maybe camera shake becomes more of an issue? I don't really understand why.

Originally Posted by Qarik maybe camera shake becomes more of an issue? I don't really understand why.

The more megapixels you cram in,the more it is like trying to hand-hold a microscope instead of a magnifying glass. In a word: Shake.

36 megapixels full-frame is 16 megapixels crop-sensor, and those cameras have the same issues. Both in camera shake, and also in AF accuracy.

The bottom line is NOT that these cameras are less capable, but just that you can NOT be sloppy like you used to be with film, or with 3-6 megapixel crop-sensor or ~12 megapixel full-frame cameras. Your shutter speed rule is almost triple, by the time you get to 36 megapixels on full-frame. Especially if you're hand-holding longer focal lengths; good luck getting 100% of the D800's resolving power if you're shooting at 1/200 sec. at 200mm. Head for 1/500+... And NAIL your focus technique if you plan on shooting shallow.

=Matt=

The individual photosites are smaller than any other FX format 135 body, and that allows more scrutiny of the image details on a computer screen.

On printed images, up to around a 10" x 15", the visual differences between a Nikon D800 and a D700 should be almost non-existent, assuming the same lens used and the same care in focus.

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville The more megapixels you cram in,the more it is like trying to hand-hold a microscope instead of a magnifying glass. In a word: Shake. 36 megapixels full-frame is 16 megapixels crop-sensor, and those cameras have the same issues. Both in camera shake, and also in AF accuracy. The bottom line is NOT that these cameras are less capable, but just that you can NOT be sloppy like you used to be with film, or with 3-6 megapixel crop-sensor or ~12 megapixel full-frame cameras. Your shutter speed rule is almost triple, by the time you get to 36 megapixels on full-frame. Especially if you're hand-holding longer focal lengths; good luck getting 100% of the D800's resolving power if you're shooting at 1/200 sec. at 200mm. Head for 1/500+... And NAIL your focus technique if you plan on shooting shallow. =Matt=

okay so i have been drawing pixels and stuff to try and explain it to myself. I don't buy it. 1st lets look at the sensors..D700 12M vs D800 36M. Now the sensors are approximate 3x2 form factor. So on the d700 it somthing like 4.24M pixels on X and 2.83M pixels on Y. The D800 has 7.35M on the X and 4.9M on the Y. So the pixel density on either axis is approximately 1.75 greater on D800 vs D700 even though the pixel count is 3X.

Now assume that on the D700, you take an image and a had tiny of bit camera shake..such that the "blur" occupied 4 pixels. The same blur on the D800 will occupy 7 pixels. But remember the sensors are the same size! A 100% crop of either imager would results in the same amount of actual blur..it just that the d800 blur is "more resolved"..a SHARPER blur if you want to blow up your brain thinking about it that way.

It's only if you decide to crop massively on the D800 image will the blur become more evident. And this maybe the issue as you would feel more confortable cropping and cropping on 36Mpix image vs 12Mpix.

So it not that it is any harder to focus on d800 vs d700(I don't think), it's just that with previous generation pixel density, assuming in focus image at SS=1/zoom length, as you crop, your image will tend to pixelate before you see issues with the amount of blur. Now with this d800 pixel density, that point where you image degrades changes in relation to what you might considern accetable focus! I don't think you need to use faster shutter speed to get the same focus.

Originally Posted by Qarik So it not that it is any harder to focus on d800 vs d700(I don't think), it's just that with previous generation pixel density, assuming in focus image at SS=1/zoom length, as you crop, your image will tend to pixelate before you see issues with the amount of blur. Now with this d800 pixel density, that point where you image degrades changes in relation to what you might considern accetable focus! I don't think you need to use faster shutter speed to get the same focus.

Originally Posted by ziggy53 The individual photosites are smaller than any other FX format 135 body, and that allows more scrutiny of the image details on a computer screen.

Daniel, You hit the nail on the head, as did Ziggy53. Different words but same interpretation.

I used the 5Dmk2 and D700 together for more than two years. both FX, both fine cameras. One 21 Mpx, one 12 Mpx. No diffference what so ever in regards to technique. 5Dmk2 gave me much more latitude for cropping due to pixels. Higher pixel count does not change technique to be used. If you're shaky on the D700 and shaky on the 5Dmk2 the result will be the same: blur. The amount of blur will depend on How much shakiness and not at all how much MPx you have.

But on to your original post. This reminds me of almost every camera that comes out: Doom sayers. we get tons of them.

Originally Posted by Qarik okay so i have been drawing pixels and stuff to try and explain it to myself. I don't buy it. 1st lets look at the sensors..D700 12M vs D800 36M. Now the sensors are approximate 3x2 form factor. So on the d700 it somthing like 4.24M pixels on X and 2.83M pixels on Y. The D800 has 7.35M on the X and 4.9M on the Y. So the pixel density on either axis is approximately 1.75 greater on D800 vs D700 even though the pixel count is 3X. Now assume that on the D700, you take an image and a had tiny of bit camera shake..such that the "blur" occupied 4 pixels. The same blur on the D800 will occupy 7 pixels. But remember the sensors are the same size! A 100% crop of either imager would results in the same amount of actual blur..it just that the d800 blur is "more resolved"..a SHARPER blur if you want to blow up your brain thinking about it that way. It's only if you decide to crop massively on the D800 image will the blur become more evident. And this maybe the issue as you would feel more confortable cropping and cropping on 36Mpix image vs 12Mpix. So it not that it is any harder to focus on d800 vs d700(I don't think), it's just that with previous generation pixel density, assuming in focus image at SS=1/zoom length, as you crop, your image will tend to pixelate before you see issues with the amount of blur. Now with this d800 pixel density, that point where you image degrades changes in relation to what you might considern accetable focus! I don't think you need to use faster shutter speed to get the same focus.

Sounds like the nerdy version of what I was trying to say. I approve!

In fact, I would assume that the D800 focuses *better* than the D700, if the D800 has the D4's new AF redesign while the D700 is working with D3 autofocus. The only issue is, the images are bigger so if you want your 36 megapixels to look as flawless at 100% as 12 megapixels looks at 100%, you're not going to be able to "shoot sloppy".

(Just trying to put it in laymans terms, is all... I *love* geek-speak but I also enjoy finding ways to simplify things...)

=Matt=

Originally Posted by angevin1 .... I used the 5Dmk2 and D700 together for more than two years. both FX, both fine cameras. One 21 Mpx, one 12 Mpx. No diffference what so ever in regards to technique. 5Dmk2 gave me much more latitude for cropping due to pixels. Higher pixel count does not change technique to be used. If you're shaky on the D700 and shaky on the 5Dmk2 the result will be the same: blur. The amount of blur will depend on How much shakiness and not at all how much MPx you have. ....

I have in fact had a slightly different experience, having also shot extensively on both cameras. I have also shot extensively with the D300, a crop-sensor 12 megapixel camera. I can get away with slower shutter speeds on the D700 compared to the D300. Doesn't that have more to do with the pixel density than the sensor size? I just don't remember having the same issue with 4-6 megapixel DX DSLR's...

=Matt=

It's not true, and most of the negative comments I've heard so far come from people who have hypothetical opinions on the camera without ever having used one. The camera is well engineered, and has no problem accommodating its pixel count. I don't know why people circulate hysterical rumors.

Have you actually used the camera? I find the pixel count hysteria completely untrue. Just got mine and am having a good time with it.

Imagine a 35mm camera with 500 mp. View that at 100% and all you're going to see is mush. And idiot pixel peepers will claim there is something wrong with the AF and IQ.

You will certainly want to use perfect technique to get the most out of such a high-res camera; but then again you ought to use perfect technique to get the most out of ANY high-end camera. As well as decent lenses. (Though I'm not in the camp that argues you must use $2,000+ lenses or your images will be mush. I'm just saying, decent lenses.)

=Matt=

Focusing is NOT harder on the D800, versus the D700. The D800 magnifies the (lack of) technique (and the lenses).

I shot with a D800 and had a difficult time getting shots to be TACK sharp, due to my own technique and the framerate. I did get shots that were great, but got more OOF than I would normally get with my D700. It's possible I just need more trigger time with it, but in the 3 days I had it I used single-point AF-S focus. Here's an example.




100% crop of eyes

Originally Posted by rookieshooter I shot with a D800 and had a difficult time getting shots to be TACK sharp, due to my own technique and the framerate. I did get shots that were great, but got more OOF than I would normally get with my D700. It's possible I just need more trigger time with it, but in the 3 days I had it I used single-point AF-S focus. Here's an example.

If you have a subject that's moving you should use AF-C. What lens were you using and what's the exif info on the capture?

Originally Posted by Harryb If you have a subject that's moving you should use AF-C. What lens were you using and what's the exif info on the capture?

Well typically for cats they are relatively still, so I have always used AF-S. I like to know for sure I have focus before depressing the shutter. I have it set to Release/Focus as well.

EXIF is 1/60 at ISO 500, no flash at 50mm, f/4.8.

Originally Posted by Qarik maybe camera shake becomes more of an issue? I don't really understand why.

I don't find that to be the case. I've had mine a week now and am having really good results all around. All the twaddle about too many pixels is just plain untrue.

At 1/60 sec any camera shake or subject movement can give you some softness. I would have stepped down the aperture a tad also.

You might also find it necessqary to use the AF Fine Tune option for the lens.

Originally Posted by lightdrunk ....All the twaddle about too many pixels is just plain untrue.

...Until it's your day job to shoot over a quarter-million RAW images per year. THEN, 12 megapixels looks mighty tempting...

(Yes, I'm still pining away for sRAW on Nikon. Sue me. It's just an option, you don't have to use it if you don't want to.)


=Matt=

Originally Posted by Harryb At 1/60 sec any camera shake or subject movement can give you some softness. I would have stepped down the aperture a tad also. ...

In my experience the 1/focal-length rule for hand-held shutter speeds, that you often see quoted, breaks down and does not apply with focal lengths of 50mm or less. Active IS systems can help, but don't always help enough to guarantee sharpness.

Of course. DoF decreases with higher MP (assuming the image is viewed at 100%). But then, customers rarely look at the images at 100%, they look at them on a print or in an album. But, if you want your image sharp on the eyes at 100%, more MP makes things more tricky.