[westmill]

To my mind it can only produce as much detail the lens is capable of delivering, period.
With file sizes that big on a FF sensor though, it will be capable of super huge prints of billboard size without breaking up. For me, its just over the top and unnesercary.
There is a big demand for huge files though, which until now has only been available for those that can afford MF cameras. Im guessing those that have bought the MF systems are a bit unhappy right now, because the floodgates have just been opened to the masses.

[eddie1960]

I think, if you want to crop, and you have a picture at 36MP vs 12MP, that 36MP is going to fare WAAAAAAAY better after crop and downsize to match than the 10MP.

Jsherman made the clearest explanation I can see so far, his analogy with viewing the knife edge. Your cheaper lens may resolve perfectly fine on a 12MP camera, but it the 36MP may expose it it as blurry. But if you take that 12MP image and zoom in 200% the magnification of what you are viewing the 36MP at, you'll notice that it's not so different - and probably better on the 36MP camera.

The key point to understand is - professional photographers should know this. They aren't going to complain that the D800 makes their lenses useless. Pixel peepers who just measurebate will bring up this argument to complain against higher megapixels, or to complain against Nikon, or just complain - they don't bring up the whole truth.

And of course Nikon recommends their best lenses to get the best out of the camera. they after all want to sel you lenses as well. their best lenses have always been needed to get the best out of the camera LOL

[JinDesu]

And of course Nikon recommends their best lenses to get the best out of the camera. they after all want to sel you lenses as well. their best lenses have always been needed to get the best out of the camera LOL

Well yes - I'd do that if I was Nikon's marketing team too!

Tagline would be:

"A professional camera deserves professional lenses. Besides, you guys are professionals right? You got money! Come onnnnnnn.. Ashton Kutcher would want you to!"

[jsherman999]

To my mind it can only produce as much detail the lens is capable of delivering, period.
With file sizes that big on a FF sensor though, it will be capable of super huge prints of billboard size without breaking up. For me, its just over the top and unnesercary.

It's unnecessary for most folks, fully agreed. A D700 or K-5 or D7000 or even a K-x is a remarkable machine that 99% of us probably don't even fully utilize.

Frankly I am still having a hard time justifying an upgrade from my D700, even with all I know about the potential of the D800. D700 has faster FPS, smaller files, exceptional low-light capability, stellar AF, very good DR, etc, etc...

And I have never been able to pull the trigger on a K-5 - my K20D is doing just fine, still, and I know it very well. I'll work it out somehow.

[B Grace]

The camera system shopping advice back in the day was always to buy the lenses you want and then a camera to use with them. That's not as important today as it was with older lens designs but I think it's still good advice. I think many people just don't understand the importance of lens selection and I do frequently see folks using medium quality cameras with kit zoom lenses. That's nothing new though.

I would caution folks about the idea of buying a new camera system with the intent of buying older lenses to shoot unless there is a specific image quality goal in mind or the process is meant to be a hobby. Most folks should strictly shop new cameras with new lenses matched to those cameras. The reason I bought a Pentax DSLR was I owned several manual focus Pentax prime lenses from my days of shooting film and I've enjoyed using them on the DSLR.

As for Nikon, I would caution about going the prime lens route because most of the less expensive Nikkor primes are still out of date. They produced excellent results on film and still produce excellent results on digital when images are printed but many of the older primes are a step behind the modern zooms in image quality when those images are viewed electronically. I find my modern Nikon zooms (16-85 and 70-300 VR) appear to control diffraction better than my prime lenses. It's my opinion from shooting Nikon and Pentax gear on crop sensor DSLR cameras that the Nikon prime lenses don't stand up as well in terms of diffraction as the Pentax lenses with my AF20/2.8D Nikkor pretty much limited to F8 and wider. Above F8 my 16-85 is a better lens and as a prime lens shooter I find that to be a shame.

I'm very tempted by the D700 and D800 cameras, not just by the notion of proper focal lengths from my lenses but the options presented by using the full images the lenses were meant to convey to the film/sensor frame. We practically never cropped our prints in the darkroom to such a degree as the crop sensor cameras do so it's no surprise I'm not satisfied with the overall quality I get. I think the danger with Nikon cameras is simply in comparing something like a D800 against the crop sensor cameras and not the D700, D3, etc. From a practical view, I would think the capabilities of the D800 only point to the use of much better technique, not only the use of tripods but higher grade tripods, and better understanding of the mechanics of photography otherwise the image quality produced will be similar to that produced by any other camera.

[Rondec]

I think, if you want to crop, and you have a picture at 36MP vs 12MP, that 36MP is going to fare WAAAAAAAY better after crop and downsize to match than the 10MP.

Jsherman made the clearest explanation I can see so far, his analogy with viewing the knife edge. Your cheaper lens may resolve perfectly fine on a 12MP camera, but it the 36MP may expose it it as blurry. But if you take that 12MP image and zoom in 200% the magnification of what you are viewing the 36MP at, you'll notice that it's not so different - and probably better on the 36MP camera.

The key point to understand is - professional photographers should know this. They aren't going to complain that the D800 makes their lenses useless. Pixel peepers who just measurebate will bring up this argument to complain against higher megapixels, or to complain against Nikon, or just complain - they don't bring up the whole truth.

I don't think I made myself clear. When using a K100, I didn't crop as aggressively because images got pixelated faster, but it wasn't necessarily because I was noticing problems in technique or in lens sharpness. When I use my K5, I feel able to crop aggressively because of the extra megapixels, but then suddenly, my problems with technique, lens sharpness, etc become visible and those become the limiting factor.

As far as cropping ability, the K5/D7000 and D800 are exactly the same as far as I can tell (except that the D800 has a lot slower frame rate).

Anyway, I think the D800 is a great camera, it is just going be more difficult to have photos sharp at the pixel level on it versus the D700.

[westmill]

It's unnecessary for most folks, fully agreed. A D700 or K-5 or D7000 or even a K-x is a remarkable machine that 99% of us probably don't even fully utilize.

Frankly I am still having a hard time justifying an upgrade from my D700, even with all I know about the potential of the D800. D700 has faster FPS, smaller files, exceptional low-light capability, stellar AF, very good DR, etc, etc...

And I have never been able to pull the trigger on a K-5 - my K20D is doing just fine, still, and I know it very well. I'll work it out somehow.

Yes I think quality wise even 12 milion pixels is enough for most purposes. I use the Nikon D300 too which is without question an amizing bit of kit. I also have a D3s though which i use when light levels drop but its full frame. So I bought the K5 which is a pretty good match for quality to the D3s and is still APSC and is almost as good if not as good as the D3s which is pretty much the same as the D700 of course.
I have decided that 16 milion pixels is simply perfect and
I intend to stick with it now. Im hoping the K5 replacement is just a vastly improved K5 with the same sensor. It needs totaly different focus system and vastly better build and they will have a total winner on there hands. I expect the new D300 will have the same 16 milion pixel sensor very soon. That will take some beating. If pentax does it though, Pentax make far more afordable yummy lenses.

[jsherman999]

I find my modern Nikon zooms (16-85 and 70-300 VR) appear to control diffraction better than my prime lenses. It's my opinion from shooting Nikon and Pentax gear on crop sensor DSLR cameras that the Nikon prime lenses don't stand up as well in terms of diffraction as the Pentax lenses with my AF20/2.8D Nikkor pretty much limited to F8 and wider. Above F8 my 16-85 is a better lens and as a prime lens shooter I find that to be a shame.

Well, every lens I've ever seen starts to drop off after f/5.6, sometimes f/8 - so you should start seeing diffraction effects starting at f/11...

I don't know if you would find the Nikon 20 f/2.8D the very best wide landscape lens in it's lineup - I think that title would go to the 24 f/1.4 or the 14-24 2.8 zoom, but the strength of the 20 is it's performance wide-open, it's size, and it's price. It's my favorite 'indoor wide', because it's f/2.8 max aperture in combination with the D700's low light performance, it's a monster. (In a lot of ways, it's like my DA 15ltd - not the very best landscape lens in existence, but as a general-wide, with higher apertures and central subjects, one of the funnest primes I've shot.)

It sounds like you've shot the 20 on aps-c digital? If you have an opportunity to try it on FF digital, do so - it becomes equivalent to a 13mm f/1.8 on aps-c in terms of FOV/DOF. Also, try it at higher apertures, not just f/8, f/11, etc.

Snaps from my 20:

f/8

f/5.6 ISO 1000

f/4, f/2.8

f/2.8

f/2.8, f/8


f/4.5

As for Nikon, I would caution about going the prime lens route because most of the less expensive Nikkor primes are still out of date. They produced excellent results on film and still produce excellent results on digital when images are printed but many of the older primes are a step behind the modern zooms in image quality when those images are viewed electronically.

The Nikon primes I've tried extensively:

20 f/2.8D: Very good
24 f/2.8D: Average
28 f/2.8D: Poor
35 f/2D: Average
35 f/1.8G (DX): Very good
50 f/1.8D: Very good (surprised me!)
85 f/1.8D: Very good
105 f/2.5 AIS (MF): Excellent
180 f/2.8 AF-N: Excellent
300 f/4 AF: Excellent

(I've shot several others also, not enough to form an opinion.)



.

[bossa]

These opinions are likely to change when the same lenses are tried on a D800 though. Thanks for the list though as I'll keep it close for my own purposes.

[B Grace]

Well, every lens I've ever seen starts to drop off after f/5.6, sometimes f/8 - so you should start seeing diffraction effects starting at f/11...

I don't know if you would find the Nikon 20 f/2.8D the very best wide landscape lens in it's lineup - I think that title would go to the 24 f/1.4 or the 14-24 2.8 zoom, but the strength of the 20 is it's performance wide-open, it's size, and it's price. It's my favorite 'indoor wide', because it's f/2.8 max aperture in combination with the D700's low light performance, it's a monster. (In a lot of ways, it's like my DA 15ltd - not the very best landscape lens in existence, but as a general-wide, with higher apertures and central subjects, one of the funnest primes I've shot.)

It sounds like you've shot the 20 on aps-c digital? If you have an opportunity to try it on FF digital, do so - it becomes equivalent to a 13mm f/1.8 on aps-c in terms of FOV/DOF. Also, try it at higher apertures, not just f/8, f/11, etc.

Yes, I'm shooting crop sensor Nikon and my odd experience has been my 60 and 105 macros are excellent through most of their aperture ranges. I wouldn't have expected to see decent results from apertures beyond F11 in some instances for those two lenses. And I used a 50/1.8 for almost ten years but ended up trading it for a 50/1.4 for what I can only descibe as a less clinical look and something closer to my Pentax 50/1.4. I find images from my 50/1.4 have something substantial about them in terms of clarity and texture.

I agree about the 20/2.8 in that it's a great lens when opened up. I just wasn't expecting my 16-85 to be cleaner than the 20 at narrower apertures but it makes sense. I knew of the reputation for the 20/2.8 before I bought mine but I wanted it for its compact size and FOV - it does make a great 30mm walk-about lens as is obvious in your images above. I can certainly shoot landscapes at wider apertures provided I keep my eye on the amount of foreground in a shot. On APS-C I'd say F8 is borderline with the 20.

Thanks for your comments. I find the D700/D800 cameras tempting precisely because of my 20/2.8 and macro prime lenses. I find it odd that friends currently shooting D3 and D700 cameras are only interested in the zooms but then again the modern F2.8 Nikkor zooms are probably worth the money. I did buy a Nikkormat FT3 (at 1/30th the price of a D800) to shoot film with my Nikkor primes so I guess I am shooting full frame in one sense.

[Wired]

I know this is an old thread, but I want to showcase that you do NOT need the most expensive glass to get the most from a D800.

There are some gems out there that are quite inexpensive. I have only one Nikkor that is over $1000 and that's the 80-200 f2.8 D. I even bought a Zeiss 50mm f1.4 and compared to the 50mm f1.8 G from Nikon, I prefer the rendering of the 50mm f1.8 G.

Images:



Tokina 17-35mm f4 ($600)



Tokina 17-35mm f4 ($600)



Nikon 50mm f1.8 G ($250)



Zeiss 50mm f1.4 ($600)



Nikon 24mm f2.8 D ($350)



Nikon 85mm f1.8 G ($500)



Nikon 85mm f1.8 G ($500)



Composite using Nikon 80-200 f2.8 ($1000)

[cali92rs]

I really like the bike shot. Im an ultra wide angle sucker.

I know this is an old thread, but I want to showcase that you do NOT need the most expensive glass to get the most from a D800.

There are some gems out there that are quite inexpensive. I have only one Nikkor that is over $1000 and that's the 80-200 f2.8 D. I even bought a Zeiss 50mm f1.4 and compared to the 50mm f1.8 G from Nikon, I prefer the rendering of the 50mm f1.8 G.

Images:



Tokina 17-35mm f4 ($600)



Tokina 17-35mm f4 ($600)



Nikon 50mm f1.8 G ($250)



Zeiss 50mm f1.4 ($600)



Nikon 24mm f2.8 D ($350)



Nikon 85mm f1.8 G ($500)



Nikon 85mm f1.8 G ($500)



Composite using Nikon 80-200 f2.8 ($1000)

[mikeSF]

Great focus catch on the bike shot. I like that

[interested_observer]

I know this is an old thread, but I want to showcase that you do NOT need the most expensive glass to get the most from a D800.

There are some gems out there that are quite inexpensive.

The images are wonderful !! I especially like the silhouette effects and the irradiance blue sky coupled with the shadows.

I do like the recognition of good glass not having to cost an arm and a leg. Rico was always an advocate of the approach!

[K-9]

Good glass doesn't have to mean expensive glass. The 50mm f1.8 D is Nikon's cheapest lens, but also one of their sharpest.