02:44

I couldn't agree more. bottom line is Nikon and canon do NOT have the glass to resolve this information Period.  

Something to consider.

I just spent a week in Hawaii with the undisputed expert on the planet on Optics who works for the government On top secret Jobs he can't even tell his wife. Hubble and the keck observatory to name just 2.Many Phds in Physics,astronomy and so forth. We were talking about the new Nikon D800 36 MP Camera, he found a site that has all the optics and sensor specs that aren't usually Published. He got out his calculator and said that camera with the current Lineup Of top glass from nikon will be useless and go Backwards past F8.If your talking Optimum Resolution.
He referred to the Nyquist-Shannon Theorem

And supports my and others Theory that past 18MP, All the DSLR makers other than Leica don't have the optics necessary to resolve that detail.Zeiss and mamiya, Med format are slightly better.Perceived sharpness is quite different Than actual detail and resolving Power. it's about the optics and making a purchase decision based on what you see posted is downright silly. BTW, My friend is not a Photographer but a leading Optics expert.

Myth #4.  Who to believe?  [url]http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/02/d800-megapixels.html[/url] ([url]http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/02/d800-megapixels.html[/url])

I remember reading a scientific report in a magazine recently that concluded that more megapixels improves the quality of images even with lenses that aren't the highest quality.  It might show up lens faults but the lens/sensor combination still has more detail.  I love the quality from my 550D and I think that packs in the pixels about the same as the D800.  Can't see any problems that aren't easily fixed with decent lenses.  They've had 2 years to make improvements over the 550D and it looks like they have with the G1 X sensor.  I don't really care if a boffin thinks it doesn't work, I will take the 18mp 550D IQ over my 6mp 300D any day.

If I wasn't doing stock and didn't make any big prints, I would be happy with 4mp.  My first digital camera was 2mp and I was pleased with that but it wouldn't make me much money now.
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: sharpshot on March 21, 2012, 03:03
- Confident that the investment will pay-off/increase revenue making it a sound business decision to upgrade.
Do your cameras last forever?  I change mine every few years.  I'm in no rush to buy a new camera, I wait for the prices to drop a lot and sometimes buy second hand or refurbished at a big discount.
Quote
- Confident that their existing or planned glass line-up is up to the task
I make that decision by looking at lots of full size images taken with the same lenses I have before making my purchase.
Quote
- Have a need for the ability for extreme crops due to either being grab/snapshot togs, physically unable to move closer to subjects or are unable/don't like (or can't get long enough) longer glass.
I don't carry a 500mm lens around with me all day, so being able to crop is an advantage.  There are many times when I have the wrong lens on the camera and no time to change it.  I like doing single frame panoramas.  Try joining multiple frames with people moving or big waves, it doesn't work.  There are other advantages with bigger files, sometimes you can get 2 or 3 different looking photos from 1 frame.
Quote
- Feel that their high ISO shooting is best combated with extreme downsizing (instead of other perhaps better performing sensors under such circumstances).
I don't use over 400 ISO much.  Haven't found a problem with the 550D that packs in the pixels.  I also use some noisy compacts and can deal with the shadow noise quite well.  I would rather have a bit of noise that I can deal with in a much larger file than a much smaller noise free image.
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: travelstock on March 21, 2012, 08:28
Didn't know that the cropping/framing was this sensitive. So before everyone gets their knickers in a twist, I state that this was just MY opinion - that the ability to crop heavily would not be justification alone to make me jump ship for the D800 or any forthcoming high MP cameras - for ME it would feel that such "obstacles" could most often easily be overcome by using ones feet, longer lens, charm and wit to get closer to the actual subject - you can never get close enough, but not necessarily by cropping.

For sales reason, micro and traditional alike there is also no justification to move up based on my experience to be able to sell larger files in the RF market - sales of really large files are really really really few and far in between and one would not re-coup an investment based purely on being able to provide super humongous file sizes.

Also, I don't like Nikons, they are ugly! ;)

With all of 14 XXXL files in your portfolio I can't really see how you can make that sort of assessment of the RF market. Maybe sales of large files are limited in the market for photos of Stilettos isolated on white, but in other areas, they sell far more regularly.

Seeing as we're talking about stock photography, its worth remembering that its often the end users than need the room for cropping - the original doesn't always fit perfectly into whatever layout they're producing. Larger files sometimes don't just mean the difference between an XXXL sale price and just an XL, they're often the difference between making the sale and getting nothing.
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: Perry on March 21, 2012, 08:38
Let's not forget: It's not about resolving details, it's also about resolving color! A 12mpix (bayer) sensor has 3mpix red pixels, 3mpix blue pixels and 6mpix green pixels.
You might not get much more details with 36mpix vs. 21mpix, but you will get more exact colors on pixel level.

If quality optics resolve detail suitable for a 21mpix sensor, we would need 84mpix to get more exact color for each pixel.

(does anyone understand what I'm trying to say here? :))
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: CarlssonInc on March 21, 2012, 09:31
Didn't know that the cropping/framing was this sensitive. So before everyone gets their knickers in a twist, I state that this was just MY opinion - that the ability to crop heavily would not be justification alone to make me jump ship for the D800 or any forthcoming high MP cameras - for ME it would feel that such "obstacles" could most often easily be overcome by using ones feet, longer lens, charm and wit to get closer to the actual subject - you can never get close enough, but not necessarily by cropping.

For sales reason, micro and traditional alike there is also no justification to move up based on my experience to be able to sell larger files in the RF market - sales of really large files are really really really few and far in between and one would not re-coup an investment based purely on being able to provide super humongous file sizes.

Also, I don't like Nikons, they are ugly! ;)

With all of 14 XXXL files in your portfolio I can't really see how you can make that sort of assessment of the RF market. Maybe sales of large files are limited in the market for photos of Stilettos isolated on white, but in other areas, they sell far more regularly.

Seeing as we're talking about stock photography, its worth remembering that its often the end users than need the room for cropping - the original doesn't always fit perfectly into whatever layout they're producing. Larger files sometimes don't just mean the difference between an XXXL sale price and just an XL, they're often the difference between making the sale and getting nothing.

My experience is the same in the traditional RF market, but as you say it might well be very much subject dependent and certain areas might sell boatloads of XXXLs.

MY experience is that larger file sales are very few, I've heard many others saying the same thing - the majority of sales are large/medium to xs (by istock's definition), XL and above are "rarish" in my experience both on iStock and Getty, few enough that after 20MPs it is no longer a consideration for me if I was in the market for a new camera.

Anyway, I'm sure everyone knows what kind of equipment suits them and their subject matters the best. If you are certain to sell enough XXXLs to justify getting equipment to do that then of course you should, if you are the type that needs to crop heavily for whatever reason then get it too, if you just get a buzz of having loads of MPs and the latest model get it too - there is no right or wrong here, just personal preference/opinions.
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: hellobob on March 21, 2012, 11:34
Mine is on order!
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: lagereek on March 21, 2012, 11:51
Mine is on order!

Which one!  the Point/shoot or the Instamatic?
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: lagereek on March 21, 2012, 11:56
In Stock photography, its best to leave the cropping factor to the buyer, we never know the final outcome, do we?  all too many times we have heard "leave ample space around the mainsubject"  and thats exactly how it works.

I have yet to shoot for an AD, agency, desinger, etc,  who does not want lots of space to work with.
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: gostwyck on March 21, 2012, 12:18
In Stock photography, its best to leave the cropping factor to the buyer, we never know the final outcome, do we?  all too many times we have heard "leave ample space around the mainsubject"  and thats exactly how it works.

I have yet to shoot for an AD, agency, desinger, etc,  who does not want lots of space to work with.

Yep __ they all say that. Funny how it is always the heavier cropped version that sells far more though (about 3x more in my experience).
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: CarlssonInc on March 21, 2012, 12:37
In Stock photography, its best to leave the cropping factor to the buyer, we never know the final outcome, do we?  all too many times we have heard "leave ample space around the mainsubject"  and thats exactly how it works.

I have yet to shoot for an AD, agency, desinger, etc,  who does not want lots of space to work with.

Yep __ they all say that. Funny how it is always the heavier cropped version that sells far more though (about 3x more in my experience).

Totally agree with this. "Ready" images, with original perfect framing or cropped to "perfection" outsells the "wide berth" ones by far.
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: borg on March 21, 2012, 12:54
Is it true that full frame lenses for Canon are usually cheaper than for Nikon?
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: lagereek on March 21, 2012, 12:59
In Stock photography, its best to leave the cropping factor to the buyer, we never know the final outcome, do we?  all too many times we have heard "leave ample space around the mainsubject"  and thats exactly how it works.

I have yet to shoot for an AD, agency, desinger, etc,  who does not want lots of space to work with.

Yep __ they all say that. Funny how it is always the heavier cropped version that sells far more though (about 3x more in my experience).

Not in my case!  anyway, I was reffering to commissioned work. For stock alone, I suppose you can supply any old thingy. :)
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: rinderart on March 21, 2012, 13:18
In Stock photography, its best to leave the cropping factor to the buyer, we never know the final outcome, do we?  all too many times we have heard "leave ample space around the mainsubject"  and thats exactly how it works.

I have yet to shoot for an AD, agency, desinger, etc,  who does not want lots of space to work with.

Yep __ they all say that. Funny how it is always the heavier cropped version that sells far more though (about 3x more in my experience).

Totally agree with this. "Ready" images, with original perfect framing or cropped to "perfection" outsells the "wide berth" ones by far.

In My Case....I agree also.
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: rinderart on March 21, 2012, 13:32
I have spent the better part of my life switching camera brands, so I got fed-up and today I work with all of them, Canon, Nikon, Leicas, HD4, the lot. So let me be blunt! in six months time we will find there isnt any differance at all between the D800 and the Canon MIII,  exactly the same nonsense differance we expected between the MII and the Nikon D3X, when in fact the little MII, gives a far cleaner file then the D3X.
The minute you get over 20MPs, you are working with quality equal to MF and more, so whats the point?  the logical step to take is ofcourse to embark on MF and digital backs with far more MPs.
On an A3 print, from lets say a D800, MIII, D3X, MII,  you wont see any differance at all. Only when you get to 50MP, then you will notice a slight improvement, if you are trained to see it, that is.

We need optics!  the more high-res cameras demands the very best of optics!  just try and stick a mediocre zoom onto a D3X and see what happens? youve just wasted the camera to gutter-level.
Before running away wasting hard earnt cash,  wait six months and see what the general opinion is.

I couldn't agree more. bottom line is Nikon and canon do NOT have the glass to resolve this information Period. 

Something to consider.

I just spent a week in Hawaii with the undisputed expert on the planet on Optics who works for the government On top secret Jobs he can't even tell his wife. Hubble and the keck observatory to name just 2.Many Phds in Physics,astronomy and so forth. We were talking about the new Nikon D800 36 MP Camera, he found a site that has all the optics and sensor specs that aren't usually Published. He got out his calculator and said that camera with the current Lineup Of top glass from nikon will be useless and go Backwards past F8.If your talking Optimum Resolution.
He referred to the Nyquist-Shannon Theorem

And supports my and others Theory that past 18MP, All the DSLR makers other than Leica don't have the optics necessary to resolve that detail.Zeiss and mamiya, Med format are slightly better.Perceived sharpness is quite different Than actual detail and resolving Power. it's about the optics and making a purchase decision based on what you see posted is downright silly. BTW, My friend is not a Photographer but a leading Optics expert.


Too true!  we dont have the glass, simple as that, we simply have to make do with whats on offer.It is possible though, to manufacture glass which is totally flawless, trouble is, the prices would be astronomical.
Strictly on a personal basis and out of interest, a few Schneiders, the 38 mil, Biogon, fixed on the Hasselblad SWC and the 80 mil, Planar optics, I would say are as close to perfection as todays science will permit.
A few years back I converted a Schneider lens to the D3X and the differance was just incredible. :)

Agree and hence the reason lots of old timers are buying up Original 12MP 5D's and using there leica glass. I've seen the work. quite astounding. it always go back to Optics.
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: lagereek on March 21, 2012, 14:15
I have spent the better part of my life switching camera brands, so I got fed-up and today I work with all of them, Canon, Nikon, Leicas, HD4, the lot. So let me be blunt! in six months time we will find there isnt any differance at all between the D800 and the Canon MIII,  exactly the same nonsense differance we expected between the MII and the Nikon D3X, when in fact the little MII, gives a far cleaner file then the D3X.
The minute you get over 20MPs, you are working with quality equal to MF and more, so whats the point?  the logical step to take is ofcourse to embark on MF and digital backs with far more MPs.
On an A3 print, from lets say a D800, MIII, D3X, MII,  you wont see any differance at all. Only when you get to 50MP, then you will notice a slight improvement, if you are trained to see it, that is.

We need optics!  the more high-res cameras demands the very best of optics!  just try and stick a mediocre zoom onto a D3X and see what happens? youve just wasted the camera to gutter-level.
Before running away wasting hard earnt cash,  wait six months and see what the general opinion is.

I couldn't agree more. bottom line is Nikon and canon do NOT have the glass to resolve this information Period. 

Something to consider.

I just spent a week in Hawaii with the undisputed expert on the planet on Optics who works for the government On top secret Jobs he can't even tell his wife. Hubble and the keck observatory to name just 2.Many Phds in Physics,astronomy and so forth. We were talking about the new Nikon D800 36 MP Camera, he found a site that has all the optics and sensor specs that aren't usually Published. He got out his calculator and said that camera with the current Lineup Of top glass from nikon will be useless and go Backwards past F8.If your talking Optimum Resolution.
He referred to the Nyquist-Shannon Theorem

And supports my and others Theory that past 18MP, All the DSLR makers other than Leica don't have the optics necessary to resolve that detail.Zeiss and mamiya, Med format are slightly better.Perceived sharpness is quite different Than actual detail and resolving Power. it's about the optics and making a purchase decision based on what you see posted is downright silly. BTW, My friend is not a Photographer but a leading Optics expert.


Too true!  we dont have the glass, simple as that, we simply have to make do with whats on offer.It is possible though, to manufacture glass which is totally flawless, trouble is, the prices would be astronomical.
Strictly on a personal basis and out of interest, a few Schneiders, the 38 mil, Biogon, fixed on the Hasselblad SWC and the 80 mil, Planar optics, I would say are as close to perfection as todays science will permit.
A few years back I converted a Schneider lens to the D3X and the differance was just incredible. :)

Agree and hence the reason lots of old timers are buying up Original 12MP 5D's and using there leica glass. I've seen the work. quite astounding. it always go back to Optics.


Quite often for product shooting, I use the LF Sinar-Eyelike system,  the quality is beyond belief!  enough for a 10 meter billboard. :)
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: travelstock on March 22, 2012, 00:40
Didn't know that the cropping/framing was this sensitive. So before everyone gets their knickers in a twist, I state that this was just MY opinion - that the ability to crop heavily would not be justification alone to make me jump ship for the D800 or any forthcoming high MP cameras - for ME it would feel that such "obstacles" could most often easily be overcome by using ones feet, longer lens, charm and wit to get closer to the actual subject - you can never get close enough, but not necessarily by cropping.

For sales reason, micro and traditional alike there is also no justification to move up based on my experience to be able to sell larger files in the RF market - sales of really large files are really really really few and far in between and one would not re-coup an investment based purely on being able to provide super humongous file sizes.

Also, I don't like Nikons, they are ugly! ;)

With all of 14 XXXL files in your portfolio I can't really see how you can make that sort of assessment of the RF market. Maybe sales of large files are limited in the market for photos of Stilettos isolated on white, but in other areas, they sell far more regularly.

Seeing as we're talking about stock photography, its worth remembering that its often the end users than need the room for cropping - the original doesn't always fit perfectly into whatever layout they're producing. Larger files sometimes don't just mean the difference between an XXXL sale price and just an XL, they're often the difference between making the sale and getting nothing.

My experience is the same in the traditional RF market, but as you say it might well be very much subject dependent and certain areas might sell boatloads of XXXLs.

MY experience is that larger file sales are very few, I've heard many others saying the same thing - the majority of sales are large/medium to xs (by istock's definition), XL and above are "rarish" in my experience both on iStock and Getty, few enough that after 20MPs it is no longer a consideration for me if I was in the market for a new camera.

Anyway, I'm sure everyone knows what kind of equipment suits them and their subject matters the best. If you are certain to sell enough XXXLs to justify getting equipment to do that then of course you should, if you are the type that needs to crop heavily for whatever reason then get it too, if you just get a buzz of having loads of MPs and the latest model get it too - there is no right or wrong here, just personal preference/opinions.

I think you missed my main point which was that with 14 XXXL files in your portfolio, its difficult to assess how many XXXL sales you're missing out on, or to judge overall sales volumes. Looking at your portfolio on iStock, less than 1/5 are even available in file sizes above Large. Presumably like many of us you started with a smaller MP camer and have upgraded. When talking about these statistics, how many people are actually calculating XXXL sales as a percentage of those that are available in that format as opposed to an overall percentage?

For me, yes M/L sales are dominant, but I get many L sales on files that are only available in as a large file from the days when I was using an 8 or 10MP camera. Its impossible to tell how many of those sales, if any would be XL, XXL or XXXL if they were available in that format. I'm also in the position where a majority of my files aren't in the largest formats, with only 1/3 available at XL and above, but the stats tell me that (1) it would be a big mistake to shoot at less than XL size for microstock (yes, one I made for too long) (2) that in the long term having files available at the largest sizes pays off if you're an iStock exclusive (much more marginal for non-exclusives because the highest price point for other agencies seems to be mostly at 12MP). 

To me the real advantage of the D800 is that its a 35MP FF camera and a 15.3MP DX crop camera in one - out in the field that difference can be massive - it potentially means one less lens to carry and a lot less lens changes. At the moment its not enough to make me jump in and swap systems, but if I was looking at it starting from scratch it would heavily influence the decision, because unlike most other areas of photography, in stock MPs do actually matter.
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: lagereek on March 22, 2012, 01:16
Didn't know that the cropping/framing was this sensitive. So before everyone gets their knickers in a twist, I state that this was just MY opinion - that the ability to crop heavily would not be justification alone to make me jump ship for the D800 or any forthcoming high MP cameras - for ME it would feel that such "obstacles" could most often easily be overcome by using ones feet, longer lens, charm and wit to get closer to the actual subject - you can never get close enough, but not necessarily by cropping.

For sales reason, micro and traditional alike there is also no justification to move up based on my experience to be able to sell larger files in the RF market - sales of really large files are really really really few and far in between and one would not re-coup an investment based purely on being able to provide super humongous file sizes.

Also, I don't like Nikons, they are ugly! ;)

With all of 14 XXXL files in your portfolio I can't really see how you can make that sort of assessment of the RF market. Maybe sales of large files are limited in the market for photos of Stilettos isolated on white, but in other areas, they sell far more regularly.

Seeing as we're talking about stock photography, its worth remembering that its often the end users than need the room for cropping - the original doesn't always fit perfectly into whatever layout they're producing. Larger files sometimes don't just mean the difference between an XXXL sale price and just an XL, they're often the difference between making the sale and getting nothing.

My experience is the same in the traditional RF market, but as you say it might well be very much subject dependent and certain areas might sell boatloads of XXXLs.

MY experience is that larger file sales are very few, I've heard many others saying the same thing - the majority of sales are large/medium to xs (by istock's definition), XL and above are "rarish" in my experience both on iStock and Getty, few enough that after 20MPs it is no longer a consideration for me if I was in the market for a new camera.

Anyway, I'm sure everyone knows what kind of equipment suits them and their subject matters the best. If you are certain to sell enough XXXLs to justify getting equipment to do that then of course you should, if you are the type that needs to crop heavily for whatever reason then get it too, if you just get a buzz of having loads of MPs and the latest model get it too - there is no right or wrong here, just personal preference/opinions.

I think you missed my main point which was that with 14 XXXL files in your portfolio, its difficult to assess how many XXXL sales you're missing out on, or to judge overall sales volumes. Looking at your portfolio on iStock, less than 1/5 are even available in file sizes above Large. Presumably like many of us you started with a smaller MP camer and have upgraded. When talking about these statistics, how many people are actually calculating XXXL sales as a percentage of those that are available in that format as opposed to an overall percentage?

For me, yes M/L sales are dominant, but I get many L sales on files that are only available in as a large file from the days when I was using an 8 or 10MP camera. Its impossible to tell how many of those sales, if any would be XL, XXL or XXXL if they were available in that format. I'm also in the position where a majority of my files aren't in the largest formats, with only 1/3 available at XL and above, but the stats tell me that (1) it would be a big mistake to shoot at less than XL size for microstock (yes, one I made for too long) (2) that in the long term having files available at the largest sizes pays off if you're an iStock exclusive (much more marginal for non-exclusives because the highest price point for other agencies seems to be mostly at 12MP). 

To me the real advantage of the D800 is that its a 35MP FF camera and a 15.3MP DX crop camera in one - out in the field that difference can be massive - it potentially means one less lens to carry and a lot less lens changes. At the moment its not enough to make me jump in and swap systems, but if I was looking at it starting from scratch it would heavily influence the decision, because unlike most other areas of photography, in stock MPs do actually matter.



Holgs!  I agree with you, you are a travel photographer and out in the field, a cam such as the D800, is extremely versatile. In fact many travel photographers wont look at anything beneath Medium format.
Travel and landscape photography are a few areas where hi8gh-res cameras pay off.
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: CarlssonInc on March 22, 2012, 01:45
Didn't know that the cropping/framing was this sensitive. So before everyone gets their knickers in a twist, I state that this was just MY opinion - that the ability to crop heavily would not be justification alone to make me jump ship for the D800 or any forthcoming high MP cameras - for ME it would feel that such "obstacles" could most often easily be overcome by using ones feet, longer lens, charm and wit to get closer to the actual subject - you can never get close enough, but not necessarily by cropping.

For sales reason, micro and traditional alike there is also no justification to move up based on my experience to be able to sell larger files in the RF market - sales of really large files are really really really few and far in between and one would not re-coup an investment based purely on being able to provide super humongous file sizes.

Also, I don't like Nikons, they are ugly! ;)

With all of 14 XXXL files in your portfolio I can't really see how you can make that sort of assessment of the RF market. Maybe sales of large files are limited in the market for photos of Stilettos isolated on white, but in other areas, they sell far more regularly.

Seeing as we're talking about stock photography, its worth remembering that its often the end users than need the room for cropping - the original doesn't always fit perfectly into whatever layout they're producing. Larger files sometimes don't just mean the difference between an XXXL sale price and just an XL, they're often the difference between making the sale and getting nothing.

My experience is the same in the traditional RF market, but as you say it might well be very much subject dependent and certain areas might sell boatloads of XXXLs.

MY experience is that larger file sales are very few, I've heard many others saying the same thing - the majority of sales are large/medium to xs (by istock's definition), XL and above are "rarish" in my experience both on iStock and Getty, few enough that after 20MPs it is no longer a consideration for me if I was in the market for a new camera.

Anyway, I'm sure everyone knows what kind of equipment suits them and their subject matters the best. If you are certain to sell enough XXXLs to justify getting equipment to do that then of course you should, if you are the type that needs to crop heavily for whatever reason then get it too, if you just get a buzz of having loads of MPs and the latest model get it too - there is no right or wrong here, just personal preference/opinions.

I think you missed my main point which was that with 14 XXXL files in your portfolio, its difficult to assess how many XXXL sales you're missing out on, or to judge overall sales volumes. Looking at your portfolio on iStock, less than 1/5 are even available in file sizes above Large. Presumably like many of us you started with a smaller MP camer and have upgraded. When talking about these statistics, how many people are actually calculating XXXL sales as a percentage of those that are available in that format as opposed to an overall percentage?

For me, yes M/L sales are dominant, but I get many L sales on files that are only available in as a large file from the days when I was using an 8 or 10MP camera. Its impossible to tell how many of those sales, if any would be XL, XXL or XXXL if they were available in that format. I'm also in the position where a majority of my files aren't in the largest formats, with only 1/3 available at XL and above, but the stats tell me that (1) it would be a big mistake to shoot at less than XL size for microstock (yes, one I made for too long) (2) that in the long term having files available at the largest sizes pays off if you're an iStock exclusive (much more marginal for non-exclusives because the highest price point for other agencies seems to be mostly at 12MP).  

To me the real advantage of the D800 is that its a 35MP FF camera and a 15.3MP DX crop camera in one - out in the field that difference can be massive - it potentially means one less lens to carry and a lot less lens changes. At the moment its not enough to make me jump in and swap systems, but if I was looking at it starting from scratch it would heavily influence the decision, because unlike most other areas of photography, in stock MPs do actually matter.



Holgs!  I agree with you, you are a travel photographer and out in the field, a cam such as the D800, is extremely versatile. In fact many travel photographers wont look at anything beneath Medium format.
Travel and landscape photography are a few areas where hi8gh-res cameras pay off.

I somewhat agree - my gut feeling is that this is true for a "higher-end" travel/landscape photographer well established in the traditional market. I doubt, but would really like to be proven wrong, that it does better than just paying off in the microstock market (we don't just want to break even do we). Essentially what I'm "doubting" is that a 36MP with a suitable lens line-up (probably has to be more expensive) is outperforming a 16-22MP with a standard lens line-up sufficiently enough to warrant the upgrade.

I'm guilty like so many others of always having wanted and justifying to myself of having the latest/the most/the best equipment, but to me that (in terms of cameras) kind of changed with the MKII - key reason being that files then were sufficiently large enough to go straight to traditional libraries without any interpolation - I can't seem to find any evidence in my own experiences that being able to offer larger file sizes than this would give a large enough upswing in royalties to warrant an investment of let's say 5000 which would be more than covered by sales of XXXL files.

However, if Canon were to release a 36MP camera without any quality issues (quality on par with MKII or above) I would definitely want it and get it, but I would feel rather silly trying to justify it purely on a financial basis that I would sell significantly more larger files than I currently do.
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: lagereek on March 22, 2012, 02:14
Didn't know that the cropping/framing was this sensitive. So before everyone gets their knickers in a twist, I state that this was just MY opinion - that the ability to crop heavily would not be justification alone to make me jump ship for the D800 or any forthcoming high MP cameras - for ME it would feel that such "obstacles" could most often easily be overcome by using ones feet, longer lens, charm and wit to get closer to the actual subject - you can never get close enough, but not necessarily by cropping.

For sales reason, micro and traditional alike there is also no justification to move up based on my experience to be able to sell larger files in the RF market - sales of really large files are really really really few and far in between and one would not re-coup an investment based purely on being able to provide super humongous file sizes.

Also, I don't like Nikons, they are ugly! ;)

With all of 14 XXXL files in your portfolio I can't really see how you can make that sort of assessment of the RF market. Maybe sales of large files are limited in the market for photos of Stilettos isolated on white, but in other areas, they sell far more regularly.

Seeing as we're talking about stock photography, its worth remembering that its often the end users than need the room for cropping - the original doesn't always fit perfectly into whatever layout they're producing. Larger files sometimes don't just mean the difference between an XXXL sale price and just an XL, they're often the difference between making the sale and getting nothing.

My experience is the same in the traditional RF market, but as you say it might well be very much subject dependent and certain areas might sell boatloads of XXXLs.

MY experience is that larger file sales are very few, I've heard many others saying the same thing - the majority of sales are large/medium to xs (by istock's definition), XL and above are "rarish" in my experience both on iStock and Getty, few enough that after 20MPs it is no longer a consideration for me if I was in the market for a new camera.

Anyway, I'm sure everyone knows what kind of equipment suits them and their subject matters the best. If you are certain to sell enough XXXLs to justify getting equipment to do that then of course you should, if you are the type that needs to crop heavily for whatever reason then get it too, if you just get a buzz of having loads of MPs and the latest model get it too - there is no right or wrong here, just personal preference/opinions.

I think you missed my main point which was that with 14 XXXL files in your portfolio, its difficult to assess how many XXXL sales you're missing out on, or to judge overall sales volumes. Looking at your portfolio on iStock, less than 1/5 are even available in file sizes above Large. Presumably like many of us you started with a smaller MP camer and have upgraded. When talking about these statistics, how many people are actually calculating XXXL sales as a percentage of those that are available in that format as opposed to an overall percentage?

For me, yes M/L sales are dominant, but I get many L sales on files that are only available in as a large file from the days when I was using an 8 or 10MP camera. Its impossible to tell how many of those sales, if any would be XL, XXL or XXXL if they were available in that format. I'm also in the position where a majority of my files aren't in the largest formats, with only 1/3 available at XL and above, but the stats tell me that (1) it would be a big mistake to shoot at less than XL size for microstock (yes, one I made for too long) (2) that in the long term having files available at the largest sizes pays off if you're an iStock exclusive (much more marginal for non-exclusives because the highest price point for other agencies seems to be mostly at 12MP).  

To me the real advantage of the D800 is that its a 35MP FF camera and a 15.3MP DX crop camera in one - out in the field that difference can be massive - it potentially means one less lens to carry and a lot less lens changes. At the moment its not enough to make me jump in and swap systems, but if I was looking at it starting from scratch it would heavily influence the decision, because unlike most other areas of photography, in stock MPs do actually matter.



Holgs!  I agree with you, you are a travel photographer and out in the field, a cam such as the D800, is extremely versatile. In fact many travel photographers wont look at anything beneath Medium format.
Travel and landscape photography are a few areas where hi8gh-res cameras pay off.

I somewhat agree - my gut feeling is that this is true for a "higher-end" travel/landscape photographer well established in the traditional market. I doubt, but would really like to be proven wrong, that it does better than just paying off in the microstock market (we don't just want to break even do we). Essentially what I'm "doubting" is that a 36MP with a suitable lens line-up (probably has to be more expensive) is outperforming a 16-22MP with a standard lens line-up sufficiently enough to warrant the upgrade.

I'm guilty like so many others of always having wanted and justifying to myself of having the latest/the most/the best equipment, but to me that (in terms of cameras) kind of changed with the MKII - key reason being that files then were sufficiently large enough to go straight to traditional libraries without any interpolation - I can't seem to find any evidence in my own experiences that being able to offer larger file sizes than this would give a large enough upswing in royalties to warrant an investment of let's say 5000 which would be more than covered by sales of XXXL files.

However, if Canon were to release a 36MP camera without any quality issues (quality on par with MKII or above) I would definitely want it and get it, but I would feel rather silly trying to justify it purely on a financial basis that I would sell significantly more larger files than I currently do.

Thats it!  if Canon was to release a 36MP, then I would go for it. Im both a Canon and Nikon user but somehow with Nikon you have to go carefully, My D3X, for example, I had to change it THREE times to get a good sample and even so its not perfect and there were many having to do the same thing. I had to change a Nikon 200 mil, 2.0,  twice to get a good sample. Sadly Nikon has become a hit and miss, what fell of the production-line enigma.

Ofcourse here we are, with extremely high-res cams, next thing that follows is an upograde to top notch lenses, a 36MP camera wont suffer anything but the best. Primes only, is the simple answer and six months later, after carting around some 20 kilos ofequipment you need back surgery. :)
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: CarlssonInc on March 22, 2012, 02:30
@lagereek

Absolutely, Canon we can trust to make a 36MP body, Nikon not so much ;)
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: sharpshot on March 22, 2012, 02:59
Just saw this.  I would love a full frame camera in a more compact body with an EVF that didn't cost as much as a Leica.
http://photorumors.com/2012/03/21/canon-mirrorless-camera-concept/ (http://photorumors.com/2012/03/21/canon-mirrorless-camera-concept/)
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: CarlssonInc on March 22, 2012, 03:51
Just saw this.  I would love a full frame camera in a more compact body with an EVF that didn't cost as much as a Leica.
[url]http://photorumors.com/2012/03/21/canon-mirrorless-camera-concept/[/url] ([url]http://photorumors.com/2012/03/21/canon-mirrorless-camera-concept/[/url])


Looks smashing!
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: travelstock on March 22, 2012, 06:22
Just saw this.  I would love a full frame camera in a more compact body with an EVF that didn't cost as much as a Leica.
[url]http://photorumors.com/2012/03/21/canon-mirrorless-camera-concept/[/url] ([url]http://photorumors.com/2012/03/21/canon-mirrorless-camera-concept/[/url])


The thing about compact systems is that its the lenses, especially telephoto, that really add to the weight, not so much the bodies. If Canon do come out with a new mirrorless system this year, which is highly likely, its unlikely to be FF, and will need an entirely new set of lenses because a lens optimised for traditional AF won't work nearly so well if they AF from the sensor.
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: velocicarpo on March 22, 2012, 09:50
I just did a little (superficial) research about XXL file sales and the result was surprising even to me:
- Only 5% of sales is a XXL file.
- BUT the income generated by XXL files is 42% !!!

Somewhat logical giving the high price of the XXLs. One has to sell oftenly like 20 Subs to get the same share as with one XXL credit sale. I looked at the stats of 8 Agencies.
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: lagereek on March 22, 2012, 10:19
Buyers do noit consult micro agencies for XXXL, files. They come here, mostly to buy as cheap as possible and thats that. I can easily see that the very few buyers who go for an XXXL, have previously DLd, the same file as a comp.
However, thats not to say that one shouldnt strive for perfection and optimal equipment but for me,  one DSLR, after another and another is pointless. The logical step is actually to go MF, then the sky is the limit, ofcourse depending on type of photography.
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: sharpshot on March 22, 2012, 10:26
Just saw this.  I would love a full frame camera in a more compact body with an EVF that didn't cost as much as a Leica.
[url]http://photorumors.com/2012/03/21/canon-mirrorless-camera-concept/[/url] ([url]http://photorumors.com/2012/03/21/canon-mirrorless-camera-concept/[/url])


The thing about compact systems is that its the lenses, especially telephoto, that really add to the weight, not so much the bodies. If Canon do come out with a new mirrorless system this year, which is highly likely, its unlikely to be FF, and will need an entirely new set of lenses because a lens optimised for traditional AF won't work nearly so well if they AF from the sensor.

They could make a full frame version of the G1 X.  A bit like the Fuji GA645 film camera.  That used the big 120 film but was quite nice to travel with.  The Mamiya 7 is another film camera that could inspire a digital version.  It seems very popular today.  Perhaps Fuji or Sony, who took over Mamiya are more likely to try this than Canon?
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: rinderart on March 22, 2012, 12:52
Buyers do noit consult micro agencies for XXXL, files. They come here, mostly to buy as cheap as possible and thats that. I can easily see that the very few buyers who go for an XXXL, have previously DLd, the same file as a comp.
However, thats not to say that one shouldnt strive for perfection and optimal equipment but for me,  one DSLR, after another and another is pointless. The logical step is actually to go MF, then the sky is the limit, ofcourse depending on type of photography.
  Agree , Im waiting to try the Fuji X1 pro.
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: corepics on March 22, 2012, 19:10
I just took the first few shots with our D800, and so far, I'm extremely satisfied with the image quality. Straight out of the box (no custom settings, yet). I'm impressed with the low noise levels at higher ISO, and it's dynamic range. Image sharpness is fine, but I can't wait to compare it with the D800E we also ordered. (It'll be a long month waiting) Zooming in to 100% on a 36MP image is awesome, although I think that thrill will wear off soon.

Despite its Magnesium alloy body, it does feel a bit cheaper than the D700. The buttons and dials feel less sturdy than those on the D3x and D700, but it handles identical (which is no surprise).

As Expected, you'll need to update the Camera Raw. Standard issue PS CS5.1 can't read D800 RAW files, nor can Lightroom 3. However, Adobe issued a pre release ACR 6.7, which does the job, and so does Lightroom 4. Apparently, so does the latest version / update of Aperture, but I can't verify that.

Two high res snaps (Each ~19MB JPEG):
800 ISO: http://www.corepics.com/D800/D800_DSC0016.jpg (http://www.corepics.com/D800/D800_DSC0016.jpg)
100 ISO: http://www.corepics.com/D800/D800_DSC0018.jpg (http://www.corepics.com/D800/D800_DSC0018.jpg)

I didn't buy it solely for stock. In my commissioned work, I notice an increase of image size with quite a few of my clients for various reasons. Covering large office walls with a photo is one of them, ability for clients to crop themselves and still make a decent sized print is another. I bought two, because I work in camera unfriendly environments, where switching lenses can be challenging, and my other bodies are wearing / have worn out. I thought of getting one D4 as substitute for one of the D800's, but decided against it, because I expect the difference of a future D4x to a D4 to be similar to the difference between the D3 and D3x. I much prefer the D3x, and not to mention the additional costs.

Now it's time to take this puppy out for a real spin and let it earn it's money back :)
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: velocicarpo on March 22, 2012, 19:35
I just took the first few shots with our D800, and so far, I'm extremely satisfied with the image quality. Straight out of the box (no custom settings, yet). I'm impressed with the low noise levels at higher ISO, and it's dynamic range. Image sharpness is fine, but I can't wait to compare it with the D800E we also ordered. (It'll be a long month waiting) Zooming in to 100% on a 36MP image is awesome, although I think that thrill will wear off soon.

Despite its Magnesium alloy body, it does feel a bit cheaper than the D700. The buttons and dials feel less sturdy than those on the D3x and D700, but it handles identical (which is no surprise).

As Expected, you'll need to update the Camera Raw. Standard issue PS CS5.1 can't read D800 RAW files, nor can Lightroom 3. However, Adobe issued a pre release ACR 6.7, which does the job, and so does Lightroom 4. Apparently, so does the latest version / update of Aperture, but I can't verify that.

Two high res snaps (Each ~19MB JPEG):
800 ISO: [url]http://www.corepics.com/D800/D800_DSC0016.jpg[/url] ([url]http://www.corepics.com/D800/D800_DSC0016.jpg[/url])
100 ISO: [url]http://www.corepics.com/D800/D800_DSC0018.jpg[/url] ([url]http://www.corepics.com/D800/D800_DSC0018.jpg[/url])

I didn't buy it solely for stock. In my commissioned work, I notice an increase of image size with quite a few of my clients for various reasons. Covering large office walls with a photo is one of them, ability for clients to crop themselves and still make a decent sized print is another. I bought two, because I work in camera unfriendly environments, where switching lenses can be challenging, and my other bodies are wearing / have worn out. I thought of getting one D4 as substitute for one of the D800's, but decided against it, because I expect the difference of a future D4x to a D4 to be similar to the difference between the D3 and D3x. I much prefer the D3x, and not to mention the additional costs.

Now it's time to take this puppy out for a real spin and let it earn it's money back :)


Thanks for the great review Corepics! The sample shot are quite useful too and confirm my first impression of excellent image quality. What glass would you recommend for the D800? Is there any decent wideangle of 11mm or below for such a excellent camera?
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: corepics on March 22, 2012, 19:47
Thanks for the great review Corepics! The sample shot are quite useful too and confirm my first impression of excellent image quality. What glass would you recommend for the D800? Is there any decent wideangle of 11mm or below for such a excellent camera?


These shots were taken with a 24-70 f/2.8. Haven't tried out any other lenses, yet. Tomorrow, I want to give my older DX lenses a go, especially my 10.5mm, haven't used that one in a while. Although FX lenses should provide the optimal performance, I figure with 36MP, the 1.6 crop factor should still provide a useful file size. I'll have a go with some pre-digital primes as well.

Perhaps this would be useful? http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/compatibility02.htm (http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/compatibility02.htm)
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: markrhiggins on March 22, 2012, 20:56
"Let's not forget: It's not about resolving details, it's also about resolving color! A 12mpix (bayer) sensor has 3mpix red pixels, 3mpix blue pixels and 6mpix green pixels.
You might not get much more details with 36mpix vs. 21mpix, but you will get more exact colors on pixel level.

If quality optics resolve detail suitable for a 21mpix sensor, we would need 84mpix to get more exact color for each pixel.

(does anyone understand what I'm trying to say here? Smiley)"

No clue at all. 12 mpixels is that many groups of r,g, and blue. One red receptor does not a pixel make.
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: CarlssonInc on March 23, 2012, 01:25
I just took the first few shots with our D800, and so far, I'm extremely satisfied with the image quality. Straight out of the box (no custom settings, yet). I'm impressed with the low noise levels at higher ISO, and it's dynamic range. Image sharpness is fine, but I can't wait to compare it with the D800E we also ordered. (It'll be a long month waiting) Zooming in to 100% on a 36MP image is awesome, although I think that thrill will wear off soon.

Despite its Magnesium alloy body, it does feel a bit cheaper than the D700. The buttons and dials feel less sturdy than those on the D3x and D700, but it handles identical (which is no surprise).

As Expected, you'll need to update the Camera Raw. Standard issue PS CS5.1 can't read D800 RAW files, nor can Lightroom 3. However, Adobe issued a pre release ACR 6.7, which does the job, and so does Lightroom 4. Apparently, so does the latest version / update of Aperture, but I can't verify that.

Two high res snaps (Each ~19MB JPEG):
800 ISO: [url]http://www.corepics.com/D800/D800_DSC0016.jpg[/url] ([url]http://www.corepics.com/D800/D800_DSC0016.jpg[/url])
100 ISO: [url]http://www.corepics.com/D800/D800_DSC0018.jpg[/url] ([url]http://www.corepics.com/D800/D800_DSC0018.jpg[/url])

I didn't buy it solely for stock. In my commissioned work, I notice an increase of image size with quite a few of my clients for various reasons. Covering large office walls with a photo is one of them, ability for clients to crop themselves and still make a decent sized print is another. I bought two, because I work in camera unfriendly environments, where switching lenses can be challenging, and my other bodies are wearing / have worn out. I thought of getting one D4 as substitute for one of the D800's, but decided against it, because I expect the difference of a future D4x to a D4 to be similar to the difference between the D3 and D3x. I much prefer the D3x, and not to mention the additional costs.

Now it's time to take this puppy out for a real spin and let it earn it's money back :)


Not trying to be negative, rude or anything - but to me both images look a bit soft and somewhat smudged/hazy, some CA on the ISO800 one aswell but as you say these were "snaps". Could be down to post-processing - details about that would be interesting. Size and details looks fantastic though, slightly jealous ;)

Noise levels at ISO800 looks ok even in the shadow areas, on par with the 5D MKII at the same ISO at a quick glance.
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: sharpshot on March 23, 2012, 02:25
DPReview has lots of new preview sample photos now.  The detail on some of these looks great.
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/nikon-d800-preview-samples (http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/nikon-d800-preview-samples)
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: fotoVoyager on March 23, 2012, 03:07
I just took the first few shots with our D800, and so far, I'm extremely satisfied with the image quality. Straight out of the box (no custom settings, yet). I'm impressed with the low noise levels at higher ISO, and it's dynamic range. Image sharpness is fine, but I can't wait to compare it with the D800E we also ordered. (It'll be a long month waiting) Zooming in to 100% on a 36MP image is awesome, although I think that thrill will wear off soon.

Despite its Magnesium alloy body, it does feel a bit cheaper than the D700. The buttons and dials feel less sturdy than those on the D3x and D700, but it handles identical (which is no surprise).

As Expected, you'll need to update the Camera Raw. Standard issue PS CS5.1 can't read D800 RAW files, nor can Lightroom 3. However, Adobe issued a pre release ACR 6.7, which does the job, and so does Lightroom 4. Apparently, so does the latest version / update of Aperture, but I can't verify that.

Two high res snaps (Each ~19MB JPEG):
800 ISO: [url]http://www.corepics.com/D800/D800_DSC0016.jpg[/url] ([url]http://www.corepics.com/D800/D800_DSC0016.jpg[/url])
100 ISO: [url]http://www.corepics.com/D800/D800_DSC0018.jpg[/url] ([url]http://www.corepics.com/D800/D800_DSC0018.jpg[/url])

I didn't buy it solely for stock. In my commissioned work, I notice an increase of image size with quite a few of my clients for various reasons. Covering large office walls with a photo is one of them, ability for clients to crop themselves and still make a decent sized print is another. I bought two, because I work in camera unfriendly environments, where switching lenses can be challenging, and my other bodies are wearing / have worn out. I thought of getting one D4 as substitute for one of the D800's, but decided against it, because I expect the difference of a future D4x to a D4 to be similar to the difference between the D3 and D3x. I much prefer the D3x, and not to mention the additional costs.

Now it's time to take this puppy out for a real spin and let it earn it's money back :)


How do you think the D800 compares to the D700 for noise and dynamic range?
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: corepics on March 23, 2012, 08:02
How do you think the D800 compares to the D700 for noise and dynamic range?

Our D700 died a year ago, so I haven't taken a close look at those unprocessed images in a while. Comparing them from memory, I think the D800 has improved, but not significantly.
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: borg on March 24, 2012, 06:28
What will be if agencies change size and prices one step backward? From XXL to XL and XL to L etc.
So maybe we don't need now extra MPs, but tomorrow who knows...

Also if a have great details on ISO 100 , that probably  mean these 36MPs allow me certainly better framing (maybe panorama look), or even two pictures from one...
If I have less details on image due to bad lighting or higher ISO, I am able to downsize image to 20MP or less and still get excellent image...
Unfortunately, I've had many potential "best sellers", made from a hand in crucial unexpected moment, but because low sharpness or noise and less MPs they were ended in recycle bin...
So more MPs isn't just story for amateurs with compact camera..

Also there is another big thing here! Price of the best optics from both, Nikon and Canon....
Title: Re: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)
Post by: RacePhoto on March 24, 2012, 14:33
Just saw this.  I would love a full frame camera in a more compact body with an EVF that didn't cost as much as a Leica.
[url]http://photorumors.com/2012/03/21/canon-mirrorless-camera-concept/[/url] ([url]http://photorumors.com/2012/03/21/canon-mirrorless-camera-concept/[/url])


Looks smashing!


Looks like a 1960s FT! (and I want one!)

That's why I'm watching the G1x, because size and simple would be a winner for general purpose. Darn Canon should have taken naming from the military and labeled it the GP1x  :D

So lets see what I learned today, I don't need a 300MP camera, (or was it 400MP?) lenses will resolve enough for the current ginormous sensors, and it's a myth that the lenses can NOT resolve well enough for the new 28 or 36MP cameras. Human eyes can't tell the difference and most printers can't resolve enough to make a difference? Oh boy.

"if you put a 15 lp/mm print next to a 30 lp/mm print, a high percentage of viewers will select the 30 lp/m print as being sharper, although most of them won't be able to tell you why they did. But, if you put a 30 lp/mm print next to a 60 lp/mm print, they won't be able to see any difference." And then he points out that the best printer available may give us 15lp/mm which would mean a 45MP image needed for an 8x10 to use all that resolution.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/02/why-80-megapixels-just-wont-be-enough.html (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/02/why-80-megapixels-just-wont-be-enough.html)

I feel much better about printing my little 4x6s, occasional 8x10 for the wall, and the quality of my MicroStock 5MP uploads, coming from a 10-12MP camera. Ah it's so nice to rest at night without "Pixel Envy".  ::)