[slackercruster]

Imaging Resource has samples up for both

Imaging Resource "Comparometer"

Thanks!

[eddie1960]

I agree you can get excellent results witheven the older 6mp cameras (i still have my ds) , but the caveat is that comparing images on a monitor that have been downsized is futile at best
the best way is still to compare controlled images at full resolution.
If you want to print large though the 6mp has it's limits. @ 13x19 they get noticeably soft, and that continues as you print larger (I've still printed some larger because the image was one i wanted larger, but certainly if I had shot the same image on my k7 with the same lens it would have looked better on the large print. Same will hold true on a D800 or a 645D. hte decision then is can you justify the costs to yourself for the marginal improvements versus say just getting a K5 or it's replacement. For me for now the answer is no since i just don't have the cash (or really the need for what I do)> If OTOH I was doing this for a living full time and doing a lot of studio work I would seriously be considering the Nikon or the 645D
If I won a lottery tomorrow I'd probably order the Nikon just because the lenses are easier to come by, but I'd also run a Pentax system with FA limiteds and a few other lenses as a smaller walk around solution (and if a Pentax FF was announced I'd have my order in at the shop the next day)
Heck if a FF is announced in the fall I will struggle with my choice for next body (no big rush the K7 is still a very fine camera inmost scenarios) lottery or not

BTW Imaging resource has full size samples going back to the ist D you could download and compare to the more modern sizes. if you re size both to 8mp is will give direct comparisons in performance (8mp is the size DXO does their comparisons at)

[RonHendriks1966]

Well I hope Pentax doesn't enter this territory for FF and stops at 24 megapixel (or even for 20 megapixel).

[falconeye]

Where are some high grade sample photos of the D800?

-> https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/non-pentax-cameras-canon-nikon-etc/173280...ml#post1880574

and other posts in that thread. DxO is not about discussing sample images

The Imaging Resource and DPR samples are poor compared to the average quality from talented photographers who are posting their first batch of photos now.

[eddie1960]

-> https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/non-pentax-cameras-canon-nikon-etc/173280...ml#post1880574



The Imaging Resource and DPR samples are poor compared to the average quality from talented photographers who are posting their first batch of photos now.

I agree but since imaging resource has a consistent scene over the years it allows for a fair comparison for the most part. I'm actually looking forward to the comparisons Luminous landscape does. In general I think they do an excellent job and cut a lot of the gear head clutter and get to how it performs from a photographers perspective (and they will have a pretty good sample pool for comparison shots though unfortunately no 645D or Leica S2 - the 2 cameras most likely to be compared as I think most people would acknowledge the 80mp Hassy as a superior studio unit which they have tested but don't own.)

[falconeye]

I agree but since imaging resource has a consistent scene over the years it allows for a fair comparison for the most part.

Actually not. I even had an email conversation with IR about this. They don't care about a very accurate focus or proper selection of lens. And they are right! What does everybody expect? The resolution of a camera is a known. Just look up the number of pixels from the data sheet. Everything else is linked to a photographer's experience.

What IR tries to provide is a comparison of noise and how noise affects textures and colors. But not resolution.

[slackercruster]

I agree you can get excellent results witheven the older 6mp cameras (i still have my ds) , but the caveat is that comparing images on a monitor that have been downsized is futile at best
the best way is still to compare controlled images at full resolution.
If you want to print large though the 6mp has it's limits. @ 13x19 they get noticeably soft, and that continues as you print larger (I've still printed some larger because the image was one i wanted larger, but certainly if I had shot the same image on my k7 with the same lens it would have looked better on the large print. Same will hold true on a D800 or a 645D. hte decision then is can you justify the costs to yourself for the marginal improvements versus say just getting a K5 or it's replacement. For me for now the answer is no since i just don't have the cash (or really the need for what I do)> If OTOH I was doing this for a living full time and doing a lot of studio work I would seriously be considering the Nikon or the 645D
If I won a lottery tomorrow I'd probably order the Nikon just because the lenses are easier to come by, but I'd also run a Pentax system with FA limiteds and a few other lenses as a smaller walk around solution (and if a Pentax FF was announced I'd have my order in at the shop the next day)
Heck if a FF is announced in the fall I will struggle with my choice for next body (no big rush the K7 is still a very fine camera inmost scenarios) lottery or not

BTW Imaging resource has full size samples going back to the ist D you could download and compare to the more modern sizes. if you re size both to 8mp is will give direct comparisons in performance (8mp is the size DXO does their comparisons at)

Sure, the high mp dslr's will excel at giant prints. But for me it does not matter. I don't have any more wall space to put up much. Sadly, no room for any prints larger than a postage stamp. I only view on the 'puter 99.99999% of the time. So 6-12mp is fine. And even if $ was no object, Would not go for the Nikon...it does not run on 4 AA's...so fudge them!

---

Last edited by slackercruster; 03-28-2012 at 10:07 AM.

[eddie1960]

HAHA I forgot the AA thing At this point unless you work with a grip that has the AA tray I think you're pretty much locked into older cameras on the used market. I doubt we will see another AA body from anyone i can see why you won't be printing anytime soon
I have a show every once in a while so I print and frequently 20x24 and larger so for me it holds an appeal, but the price doesn't fir with the income generated....maybe if I put the effort into it being full time It would be different

[tuco]

...
I don't have any more wall space to put up much.

If you didn't take the mirror off the ceiling for that shot, you have plenty of room for more pictures there.

[slackercruster]

I've been thinking about the ceiling...but am trying not to be excessive.

[GreenMachine]

DXO stats, gear reviews and the such make for some very entertaining reading . . it's when you take those cameras out on assignment in the real world is where you'll see just how good for the money they are. There's a lot of factors involved with digital . . . like when Nikon records a NEF and before it hits the card there's NEF processing being done. Then you have post processing where images are being doctored up even more. I've used a lot of Nikon cameras and my favorites are the F3HP, F4 and F5 for film. The D2Xs and D3x for digital. Kind of funny how the Nikon D1 was the greatest camera . . . .so they said back then . . . We all know it's about marketing and generating sales . . . Built in repeat business every few years.

[eddie1960]

My cousin just got the D800 for his fine art work (all macro printed huge) previously he would rent a D3. At the show he just opened on the weekend there were large prints from both (ie 5 to 6 feet) and I have to say they were both more than capable, but walking around i could pick out the D800 shots (only 2 of 8, the rest of the show was his abstract paintings (the macros are actually a world within the abstracts a pretty cool show I thought)
OTOH he gets $6500-$8500 for the works and more than double that for the paintings (well he gets 50% of it the gallery gets the rest) so he can afford the D800 I guess - (though the prints set him back in the range of $1000 each )