| Moderated by: chrisbet, |
|
|
| Comparing bodies | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted by Eric: Wed Jan 30th, 2013 07:27 | 1st Post |
| Not a very scientific comparison and maybe says more about the Photoshop resampling algorithm but.... If you download the DPreview 100 ISO sample images for the D3, D7000, D600, D800 (sorry didnt do the D3S) and resize them to match each other (both directions), you get a clear ranking on IQ. D800 = D600 D3 D7000 I suppose thats not surprising but it reinforces my inclination to ditch the D7000 for a D600 which gives a little more leaway in handling technique over the denser pixel D800. Need to compare features to see what you lose and gain.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by jk: Wed Jan 30th, 2013 10:03 | 2nd Post |
| Thought that you were getting desperate after the Christmas splurge!!! Very interesting results which I think are close to my earlier thoughts and is why I kept my D300 over upgrading to a D7000 which was only a little better. The D800 is a very good body but more exacting certainly. I would have been happy with the D600 but it wasnt there when I was in purchase mode and in reality it is probably closer to the XPro1/XE1 in IQ.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Eric: Wed Jan 30th, 2013 14:46 | 3rd Post |
jk wrote:Thought that you were getting desperate after the Christmas splurge!!! Can't help wondering if the D600, with its bigger pixels, might be a better bet (= more forgiving of technique) for general shooting.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by jk: Wed Jan 30th, 2013 15:03 | 4th Post |
| Wel I'm sure you have the technical ability to use the D800 but I do question if the storage needs of the D800 dont drive it into a specialist niche.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by TomOC: Wed Jan 30th, 2013 23:34 | 5th Post |
| I don't get it. Why is the D800 more "exacting"? Wouldn't it be more forgiving?
____________________ Tom O'Connell -Lots of people talk to animals.... Not very many listen, though.... That's the problem. Benjamin Hoff, The Tao of Pooh |
| Posted by Robert: Thu Jan 31st, 2013 02:08 | 6th Post |
| No Tom because the 'better' the sensor the more demanding it becomes due to it being capable of recording even the slightest movement or out of focus subject. A 'better' sensor reveals weaknesses in technique and less than perfect lenses much better, it is not forgiving. In their D800 intro Nikon point out that to get the best from the camera you need to use a tripod and only the very best and most recent Nikkor lenses, which they listed.
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by jk: Thu Jan 31st, 2013 03:09 | 7th Post |
| When I got the D800 I thought that I was getting a better camera than the D3s. This is only partially true but not for the reason of the ergonomic or extra MP. The extra MP demand better technique but also storage starts to be an issue as does cpu when processing these large file. The move to 36MP is a quantum leap. I believe we have reached a technology plateau now and that in fact 12-24MP is probably a sweet spot. Hence my purchase of the X100, XPro1 and now XE1. Maybe it is a 'fad' on my part but the 16MP are really all I want and need.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Eric: Thu Jan 31st, 2013 08:41 | 8th Post |
jk wrote: Absolutely! In the old film days the main delination in quality was the format. Sure ASA played its part but the big step was negative/slide size. If they could have made full frame cameras portable, light and with multiple exposures...we would have all had one. But we 'compromised' with 35mm and / or medium format. The reasoning was obvious. In the digital age we have been spoilt. The sensor development is breaking down the traditional steps in quality. The DSLRs are now approaching (if not already) the quality of a film medium format camera. The digital medium formats are approaching the plate camera quality. Add to this, the fact that with film, 2 chemical processes (film and print) and the vagueries of a projection process were involved before you got your print...and digital starts to nose ahead on all fronts. More than ever we have reached a cross roads where (as Rich more eloquently put it) a cameras image quality isnt the deciding factor for most of us now. The handling ergonomics have become more important ...just like the old full frame film days. Having a lightweight, unobtrusive camera that delivers sharp hand held images (be that stabilisation systems or pixel density) seems to be a key parameter in many people's thinking. The additional impact of having to process larger and larger file sizes in many ways mirrors the 'economic inertia' associated with the old full frame cameras. It was too expensive to shoot 10x8 film as a hobby....similarly, buying bigger and faster computers JUST to process photos falls into the same category. More than ever we need to consider if a camera is 'fit for our purpose'.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by blackfox: Thu Jan 31st, 2013 13:04 | 9th Post |
| got to totally agree with eric on this .or to put it in user terms why do i pick up my d300s when i have a d7000 beside it .sometimes you can't just equate image quality as being the end product you have to feel at one with your equipment ,i had a d200 and although it produced a decent image i couldn't GEL with it ,in fact i preferred the d60 ,likewise i have had a d80 and a d90 and perhaps got rid of them to hastily but they didn't FEEL right after a while .i saw one of the first d7000's in currys and took to it straight away just by handling it in a shop ,and when i went to buy the d300s off my friend i had never seen one in the flesh or indeed handled one ,but as soon as i picked it up it felt right ,sometimes i curse it for its low iso ability but next time it gets picked up first again . so what if the image is a bit noisier (grainier) its the enigmatic feel of the image that can't be translated into just sharpness that counts or am i just being a silly old sod again  :byebye:
|
| Posted by Eric: Thu Jan 31st, 2013 14:08 | 10th Post |
blackfox wrote: got to totally agree with eric on this .or to put it in user terms why do i pick up my d300s when i have a d7000 beside it .sometimes you can't just equate image quality as being the end product you have to feel at one with your equipment ,i had a d200 and although it produced a decent image i couldn't GEL with it ,in fact i preferred the d60 ,likewise i have had a d80 and a d90 and perhaps got rid of them to hastily but they didn't FEEL right after a while .i saw one of the first d7000's in currys and took to it straight away just by handling it in a shop ,and when i went to buy the d300s off my friend i had never seen one in the flesh or indeed handled one ,but as soon as i picked it up it felt right ,sometimes i curse it for its low iso ability but next time it gets picked up first again .No you are right! I have had several double page spreads in prestige magazines from my 6mp D1X. (in fairness they were all taken on a tripod, and 100 ISO ....with £1500 glass!) The crazy thing is.... publication sizes havent changed!! So why do we need more pixels and mbs? They wont be printed any bigger? In fact, many of my clients now just use my images on their website. I have seriously considered offering them a cheapo web service. Take lesser equipment, shoot 'adequately' for the required image size....and charge less. Several clients are already 'doing it themselves' to save money. But they recognise the images arent as good as a pro's eye. I have always resisted dropping my prices - preferring to lose the job. But maybe faced with the tide of DIY merchants, there is still room for a personal 'lower budget' quality service ?
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by blackfox: Thu Jan 31st, 2013 14:35 | 11th Post |
| i think you have inadvertently hit the nail on the head there eric ,any dimwit can walk into a camera shop and buy a top end camera these days ,but only a very few of us bother to get the right GLASS to go with it. and not forgetting the processing skills needed to finish off the job properly. remember back to our times of youth and that eddie cochran song "cut across shorty " just about sums it up really
|
| This is topic ID = 528 | ||
| Nikon DSLR Forums > Camera and Lens Forums > Cameras > Comparing bodies | Top | |
Users viewing this topic |
||
Current theme is Blue
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |
Hosted by Octarine Services
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2024 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0527 seconds (67% database + 33% PHP). 89 queries executed.
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2024 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0527 seconds (67% database + 33% PHP). 89 queries executed.