Even though we ARE Nikon lovers,we are NOT affiliated with Nikon Corp. in any way.

English German French

Sign up Login
Home Forums Articles Galleries Recent Photos Contest Help Search News Workshops Shop Upgrade Membership Recommended
members
All members Wiki Contests Vouchers Apps Newsletter THE NIKONIAN™ Magazines Podcasts Fundraising

D800 and Pixel Density

Nick45

Blue Bell, US
17 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author
Nick45 Registered since 14th Feb 2006
Thu 15-Mar-12 06:05 PM

Perhaps as my first post I should pick a less volatile subject than the 36MP sensor size on the D800 but I really wanted some feedback on whether I am “getting” it or not on this issue. I have a D300 which has treated me well for several years but I have the bug to upgrade. When I compare the sensor size & effective pixels of the D300 to the new D800 the pixel density is about 28% more even though the effective pixels are 3 times greater. Do I have that math right? If so, it’s about the same as the D7000 today.
I also use a Sony NEX C3 (I know; I shouldn’t mention this) and its pixel density is a tad higher than the D800 with half the pixel count. Very decent results particularly in low light, but a different animal all together.
My question would be isn’t the pixel density every bit as important as the raw pixel count as we conjure with how this new beast is going to operate and how touchy it may be to camera movement or sloppy focus techniques etc.

Subject
ID
Reply message RE: D800 and Pixel Density
1
Reply message RE: D800 and Pixel Density
2
Reply message RE: D800 and Pixel Density
3
     Reply message RE: D800 and Pixel Density
4
     Reply message RE: D800 and Pixel Density
12
     Reply message RE: D800 and Pixel Density
5
          Reply message RE: D800 and Pixel Density
6
          Reply message RE: D800 and Pixel Density
13
Reply message Not really...
7
Reply message RE: Not really...
8
     Reply message RE: Not really...
9
          Reply message RE: Not really...
10
               Reply message Point well taken...
11

G