Can't get pixel count out of my head - 12.1 vs 24.2

[dtmateojr]

the D700 runs circles around the latest and greatest full frames. Nikon got it right at that time. It was downhill after that. Get the D700 and you will have a camera that you could practically keep until it breaks.

The D700 cannot render any of the detail the rest are showing. Youre also viewing them all at 1:1, view the rest at a 12MP size and they'll look much better.

look at the blue feathers above, the D700 is rendering them as a blur, the rest are picking up individual strands.

yeah, look at them at the same viewing size:

View attachment 116508

Which sensor is running the circles? One of them has signicantly cleaner noise and more fine detail.

I can make any image look cleaner by stepping backward a few inches. The question is, what's the largest print you ever did with your camera? A 2Mp camera can fill a billboard. Fact.

I only care about how it looks viewed on screen.

and the D700 looks bad compared to modern FX sensors.

Viewed on screen the D800 and D600 look awful compared to the D700. Look at the comparison I originally posted. Night and day.

I posted the exact same comparing in a scenario that people will actually view two photos at. The D700 looks worse -- it's turned details into blury mush.

Your comparison is purposefully flawed to achieve your desired result. Why would I look at two photos, but one larger than the other?

That would be like comparing how a D700 and D600 prints, but printing the D700 image a 4x6" and the D600 at 11x17".

You said you only wanted to pixel peep on screen. I gave you pixel peep output straight from DPReview. I did not fabricate that data.

So make up your mind. Do you want to print or do you want to pixel peep?

 

[Braineack]

You said you only wanted to pixel peep on screen. I gave you pixel peep output straight from DPReview. I did not fabricate that data.

And in the pixel peep, the D700 doesnt look as good. It lacks the detail all the other 3 sensors are able to capture.

So make up your mind. Do you want to print or do you want to pixel peep?

I view my images on screen. That means no matter what the MP count, I view them at the same size.

In your pixel peep, youre viewing them all at 1:1. Where the D800 image would look MUCH larger on screen than the D700. I mentioned print size to equate the relationship.

I'll draw you a picture now, but please don't get confused that I'm trying to view photos as line drawing in MS Paint now:

Now lets look at the same in relation to this 24" monitor I'm using:

I don't view photos in the above manner, and this is how you're comparing the two, for some crazy reason I like to view the image picture at once, so I resize both to view like this:

This is why I resized the dpreview studio shot comparisons so they were the same size. I've also found the dpreview comparisons to be grain of salt worthy at best. It reminds me of this little gem:

The Rebel T3 sensors runs cricles around the D800. amirite?

How about use some real life exmaples:

like this one: http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/D700_D800_03200_comp.jpeg
or this one: http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Nikon-D800-vs-Nikon-D700-ISO-3200-comparison.jpg
or this: http://media.astrocamera.net/2012/1022/dark-compare.jpg
or this: http://phoblographer.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/small.png
Ohhhhhh you can almost make out the text "push" on the doors of the car in that last shot.

Damn, that D700 sensor LOOKS AMAZING!!!!!!!














amazingly more bad.






Bonus points: Replace 7360x4912 with 11x17" and 4356x 2832 with 4x6". #mindblown.

 

[dtmateojr]

You said you only wanted to pixel peep on screen. I gave you pixel peep output straight from DPReview. I did not fabricate that data.

And in the pixel peep, the D700 doesnt look as good. It lacks the detail all the other 3 sensors are able to capture.

So make up your mind. Do you want to print or do you want to pixel peep?

I view my images on screen. That means no matter what the MP count, I view them at the same size.

In your pixel peep, youre viewing them all at 1:1. Where the D800 image would look MUCH larger on screen than the D700. I mentioned print size to equate the relationship.

I'll draw you a picture now, but please don't get confused that I'm trying to view photos as line drawing in MS Paint now:

View attachment 116546
Now lets look at the same in relation to this 24" monitor I'm using:

View attachment 116547

I don't view photos in the above manner, and this is how you're comparing the two, for some crazy reason I like to view the image picture at once, so I resize both to view like this:

View attachment 116548

This is why I resized the dpreview studio shot comparisons so they were the same size. I've also found the dpreview comparisons to be grain of salt worthy at best. It reminds me of this little gem:

The Rebel T3 sensors runs cricles around the D800. amirite?

How about use some real life exmaples:

like this one: http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/D700_D800_03200_comp.jpeg
or this one: http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Nikon-D800-vs-Nikon-D700-ISO-3200-comparison.jpg
or this: http://media.astrocamera.net/2012/1022/dark-compare.jpg
or this: http://phoblographer.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/small.png
Ohhhhhh you can almost make out the text "push" on the doors of the car in that last shot.

Damn, that D700 sensor LOOKS AMAZING!!!!!!!














amazingly more bad.






Bonus points: Replace 7360x4912 with 11x17" and 4356x 2832 with 4x6". #mindblown.

Have you been infront of a 85" 4K tv? For your info, 4K tv is "only" 8Mp. At a distance of about 1.5m I honestly could not see the individual pixels. 8Mp is THAT good.

Billboard size prints only require 1.4Mp. FACT.

It means that you are just wasting disk space and electricity with your 36Mp every time you don't print big. If you are just viewing on your screen even 4Mp will do. FACT.

And with your 36Mp, every time you shoot outside of f/5.6 you are wasting megapixels. Diffraction at f/8 strips away 6Mp and at f/11 it throws away 20Mp leaving you with 30Mp and 15Mp respectively. At f/4 or f/2.8 and wider are worse because of lens aberrations. FACT. It's simple PHYSICS.

 

[Braineack]

It's simple PHYSICS.

 

[astroNikon]

What about your lenses exactly don't work the way they were intended on a crop sensor? Besides the focal length, but I wouldn't list that under "work the way they were intended". Don't most lenses work better on a crop sensor?

"better"? Well I suppose they exclude the edges, so ... maybe?

Still, not sure I would say 'better'- just different.

Actually, isn't it "worse" ?
My 24mm is now a 36FOV ... not exactly Wide Angle any more.

 

[Braineack]

youre not using the image area of the lens that warps/distorts/blurs the image.

 

[Peeb]

youre not using the image area of the lens that warps/distorts/blurs the image.

Yeah, this is what I presume was being referenced, but I agree with astro that the loss of FOV doesn't seem 'better'.

 

[robbins.photo]

Well, for anyone that might be interested:

Camera Resolution Explained

 

[astroNikon]

youre not using the image area of the lens that warps/distorts/blurs the image.

Without Warping, Star Trek technology wouldn't be a reality

 

[sashbar]

In my view the better photographer you are, the less Mp you need. I think one overriding factor here is the need to crop your images.

This happens mostly when you have not composed your shot correctly in the first place, or as some say you were not close enough. Being "not close enough" or zooming not close enough is one of the most common beginners' mistakes. So 24 Mk come handy for these shooters. In most cases 16 Mp is sufficient.

On the other hand having a 12 Mp camera may force you to learn faster, as you will not have the luxury to crop heavily.

So, if you feel confident at thinking fast and composing correctly when shooting moving scenes, you should not worry about pixels. If you are not sure and think "I will give it some space, just in case and crop later", then 12 Mp is probably not the best option. Probably.

 

[Peeb]

In my view the better photographer you are, the less Mp you need. I think one overriding factor here is the need to crop your images.

This happens mostly when you have not composed your shot correctly in the first place, or as some say you were not close enough. Being "not close enough" or zooming not close enough is one of the most common beginners' mistakes. So 24 Mk come handy for these shooters. In most cases 16 Mp is sufficient.

On the other hand having a 12 Mp camera may force you to learn faster, as you will not have the luxury to crop heavily.

So, if you feel confident at thinking fast and composing correctly when shooting moving scenes, you should not worry about pixels. If you are not sure and think "I will give it some space, just in case and crop later", then 12 Mp is probably not the best option. Probably.

I detest the 'disagree' button, but WOW was I tempted to hit it on this post. Skill diminishes the need for MP?

Ummm, no.

 

[Derrel]

In my view the better photographer you are, the less Mp you need. I think one overriding factor here is the need to crop your images.

This happens mostly when you have not composed your shot correctly in the first place, or as some say you were not close enough. Being "not close enough" or zooming not close enough is one of the most common beginners' mistakes. So 24 Mk come handy for these shooters. In most cases 16 Mp is sufficient.

On the other hand having a 12 Mp camera may force you to learn faster, as you will not have the luxury to crop heavily.

So, if you feel confident at thinking fast and composing correctly when shooting moving scenes, you should not worry about pixels. If you are not sure and think "I will give it some space, just in case and crop later", then 12 Mp is probably not the best option. Probably.

I've come up through the digital ranks from the 2.7 MP Nikon D1 and Nikon D1h, the 6 MP cameras, then the 12.2 MP Nikon D2x, then the 12.8 MP Canon 5D, and now have stopped at the 24 MP Nikon D3x. While I respect your photography, I think your point of view is ludicrous. Utterly ludicrous. I believe the exact opposite: the BETTER you are, the more your images DESERVE to be larger, and of higher quality.

Frankly, I think that the new Sony FX sensors in 24-million pixel size deliver the image quality we used to get with ASA 160 film on 6x6 rollfilm or 6x7 rollfilm, and that the 36-MP Nikon D800 and 810 series produces image quality that us easily, easily better even 6x9 cm rollfilm. And in the current era, I have to say, I am VERY impressed with the image quality of the Nikon D610 camera; for the money spent, it is a fantastic camera across a wide ISO range.

 

[fmw]

You may be overthinking it, OP. Until it broke the other day, I used a 10 megapixel Nikon DX camera for internet photography for more than a decade. I ordered an obsolete DX camera to replace the broken one. It has more pixels but it isn't really that important.

There certainly are advantages to a larger format. You can see the 4X5" format camera in the picture of me at left. It outperforms every digital SLR ever made in terms of image quality. But since we are talking about small DSLR's for amateur use I think you can pick either product and find it to be very satisfactory.