dilbert said:
psolberg said:
, the reason this is a landscape dream camera is because each landscape is unique. if you shoot landsapes, you know you often wait for the light to be perfect, the weather to be perfect, and the mood to be perfect. And if you shoot landscaes, you know this rarely happens. When it does, trust me, you want to capture all 36 million sucker pixels for posterity because that momment will never repeat itself.
So while I don't have much need for 36MP most of the time, I fully understand that if you spend thousands if not tens of thousands in glass, and getting to the location, you want to get all the detail you want. Take for instance a trip to antartica. You'll pay nearly 20K after it is all said and done. Do you want to walk away with 36MP or 20MP per file? though so...
Gee, if that was the case, I'd go out and buy an MFDB because 36MP from Nikon is just not enough.
I'm pretty sure that I could take better pictures with an iPhone than you could with a D800.
that's not the point I was making. yes I know you can even buy a 30K medium format camera and do whatever you want with it. But if you're spending 3K on landscapes and that's your budget, the D800 looks defitively to be the winner because of the sheer value of those 36million pixies.
and no need to get insulting with your comments. although I doubt you can
yes and no.
I mean, it's true that with 36mp you will not get perfect pics every time you got perfect pics with 21mp
but it's also true that with 36mp it is still possible to get better pics than with 21mp, in some situations.
absolutely agree. sorry but I hate to break it to everybody here but at low ISO, you can't beat that extra detail. Studio and Landscape shooters will benefit more. Just get over it. even at mid ISO, resampling down will help a lot as it does with the 5DII, which is is not as good as the D700 noise wise, downsampling helps.....and at high ISO, well yeah, lower MP wins. But thinking about what you need to do if you were to shoot action at high ISO with the D800 is like thinking about what you need to do to go off roading with a sports car...
personaly if I had a D800 (which won't happen) I'd use it in such a way to maximize its purpose. shooting sports ain't it.
LetTheRightLensIn said:
Kernuak said:
Personally, for landscapes, I'd rather walk away with a 21MP file, than a 36MP file that exhibits noticeable corner softness. Just as a 36MP camera will show more detail, it will also show up the deficiencies of technique and lens image quality. A file with bad corner softness simply won't be accepted by the major agencies and trust me, some of them are pretty picky.
Adding more MP can't make things softer, you won't have any less corner detail than if it had 12MP, at worst, you'd merely have the same and at best, noticeably more so what does it hurt?
exactly my thoughts. while it is true that you will see that your lenses are indeed better at the center, you'll still RESOLVE more in both the center and the edges even if edge detail is behind center detail compared to low MP counts. you're still resolving more! Besides, 36MP isn't all that high for full frame. there are much denser sensors out there. IMO if you spend all these thousands on lenses...why would you NOT want to push them? Kind of defeats the purpose.
If you were the perfect landscape photographer who waits for the perfect time, perfect weather, perfect mood to take the perfect shot from the perfect location, you won't need a camera because that time will never come.
If you decide to take a camera along just in case it does come, you won't be happy with a FF camera, even with 36 MP, you'll be going Large Format.
is it a landscape photographers dream? not even close - even a hasselblad with all of its dynamic range wouldn't be enough.
you clearly missunderstand my figure of speech. yeah I know perfect never comes. That's not my point. I'm refering to the tons of work and expenses that go into a shot. why settle for less than you can get? and yes I know there are better cameras. but let's keep it in perspective. 3K for a D800 is really sweet compared to a hasselblad and if you can't afford that hassleblad or mamiya, who cares? You're just not going to shoot? The point being, if you're going to shoot at that price point, may as well get all that detail because it only happens once. Once you captured it that's it. That's what I meant by dream camera because it has a really good bang for the buck.
if you're Peter Lik, ok well, then not so much of a dream camera. 8)
I think the point being made is that why switch to Noink when the lens are not up to it
that's higly debateable. looks at the canon 7D. higher pixel density than the D800. lenses not ok? bogus. they are just fine. this isn't 50MP we're talking about. Their glass is not only up to the task but quite ok actually. Looking at the 14-24 vs 14mm L, 24-70 and 70-200 vs canon equivalents, I can tell you that skill will hold more peopel back than glass when they switch to either system.
