jackpi Loc: Southwest Ohio

Did you use a tripod? Did you use mirror lockup? Did you use a 5 second delay in shutter release? If not, your test did not remove significant sources of error.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Very interesting. This really shows how new technology and more mp do count.
Too bad that you have to spend big bucks for quality now vs film days a Nikkormat with the same lens as a F2 took the same quality of photo.
Oh well.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

Holy S___, jackpi. If you will click on the hyper link that I posted at the beginning of this post, you will see that I: A) used a heavy-as-hell tripod B) used exposure delay of 5 seconds to give mirror-up vibration free results. I took the shots as I would if I were in the field trying to get my best image of a spectacular scenic landscape. Honestly????

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

Right with you on this, Architect. Before digital changed the landscape of photography, using these same techniques I could have got exactly the same quality images with my trusty Nikon FM or my Nikon F4S on a Fujichrome Velvia slide. Still, I carried the F4 for protection (heavy sucker, could stop a charging bull).

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

And that is my gripe that those of modest means are absolutely condemned to take inferior quality photos. They might have great technique etc. but still condemned to inferior "Film" to work with.

adamsg Loc: Chubbuck, ID

Very interesting. A picture is worth a thousand words and these shots are definitive about the improvement in resolution in the newest Nikons. Thanks for posting these.

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

I have the D7200 but not D750 - I am waiting till next year for my FF purchase - waiting to see offerings from Nikon and others. I am sure someone, somewhere made this apples-to-apples comparison - Well DX apple to FX apple :) .

Actually I love the classic look and feel of the Df but just wish Nikon bumped up the MP to 20 or 24 - which I think they will do in the next generation of Df...also I hope they would lower the price a bit but I am afraid it will remain a niche interest enthusiast product with high price due to low volume. I remember in the early 2000s when the most advanced digital cameras were in the single digit MP, experts were saying when the sensors got to 16 MP it would equal the resolution of 35mm film (well, possibly not Kodachrome 25/64 which is now obsolete anyway). Well, we reached and passed that level. Also, 16MP is nothing to brush off - people normally don't view pictures at such high magnification for normal sized purposes - web, small to medium and even larger prints. My first digicam was an Oly 3030 3.3 MP (max ISO 400!) which made nice prints up to 8x10 (of course that is now bested by today's double digit MP cameras).

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

C-Op, I agree. I jumped for joy when the Df was introduced. When I saw 16MP, I went WTF? With all of the 24MP cameras around, why 16? I was told the reason was to give it better low light results, since there was no pop-up flash (pretty lame). I keep hearing rumors about a Df2 with 24MP. I'd sure like to think so.

pmackd Loc: Alameda CA

Despite the dramatic differences in test results for these three Nikon cameras if you take shots in good light with them of the same scene, don't crop, make 20 x 30 inch prints and view them from a NORMAL viewing distance of more than two feet you would be hard pressed to see any difference at all. Even with 20 x 20 vision. The reason I say this is that I have 20 x 30 prints made with three different 16 or 24 Mp Nikon DSLRs all over my house, and in order to see any lack of detail/sharpness whatsoever I have to get up close and/or use a magnifying glass. Which is to say that the advantages of the latest high Mp cameras come into play mainly when you have to crop, make very large prints, or deal with poor lighting situations.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

pmackd, I could even say the same for the 12MP D700, whose enlarged box I did not post. Especially, if like 20x30s are not hung side-by-side, all four of the cameras I tested will produce high quality "WOW factor" enlarged prints. I have heard that even a 6MP D40 "can" produce perfectly acceptable 20x30s, given the use of good photographic technique. But let's face it, this site is the domain of "photophiles" who have a passion for the craft and, in many cases, want to make the "best quality" images possible. I don't think we are interested in collecting toys (well, not ALL of us). We just want to keep improving the quality of the images we make.

Novicus Loc: north and east

cameraf4 `s results are Valid , in that it shows the capabillities of the camera`s ...as they would be under real life conditions, as they were Tested under Real Life Conditions..any chance of pitching them against the D3X ? ( Yes , I do have the D3X but no possibillity of a D850 ,which sure looks a mayor contender to me ) and yes , I have read the entire thread.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

Thanks for looking and reading, Novicus. I don't have a D3X but I would be very interested in seeing a similar test results using a D3x (or actually any other 24MP Nikon, FF or DX) vs a D810 or D850. Why? Just because I'm a nosey bugger, I guess.

Novicus Loc: north and east

Any chance of repeating the test under low light conditions , as that is where the D3X falls a little short compared to my D3S....just to have an Idea of the D850 capability there.

I do appreciate your efforts , Thanks !!

John Howard Loc: SW Florida and Blue Ridge Mountains of NC.

In following this thread I note that nobody comparing cameras has mentioned two things. The 850 with all those MPs requires the best glass to take advantage of the resolution and the more pixels and the smaller pixels make larger the camera more vulnerable to micro blur which means less hand held and more tripod work. When I moved from the 300s to the 8xx series I really have to up my game in shooting technique and lens quality.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Not "lame" at all - they know what they are doing. If you look at the DxOMark results, the top three "sports" {a measure of high ISO performance} Nikon performers are FF cameras with 16MP or lower density sensors.