Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Wise man said !Peter,
I understand the desire for pushing technical boundaries and being supplied with near limitless options, however I have to ask, how will all that help you make better images than what you now make with say a Nikon D810 or Sony A711?
Several answersWise man said !
For the ones wanting IBIS inside pro Nikon bodys ... be aware this technology make your camera fragile (I'll won't buy it). I broke two k5 because IBIS do not like vibrations/shocks. Some TV operators told me "be careful and do not go too close to the speakers; you'll break your camera". The result is those guys was spot on. You can't trust it till it happen.
For the ones wanting more pixels : For god shakes, buy into MF.
A serious modern 35mm photographer who's not happy with what pull out a D810 have some serious problems, and those problems are linked to all but not the camera.
So yea, a good Nikon move can be a 16/18MP BSI (or just a 18MP renesas sensor) but the actual one is absolutely perfect. How come a man (me ) still using a D700 as his main camera, today in 2015/2016 ? Does my clients are less exigent than US clients ? I don't think so.
People/clients care about your skills, not your gear. We, photographers are the ONLY ONES who care about gear and almost start internet wars to justifies the madness of our Gear Acquisition Syndrome.
Exactly! In fact, just think how many times we have had a client choose one of our less technically perfect images over the technically perfect one because "they liked it better" ??? Seriously happens a lot. They don't care what camera gear you show up as long as it doesn't look like a toy and you deliver. And then anything at around 16 or more MP is at least as good and generally better than anything we ever delivered off of medium format film...People/clients care about your skills, not your gear. We, photographers are the ONLY ONES who care about gear and almost start internet wars to justifies the madness of our Gear Acquisition Syndrome.
Uh no, Canon started it several years back with the 1Ds... Oh, and I personally appreciate having the 36MP my D810 offers. Yes it meant I had to buy some new glass to take fuller advantage of them, but the results have been worth it for me. But they have not made me any better of an artist... Finally, going 36MP was a 50% jump in the day, where 42.5MP is like a 15% increase today -- and if history serves will be a marginal increase to any usable output quality. The new sensor may or may not have some other special characteristics I like, we will see.2) The MP question/race - this is something coming unfortunately from the vendors, as they tend to still compete in this area. And Nikon was the vendor who started this race with their D800/D800E 3 years ago, when most people were just hoping for something in the 24MP range, but that would obviously not have been cool enough - so here we go Nikon, now you have to fight with the ghosts you called up yourself. I for myself never really needed the 36MP of my D800E, besides the fact that this camera was pretty slow in comparison to FF Nikons with up to 24MP. But unfortunately we cannot end this MP race from our side, so it is useless to continue discussing this ...
I'm calling BS on this, it simply isn't true. Yes, the Df has a unique look to it, but I feel it is more the combination color response and noise character that gives it a unique quality we like (and some of us like the retro body styling too ). Even then I can pretty easily mimic the Df color palette and a surprising amount of the noise character in the D810 using C1, so a lot of even that difference goes away.3) D810 - if you compare the IQ output from the D810 to that from the Df, the Df wins hands down.
Yep MF slides looked far better than 35mm on the light table - major selling point. No so with digital.Exactly! In fact, just think how many times we have had a client choose one of our less technically perfect images over the technically perfect one because "they liked it better" ??? Seriously happens a lot. They don't care what camera gear you show up as long as it doesn't look like a toy and you deliver. And then anything at around 16 or more MP is at least as good and generally better than anything we ever delivered off of medium format film...
/rant
Depends on what you see/define as starting the race, I would consider the huge increase from 20MP to 36MP which happened with the introduction of the D800/D800E as the real start of that race - but that is bean counting anyways.Uh no, Canon started it several years back with the 1Ds... Oh, and I personally appreciate having the 36MP my D810 offers. Yes it meant I had to buy some new glass to take fuller advantage of them, but the results have been worth it for me. But they have not made me any better of an artist... Finally, going 36MP was a 50% jump in the day, where 42.5MP is like a 15% increase today -- and if history serves will be a marginal increase to any usable output quality. The new sensor may or may not have some other special characteristics I like, we will see.
I'm calling BS on this, it simply isn't true. Yes, the Df has a unique look to it, but I feel it is more the combination color response and noise character that gives it a unique quality we like (and some of us like the retro body styling too ). Even then I can pretty easily mimic the Df color palette and a surprising amount of the noise character in the D810 using C1, so a lot of even that difference goes away.
When the new Nikon body comes out, I will probably buy one just because I'm a gear idiot and like to be current banghead.
So basically Df images subjectively look better straight out of the camera? Or are there specific technical aspects to the in-camera PP? I understand Jack's view, but not everyone is (or aspires to be) a PP geek. So results straight out of the camera are important as well as PP potential.Several answers
3) D810 - if you compare the IQ output from the D810 to that from the Df, the Df wins hands down. Not that you cannot make the D810 sing as well, but it requires much more effort in post processing, at least in LR and C1Pro as the Df. So for a photographer who wants to spend more time behind the camera and not the computer this the Df is sure the better choice if high MP count is not needed.
Such a design could do away with the viewfinder and some weight related to mirror, but the body wouldn't be smaller (still as thick). So it wouldn't compare to an A7 in size.The only new release from Nikon to pique my interest would be a FF mirrorless in F mount. Until that happens my D810 will soldier on. In addition, like Hulyss said, if you want more than 36mp move to MF, which is what I would be more likely to do.
Once you learn to appreciate cropping you will never have enough resolution.But I do agree if one needs (or in many cases they think that they need) 36MP resolution, then the D810 is currently the perfect tool in DSLR land.
Once you learn to appreciate cropping you will never have enough resolution.
Another demand for higher resolution comes from panoramics. The letterbox format changes the way we look at an image, rather than a composition in a 4:5 frame we tend to see multiple directions of view, and we tend to look closer at each view. So a panoramic should not be seen as a crop but rather as an extended frame to cover more to the sides (the XPan got that part right) - basically a panoramic print needs to be much larger than a 4:5 print to work at the same viewing distance. So IMO if you for example like 3K pixels vertically (12" in print) then your 3:1 pano needs 9K pixels horizontally which the D810 cannot deliver. Add cropping and you realize that the megapixel race is far from over.
Yep I'm damaged from 8x10 the point though is that it's good for everyone that some of us want more resolution.In this case you obviously are someone who needs 36MP+
Lars, don't even hesitate a second, you will love it for many years to come -- even when it becomes back-up to whatever new model you get!BTW this whole thread bugs me - I'm just about to order a D810. :facesmack:
I can't speak for the Df, since I don't own it. Still, I have to say that straight out of the camera, the RAW files from the D700 look more like finished files than those from the D810. When that is said, no files I've worked with have been so easy to get into the shape I want as the D810 files. Most of the time, a few preset parameters in ACR will do the job.I'm calling BS on this, it simply isn't true. Yes, the Df has a unique look to it, but I feel it is more the combination color response and noise character that gives it a unique quality we like (and some of us like the retro body styling too ). Even then I can pretty easily mimic the Df color palette and a surprising amount of the noise character in the D810 using C1, so a lot of even that difference goes away.
Oh the good old days Lars, when we could make 4 different very LARGE prints from a single negative :ROTFL:Yep I'm damaged from 8x10