[normhead]

I have the 27 inch iMac... so I'm up there, and you're right, it does change your idea of what a good image is... it's really depressing...especially the old 2200 pixel wide Optio w 10 images, for the most part, they look awful. They still make great prints though, even at 23x33 for canvases. So does that dam loupe in aperture.


Well today's pixel peeping makes me wonder if the 645 has any future at all.

D800

Full picture



Pixel peeper



645D full picture



Pixel peeper.



If you were to actually need the 7000x5000 pixels, why would you go for the 645?

I mean personally, I don't need that size of image. But, let's say I did....

[sjwaldron]

Taking two completely random images and trying to compare them?

[Zygonyx]

Well, i think this kind of simplistic "comparison" (...) just ignores two very insignificant things :
- geometry / the medium format sensor is about x1,7 the 24x36 as far as surface is concerned. it doesn't matter much more than the difference btw 4/3 and APS-C, and almost the one btw APS-C and FF : hence quite more than nuances in photographic rendering...
- diffraction / according to the size of photosites ("pixels" for newbees or pixelpeepers...), will be noticeable as from f/5.6 to f/8 on D800 100% crops, whereas it appears as from f/13 on 645D.
But OK, this doesn't count much when people only count Megapixels.

[normhead]

Ya, I do it all the time... I know enough about the effects of one being back lit, one being shot by a guy who really knows what he's doing, one being shot by probably a complete amateur, believe it or not, you can actually look at two different images and compare. Now the conclusion i would reach wouldn't have anything to do with deciding whether the D800 or 645D were better, my conclusion would be that if I needed a 7000 x 5000 either would be good enough...which brings us back to the original point.

I wish we could get the guy who shot the european buildings with his 645 could give us an image or two at full size... the images I found for the 645D weren't very good.

But OK, this doesn't count much when people only count Megapixels.

The clarity of that D800 under my loupe in Aperture is bang on... better than my K20D could do even if I took 1/3 of the picture to give me the same pixel count. This looks like a really good sensor. Maybe they used millions of dollars worth of software to clean up the image, who knows... all I'm saying is it's not what I expected.

---

Last edited by normhead; 02-15-2012 at 03:37 PM.

[Zygonyx]

I understand your reactions, and am indeed curious to see more picts / tests with this D800.
It will, together with next rumored 45 Mpix Canon FF, be a great challenge to MF actual sensors as far as resolution is concerned.
We will see if MF sensor follow he same pixel inflation or not.

[normhead]

I understand your reactions, and am indeed curious to see more picts / tests with this D800.
It will, together with next rumored 45 Mpix Canon FF, be a great challenge to MF actual sensors as far as resolution is concerned.
We will see if MF sensor follow he same pixel inflation or not.

Would we even want them to though? At this point I'm hoping the K5 successor will come in somewhere between 20 and 24 Mp... I just have absolutely no use for more than 6000 pixels wide.. and would prefer an increase in IQ to an increase in Mp. A camera at 60 Mp absolutely has to be paid for by a contract...if I get a contract for a shoot that is going to pay me 60k... I won't mind spending 15 k on equipment... but that's not going to happen, and I even at 36 Mp and 40 Mp you are going way beyond what you need in most circumstances and invoking major performance hit in your PP software and storage costs. Paying for more than you need is almost as crazy as buying something that won't do the job. Although if you have the money and you are committed to making a mistake, I guess overkill is better. At least the job gets done.

[Zygonyx]

As far as i am concerned, i'd pay more attention to other sensor potentials such as dynamic range, native noise or colour rendering, than to Mpix inflation
But do you know about marketing ? That's the drive...

[normhead]

As far as i am concerned, i'd pay more attention to other sensor potentials such as dynamic range, native noise or colour rendering than to Mpix inflation

But what if you can have it all?

[itshimitis]

I understand your reactions, and am indeed curious to see more picts / tests with this D800.
It will, together with next rumored 45 Mpix Canon FF, be a great challenge to MF actual sensors as far as resolution is concerned.
We will see if MF sensor follow he same pixel inflation or not.

If Canon brought out a 5D mkIII at 45 mp. I'd certainly consider it as I already have Canon lenses from 12mm - 500mm, much of it L glass. My Pentax would still be my main rig. It would warrant consideration as a back up rig.

[phonoline]

your Pentax picture, normhead, looks like it is a JPEG generated by the 645D, not by i.e. Photoshop, taken directly from the RAW-file. Huuuge difference. I never shoot JPEG with my 645D cos the compression is plain awful. Nikon does a way better job there, at least my D700 does. But the RAW file of a 645D (with a good lens on it) will beat your D800 RAW by far.
I don't care if the 645D will last or not. It is a great camera NOW, I got great lenses (67 and 645 glass) NOW, and 40MP is definetely enough for me, NOW and probably for the next three, four years. The more pixel you get, the more money you will have to invest into a faster computer with insane amounts of RAM and harddrive capacity. A "normal" photographer can do these kinda hardware upgrades only every 5 to 7 years.


Btw, just looked at the sample images on the Nikon site again. I don't get the fuss about the D800. This sample, for instance (http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/img/sample01/img_02_l.jpg) shows clearly that the 645D can do a lot better job here as far as sharpness and details are concerned. The library picture looks plain awful to me and doesn't even come close to what a 645D could do here.

[mrclark321]

If you look back over the years you will probably see this argument over and over..... 4 mp why would you want any bigger, who needs 8 mp, 10 mp who needs 10 mp, 24mp who needs 24mp!!!! But here we are and everything changes as we move forward.
Today I ordered the D800 and when it gets here I will be trying both cameras side by side.

[normhead]

Too cool.... I love side by side comparisons... how else do you ever know anything for sure?

[Aboudd]

I'm old, so you will have to excuse me, but the D800 isn't out yet is it? So, these photos were pulled off sites, not shot with the actual cameras, correct? If so, and the same scene wasn't actually shot with the 645D and the D800 under the same conditions - ISO and lighting, how the hell is this a valid comparison?

[normhead]

Who said it was a valid comparison?

[bull drinkwater]

any comparison that doesn't pit the 645d against the 40 mp hassie and mamiya isn't worth much to me.