Women will hate D800 *full size image*

[Sunnystate]

Killer resolution! Can be used for some serious forensic or research applications, just think of super macro outcomes...

Have no idea how you people can still try to minimize this camera comparing it with 5DIII...
Most dangerous kind of people, blind followers without ability to think clearly, shooting them self in the foot just to proof the point... same people also are going to vote soon again.

 

[D.Sim]

Killer resolution! Can be used for some serious forensic or research applications, just think of super macro outcomes...

Have no idea how you people can still try to minimize this camera comparing it with 5DIII...
Most dangerous kind of people, blind followers without ability to think clearly, shooting them self in the foot just to proof the point... same people also are going to vote soon again.

Two different cameras for two different purposes. Stop shooting yourself in the foot by blindly saying MPs are the answer. Thank goodness troll votes count for nothing.

 

[birdman]

JEEZ, LUIZE!! I would sue the photographer if I was that lady.

Detail is impressive. I think the 5d3, or even the "old" Mark 2 that I own could deliver similar sharpness with the right lighting and lens. The 100L macro comes to mind. Or the 85/1.2

I think the d800 is an impressive machine, if not slightly (sarcastically) overrated.

 

[marekjoz]

Impressive quality. Enlarge on eye and tell what lamp was used

 

[stve]

Horribly over-sharpened photo I am amazed at how many seem to think it is the fault of the camera when it is clearly caused in post processing by excessive sharpening.

 

[Bob Howland]

2.5 pixels of Gaussian blur (in Photoshop) helps things immensely

 

[marekjoz]

Horribly over-sharpened photo I am amazed at how many seem to think it is the fault of the camera when it is clearly caused in post processing by excessive sharpening.

I don't find it sharpened. Rather camera's resolution.

 

[EYEONE]

Killer resolution! Can be used for some serious forensic or research applications, just think of super macro outcomes...

Have no idea how you people can still try to minimize this camera comparing it with 5DIII...
Most dangerous kind of people, blind followers without ability to think clearly, shooting them self in the foot just to proof the point... same people also are going to vote soon again.

"Blindly following" and simply not finding 36mp appealing are two different things.

 

[Pyrenees]

Impressive quality. Enlarge on eye and tell what lamp was used

A beauty dish, I'd say. Somewhat counter-intuitive to the name, beauty-dish lighting can be relatively harsh/direct (compared to a softbox) and is often used on models with very good skin, or with professionally-applied makeup.

The image has definitely been oversharpened. There are telling artifacts in a few areas.

 

[psolberg]

Killer resolution! Can be used for some serious forensic or research applications, just think of super macro outcomes...

Have no idea how you people can still try to minimize this camera comparing it with 5DIII...
Most dangerous kind of people, blind followers without ability to think clearly, shooting them self in the foot just to proof the point... same people also are going to vote soon again.

Two different cameras for two different purposes. Stop shooting yourself in the foot by blindly saying MPs are the answer. Thank goodness troll votes count for nothing.

I enjoy the troll posts because I can replace D800 with 5DmkII and D700 with 5DmkIII and find the priests of low light swapped places with the megapixel crusaders. It is fun to watch, and yup, goes for all the canon guys that are now the priests of the low light religion! Watch if canon makes a 30+MP camera and how suddenly, 22MP is too little and OMG how did we manage with that 8).

Horribly over-sharpened photo I am amazed at how many seem to think it is the fault of the camera when it is clearly caused in post processing by excessive sharpening.

This is a classic case of COULD you do it, versus SHOULD you do it. I wouldn't blame anybody with a D800 from pulling as much detail they can since that's what the camera is designed to do, nor would I blame the canon guy that now takes pictures of his closet with the door closed at iso 52 thousand just to admire the detail of his socks. Both are doing the same thing. It is fun to watch.

2.5 pixels of Gaussian blur (in Photoshop) helps things immensely

selectively smoothing her skin would be better. shotgun blur is pointless.

Maybe this sort of ugly reality can stop the mindless megapixel war.

let me tell you that it hasn't stopped hundreds of fashin photographers from using medium format bodies with even higher resolutions....so...not happeing. It is what the industry wants for this sort of thing :

For the record, a 7D has a higher pixel density and it is able to capture more detail, at the expense of field of view. So before going out of our way to bash this photo, remember you can get more detail, and thus WORSE hair issues with a 7D. And now that canon is able to do that, it is now ok right

 

[AnselA]

Every woman secretly wants a goatee.

 

[pdirestajr]

Please look at the bottom edges of the teeth.... Se those white halos? That is a sign of over sharpening.

Also, as mammals, we are ALL covered in small hairs, I don't think she needs to shave LOL. This pic just needs some serious retouching. Humans also aren't as attractive in the digital days. Film on the other-hand, made everyone look beautiful.

 

[stve]

Horribly over-sharpened photo I am amazed at how many seem to think it is the fault of the camera when it is clearly caused in post processing by excessive sharpening.

Probably because you know diddly squat about photography
I don't find it sharpened. Rather camera's resolution.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_BWjvs0WH1w/T29GRyyXLrI/AAAAAAAAEYM/cCrJ-0Qv1vQ/s1600/_LAN1776.jpg

 

[clarkia]

is it me or some of you a bit harsh on the model? i'd like to place a wager that her "flaws" as many of you are pointing out are probably 100X better than half of yours if you were captured with this camera in this light set up. it's an unflattering portrait of a pretty woman. "women" will also hate full size images of most of us too...

 

[Seanlucky]

Higher megapixels definitely does play a part. I know a photographer based out of Los Angeles who does a lot of editorial work, in particular for Men's Health. They normally shot with a P45 on Hasselblad H2, finding it was plenty of detail for their uses. However once, when shooting a shirtless man (who had just shaved for the photoshoot), they decided to try the P65 back. The retoucher had a hell of a time smoothing out the razor burn that was suddenly very apperant all over the individual's chest.

Now I'm comparing a 65 megapixel image to a 36 megapixel image. However their workflow (which obviously was always going to include retouching) was used to dealing with the lower megapixel back and the images that came with it. For now, they decided that it was simply more practical to switch back to a 45 megapixel back.

While I can't comment on this particular image, I do know my own personal experiences. For many people, a larger image to have more flexibility in post production and retouching is incredibly useful. However I know for my own uses, I've never had a problem retouching with my current 5D Mark II files. There's simply enough resolution for my uses, and I have no problem getting the results I'd like with them.

 

[marekjoz]

is it me or some of you a bit harsh on the model? i'd like to place a wager that her "flaws" as many of you are pointing out are probably 100X better than half of yours if you were captured with this camera in this light set up. it's an unflattering portrait of a pretty woman. "women" will also hate full size images of most of us too...

Come, on. She's pretty. Everyone just wants to see more of her. I mean more pictures of her. I mean portraits. You know...

 

[stve]

http://www.bezergheanu.com/TestNikon/Test-Nikon-D800/22087378_KqWcB7#!i=1763885715&k=BN6QTnD

select the photo & then original size
the photo shows incredible resolution & has slightly been oversharpened but remember the photo has been sharpened for the web & for viewing at smaller sizes.
When you zoom out in your browser it starts to look horrible.
if you right click on the photo & copy the image address you get
http://www.bezergheanu.com/TestNikon/Test-Nikon-D800/i-BN6QTnD/0/O/LAN1776.jpg
& it looks horrible because of resizing artifacts.
Its very hard to belive that pois the original poster in this thread was not aware of this ?

 

[stve]

Heres a link to the photographers blog translated to English
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://intufisuri.blogspot.co.uk/

 

[eeek]

She might want to start flossing.

 

[Cornell]

What is perceived as over-sharpening is likely a result of the 36 MP: in theory, the higher the MP, the more the resolution, and the more the detail. A camera’s imaging is not gender specific. If it shows an image that is less than optimal for women, it will do the same for men.

I would suggest looking at Digital Photography (Dpreview) Reviews “First Impressions: Using the Nikon D800”. Please note that the reviewer uses an very old lens, adapted to use with modern DSLRs.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1690347434/first-impressions-using-the-nikon-d800

One other thing, iMagic stated that her eyes look out of focus. It would be interesting to know what aperture was used. The Dpreview article indicates that the camera is “very unforgiving” for even minor focusing errors when the lens is wide open.