Full frame for landscape

[Vautrin]

..........Nikon D600 vs D800 vs Canon 5D Mark III - Head-to-Head

He's shooting a boxing match. Hardly the same as taking landscapes.

Yes but the OP was interested in more autofocus points.

Autofocus doesn't really matter so much for landscapes, as if you only have one autofocus point, you'll have the time to stop and set up the focus just right.

It's when you get into high speed, fast action, shooting that you need all those focus points.

 

[Vautrin]

Like the 24 1.4, 28 1.8, 35 1.4, 50 1.8 and 1.4, 85 1.8 or 1.4?

All of which are NEWER than the 24-70...? The 24-70 is a good lens, but it is not a great lens. The cheap primes still outperform it.

Whatever, even with the $1000+ primes, you wouldn't be able to pick out which was taken with the 24-70mm and which was taken with your beloved prime.

Primes are great if u want extremely fast glass for shallow dof portraits, but that's it.

And this is coming from someone that shoots mostly primes.

I find this comment strange as if I compare my sigma 24mm-70mm f. 2.8 to my sigma 50mm f1.4. zeiss 28mm f. 2.8 or my nikon 105mm 2.0 dc there is hands down no contest

However, I did google to see if I can find some evidence besides just my experience. I was quite surprised to find this:

Prime vs Zoom, Can You Tell the Difference? | BH Insights

I will say though that part of what I find in difference are things like distortion - which I guess if you pay enough for that zoom might not matter

 

[jjmartinez01]

The D800 is a kick butt camera but...a friend of mine has one and while it has a lot going for it the one complaint I hear from him over and over is the size of the raw files. It eats storage space and takes a lot of horsepower to work with files. Something to consider is what kind of computer are you using for post. The cost savings won't mean much if you have to drop another grand or more on a new pc(or Mac).

Hello everyone,

been reading here for a while now. I have been playing with a D7000 and decided to go to full frame. There are currently rebates available for both 600 and 800. Costco has the 600 with two kit lenses and some accessories for 2400.00. Even so, I got a d800 for Christmas. I just finished reading the manual and a third party guide and the features are impressive. I am by no means an expert but I think it was worth the jump from the 600. A couple of dislikes: loud mirror, huge files that really put my computer to work (got 3tb drive for 99.00 at Best Buy), RAW program on Photoshop must be updated, slower frames per second than 600 and 7000. Even though that is the case, I am really happy with my new toy!

 

[greybeard]

Given you are going to pay the same price for either one, go for the D800. There are a ton of reviews out there and you can really get a feel for both bodies by reading the reviews. From what I have read, the D800 has a lot more professional features.

 

[smenkhare]

Thanks all. Given that I now also get a $300 trade in on for a dead FT-3, I'm going to go with the 800. The issues with oil/dust on the 600 sensor also helped push me over the line.

 

[CAlbertson]

And one might continue that argument by saying to shot onto 4x5 film. OK so we do stuff for connivence too. It is not all about image quality.

OK more seriously. The zoom might have an advantage in quality, simply because it can zoom. It the subject is at infinity them moving the camera does not re-frame the background, only changing the focal length can do that. So with a prime you must do your final composing by cropping unless you are VERY lucky. With a zoom you can in effect "crop in the camera" so you can make use of every pixel in the sensor.

So which is best an image shot with a prime and cropped or a image shot with a zoom and printed full frame? The answer depends on luck and how many primes you can cary.

My argument melts away completely when the subject is reasonably close. Then you can use you feet to compose. But for far away subjects the zoom might help IQ.

 

[Vautrin]

And one might continue that argument by saying to shot onto 4x5 film. OK so we do stuff for connivence too. It is not all about image quality.

OK more seriously. The zoom might have an advantage in quality, simply because it can zoom. It the subject is at infinity them moving the camera does not re-frame the background, only changing the focal length can do that. So with a prime you must do your final composing by cropping unless you are VERY lucky. With a zoom you can in effect "crop in the camera" so you can make use of every pixel in the sensor.

So which is best an image shot with a prime and cropped or a image shot with a zoom and printed full frame? The answer depends on luck and how many primes you can cary.

My argument melts away completely when the subject is reasonably close. Then you can use you feet to compose. But for far away subjects the zoom might help IQ.

The great thing about the ridiculous number of megapixels in the D800 is you can crop ALOT and still print big.

For a "normal" print you really only need 10 or 12 of those megapixels, which means that on a GOOD lens you can take maybe a small corner of the picture.

On a side note, this is what really excites me about the super dense megapixeliciousness of newer cameras. At some point when we're shooting at 500MP on the NIkon D1200 (or whatever they call the five or six generations of the D800 down the road) you'll be able to do a macro shot of the grass in your regular landscape shots, with just a little cropping

 

[Duckysaurus]

If landscapes, why not a D800 with a 14-24mm 2.8? The 14-24mm is AS SHARP as the 24mm 1.4 past f/4 (just a FYI).

Why a 24-70mm 2.8? That's more of a mid-ranged, not wide. That and the 24-70mm is only passably good at the shorter end of 24mm.

Also, with the 14-24mm 2.8, there is the SW150 filter system available from LEE lightning (LEE Filters - Masters of light).

Not most D600s have the oil/dust issue from the shutter. Mine doesn't.