Fat Pixel Nikons

[dave.gt]

Nikon D700 + Mamiya Sekor 80mm F1.9N at F1.9

Hey! There you are!!! :thumbs:

Long time no see, my friend. Great to see you posting again, love that one!

 

[faberryman]

"Fat pixel" is just an euphemism for old technology. They are not better than current sensors.

 

[Shashin]

"Fat pixel" is just an euphemism for old technology. They are not better than current sensors.

Fat pixels are sensors with a large pixel pitch. The idea is that limits frequency in the image resulting in more contrast by acting as a spatial filter.

I am not sure what you mean by "better"? The technical specification? Then you be right. Resulting in more pleasing images? Then that is certainly open for debate as it is really subjective. One thing is clear, their is no correlation about making compelling images and the sophistication of technology.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Fat pixels are sensors with a large pixel pitch. The idea is that limits frequency in the image resulting in more contrast by acting as a spatial filter.

I am not sure what you mean by "better"? The technical specification? Then you be right. Resulting in more pleasing images? Then that is certainly open for debate as it is really subjective. One thing is clear, their is no correlation about making compelling images and the sophistication of technology.

+1 to that.

From a less scientific point of view:
Some of the low megapixel, full frame cameras seem to have certain "shine" that is totally lacking from current high megapixel cameras. The D700 certainly has it, the A7S likewise. As far as I can remember, the 6MP Contax N Digital also had a certain "look" that hasn't been duplicated since, and that made some photographers hang on to it despite its weaknesses.

The Contax btw. now sells used for $1,500 or more. I don't know if that is because some photographers still love the image quality or because it has become a collector's item.

 

[jdphoto]

Other low res sensors I loved, included the Leica M9, Hasselblad H3D-31, Hassy 16mp CFV and Sony a900.

 

[dave.gt]

I have a 645D also and I will never part with it. Same for much older cameras, digital and film, that I have.

We all take different paths in photography. Some with more or less gear. I will be the last to say that one path is better than another, whether it a path with more or less gear, film or digital, darkroom or digital prints, etc.

To this day, I feel that that best photograph I have ever taken was made 30+ years ago. Shot with a 1950s vintage Graphic 4x5 and a 1940s vintage Zeiss Tessar lens. It was a special image that in many technical respects could have been improved upon with better film, developing, camera, lenses or digital capture methods.

All that doesn’t really matter...it is still one of my favorite images. That said...I still enjoy collecting and using the gear too (including fat pixel Nikon DSLRs), regardless of whether I ever produce another photograph to equal the shot I took 30+ years ago.

A final thought, I have to justify my appreciation for and purchases of camera gear (old or new) here on GetDPI, then perhaps it is time for me to leave.

Gary

Just re-reading this thread.

Maybe we can post images here from our Fat Pixel Nikons! Who knows, the prices might even go up a few bucks when people realize the bargains out there!:thumbup:

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Just re-reading this thread.

Maybe we can post images here from our Fat Pixel Nikons! Who knows, the prices might even go up a few bucks when people realize the bargains out there!:thumbup:

You mean actual obsolete photos taken with old, obsolete cameras? I thought those photos stopped working with the introduction of the new cool models :wtf:

Ok then, but we're back to 2014 here, the girl as well as the camera, since I don't own a fat pixel monster anymore (and don't have a gf to take photos of).

D700 with Nikkor 105mm f/1.8 AiS @ f/1.8

It almost makes me miss that clunky old box... and the girl.... no no no... :ROTFL:

Edit: I should sell all my gear and buy a Df and the 58mm f/1.4.

 

[Thorkil]

Jørgen
I can only recommend the Df as the ultimate cure(!)
best thorkil

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

The problem with those fat pixel cameras is that there aren't enough pixels for all the people I want to fit into the photos. Two girls are fine, but I ran out of space with the third one here:

D700 with Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S @ 200mm and f/2.8

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Do I miss that old clunker? Kind of, but the D700 plus the 80-200 weighed more than my entire bag with two bodies and 7 lenses does now.

D700 with Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S @ 200mm and f/2.8

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

D700 with Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S @ 200mm and f/3.2

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

There's a D3 with 16,000 clicks for sale locally for $800. Uses same battery and charger as my D2Xs :facesmack:

No no no no no no no... :banghead:

 

[dave.gt]

Yes, yes, yes....:thumbs:

 

[dave.gt]

Re: Fat Pixel Nikons Definition

Love the quality of those images, Jorgen.

The D700 somehow escaped me because I could not afford it and it was a time when photography was impossible. At least I can enjoy going back over the reviews and billions of images made with a D700 and the other related cameras.

The pixel size is 8.45 microns. Hmmm. The accepted definition of a Fat Pixel Digital Back onvthe MF forum is 9 microns.

So let's start right there. 9 microns (effective).

Or should we be more exact and use 8.45?

Either way, it would be nice to compile a list of all the Nikon digital cameras with a pixel size of 9 microns (or 8.45) and greater. Anyone looking for a quiet weekend project?

 

[Thorkil]

had the D3 for perhaps 10-15.000 shots, very very effective, but a monster...go for the Df, and save weight, even if the pixel might not be fat enough for this thread

 

[gandolfi]

Re: Fat Pixel Nikons Definition

The pixel size is 8.45 microns. Hmmm. The accepted definition of a Fat Pixel Digital Back on the MF forum is 9 microns.

So let's start right there. 9 microns (effective).

Or should we be more exact and use 8.45?

All of a sudden I lost the will to live.

Have to go out for a bike ride in the glorious sunshine instead.

Good luck with the micrometers, guys.

:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:etc., etc.,

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

had the D3 for perhaps 10-15.000 shots, very very effective, but a monster...go for the Df, and save weight, even if the pixel might not be fat enough for this thread

"Effective" is the word. You know you have taken a photo when you've pushed the shutter button of the D3. The Df makes more sense of course, since I could also use it for travl, but second hand it's 50% more expensive.

What strikes me when I go through the D700 files is how good they look. What they tell me is that I can do just fine with 12MP and no VR. I've never shot with the Df, but asume that the files are even better. What is more important though, is that the Df is the smallest FX camera with a proper viewfinder, and with a proper viewfinder I mean one that has enough diopter adjustment for my eyesight and can take other accessories as well. The main reason why I sold the D610 was the lacking viewfinder.

 

[dave.gt]

"Effective" is the word. You know you have taken a photo when you've pushed the shutter button of the D3. The Df makes more sense of course, since I could also use it for travl, but second hand it's 50% more expensive.

What strikes me when I go through the D700 files is how good they look. What they tell me is that I can do just fine with 12MP and no VR. I've never shot with the Df, but asume that the files are even better. What is more important though, is that the Df is the smallest FX camera with a proper viewfinder, and with a proper viewfinder I mean one that has enough diopter adjustment for my eyesight and can take other accessories as well. The main reason why I sold the D610 was the lacking viewfinder.

And that is the point of this thread. Are the images we all made before going to magically disappear like the cameras themselves because they are obsolete, not good enough, or their "use by expiry date" has been ignored?

The cameras are everywhere and a good value for pocket change (for many). The images I made in the past are no worse or obsolete than my published film images or my treasured personal images. They are not going to disappear.

In some cases, the quality of the older less detailed (lower resolution) images are better suited for some things (i.e.- take a photo of one's wife with the D850 and one with a D2H, you might be surprised at the reaction).

Regardless, photography should be fun. For me it is a form of expression and I do just fine with my Leica X1. It fits a niche for me. The Studio's H5D fills other needs. My FM2n is simply FUN! And now the D850 is being explored for special uses including Landscape Astrophotography. Different tools for different solutions.

Pixel size is only one part of the image, but it is also an indicator that perhaps, those old forgotten cameras have a use, and a value that almost anyone can afford. Not so affordable with the new offerings with high resolution and all the bells and whistles.

Again, this is simply a fun thread!

My old TLR and Brownie cameras are endearing in their own way, too. So don't give up "the will to live" in disdain for others having fun with creative possibilities. Photographers are artists and we should be as open as possible in allowing ourselves to express ourselves with whatever equipment at our disposal be it a Z7 or a pencil and paper.

It is all good!:thumbs:

 

[Thorkil]

"Effective" is the word. You know you have taken a photo when you've pushed the shutter button of the D3. The Df makes more sense of course, since I could also use it for travl, but second hand it's 50% more expensive.

What strikes me when I go through the D700 files is how good they look. What they tell me is that I can do just fine with 12MP and no VR. I've never shot with the Df, but asume that the files are even better. What is more important though, is that the Df is the smallest FX camera with a proper viewfinder, and with a proper viewfinder I mean one that has enough diopter adjustment for my eyesight and can take other accessories as well. The main reason why I sold the D610 was the lacking viewfinder.

Yes the D3 was so effective, I could be placed in a basement, hasty turn around, doing the trigger, and it was always spot on, matrix on, sometimees just program on if I should do some hasty building shot in akward positions - and they seemed to work all of them, coming home. But it also gave me that nasty effective/dull feeling.
Almost everything is subjective in my head, the files from the D3/D700 are good (and why I will wait a bit selling the D700)..but the Df render different (but its all subjective feeling), more exclusive, more delicate, more refined - and putting on lenses like 18/2.8D, 28/1.4D, 105/2.0DC, 135/2.0DC, the 180/2.8D and even the 70-200/4 is sort of in the same rendering league, where the 24/1.8G is a bit more cold (and I presume the other /1.8G's too), but might be a bit better on the Df than the on the D3/D700 while I think the sensor is a bit unik and with more subtle character. In my head the Df is the jewel compared to D3/D700 and I guess later D8xx's too, and the Z7 gives a more cold, more saturated view than the Df, so even liking the Z7 very very much (and my first priority) I'm often looking forward returning to the Df for some short periods.

 

[dave.gt]

Inspiration from older cameras, indeed.

Very nice images from a few years back:

https://blog.mingthein.com/2012/07/18/inspirations-d2h-1/

https://blog.mingthein.com/2012/07/18/inspirations-d2h-1/