| Joined: | Mon Apr 2nd, 2012 |
| Location: | South Lakeland, UK |
| Posts: | 4066 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
It WAS a fact that the higher the pixel density, the more precise your technique needed to be ....especially relating to handheld shutter speeds. I had to increase shutter speed on the D2X by at least a stop to match the D1X performance.
Whether this 'small pixel' impact still applies, is the question.
As far as the D800 is concerned I would say the small pixel still has an adverse effect on {ultimate) sharpness WHEN HAND HELD.
I base this on the stress Nikon put on the need for solid tripod and the very best glass, even providing a list of suitable lenses to obtain the full benefits of the sensor. This can be read in the brochure to be found on-line and presumably the printed version. It was the first thing I looked at when the D800 was introduced.
Any other bodies 'enjoying' similar high pixel densities (small pixels) must be similarly compromised. What makes this ridiculous in my eyes is that very few users will EVER NEED this ultra high definition. It will only ever be seen by the final viewer with huge prints or tiny crops. There is almost no advantage to the end product. I have printed cropped hand held photographs of flowers over 3 ft across the diagonal from my 10Mp D200 which knock viewers over with the clarity and detail. Why spend all that money for nothing???
I greatly appreciate amazing50's post pointing out his list of drawbacks of the D600, some of them would drive me mad. I had penciled a D600 into my mental list of future purchases, it's now erased and replaced by my original choice, a used D3. Mass doesn't bother me too much, yet and when it does Michael will act as caddy I am sure (with a promise of large chocolate cream cakes afterwards! LOL).
____________________
Robert.