[bossa]

Actually, all D800 / D800E benefits can be get only if:
- you use tripod, good one
- you use mirror up function
- you use wired trigger, or similar, to avoid button push shake
- you use only the best lenses available, sharpness and contrast
- Focusing is done right, many times this requires service made calibration using actual lens set or live-view MF

and most important, D800E is better than D800 only if:
- you do not shoot wide open or close aperture too much, but use lens sweet spot, that is aperture closed to f:4 - f.5.6 range. This is the condition I seldom meet.

If you do not meet those conditions, paying more to get D800E is waste of money, . Here D800E is 700 € more than D800, so I decided not to buy it.

Sorry but IMO that's crap. The D800 has a similar pixel density to the K-5 so it's easily hand hold-able. I use my AF-S 300 with a TC-14E II quite regularly - hand held without issues.

I find that the mirror actually affects the shot MORE when the camera is on a tripod than in my hand. This is probably due to the flesh of the hand being more of a shock-absorber than a rigid piece of metal. The D800 is more susceptible to rotational blur caused at the pressing of the shutter button (particularly with wide-angles) but once you get a feel for what's going on it's easy to develop a skill set that compensates.

All of the points you mention were published at the time of the release of the D800 but I think they apply much more to a 24MP APS-C DSLR than a 36MP FF.

[DeadJohn]

There's little improvement just changing from 16mp to 24mp if everything else stays the same. Some of the improvements people are seeing might be better focus, improved resolution from a better lens, weaker AA filter, etc.

[jsherman999]

Actually, all D800 / D800E benefits can be get only if:
- you use tripod, good one
- you use mirror up function
- you use wired trigger, or similar, to avoid button push shake
- you use only the best lenses available, sharpness and contrast
- Focusing is done right, many times this requires service made calibration using actual lens set or live-view MF

.

Are you trying to say that 1) seeing the benefit of the D800E over the D800 requires these steps, or 2) that you won't see the benefit of 36MP from either D800/D800E (over lower-MP FF or any aps-c) unless you meet those requirements?

Because if it's #1,you're partially correct, but if you're trying to say #2, then you're point-by-point wrong.

Going up to 36MP improves everything if your method remains the same - as long as your method isn't so bad that you introduce copious amounts of blur and misfocus with everything.

A steady hand, sharp (but not necessarily expensive) lenses, and adequate shutter speeds will bring out the added resolution. It won't maximize it, but you're not maximizing your K-5 output either unless you do all the things you listed. Maximizing isn't required to see the benefit of higher-res sensors.

.

[robgo2]

Rob, it's clearly up to you whether or not you post samples to back up what you say. I'm not negating it, just looking to see exactly what it is you're talking about. So, let me make it clear: I don't know whether it's the sensor size, sensor resolution or lens choice or a combination of all three that makes the difference. You seem to think it's the sensor size that is the major contributor, so a back-to-back comparison with a DSLR that shares the sensor would be instructive, then we'd all know. I don't expect you to do this, but until someone does, we're just dealing with subjective matters. Don't take offence: everyone's entitled to their opinion, but those of us who don't have your experience need objective evidence before we'd consider forking out a substantial amount of money for such a camera as the RX1 (let alone a possible Pentax body using the same sensor), especially when we see conflicting claims about it.

I perfectly understand your wanting to see sample images with your own eyes, and it is right for you to remain skeptical until you do. The only way that I could demonstrate the superiority of the RX1 would be for me to take identical photos with it and my K-5 (probably using my FA31 Limited) and resize them and all the rest, which I truly do not feel up to doing. So for now, you can either accept my opinion on the matter or not.

As to what factors contribute to the RX1's excellence, almost certainly it is due to a combination of things--outstanding lens, outstanding sensor and superb matching of the two. Two cameras that carry the same sensor are the a99 and the D600. I have not personally seen direct comparisons, but the word is that the RX1 has the best IQ (at 35mm). I would love to see what the D600 can do with the new Sigma 35/1.4. That would be the most meaningful comparison.

And let me be clear that I am not trying to sell people on the RX1. Rather I raised it as an example of what can be accomplished with a 24MP FF sensor, which I would be very pleased to see in a Pentax body someday. I used to think that I did not need more than 16MP of resolution. Now I have raised the limit to 24MP.

Rob

---

Last edited by robgo2; 07-17-2013 at 09:05 PM.

[bossa]

There's little improvement just changing from 16mp to 24mp if everything else stays the same. Some of the improvements people are seeing might be better focus, improved resolution from a better lens, weaker AA filter, etc.

I imagine that a 24MP sensor would show more diffraction and motion blur at the pixel level than either the 16MP or the 36MP sensors currently used in ASP-C and FF cameras. A 24MP APS-C sensor has the same density as a FF with 54MP.. almost 20 million more pixels than a D800.

[Harald]

Are you trying to say that 1) seeing the benefit of the D800E over the D800 requires these steps, or 2) that you won't see the benefit of 36MP from either D800/D800E (over lower-MP FF or any aps-c) unless you meet those requirements?

Because if it's #1,you're partially correct, but if you're trying to say #2, then you're point-by-point wrong.

Going up to 36MP improves everything if your method remains the same - as long as your method isn't so bad that you introduce copious amounts of blur and misfocus with everything.

A steady hand, sharp (but not necessarily expensive) lenses, and adequate shutter speeds will bring out the added resolution. It won't maximize it, but you're not maximizing your K-5 output either unless you do all the things you listed. Maximizing isn't required to see the benefit of higher-res sensors.

.

Please read carefully before start flaming. I said "all" benefits. If you blurr your pictures by handholding, you cannot get all benefits. And then further differencies between D800 and D800E are academic.

Secont part tells you how (in what circumstances) you can see some difference between D800 and D800E. And you cannot see these differencies, if you have spoiled your possibilities in first part. Easy and simple.

Bossa: You too should read texts more thoroughly. Yes, K-5 is easily hand holdable and so is D800 too. BUT, if you want sharpest possible result (and if this is not your goal, why spend 2400 € instead of 1000€?) you have to meet those requirements (use tripod, good lenses etc.). This is true with K-5 too: Best (sharpest) results are achieved with tripod, good lens etc., not holding it in your hands. This does not deny it, that you can get acceptable result holding it in your hands. But not best.

[Rondec]

Sorry but IMO that's crap. The D800 has a similar pixel density to the K-5 so it's easily hand hold-able. I use my AF-S 300 with a TC-14E II quite regularly - hand held without issues.

I find that the mirror actually affects the shot MORE when the camera is on a tripod than in my hand. This is probably due to the flesh of the hand being more of a shock-absorber than a rigid piece of metal. The D800 is more susceptible to rotational blur caused at the pressing of the shutter button (particularly with wide-angles) but once you get a feel for what's going on it's easy to develop a skill set that compensates.

All of the points you mention were published at the time of the release of the D800 but I think they apply much more to a 24MP APS-C DSLR than a 36MP FF.

I agree, but I would tell you that I believe that my photos that are pixel sharp on the K5 are almost all shot on a good solid tripod. The D800 shouldn't be any easier or harder to shoot hand held.

[bvg]

Do not forget to switch IS on .

[scratchpaddy]

Do not forget to switch IS on .

Something you don't have the luxury of doing when using that SD1 of yours, eh?

[jsherman999]

Please read carefully before start flaming. I said "all" benefits. If you blurr your pictures by handholding, you cannot get all benefits.

I wasn't flaming, I was pointing out your error, very nicely.

And may I suggest you read more carefully, because you just repeated the point I refuted - when you say "get all benefits", you're basically saying 'maximizing', which I'm telling you isn't required.

In fact, 'maximizing' in a lot of circumstances only brings the last 5%, maybe 10% of the net benefit. (note I said 5% of net benefit, not 5% more resolution - in other words, you might see 20% better resolution going to a D800 and using Zeiss lenses, mirror-up, $1000 tripod, etc, but might see about an 18% improvement by shooting the 50 1.8G handheld at adequate shutter speeds - is that extra 2% worth the mirror-up, $1000 tripod, and Zeiss? Especially when it's not really visible at less than 200% crop? )

Repeat after me: Keeping your methodology exactly the same, you will see benefits to higher-res, FF sensors. You don't need to maximize things to see the benefits, in fact this attempt at 'maximizing' can sometimes bring annoyingly diminishing returns.

.

Bossa: You too should read texts more thoroughly. Yes, K-5 is easily hand holdable and so is D800 too. BUT, if you want sharpest possible result (and if this is not your goal, why spend 2400 € instead of 1000€?)

Because you can get better - sometimes much better - results than before even keeping your methods exactly the same (see above.) And you get an extra stop, more DOF control, better AF, etc, etc (meaning 'sharpest results' isn't the goal for the D800 buyer the majority of the time - it's maybe just an added bonus for many.)

.

[bossa]

To be honest, in good light I have not noticed ANY improvement in accutance by using a tripod and shooting mirror-up over hand held and normal shooting with a DSLR. IMO, if you DON'T flip the mirror when the camera is on a tripod it's actually worse than if you shoot hand held in the normal manner (at the same settings and in good light on a D800E).

[bvg]

Something you don't have the luxury of doing when using that SD1 of yours, eh?

Why? It has in-lense IS.

[scratchpaddy]

Why? It has in-lense IS.

Right... I got it confused with SR (in-body). Too many acronyms!

[Pepe Le Pew]

They may come out with a FF camera, honestly I think that is inevitable, but it might be years down the road (and possibly in pink)

Can't see it in less then 5 years

[jatrax]

Can't see it in less then 5 years

Well, no one knows but in 5 years time who can say if we will still be using anything that even resembles current sensors?

Personally I think the decision will be indicative of Pentax/Ricoh long term strategy. If they wish to be a conventional camera company in the mold of the old Pentax or the current Canon/Nikon then they will have a FF DSLR camera in the next 18 months, possibly even sooner. But if they feel their future is in a different direction then we won't get a FF DSLR and they will focus on what they think will make them the most money. Which might be FF but not a DSLR, or they may have something entirely different in mind like being the market leader in small cameras like the Q.