On his website Ken Rockwell has a February 12 message indicating that with the D800 and its 36 MP images we could crop so far that we don’t need to buy any telephoto lenses! This sounds like a typical overblown Rockwell statement for the purpose of creating controversy, but there may be some merit in what he says. Any comments that are are OK for any women and children on this forum to be exposed to?
There is some truth, within reason, to being able to crop to get closer. My concern is that cropping at higher ISO's, unlike downsizing, will add noise to the picture and wonder where the tradeoff between cropping versus zooming overlap. My concern in going from a D300 to a D800 is in losing the added reach offered by DX, I wonder to what extent the larger pictures of the D800 can be cropped before having an adverse impact on picture quality to the extent that it falls below that of the D300.
>My concern in going from a D300 to a D800 is in losing the >added reach offered by DX...
Depending on what you mean by "reach", moving from a D300 to a D800 might not actually lose you anything
Fitted with the same lens, the D800 will put more pixels on any given subject than the D300. That subject will be a little smaller in the D800 viewfinder, of course, but you still have slightly greater cropping ability in the shot - whether you have used the D800's in-camera DX Crop Mode or not.
>Depending on what you mean by "reach", moving from a >D300 to a D800 might not actually lose you anything
That's what I'm trying to figure out. The question in my mind is at what point do you get where you have spent $3,000, lose the reach and crop to get it back and come out with the same picture that I could have gotten with the D300.
>>Depending on what you mean by "reach", moving >from a >>D300 to a D800 might not actually lose you anything > >That's what I'm trying to figure out. The question in my mind >is at what point do you get where you have spent $3,000, lose >the reach and crop to get it back and come out with the same >picture that I could have gotten with the D300.
Technically, using the same lenses on D300 and D800 give you the same reach, so you don't lose anything. The D300 has a cropped view which simulates a longer lens, but you can simulate the same by cropping aD800 image, which doesn't lose anything you hadn't already lost on the cropped D300 image.
The answer is, in DX crop mode, the D800 is probably equivalent to a D7000 which is probably a marginally better DX camera than D300. If you plan to buy a D800 exclusively for its DX crop mode however, then save your money. Stick with D300 or buy a D7000 instead.
>>If you plan to buy a D800 exclusively for >>its DX crop mode however, then save your money. Stick >with >>D300 or buy a D7000 instead. > >That's not the only reason but one of the sticking points that >I'm trying to figure out. If I don't get this, I'll be >waiting for the D300 replacement.
From another DX shooter (D300s & D7000) let me offer my perspective.
My most important subjects are non-moving, shot from a tripod, always at base ISO, and printed huge. Given that, and the wide selection of outstanding DX super-wide zooms, I never saw any advantage, for my way of shooting, for the family of 12MP FX cameras.
I had been considering skipping FX altogether and moving to digital medium format, the only impediment being cost (the most basic kit would probably set me back $15K). Now comes along the D800, which promises to approach MF performance, and use most of my existing lenses, for $3K.
This I think describes the primary person to move from DX to D800.
I intend to keep my D300s for birds, as the D800 is only a marginal step-up in pixel density, doesn't match it for speed.
>On his website Ken Rockwell has a February 12 message >indicating that with the D800 and its 36 MP images we could >crop so far that we don’t need to buy any telephoto lenses! >This sounds like a typical overblown Rockwell statement for >the purpose of creating controversy, but there may be some >merit in what he says. Any comments that are are OK for any >women and children on this forum to be exposed to? > >Bob
Well to be fair, I *AM* planning to use the D800 so that I can stay on my 300/2.8 + 1.4 and not have to buy the 600/F4. So it's not TOTALLY without merit.
I know a lot of people don't like Rockwell, and I can understand why. I take the guy with a grain if salt and agree with a number of things he says. Though I probably disagree with as many. We shoot VERY different subjects so that tempers his statements and mine.
A typical KR statement that takes a grain of truth and stretches it beyond recognition.
The first grain of truth is that the higher pixel density can be used to simulate more reach, just as it has for years on DX cameras. How many FX shooters grabbed a D3 and later found themselves buying a 600 f/4 to continue to get wildlife shots? I argued this very point to someone on this board, lamenting the upcoming $10K+ purchase, I suggested a D300 makes a really nice 1.5x TC for a 200-400 f/4 to get close enough results (below ISO 1600 at least).
>Well to be fair, I *AM* planning to use the D800 so that I can >stay on my 300/2.8 + 1.4 and not have to buy the 600/F4. So >it's not TOTALLY without merit.
What's not defined in the statement as quoted, is our "need". What if your subject demands a narrow FOV and you need to maximize your D800's performance? Then you need a telephoto. I guess 2nd grain of truth, most people probably don't need to maximize the D800's performance.
...but let me ask this: Did the D7000 eliminate the need for a telephoto lens? Similar pixel pitch means a cropped D800 image will perform very similarly to a D7000 image, so it follows that the D7000 must also eliminate the need for telephoto. I guess the D7000 is not as capable a hyperbole machine as the D800. Or maybe we're just not supposed to think about stuff KR says all that deeply.
>I know a lot of people don't like Rockwell, and I can >understand why. I take the guy with a grain if salt and agree >with a number of things he says. Though I probably disagree >with as many. We shoot VERY different subjects so that >tempers his statements and mine.
This is key: Ken's advice is generally geared toward the casual vacation/shap-shooter crowd, so (while I don't know why one of those would have a D800) for them we can temper this advice back down and suggest they don't need to carry 2 lenses, despite the temptation to do so, a cropped image will look just as good on facebook as if you had carried and fumbled with a telephoto. That's probably true.
This is why you shouldn't get too excited about the crop size of a D800 photo.
Here is a full size photo taken with a D3X and AFS 24mm f1.4 lens.
I wanted to make a 100% crop of a single bud in this garden from this photo. This lens and camera are good enough for the task. But to illustrate a point I up sampled the photo to D800 size, that's 7360 X 4912 pixels. The D3X is 6048 X 4032. I made an other photo of D700 size, that's 4256 X 2832 pixels.
So now I have three photos of D800, D3X and D700 size. I then enlarged each photo to 100% and cropped out as close as I could the exact photo of the flower I wanted. I now have 3 photos of 100% crops from photos the same size as produced by each camera.
Here's the three full 100% crops super imposed on each other to show the relative size of what a 100% crop from each camera would produce. I then took a screen shot. I didn't have to downsize the photo to post here. What you see here is exactly the size I had on my monitor.
I guess if you want to get rid of all your telephoto you could regardless of what camera you have. NOT!
What I did was make three photos of the exact same size as what a D800, D3X and D700 would produce. That's exactly as if I took the same scene from exactly the same place with each camera. That's pretty straight forward. I don't know what you want.
>What I did was make three photos of the exact same size as >what a D800, D3X and D700 would produce. That's exactly as if >I took the same scene from exactly the same place with each >camera. That's pretty straight forward. I don't know what you >want. > >Len
"This lens and camera are good enough for the task. But to illustrate a point I up sampled the photo to D800 size"
>>What I did was make three photos of the exact same size >as >>what a D800, D3X and D700 would produce. That's exactly as >if >>I took the same scene from exactly the same place with >each >>camera. That's pretty straight forward. I don't know what >you >>want. >> >>Len > >"This lens and camera are good enough for the task. But >to illustrate a point I up sampled the photo to D800 >size" > >To me, that negated everything after it.
Then you don't understand the purpose of showing the relative size of three exact crops from three different cameras of different MP size. I'm talking about size not picture quality.
Ken has a valid point in stating that the DX mode comes in handy. Well I have not thrown or sold my telephoto lenses. Instead I sold my D7000 and my D700 because of my new D800E. His other tip: switch off the Auto Illuminator to get a clearer view of the DX and other crop mode due to the grey block out periphery works wonderfully well. I have used this crop mode very successfully with my 300mm f4 AF-S at concerts. With the video, it's ability to record longer at one go trumps the D7000. BTW Ken also said the same thing about the 35mm f1.4 Fujinon lens used on the Fuji X Pro 1. Here he recommends post-cropping. Works too. It's a wonderful worl of digital... And I continue to be amazed by the D800E. Don't miss the D700 nor D7000 one bit.
There is also some truth to this, in a sense, for the macro shooter and something that I see as a potential advantage to having 36MP. Macro shooters often struggle with limited depth of field at high magnification ratios. If you can shoot at a lower magnification ratio and crop to get the desired end result, I believe you will get greater DOF. I did a quickie test with my D300 and a 180mm macro.
The first image was taken at 1:1 at f11. DOF is pretty shallow. The second image was taken at 1:3 then cropped to approximately the same area. The subject, in both cases, was at about a 45-degree angle to the camera so I could see how much DOF there was. It seems clear to me that the second shot has greater DOF. If I'm missing something here, please correct me and save me $3K
There's another great feature on the D800 for macro shooters. That's the improved Live View. I use Live View a lot for critical focusing. With my D300, I can't take a macro shot in Live View because the mirror flops down and causes vibration. But with the D800, if I understand correctly, the mirror stays up in Live View when the shutter is tripped. That's like having MuP and Live View combined. I would really appreciate that.
The one thing that's missing for me is an articulated display. It is so nice to have when you're shooting down on the ground. (Nice too if you're trying to shoot above a crowd at an event.) If I were to move to the D800, I'd have to buy a new right-angle finder since the one for the D300 wouldn't fit (although perhaps there's an adapter). Not the end of the world to have to buy a new right-angle finder, but when you factor in bigger, faster CF cards, likely a computer with a faster CPU & more memory, and probably a new, high-end lens or two, it starts to become a very expensive proposition for a non-professional. Awfully tempting though.
I know this a bit off-topic, but as a quick aside to #8, a way to calculate your depth of field compared to the D800 (full frame sensor) is to multiply the f number by the crop factor. So, f/2.8 on a D7000 or D300 equals approx. f/4.3 on a D800, and f/2.8 on a V1 or J1 is about f/7.5 on a D800 for the same depth of field.
I stopped by Rockwell's site earlier and seen his post. I think it makes sense to a certain degree but it still doesn't mean that you don't need a telephoto lens. I know that I will be less inclined to go 1:1 with my macro lens with the D800 because I'd rather crop and get the extra DOF.
As for KR himself, his site is a great resource for checking camera and lens stats but his opinions need to be taken with a grain of salt. I found his site when I first got my D90 and his setup guide was a huge help and I still use the same principles today on my D700.
I did think his D800 posts were very funny. Last Monday he wrote that there was no way the new D800 is going to be 36mp and it will be more like 16mp. The next day he took that post down and praised Nikon for the best camera in history!! LOL
I also saw Rockwell's post today about not needing tele lenses. I guess it's just me, but I always take a lot of what I read on his site as tongue-in-cheek. I find his lens reviews very useful, and I think he's a talented and entertaining writer, so I'll keep reading him.
But, his camera recommendations are useless to me. Two years ago, the D40 was "all the camera anybody needs". Then, in 2011, the D7000 was the greatest camera EVER! Now, in 2012, throw out your D7000 and get the D800. It's even going to replace his D3S. He never liked the D300, and never recommended the D700.
Sooo, I'll read his D800 review, when it comes out, mostly to understand how to use it. But, it won't have much impact on my decision on whether or not to get one.
>I also saw Rockwell's post today ... I always take a lot of what >I read on his site as tongue-in-cheek. Two years >ago, the D40 was "all the camera anybody needs". >Then, in 2011, the D7000 was the greatest camera EVER! Now, >in 2012, throw out your D7000 and get the D800. It's even >going to replace his D3S.
I suspect Rockwell's constant urging to buy buy buy may have more to do with his kickback $$ for referring the reader to his fave retailers than anything else.
Gator Bob in Gainesville FL D700 & SB800 * D800E on order Nikkors: *14-24 * 28-300 * PC-E 85mm *50mm 1.8 Tamron 90mm Macro
He is correct. I can take an image on the d800 at 36 mp and crop it to DX and have more mp than my D200. I can crop it even farther than DX to take it down to 10 mp and have the same resolution as my D200, but the target image size would be larger than the D200 could do at 10 mp.
Shoot nature with respect and don't trample it or startle its inhabitants. :)
>He is correct. I can take an image on the d800 at 36 mp and >crop it to DX and have more mp than my D200. I can crop it >even farther than DX to take it down to 10 mp and have the >same resolution as my D200, but the target image size would be >larger than the D200 could do at 10 mp.
If you were to cut out a 10.2MP section of the D800 sensor, that smaller sensor would have a crop factor of about 1.9x (not quite the density of Nikon 1, 2.7x crop factor at 10MP).
So, if a 50mm lens has a 75mm equivalent FOV on DX, it would have a 95mm equivalent FOV on that smaller camera.
Tue 14-Feb-12 06:16 AM | edited Tue 14-Feb-12 07:26 AM by richardd300
From my point of view I need to see e.g. a bird in flight or even a static image taken with a 300mm f2.8 or f4 less in DX mode at an ISO of between 800-1600, then cropped to 100%. One taken with a D800 and one with the E version. Two reasons, firstly and pricipally to judge the resolution quality of the cropped image including the moire issue, secondly to judge the noise reduction capabilities are equal to, or better than, the D700 and definitely much improved on the D7000.
That would then satisfy whether or not a D800 will be a worthy contender. If not, then I look forward to the D300s replacement.
Richard, I would like to see that same thing you propose, with the following addition. I would like to see the D800 images to be pre-sharpenned in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) either in Bridge or Lightroom, to get rid of the dithering effect of the AA filter of the D800. I predict that the resolution of both the D800 and D800E will be the same, provided the D800 images are pre-sharpenned.
Juan, I agree, but my feelings go further. Perhaps it's me, but the cynical part of me thinks the D800E may end up, for unaccounted and irrational reasons, to be the captain and the D800 the first officer! I wouldn't have any thoughts of pre-ordering, firstly because no one really knows yet what bang their getting for their bucks. My feeling is that at least a good few weeks or months will have to pass, the reviews read and all the pros and cons added up. This is vital as here we have two cameras of the same breed, but slightly different. I really don't think anyone yet knows what the AA filter effect will have and if it's not crucial to many they will save money and buy the D800. lets see cropped images and then I can judge what beast we have. Imagine what would happen to the D800's future if the majority jumped on a non AA filter D800E bandwagon.
I caught a cold with the D7000 for my genre of photography and I know there are those who disagree, but most use it differently. There's no fool like an old fool for not waiting a while, if I had I would have kept my D90 as all I use the D7000 for is wildlife. The D700 is for everything else which it delivers in spades, but as I spend 75% time on wildlife it's really important to get this right.
The more you crop in on the sensor, the lower the resolution being delivered from the lens. Eventually, you reach a point of diminishing returns. That point will be reached more quickly with softer lenses than with high quality glass.
A 2X crop on a D800 using a 300mm lens will not produce the same quality as a zero crop using a 600mm lens.
Now, if your final product is to only be a jpg on a computer screen for a web page, you can crop ALOT (and that 2X crop on a 300mm will probably be just fine). However, if your final product is going to be a 20x30 print, that's a different matter.
In Ken's world of facebook photos and nothing bigger than an 8x10 there is alot of leeway.
I agree, but I do always try to minimise the crop size for that reason. However, as I never print above 16x12" this is less of an issue for me. When I use my D700 at up to ISO1250 and crop x2 or x3 the noise level is acceptable even if I conduct minimal noise reduction in Lightroom 3. That is not the case with my D7000 and will not use greater than ISO800 for that reason. This is why I need a D400 with noise equel to or better than the D700 plus the X1.5 extra reach.
Regarding Ken, yes he's a bit too blasé and what he often says needs clarifying by Thom
Sun 26-Feb-12 01:43 AM | edited Sun 26-Feb-12 01:46 AM by KnightPhoto
>There's one clue in this thread. > >If the D800s DX output is roughly equal to a D7000, then >clearly the next gen DX cam is going HAVE to be a lot more mp >than the D7000 (or DX output from D800). > >Therefore, the new D400 must be 24mp or better, or there'd be >little point in buying it. > >That would allow more detail to be resolved, for sure. > >Which would be nice.
Simon I think your reasoning is quite sound. Pretty much guaranteed we are getting 24mp in our D400 (my speculation). I have even given up resenting this high density and am even now thinking up some uses for it on my slower moving bird opportunities.
Plus I speculate the D400 will come with all of the D4/D800 bells and whistles (AF,video, 81K meter, etc.). Not sure what they can do with fps though? Kind of needs to at least equal the D300S doesn't it, and am not sure if that math works out...
If the "D400" comes out and it's DX, I don't see it as 24mp, more like the 16mp of the D7000 (&D4). But it will have the newer software, AA filters, and other features from the D4. That is the spot Nikon needs to fill right now. The high MP world is taken care of with the D800 and is going to be a fussy camera ( not complaining,I ordered one), and the majority of quality photographers will want a camera like that. The D7000 is the "canary" built to test features, market and usabiity, all of which are going into the new fleet of Nikons.. And a good thing it is.
A 70-200/2.8 II on a D800 isn't quite the same as a 200/2 on a D7000. The 200/2 on the D7000 will give you an effective "300/2" and with a bit of a further crop maybe 450. With the 70-200 on a D800 you'll have the 70-200 range, plus when you crop to DX you'll get that out to 300.
I have both lenses and while the 200/2 smacks down the 70-200 pretty hard for sharpness, the versatility of the zoom comes in very handy.
It really depends on what you intend to shoot with the body/lens combo.
I have hands like dinner plates and my wedding ring size is Z! I have a D7000 and although I agree it's a smaller camera I've found no problems in operation and even better balanced with the grip fitted.