Nikon D700 camera
May 23, 2016 05:30:22 #
ken hubert wrote:
Nobody cares what you think. All trashman think their garbage is gorgeous.
Perhaps a trip back to grade school to learn some basic grammar might make your life more enjoyable, and not make you look some much like the _____ (fill in the blank!) that you are!
May 23, 2016 05:59:02 #
Kiron Kid wrote:
What size of quality prints can I expect to get from this camera?
Thanks
Thanks
I've printed and sold 40x60 prints, modestly cropped (mainly straightening the horizon), made with my D700. And my D300. And my D200 (10 mp). And my D70 (6 mp). I have also printed and sold several panos, 30x90 give or take with the D700 and the D300 -
The notion that you need more megapixels for larger prints is basically a myth. There is no magic done to the many iPhone 6 camera images put on billboards that you see all over town, and that camera is only 8 mp. And the billboards are huge.
FYI, for a 40x60 you only need to print it to 32 ppi, so all you "need" is 1280x1920, or roughly 2.5 mp. So a 40x60 printed with a 6 mp image looks pretty good, and using a 12 mp image allows you to crop.
This is an accurate and great explanation of why:
http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_which_resolution_print_size_viewing_distance.htm
Try reading the small print in a newspaper at a distance of 5 ft. You can't. But it's easy when the newspaper is only 16" away.
The only time you need more resolution on a large print is when you are expecting photographers - who will walk up to the large print, take out their loupe, and start examining the individual pixels.
May 23, 2016 06:01:40 #
rwilson1942 wrote:
http://www.hermansgallery.com/T-page_Sensor%20res-vs-prints.html
This guy sounds like he doesn't print large prints, making the advice questionable at best.
Go to any print shop that makes signs - they will tell you how it works, and how many pixels you need to make an image.
May 23, 2016 07:24:40 #
Clearly the discussion has gone SOUTH!
The use of personal attack has nothing to do with the original question.
Clearly experience and general practice can easily demonstrate that a 12mb image can produce far in excess of an 8X10 print with no visible pixilation in the print.
The use of personal attack has nothing to do with the original question.
Clearly experience and general practice can easily demonstrate that a 12mb image can produce far in excess of an 8X10 print with no visible pixilation in the print.
May 23, 2016 07:32:08 #
paulrph1
Loc: Washington, Utah
CaptainC wrote:
Fine with me. You are welcome to wallow in your ignorance. You can accept knowledge or not.
I am with you Captain. I have made many 16 by 24 with a D90 (12 megapixels) and they have been fantastic and won ribbons at the county fair. This camera is twice that size and the photos are phenomenal.
May 23, 2016 07:46:19 #
CaptainC wrote:
Well, I disagree. Strongly.
I have made gorgeous 16x24 prints and larger would be no issue. Going larger will NOT pixelate the image if you know what you are doing.
I have made gorgeous 16x24 prints and larger would be no issue. Going larger will NOT pixelate the image if you know what you are doing.
I have sold 20x30 prints that I shot with a D700. The 12mp sensor is more than capable. BUT, if you have to crop your image you will lose resolution. Also, I recommend that you shoot NEF and do all of your PP in a lossless format, and only export to JPEG for the final printing.
May 23, 2016 08:14:06 #
CaptainC wrote:
You need to check out Ken Hubert's posts in the Attic. You will realize why nothing he says is of any value.
Evidently his photographic knowledge is not so great.
I should add that he never addresses the issue - only spews insults. Juvenile ones at that. Sad old man.
So back to the OP's question: We can make 16x24, and 20x30 prints easily with D700 files.
Evidently his photographic knowledge is not so great.
I should add that he never addresses the issue - only spews insults. Juvenile ones at that. Sad old man.
So back to the OP's question: We can make 16x24, and 20x30 prints easily with D700 files.
I agree with CaptainC. I have a D700 and a D810 and even though I can print bigger with the D810, the D700 gives me all the size I want to afford for prints on the wall. I had a 13 X 19 printer for a while and have 50 prints in my file at that size that are awesome. If the original questioner wants to buy a D700 and is worried about resolution, he does not have to. Just get the camera and have fun. they are so cheap now it is almost "chump change" and are still used by professionals for great shots.
May 23, 2016 08:15:19 #
I have read all of these post and I decided to reply because I personally own two Nikon D700's. I work for the Federal Reserve and in Jacksonville, Fl at the Federal Reserve Bank, there are four pictures hanging on the wall of a conference room taken by me with a D700. The pictures are 48x48. Yes you read right, 48x48. Remember that the D700 is a full frame camera. Don't get stuck on how many pixels. Size of the sensor is more important. The D700 is one of the best cameras Nikon has ever made. At one time it was one of the best wedding cameras out there. I still use it at weddings sometimes along with my D750. To this day it still makes beautiful prints. For those of you who don't believe this, look it up and do your research or you are more than welcome to come by the Federal Reserve Bank in Jacksonville, Fl and I will show you. If anyone is planning to buy one used, go right ahead. It will still outperform many cameras today.
May 23, 2016 08:18:41 #
Me, being a retired professional photographer now, have made 30x40 prints with the D700. So I don't understand what these guys previously are talking about when they quote such small sizes of prints. There is no pixellating at this size for a portrait. I could probably go even larger in size, but this is the standard wall portrait for our studio.
May 23, 2016 08:19:18 #
Kiron Kid wrote:
What size of quality prints can I expect to get from this camera?
Thanks
Thanks
It depends on how far away from them you are. I doubt there is any realistic upper size limit if you don't get too close to the image. I suspect there is a formula for this.
May 23, 2016 08:43:12 #
CaptainC is totally correct. I have done a poster shot under less than ideal conditions which was 24x36 and gotten many compliments on it. It was done with a D700 and an 80-200 2.8. I have also done some smaller which were as good as it gets.
May 23, 2016 08:45:48 #
MtnMan wrote:
It depends on how far away from them you are. I doubt there is any realistic upper size limit if you don't get too close to the image. I suspect there is a formula for this.
Look at the link in my first response or here:
http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_which_resolution_print_size_viewing_distance.htm
May 23, 2016 08:52:19 #
May 23, 2016 09:11:39 #
dandi wrote:
I don't understand why would you come up with such post. I always read with interest what Captain posts, he has a lot of knowledge and experience to share.
May 23, 2016 09:25:10 #
I am another who has sold a number of images from my D700 that are 24x36 inch and printed on aluminum - apparently some folks know everything "in theory" but are clueless as to how things really work.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.