Freaking scary! Can almost get those kind of details as if shot with a macro......... even the few strands of her eyebrow not properly combed also can see!!!!:embrass:
D800: Mind freaking blowing details
- Thread starter UncleFai
- Start date
- Status
Freaking scary! Can almost get those kind of details as if shot with a macro......... even the few strands of her eyebrow not properly combed also can see!!!!:embrass:
I think this is also what forumers said when the firsts 12mp Nikon ff camera came out, but probably more true for the D800.
Yeah 12mp can see sweat coming out from pores ,
36mp can see particles in sweat ....
With dedicated macro lens , this will be one hack of a body
for super macro (if not the best)
36mp can see particles in sweat ....
With dedicated macro lens , this will be one hack of a body
for super macro (if not the best)
i don't understand the obsession with the reflection of the photographer in the eyes. I have done that many times taking pictures of my dog with my 12mp entry level dslr too.. just need good light.
But I do agree the D800 resolution looks great. Probably more useful for landscapes though... not sure anybody wants pixel peepers poring over their portraits taken at such resolutions! :bsmilie:
But I do agree the D800 resolution looks great. Probably more useful for landscapes though... not sure anybody wants pixel peepers poring over their portraits taken at such resolutions! :bsmilie:
Errz
Senior Member
see this D800 studio sample; retouching needed: Nikon D4 - D1 / D800 Forum: Digital Photography Review . funny TS.
"took a shot of my wife in the studio this evening, she tried to strangle me when she saw her pics on a 27"monitor, every little detail,every wrinkle."
"took a shot of my wife in the studio this evening, she tried to strangle me when she saw her pics on a 27"monitor, every little detail,every wrinkle."
This is nothing new. Fashion photos taken with medium formats always have a bit "Too much detail" on the model's face, hence the intense post production. It's awesome that we have the same capabilities in a more affordable product, though.
Also, a mediocre lens would ALWAYS perform better on a higher resolution sensor than on a lower resolution one. The detail advantage one gets would be diminished compared to using a top end lens, but never would it produce LESS detail on a high resolution sensor.
Also, a mediocre lens would ALWAYS perform better on a higher resolution sensor than on a lower resolution one. The detail advantage one gets would be diminished compared to using a top end lens, but never would it produce LESS detail on a high resolution sensor.
The pixel density of the D800 sensor is similar to D7000. If the lens can resolve on D7000 why not on the D800? In big prints and 100% view might there might be a difference, but for practical use it should not be a problem.
Last edited:
Hmm..Since we are at it.. maybe i could share something..hopefully its relevant.
sonyalpharumors | Blog | Is more Megapixel better? D800 Sony sensor test...and a secret weapon for Sony.
Check it out.
sonyalpharumors | Blog | Is more Megapixel better? D800 Sony sensor test...and a secret weapon for Sony.
Check it out.
Good. Will wait for Sony's new FF... hopefully, the frame rate will be better because of SLT. But then again, SLT only let's 70% of the light to pass... so may be back to square one.
You obviously have not clicked all. Some are obviously shot at F/8 as well and they have been oversharpened but the detail is also there.
But I guess, it's a conscious choice as to whether you want to see things or not.
Like someone has pointed out, the lighting presented in the sample posted does help. Detail is not always about whether the thing is there, but how it is lit. Contrast does play a part in the perception of level of detail.
You obviously have not clicked all. Some are obviously shot at F/8 as well and they have been oversharpened but the detail is also there.
But I guess, it's a conscious choice as to whether you want to see things or not.
Like someone has pointed out, the lighting presented in the sample posted does help. Detail is not always about whether the thing is there, but how it is lit. Contrast does play a part in the perception of level of detail.
The photos are overly processed...view at 100%, they appeared overly oversharpened. so they are not fair to compare really.
I agree. I did look at all the shots, and my original conclusion remains: the D800 one is sharper, and has more details.
You can easily sharpen to compare.
Sharpening at 100% does not add more detail than what is already there, fyi. If that were the case I could sharpen any blur photo till kingdom come to produce magical results.
Suggest you take the time to try, if not it is just "oh I think the details are there" versus "I think there are not", which essentially when examined critically, is a very inane debate. I can state confidently that I took the time to try and came to the conclusion that there isn't a laudable amount of difference in detail (read: not as fantastic as the reaction presented here would lead you to believe) between 5D Mark II and the D800 - have you? Or are you just postulating based on feel (or possible personal bias, since there doesn't seem to be an objective yardstick being used in your conclusion)?
Last edited:
You can easily sharpen to compare.
Sharpening at 100% does not add more detail than what is already there, fyi. If that were the case I could sharpen any blur photo till kingdom come to produce magical results.
Suggest you take the time to try, if not it is just "oh I think the details are there" versus "I think there are not", which essentially when examined critically, is a very inane debate. I can state confidently that I took the time to try and came to the conclusion that there isn't a laudable amount of difference in detail (read: not as fantastic as the reaction presented here would lead you to believe) between 5D Mark II and the D800 - have you? Or are you just postulating based on feel (or possible personal bias, since there doesn't seem to be an objective yardstick being used in your conclusion)?
how about sharing your finding and research? i guess you have access to both cameras to do the test.
You can easily sharpen to compare.
Sharpening at 100% does not add more detail than what is already there, fyi. If that were the case I could sharpen any blur photo till kingdom come to produce magical results.
Suggest you take the time to try, if not it is just "oh I think the details are there" versus "I think there are not", which essentially when examined critically, is a very inane debate. I can state confidently that I took the time to try and came to the conclusion that there isn't a laudable amount of difference in detail (read: not as fantastic as the reaction presented here would lead you to believe) between 5D Mark II and the D800 - have you? Or are you just postulating based on feel (or possible personal bias, since there doesn't seem to be an objective yardstick being used in your conclusion)?
i'm not interested in comparing 5DMK2 and D800 here, since this is a nikon forum, most people will say good things about D800.
i'm more interested in what the D800 can give me when i upgraded.
- Status
Similar threads
