| Joined: | Thu Apr 19th, 2012 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 4424 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
Eric wrote:
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).
It was a rhetorical question Robert, as I am sure you realised. Like you I believe there will be a difference. In fact, if you look at some of the photos in this months Nikon pro magazine there are some examples using the D4 and the D800. I deliberately tried to guess the camera from the image. And on every occasion got them the wrong way round!!!
That could be my eyes LOL.
But I believe it showed that, 'in the field' without a tripod, the D800 doesnt outperform the D4.
Same old story.
Personally I find the D3 more than adequate for my photography (including commercial work!). The only disadvantage comes from its bulk and weight...especially when combined with pro glass.
This combination is not only unwieldy when walking about casually, but a more obvious target (even with its advanced years) for someone who has designs on taking it.
I invariably carry both colour and IR bodies with me when on excursions adding further to the weight and value on my person.
Last year, I left my camera back on the verandah of a mountain cafe and drove 11 miles along a ridge road before I realised. I did the return journey along the narrow, hairpin strewn road, faster than a F1 driver (despite Jan's screams and thumps LOL) to recover the bag...containing £6500 of equipment.
Thats why I WANT the more modestly valued Fuji to work for me. Its images are as good as the D3...its just its ergonomics and tardiness for action shots that let it down a bit.
So...getting back to the original point of the thread.
Despite potential issues with the D600 identified by Amazing50s list, I would still consider the body IF it gave D3/Fuji images...with good consumer lenses.
Its all about compromise when it comes to equipment payload/value Vs functionality Vs IQ.
Last edited on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 12:39 by Eric
____________________
Eric