MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Nikon D800 36MP coming?  (Read 17020 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

RacePhoto

« Reply #25 on: October 16, 2011, 00:40 »
0
I'm sure that you know this already, but I don't get it. A APS-C sensor is only 1/4 smaller than a FF (1.5x). If you have 16mpx aps-c sensor then a 20-21mpx FF sensor is about the same density. 36mpx is a lot on a full frame sensor to me.

Full frame 36mm*24mm = 864mm
Canon APS-C (EF-S) 22.2mm * 14.8mm = 329 mm

Much easier than all the math and why a lens is about 62% which is why people multiply the "crop" sensor to get 1.6 times the full sensor. Or maybe that's more confusing?

Anyway an APS-C is 62% the size of a full frame.

I hadn't thought about the bigger sensor and then cropping it, for a digital zoom. The term digital zoom, makes me cringe. Especially when people use it on their P&S cameras. It's not a zoom, it's a crop!

Same reason why a 200mm on a crop sensor is... still a 200mm lens! Not a 320mm.  :-X

So lets see a 5D Mk II is full frame 21MP, take 62% of that and you have... 13MP. Oh wow, and the 7D crop sensor is? 17.9MP. So which one is bigger? An equal crop of a 5D or a 7D original size. Let me add that on a crop sensor, you are getting the sweet spot of the lens, not the edge to edge. So the images in theory are sharper.

Might be why I still shoot crop and don't need over 12MP images anyway.

ps 36MP x 62% = 22.3MP crop. Almost what we get on a crop now.

Yes I understand a full size is bigger and I can't make a crop image larger, (not without losing resolution and quality) but I can crop a full size. But if the answer is being able to crop a portion of the 36 to make the image appear closer, a crop sensor camera is far better.

I can't justify buying a 36MP camera for whatever the price is, when it adds little to what I can do with a good crop sensor 7D. In the studio, yes. I don't shoot in the studio.


« Reply #26 on: February 06, 2012, 20:05 »
0
Images taken from nikon rumors, camera is supposed to be announced tomorrow with the following specs.

36 MP sensor (7360x4912)
100% viewfinder coverage
Improved AF with face recognition the D800 will still have 51 points AF point
CF+SD memory card slots
USB 3.0
ISO range: 100 6400, ISO LO @ 50 and ISO HI-2 @ 25600
The screen will be larger than 3 inches (probably 3.2 in.)
The D800 will not have built-in GPS
Expeed 3 processor
There will be two different D800 versions/models, one with the antialiasing filter removed
4 fps continuous shooting, about 6 fps in DX mode with optional battery pack
Video modes: 1080p/30/25/24 and 720p/60/30/25/24
Headphone jack, can input from an external device such as a PCM sound recorder
86k pixels RGB sensor
200,000 shutter cycles




« Reply #27 on: February 06, 2012, 20:16 »
0
Pretty sweet. I'm keeping my Canon stuff but am drooling just a bit.

mlwinphoto

« Reply #28 on: February 07, 2012, 00:23 »
0
It's official!  D800: 36MP, $3,000   D800E (no AA filter): 36MP, $3300.

rinderart

« Reply #29 on: February 07, 2012, 00:31 »
0
I'll take one without the filter , thank you.

« Reply #30 on: February 07, 2012, 02:41 »
0
This is first I'm hearing about option to get D800 w/o anti-aliasing filter. Why would it be more expensive?

gillian

  • *Gillian*

« Reply #31 on: February 07, 2012, 03:49 »
0
This is first I'm hearing about option to get D800 w/o anti-aliasing filter. Why would it be more expensive?

um, cos they've got to train someone to NOT put it on? lol
or code the machine to not include it...?

it looks delicious and the price is not scary at all. But, my D700 is has only just turned 1... I've got a 3 year warranty on her.

« Reply #32 on: February 07, 2012, 05:44 »
0
Canon? Canon? Buehler?

« Reply #33 on: February 07, 2012, 08:08 »
0
Nikon's site warns of moire without an AA filter on the D800 and shows examples of moire generated with a D800 without an AA filter. Problem seems to be significant enough that they are shipping a new version of Capture NX with a moire reduction tool.  I don't want to have to search for moire in every image I generate and then have to spend the time processing in, so it will be D800 with AA filter for me.  Here's a link to the Nikon examples:  http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/features01.htm

« Reply #34 on: February 07, 2012, 08:41 »
0
why dont they sell only a D800 without the anti-aliasing filter? who will get the D800? dont understand really, I feel they are damaging the brand itself, two models?

« Reply #35 on: February 07, 2012, 08:54 »
0
why dont they sell only a D800 without the anti-aliasing filter? who will get the D800? dont understand really, I feel they are damaging the brand itself, two models?

I would get the D800. I shoot a wide variety of subjects and don't want the danger of moire patterns just for a little extra sharpness. With 36MP I could always shrink the image down a bit if necessary. I don't see the point in paying extra to have a useful tool removed. It's a bit like buying a car and then paying to have 'unnecessary' equipment, like the air con or the audio gear, removed to save a little weight. Sure, the car will go a bit faster but with less comfort.

« Reply #36 on: February 07, 2012, 09:46 »
0
right.. I believe we need to wait for some reviews..

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Or9FI4TJ_8g[/youtube]

jbarber873

« Reply #37 on: February 07, 2012, 09:51 »
0
    My first digital SLR camera was a kodak camera with a nikon body. It shipped without a AA filter, but they gave you one to use if you wanted to pop it on. I used the camera to shoot a ton of images for a national party supply store, and ran into a lot of moire' with fabrics, so I put the filter on and it was gone. It was impractical to put it on and off ( dust, mostly ) so I just left it on. I really couldn't see any difference. This camera was a crispy critter- the images were excellent. The limitation was the file size, around 10mb as I recall. And of course, kodak in it's wisdom stopped supporting the camera after a few years. If I were going to make a choice, i would definitely get the AA filter, based on my experience with this camera. Moire' is out there in more places, and unexpected places, than you can imagine.

« Reply #38 on: February 07, 2012, 12:13 »
0
thank you for above comments about D800E's anti-aliasing pattern filter

D4 - VS - D800
Besides Nikon D4 costing double the D800, some significant differences between them, for me, are: ISO, MP, and built-in flash.
I do NOT have money to burn, and when choosing between D3 and D700, I went with D700, which also had 2 big pluses: pop-up flash & automatic sensor dust removal.

My top priority relevant to second FF body is using just ambient light in awful low light situations, so it looks like D4 would be better choice.

D4
ISO 100-12800 ISO (down to ISO 50 equivalent, or up to ISO 204800 equivalent)
16.2-megapixel FX-format CMOS Sensor
no built in flash

D800 / D800E
ISO range from 100 to 6400, expandable to 25600
36.3-megapixel FX-format CMOS sensor
pop-up flash

Video in both seems fine, both have 2 card-slots... Am I overlooking anything significant?
« Last Edit: February 07, 2012, 12:15 by ann »

« Reply #39 on: February 07, 2012, 12:17 »
0
Anyone in the market for a used 5D II??? ;)  (just kidding... sort of)

« Reply #40 on: February 07, 2012, 13:35 »
0
Anyone in the market for a used 5D II??? ;)  (just kidding... sort of)

Anyone willing to go through all the hassle selling the current Canon gear? If I wasn't that lazy I'd probably do it. Sort of...

« Reply #41 on: February 07, 2012, 13:44 »
0
Anyone in the market for a used 5D II??? ;)  (just kidding... sort of)

Anyone willing to go through all the hassle selling the current Canon gear? If I wasn't that lazy I'd probably do it. Sort of...

Or one could simply wait for the canon 5d mk III...

« Reply #42 on: February 07, 2012, 14:00 »
0
This is first I'm hearing about option to get D800 w/o anti-aliasing filter. Why would it be more expensive?

I'm guessing the difference is because most buyers won't want it.  To have an option for a small percentage of purchasers means dividing the cost of marketing, distribution and the like among fewer units, which will raise the price for each.  And that's separate from having a separate assembly line or part of one to build the variant product.

« Reply #43 on: February 07, 2012, 14:00 »
0
Anyone in the market for a used 5D II??? ;)  (just kidding... sort of)

Anyone willing to go through all the hassle selling the current Canon gear? If I wasn't that lazy I'd probably do it. Sort of...

Or one could simply wait for the canon 5d mk III...

Unless Canon is leaking misinformation, the specs for the 5DMIII are showing around 22MP plus or minus a couple. I probably won't be getting a D800 but if the MIII specs are accurate I probably won't be buying one of those either.

Besides, at this point does anything beyond 20MP offer any financial advantage to the contributor? Isn't the highest commission threshold around 20MP? So a 36MP would give the buyer a much bigger image for the same price and the contributor still gets the same XXXL commission for dropping $3K large on a sparkly new camera. Or am I missing something?

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have 30MP+ but the more I think about it the less I need anything other than my 5DMII. Maybe the agencies will see they can make more money and create a new XXXXXXXXXL price tier.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2012, 14:03 by PaulieWalnuts »

traveler1116

« Reply #44 on: February 07, 2012, 14:04 »
0
Besides, at this point does anything beyond 20MP offer any financial advantage to the contributor? Isn't the highest commission threshold around 20MP? So a 36MP would give the buyer a much bigger image for the same price and the contributor still gets the same XXXL commission for dropping $3K large on a sparkly new camera. Or am I missing something?
XXXL square compositions will be possible now with a little room to spare.

« Reply #45 on: February 07, 2012, 14:08 »
0
XXXL square compositions will be possible now with a little room to spare.

Very good point!

« Reply #46 on: February 07, 2012, 15:11 »
0
The whole reason I would sell my Mark II for the D800 would be the ability to downsize, that resolution from 36 megapixels will allow me to shoot at a higher ISO then downsize to XXXL and get it approved. Not to mention when you do some harsher edits you create noise, so doing a harsher edit on a 36 mp image then downsizing will again give it a higher chance of approval. That to me, would be worth the investment.

The Mark III is rumored at 22 megapixels, so we'll see what Canon does there. But for now, stock is all about resolution assuming your not shooting moving objects all the time. And the D800 is looking pretty good.

« Reply #47 on: February 07, 2012, 16:07 »
0
This is first I'm hearing about option to get D800 w/o anti-aliasing filter. Why would it be more expensive?

I'm guessing the difference is because most buyers won't want it.  To have an option for a small percentage of purchasers means dividing the cost of marketing, distribution and the like among fewer units, which will raise the price for each.  And that's separate from having a separate assembly line or part of one to build the variant product.

sounds logical - thanks!

wut

« Reply #48 on: February 07, 2012, 16:54 »
0
Cool promo video, racing, hookers and gangbangers, what more could you wish for :D :
Nikon D800 D800E Official Promo Video - Joy Ride ★★★★★ HD

« Reply #49 on: February 07, 2012, 18:00 »
0
Besides, at this point does anything beyond 20MP offer any financial advantage to the contributor? Isn't the highest commission threshold around 20MP? So a 36MP would give the buyer a much bigger image for the same price and the contributor still gets the same XXXL commission for dropping $3K large on a sparkly new camera. Or am I missing something?
XXXL square compositions will be possible now with a little room to spare.

I must be missing something. Why is the ability to make square images worth me spending $3K?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
67 Replies
15310 Views
Last post March 24, 2012, 14:33
by RacePhoto
17 Replies
3641 Views
Last post May 03, 2012, 10:14
by tab62
5 Replies
2243 Views
Last post October 15, 2012, 14:51
by velocicarpo
26 Replies
7687 Views
Last post February 18, 2013, 17:36
by gillian
7 Replies
4240 Views
Last post April 05, 2013, 04:46
by Beppe Grillo

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors