I found this disappointing. Do you agree? (Page 5): Like many things in life, it is all about perception. If the higher number of pixels make whatever blur that is present more...

TchrBill Loc: Houston, TX

lesdmd wrote:

I won't pretend to have a definitive answer, but the people on this website: http://community.the-digital-picture.com/showthread.php?t=5708 seem to provide some convincing arguments that more pixels do not increase blur, they only make whatever is already there more apparent.

Like many things in life, it is all about perception. If the higher number of pixels make whatever blur that is present more obvious, a lesser trained eye would be able to notice it more easily, thus, the perception would be more blur.

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

Nikon13 wrote:

I am going to copy paste a Facebook post from one ... (show quote)

My take on this is that the instructor read an article about the D800e, which has no anti-aliasing filter, and may be confused about the models. It requires the photographer to be more astute about how they take photos, and takes considerable instruction, apparently. I've seen numerous articles on the subject. But none of them had anything but the highest of praise for the D800/D800e. It has me thinking rather hard, but I'm gonna wait on the D400 to see what that's about.

jlrivera Loc: Round Lake, Illinois

MT Shooter wrote:

quote=DANthephotoMAN quote=effrant To each his o... (show quote)

:lol: :lol: :lol:

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

When I need higher resolution, I just load Velvia into my film cameras - preferably Pentax 645 - and scan to 36MP or higher !

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

imagemeister wrote:

When I need higher resolution, I just load Velvia into my film cameras - preferably Pentax 645 - and scan to 36MP or higher !

Thats still the best way to get a great High Res image! Far better than digital.

shadow1284 Loc: Mid-West Michigan

And when I go back to film I will do exactly that.
But don't hold your breath, You might get dizzy.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

shadow1284 wrote:

And when I go back to film I will do exactly that.
But don't hold your breath, You might get dizzy.

Its easy to "go back" when you have never left! Here is a medium format Pentax 645 shot that I just scanned at low-res from an old negative and posted, Nothing like them:

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-29381-1.html

jackndaback Loc: Florida

MT Shooter wrote:

shadow1284 wrote:

And when I go back to film I will do exactly that.
But don't hold your breath, You might get dizzy.

Its easy to "go back" when you have never left! Here is a medium format Pentax 645 shot that I just scanned at low-res from an old negative and posted, Nothing like them:

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-29381-1.html

MT Shooter. Your posts are so informative. I so much enjoy your photographic talents. Alaskan and yourself are envied by this DOF for your abilities, knowledge and living in a location with such raw beauty is everywhere. I long for the opportunity to be in the Northwest one more time. From Ashi Pentax to Digital(50D) would be rewarding also.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

jackndaback wrote:

quote=MT Shooter quote=shadow1284 And when I go ... (show quote)

Thank you. But Florida has many photographic opportunities also.

Sunrisepano Loc: West Sub of Chicago

jkaye65 wrote:

Now come on.....do I look like I was taking you se... (show quote)

GOP <> DEM !! DEM>< GOP!! If we follow the GOP we will be going in circles to the right and if we follow the DEM we circle to the left, get nowhere either way.

A little of each and we move forward, a bit zig-zaggy, but forward just the same.

Sunrisepano Loc: West Sub of Chicago

shadow1284 wrote:

Well hea, if it's more megapixels you want, I think you can get a 50mp Hassellblad for about the price of, I think, maybe, Oh,Ten or twelve canon 7ds.
I have a Canon 7d and with a little patience am making some really great photos that still fit on my walls.

Why settle for 50 megapixel. Phase One has 80 megapixel backs for medium and large format cameras. Of course, you have a choice, 80 megpixels or a new car :roll:

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Sunrisepano wrote:

shadow1284 wrote:

Well hea, if it's more megapixels you want, I think you can get a 50mp Hassellblad for about the price of, I think, maybe, Oh,Ten or twelve canon 7ds.
I have a Canon 7d and with a little patience am making some really great photos that still fit on my walls.

Why settle for 50 megapixel. Phase One has 80 megapixel backs for medium and large format cameras. Of course, you have a choice, 80 megpixels or a new car :roll:

A very NICE new car!

Sunrisepano Loc: West Sub of Chicago

pakeha wrote:

Your kidding right? If pixels are similar to resolution (of the sensor) what is the diffrence from shooting a film camera with high resolution black and white film? I am pretty confident that depixelation would have a hard time equaling the resolution of say Ilford PF25 film. Perhaps Nikon in their wisdom have found the need to "explain" to those who will find themselves in a more strict picture taking environment.

Back in the days of film,(AHHH, can anyone remember that far back?) the pros would travel the seminar circuit telling all that you need to use medium format cameras, not those pesky little 35mm toys. More film real estate = more silver halides = better quality.

Then they would take a breath and tell us how they would underexpose the film and over process to increase the grain size.

Kind of like using a sledge hammer to do fine detail work and having to add some sort of support for the hammer so you don't destroy the fine details.

Use the right tool for the job at hand. Shooting a postcard, I don't think you need the 36 megapixel Nikon or the 80 megapixel Phase One. Saving the 4 generation 80 member family for posterity, don't you dare show up with your i-phone or i-pad.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Sunrisepano: "Then they would take a breath and tell us how they would underexpose the film and over process to increase the grain size." Do I detect their confusion? Or do I detect that they had a basis for argument and for another lecture?

Indeed if film were all that good www.Clarkvision.com, Clark being an astrophysicist would still be using film. In some of his graphs, he shows film and it is low on the hierarchy of ability to record events!! Wanna buy some old Seattle film works roll film? Sorry I have none left. I was so proud to get a CD with my photos,,,, oops no real resolution by todays standards!

What do I miss about the good ol Pentax K-1000 days? I miss, the quick setting and focus while checking out the subject thru the eye view. We were quick and had full control of the action. (is that an illusion of an aging man??) Automatic equipment controlling exposure and focus is convenient, but can screw you up!!

Bruce with a Canon Loc: Islip

MT Shooter wrote:

Obviously another Canon shooter.

ouch, Say the folks at Hasselblad seem to make high pixel resolution work, 38-50mp available ( for the price of a corvette)

maybe the folks reviewing the D800 lack something?