Matt I can follow your reasoning, and if one does blow-up pictures (large prints) then indeed you might need more pixels. I have a D700 since they came out, and men what a camera that has been It has over 300.000 pictures and is still working great. 12Mpx, not all that much but what a quality it had (s). Two years ago I did buy the D3S and D3X. The D3S is my outdoor camera, fast, and great to work with under severe light constraints. The D3X is only used in the studio, reason is more pixels and more noise. However since I control the light in the studio the D3X is great. ( Photography is a side job).
Do you think that the D800 will be a substitute for the D3X, or will the D3X be replaced with the D4X ? As for the D700, I doubt very much if the D700-S will be produced.
Now back to SRAW; (Canon proprietary)
SRAW is a great file format if you want to safe memory space or if you are sure that you will not need a print bigger then 6by4.
The smaller sRAW files writes quicker to the memory card, so that is advantage. Typically SRAW is 1/4 of RAW file.
It does pixel binning of 4 neighboring pixels in the Bayern pattern (filter on top of the CCD); by converting G B, R G, into a single pixel with RGB values. The effect is similar to a Foveon sensor (3 layers). There is no need for interpolation for the missing color values, the resultant image is quite sharp.
I can't see why NIKON would apply this considering that there is an ongoing effort to standardize the RAW format. Secondly, why should they provide a 36Mpx camera with SRAW that will limit the seize of the prints, when especially the aim of a 36Mpx is to be able to extend the enlargement of pictures.
If the only reason is to reduce the file seize, then it is not worth it. Memory cards and computers are fast and cheap compared to the price of a camera (4000 $).
Anyhow that is how this old stubern man sees it.
I totally agree that the D700 has one of the best sensors ever made, and I really wish Nikon would just make it some sort of permanent standard in their system. Personally, I keep holding out for a D700s. I mean hey, they made the D70s and D2Hs quite a while after their lineup had progressed passed those models, right? Or am I mistaken. Either way, I hope they just keep making the D700 till kingdom come.
The whole reason I'd like to see the D800 have a GOOD sRAW mode would be because, in my opinion at least, it would be capable of beating the D700 and act as it's replacement.
Right now, that's what every D700 user is whining about- The D4 is out of their price range, and they're afraid that the D800's 36 megapixels will ruin their fun. But a good quality sRAW mode would give them everything they love about the D700- tiny filesizes, and great noise performance at high ISO's. Sure, it might not be as truly amazing as if they'd slap a D4 sensor in a D700 replacement, but at least it would still be a significant improvement over the D700, AN it would effectively double as two cameras.
Of course, this is pure speculation and wishing, on my part!
=Matt=
I totally agree that the D700 has one of the best sensors ever made, and I really wish Nikon would just make it some sort of permanent standard in their system. Personally, I keep holding out for a D700s. I mean hey, they made the D70s and D2Hs quite a while after their lineup had progressed passed those models, right? Or am I mistaken. Either way, I hope they just keep making the D700 till kingdom come.
The whole reason I'd like to see the D800 have a GOOD sRAW mode would be because, in my opinion at least, it would be capable of beating the D700 and act as it's replacement.
Right now, that's what every D700 user is whining about- The D4 is out of their price range, and they're afraid that the D800's 36 megapixels will ruin their fun. But a good quality sRAW mode would give them everything they love about the D700- tiny filesizes, and great noise performance at high ISO's. Sure, it might not be as truly amazing as if they'd slap a D4 sensor in a D700 replacement, but at least it would still be a significant improvement over the D700, AN it would effectively double as two cameras.
Of course, this is pure speculation and wishing, on my part!
=Matt=
Maybe I'm the rare breed but the rumored D800 is exactly what I want, I rarely use the speed of my D700 and would love to have 36 MP for landscapes, macros, and portraits.
SRAW is a software artifact, is it not? So the reverse engineering line is broken, the disconnect between hardware specs and IQ is absolute, isn't it? I don't think you can talk about both in one breath.
This thread is rapidly shooting up into the stratosphere of hardware idealism, mind games where reality becomes a hypothetical construct of the hardware specs. On the other hand, I think by the time you get to the real reality - when you are holding a print in your hand - those specs have receded a long way from dominant significance. In the real world, an issue like resolution, for example, depends on stuff like the resolution of the print process, the material the image is printed on (digital display is a whopping 72ppi), the lighting the image is viewed in, the viewing distance, the vision acuity of the viewer, the subject matter of the image, and so on.
But most importantly the final IQ - and impact - of an image is most dependent on the photographer. Now take, for example, the brand new uber-specs of the D4 and the 1DX, specifically fps, and let's imagine an indoor sports scenario. While all the guys who sit in front of their computers are drooling over the uber-speed specs, inter alia, of these uber-bodies on the Nikon and Canon advertising web pages, those same specs will avail our sports photographer in the auditorium naught unless this guy has taken care of lighting balance, exposure, depth of field, unless they have kept the focus point on the target throughout, unless they have previsualised the framing, and unless they are lucky with wild cards like serendipitous flares and turf throw-ups and sweat throw-offs and facial expressions and eyes showing, etc, etc! And we haven't yet even considered the guy's post-processing style!
Come on, you hardware idealist philosophers, no hardware is ultimately going to overpower the fallibility, or skill, or luck, of the animal using it, or the one viewing it!
Maybe I'm the rare breed but the rumored D800 is exactly what I want, I rarely use the speed of my D700 and would love to have 36 MP for landscapes, macros, and portraits.
No worries! See that 'jack' in your Avatar hand, hand it over to LEAF or any number of Digital backed MF cameras and choose your MPx!
SRAW is a software artifact, is it not? So the reverse engineering line is broken, the disconnect between hardware specs and IQ is absolute, isn't it? I don't think you can talk about both in one breath.
This thread is rapidly shooting up into the stratosphere of hardware idealism, mind games where reality becomes a hypothetical construct of the hardware specs. On the other hand, I think by the time you get to the real reality - when you are holding a print in your hand - those specs have receded a long way from dominant significance. In the real world, an issue like resolution, for example, depends on stuff like the resolution of the print process, the material the image is printed on (digital display is a whopping 72ppi), the lighting the image is viewed in, the viewing distance, the vision acuity of the viewer, the subject matter of the image, and so on.
But most importantly the final IQ - and impact - of an image is most dependent on the photographer. Now take, for example, the brand new uber-specs of the D4 and the 1DX, specifically fps, and let's imagine an indoor sports scenario. While all the guys who sit in front of their computers are drooling over the uber-speed specs, inter alia, of these uber-bodies on the Nikon and Canon advertising web pages, those same specs will avail our sports photographer in the auditorium naught unless this guy has taken care of lighting balance, exposure, depth of field, unless they have kept the focus point on the target throughout, unless they have previsualised the framing, and unless they are lucky with wild cards like serendipitous flares and turf throw-ups and sweat throw-offs and facial expressions and eyes showing, etc, etc! And we haven't yet even considered the guy's post-processing style!
Come on, you hardware idealist philosophers, no hardware is ultimately going to overpower the fallibility, or skill, or luck, of the animal using it, or the one viewing it!
Neil
I love your writing Talking about philosophers
A photographer without a style, is like a pub without beer
0
Options
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
Come on, you hardware idealist philosophers, no hardware is ultimately going to overpower the fallibility, or skill, or luck, of the animal using it, or the one viewing it!
Neil
Certainly, but hard drives still cost money, and processing an image file 3x larger still takes time.
Bottom line- Like I said, I wish that digital could be more like film, where you can just stick with the old classics in image "recording" as long as you want, without missing out on the latest in camera functionality / performance. Simply put- I wish Nikon would keep on making their 12 MP FX sensor till kingdom come. For the same reason I wish Nikon would keep making a ~6 megapixel DX sensor till kingdom come.
It's just a wish, nothing wrong with that. It is based on a very practical need, to minimize the amount of processing equipment I need to buy throughout the years. I've always said- I'm a camera geek, not a computer geek.
I'm sure the D800 will be awesome for those who need the added resolution, but I'm still holding out for a D700s. Or like I said, if the D800 has an sRAW mode that I could get on board with. We can debate the merits / disadvantages of sRAW, and general IQ / engineering all day long, but I know what I need / want in the real world... And it'd be awesome to be able to upgrade my camera's functions without having to take such a huge a hit in the post-production department
I'm sure the D800 will be awesome for those who need the added resolution, but I'm still holding out for a D700s. Or like I said, if the D800 has an sRAW mode that I could get on board with. We can debate the merits / disadvantages of sRAW, and general IQ / engineering all day long, but I know what I need / want in the real world... And it'd be awesome to be able to upgrade my camera's functions without having to take such a huge a hit in the post-production department
=Matt=
Couldn't you just shoot in DX mode and get similar benefits?
John :
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
0
Options
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
Couldn't you just shoot in DX mode and get similar benefits?
That's probably what I'd end up doing, although half the point of FX is the focal ranges and depth of field. Again, it'd be fine, but still a compromise compared to a simple lower res sensor, or an sRAW mode. Actually on second thought, I'd be fine with that. DX gives me the advantage of having my AF points spread out WAY more, extra reach with an 85 prime when needed, and the use of much lighter and smaller 2.8 zooms such as the Sigma 50-150 2.8. I change my mind, bring on the D800 with or without sRAW mode. :-P
John :
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
0
Options
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
edited January 9, 2012
TRUE STORY!!!
One time, I had this image in a gallery exhibition once as a 16x20", and somebody asked me if I used a 4x5 view camera to make it. ...I shot it with a 3 megapixel camera.
Hey lets look at the things real time most of my sales have been on line to be used on line. If you have to downsize the image right of the bat your losing image quality so why the big fuss over big iamge sizes unless your going for a fine art print.
Hard copy days are gone as well as the print media, Dont get me wrong a good sharp image is my standard Iam old school. In order to survive you have to pretty much shoot medium size files, I shoot all raw but do I need any thing over 12MP to survive.
I can produce a good quality print that the meets the public can afford at this level. If conditions are right I drag out the 4x5 and capture it on film that cant be beat by any means.
Ask your freinds to look at your work on their computer verses your media not every one goes through the effort to buy a high end monitior to work on.
Dont laugh but today most folks TV has a better image than their computer, dont get me wrong Id replace my large format film gear any day when the industry standards come back up.
since the concept of digital photography the stanards have gone down, everyone with a cell phone has a camera and whats being sold today is trash. Its all about just how fast you can get on line.
We have to stick to or standards and pricing there is a market out there but to go out and spend high dollars for an increase in Mega pixels is not worth it right now.
... If conditions are right I drag out the 4x5 and capture it on film that cant be beat by any means. ...
For a single, instantaneous exposure, that is still fairly correct. (I also own and occasionally shoot with a 4" x 5" monorail view camera.)
For really incredible amounts of fine detail in landscapes and still-life images a digitally stitched panorama is just incredible, and almost any modern dSLR (and occasionally an advanced digicam) is capable of serving as the image capture device. Our own "Baldy" proved that several times. Here are a couple of links:
As I've read on Thom Hogan's site a few times, new regulations in Japan's battery rules say that they cannot make/sell/etc batteries with exposed terminals, and this is one (maybe the only) reason that the D7000 and D4 have totally new batteries from their predecessors. From what I understood, this means they can't make the products at all, even to sell in the US. Hogan speculates on his front page today that he won't be surprised to see D300s and D700 replacements announced at next week's big trade show in Japan.
Comments
The whole reason I'd like to see the D800 have a GOOD sRAW mode would be because, in my opinion at least, it would be capable of beating the D700 and act as it's replacement.
Right now, that's what every D700 user is whining about- The D4 is out of their price range, and they're afraid that the D800's 36 megapixels will ruin their fun. But a good quality sRAW mode would give them everything they love about the D700- tiny filesizes, and great noise performance at high ISO's. Sure, it might not be as truly amazing as if they'd slap a D4 sensor in a D700 replacement, but at least it would still be a significant improvement over the D700, AN it would effectively double as two cameras.
Of course, this is pure speculation and wishing, on my part!
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Maybe I'm the rare breed but the rumored D800 is exactly what I want, I rarely use the speed of my D700 and would love to have 36 MP for landscapes, macros, and portraits.
This thread is rapidly shooting up into the stratosphere of hardware idealism, mind games where reality becomes a hypothetical construct of the hardware specs. On the other hand, I think by the time you get to the real reality - when you are holding a print in your hand - those specs have receded a long way from dominant significance. In the real world, an issue like resolution, for example, depends on stuff like the resolution of the print process, the material the image is printed on (digital display is a whopping 72ppi), the lighting the image is viewed in, the viewing distance, the vision acuity of the viewer, the subject matter of the image, and so on.
But most importantly the final IQ - and impact - of an image is most dependent on the photographer. Now take, for example, the brand new uber-specs of the D4 and the 1DX, specifically fps, and let's imagine an indoor sports scenario. While all the guys who sit in front of their computers are drooling over the uber-speed specs, inter alia, of these uber-bodies on the Nikon and Canon advertising web pages, those same specs will avail our sports photographer in the auditorium naught unless this guy has taken care of lighting balance, exposure, depth of field, unless they have kept the focus point on the target throughout, unless they have previsualised the framing, and unless they are lucky with wild cards like serendipitous flares and turf throw-ups and sweat throw-offs and facial expressions and eyes showing, etc, etc! And we haven't yet even considered the guy's post-processing style!
Come on, you hardware idealist philosophers, no hardware is ultimately going to overpower the fallibility, or skill, or luck, of the animal using it, or the one viewing it!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
No worries! See that 'jack' in your Avatar hand, hand it over to LEAF or any number of Digital backed MF cameras and choose your MPx!
I forgot I still even had that avatar, changed it on ADV over a year ago. And Leaf wants far too many of them for one of their MF backs :cry
I love your writing
Certainly, but hard drives still cost money, and processing an image file 3x larger still takes time.
Bottom line- Like I said, I wish that digital could be more like film, where you can just stick with the old classics in image "recording" as long as you want, without missing out on the latest in camera functionality / performance. Simply put- I wish Nikon would keep on making their 12 MP FX sensor till kingdom come. For the same reason I wish Nikon would keep making a ~6 megapixel DX sensor till kingdom come.
It's just a wish, nothing wrong with that. It is based on a very practical need, to minimize the amount of processing equipment I need to buy throughout the years. I've always said- I'm a camera geek, not a computer geek.
I'm sure the D800 will be awesome for those who need the added resolution, but I'm still holding out for a D700s. Or like I said, if the D800 has an sRAW mode that I could get on board with. We can debate the merits / disadvantages of sRAW, and general IQ / engineering all day long, but I know what I need / want in the real world... And it'd be awesome to be able to upgrade my camera's functions without having to take such a huge a hit in the post-production department
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Couldn't you just shoot in DX mode and get similar benefits?
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
That's probably what I'd end up doing, although half the point of FX is the focal ranges and depth of field. Again, it'd be fine, but still a compromise compared to a simple lower res sensor, or an sRAW mode. Actually on second thought, I'd be fine with that. DX gives me the advantage of having my AF points spread out WAY more, extra reach with an 85 prime when needed, and the use of much lighter and smaller 2.8 zooms such as the Sigma 50-150 2.8. I change my mind, bring on the D800 with or without sRAW mode. :-P
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
DAMN!!! I win! Maybe I won't buy a D4 after all. February's not too long to wait for the announcement. Maybe it's all BS anyway.
Still can't believe I may have influenced Matthew's opinion . . .
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
TRUE STORY!!
This thread surely proves your point. 6MP.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
One time, I had this image in a gallery exhibition once as a 16x20", and somebody asked me if I used a 4x5 view camera to make it. ...I shot it with a 3 megapixel camera.
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
http://nikonrumors.com/2012/01/13/the-next-nikon-product-announcement-will-be-on-february-7th-2012.aspx/
You don't take a photograph, you make it. ~Ansel Adams
Blue Moon Originals
Hard copy days are gone as well as the print media, Dont get me wrong a good sharp image is my standard Iam old school. In order to survive you have to pretty much shoot medium size files, I shoot all raw but do I need any thing over 12MP to survive.
I can produce a good quality print that the meets the public can afford at this level. If conditions are right I drag out the 4x5 and capture it on film that cant be beat by any means.
Ask your freinds to look at your work on their computer verses your media not every one goes through the effort to buy a high end monitior to work on.
Dont laugh but today most folks TV has a better image than their computer, dont get me wrong Id replace my large format film gear any day when the industry standards come back up.
since the concept of digital photography the stanards have gone down, everyone with a cell phone has a camera and whats being sold today is trash. Its all about just how fast you can get on line.
We have to stick to or standards and pricing there is a market out there but to go out and spend high dollars for an increase in Mega pixels is not worth it right now.
For a single, instantaneous exposure, that is still fairly correct. (I also own and occasionally shoot with a 4" x 5" monorail view camera.)
For really incredible amounts of fine detail in landscapes and still-life images a digitally stitched panorama is just incredible, and almost any modern dSLR (and occasionally an advanced digicam) is capable of serving as the image capture device. Our own "Baldy" proved that several times. Here are a couple of links:
A single vertical strip from the total stitched set:
http://cmac.smugmug.com/photos/472303454_ojUut-O.jpg
Click on the "Full Size" link in this post if you wish to see a larger image, but nowhere near the actual print (which is incredibly large).
http://dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=990541&postcount=274
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
http://nikonrumors.com/2012/01/17/another-alleged-picture-of-the-nikon-d800.aspx/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NikonRumors+%28NikonRumors.com%29&utm_content=FaceBook&ref=nf
You don't take a photograph, you make it. ~Ansel Adams
Blue Moon Originals
Still it's cool to hear all the rumors
D800
16/2.8, f1.4G primes, f2.8 trio, 105/200 macro, SB900.
It never gets easier, you just get better.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
http://www.youtube.com/user/NYCFilmmakersGroup
http://www.meetup.com/NYC-Filmmakers-and-Actors-Meetup-Group/
http://nikonrumors.com/2012/01/25/nikon-d700-d300s-are-now-officially-discontinued.aspx/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NikonRumors+%28NikonRumors.com%29&utm_content=FaceBook
You don't take a photograph, you make it. ~Ansel Adams
Blue Moon Originals
I think that we determined there is a battery issue with those cameras and Japanese battery safety:
http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=209433
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
That would make sense
So the battery issue only affects Japan's domestic market?
You don't take a photograph, you make it. ~Ansel Adams
Blue Moon Originals
Unless you see an actual Nikon announcement to the contrary (not just on a rumor site.)
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
My site 365 Project
http://nikonrumors.com/2012/02/06/nikon-d800-official-pictures-leaked.aspx/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NikonRumors+%28NikonRumors.com%29
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pt&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fztop.com.br%2F2012%2F02%2F06%2Fnumeros-enormes-os-36-megapixels-da-nikon-d800%2F
You don't take a photograph, you make it. ~Ansel Adams
Blue Moon Originals
http://nikonrumors.com/2012/02/06/nikon-d800e-priced-at-3300-unconfirmed.aspx/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NikonRumors+%28NikonRumors.com%29&utm_content=FaceBook
(this one looks photoshoped)
You don't take a photograph, you make it. ~Ansel Adams
Blue Moon Originals