Nikon vs Nikon vs Nikon
cameraf4 wrote:
joer and kb6, just shows how quickly technology is changing. I didn't post a "close-up" from the D700 set because it was just too disappointing. Some of my favorite images were taken on a trip-of-a-lifetime to the Canadian Rockies when the D700 was at/near top-of-the-line (
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-497005-1.html). Now that I see results from the D850, I wonder how much better they all would have been if I had had that camera for the trip.
"on the other hand"
Your Canadian Rockies images are really very good and the first image here was taken with your D700, the box in that is sharp enough to read. That speaks well for a 'vintage' camera. I wouldn't hesitate to bring one along as a back up.
It tells me that having almost 3 times the number of pixels don't look that much better.
Rich, the D700 will always stay with me. When I first decided to "go digital", I used a 10MP D80. Hated it, mostly because I hadn't known about the "crop factor" and my wide angle lenses suffered greatly with it. The D700 (being FF) restored my love for photography (maybe a tad too much), so it will always have a special place in my heart. However, most likely, I will retire it to a place of honor and use the D850 and the Df. Still not sure if I will sell my D800 to one of the 3 friends who say they want to buy it. Only has 4700 shutter clicks on it (I really need to get out more).
And, Bebu, for me there is the "fun factor" with the Df. I'm no spring chicken anymore and it "hikes" so much better than a heavy D700/800/850 style camera. Especially when I use it with my Nikkor AF 28-200mm G, a super sharp, super light lens.
cameraf4 wrote:
And, Bebu, for me there is the "fun factor" with the Df. I'm no spring chicken anymore and it "hikes" so much better than a heavy D700/800/850 style camera. Especially when I use it with my Nikkor AF 28-200mm G, a super sharp, super light lens.
From one not spring chicken to another, for me long hikes are a thing of the past. A short walk from the car makes your gear a lot lighter. Keep the 700/800/850 warmed up and ready to go! Seriously there are still many opportunities for good photos that don't require long hikes.
Rich, I know what you mean. In my "advancing years" most of my "hikes" are limited to "from the parking area to the overlook." Anything more than 2 miles round trip requires serious thought beforehand. Even an easy "boardwalk hike" like the one to the foot of Dingmans Falls makes me labor a bit.
joer wrote:
Nikon vs Nikon vs Nikon:
I'd say Nikon wins.
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
cameraf4 wrote:
A while back I posted that I had done a short test with my various Nikon DSLRs. [
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-499318-1.html]. Jery said that he would be interested in seeing some of what I found. I sent him this and he said I should post it here in case others would be interested.
This first image is "the scene" as it appeared to me from camera position. That brown thing 90feet away is a box I chose because it is roughly the same shape as my monitor and it has readable type. Next is a 1000 pixel wide image of the box from the Df images, followed by similar images from the D800 and finally the D850.
A while back I posted that I had done a short test... (
show quote)
There are so many, many, many, many variables here your shots prove nothing except that you took some snapshots in your back yard in direct sun.
cameraf4 wrote:
Rich, I know what you mean. In my "advancing years" most of my "hikes" are limited to "from the parking area to the overlook." Anything more than 2 miles round trip requires serious thought beforehand. Even an easy "boardwalk hike" like the one to the foot of Dingmans Falls makes me labor a bit.
Borrowing a line from Gordon Lightfoot, "bin creeping round my back stair"?
I am not far from Dingmans Falls but I haven't been there in years. In fact I don't recall a boardwalk, so it must be decades. shame on me!
"There are so many, many, many, many variables here your shots prove nothing except that you took some snapshots in your back yard in direct sun." Jerry told me there would be people like you. OK, I'll bite. Assuming that you actually read my post, what "variables" did I not take into account?
cameraf4 :
Your Test-Photo`s were Showing the True Capabillities of that D850....the Marginal differences on the Grey part of the box....what a Fantastic Rendering of Minute detail !!!...even my D3X would have trouble there.
John Howard
Loc: SW Florida and Blue Ridge Mountains of NC.
I can appreciate the differences in output but I don't understand two things. Firstly, did you use all cameras on the same settings, from F stop to Mirror-Up? (Don't know if the cameras are that similar.) And if these are 1000 pixel images, but the cameras have different sensors, shouldn't the images be different sizes? If a 50mm, these are crops. But the images come from different number of sensor pixels. You'd think more pixels like the D810 would be a sharper image, unless there was some form of focus or movement blur.
Hi, John. Actually, yes, as per my explanation of the conditions of the test (click on hyprlink) I set all the cameras to exactly the same settings and used Exposure Delay of 5 seconds for mirror-up vibration redux. Yes, the original files are of different sizes, but my aim was to see how much difference there would be if one wanted to print the images for display, say in 16x24 or some other enlarged size. Actually, I'm thinking that more pixels PLUS greater dynamic range both make the D850 images appear "sharper".
cameraf4 wrote:
A while back I posted that I had done a short test with my various Nikon DSLRs. [
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-499318-1.html]. Jery said that he would be interested in seeing some of what I found. I sent him this and he said I should post it here in case others would be interested.
This first image is "the scene" as it appeared to me from camera position. That brown thing 90feet away is a box I chose because it is roughly the same shape as my monitor and it has readable type. Next is a 1000 pixel wide image of the box from the Df images, followed by similar images from the D800 and finally the D850.
A while back I posted that I had done a short test... (
show quote)
yes not unexpected and really unfair to pit a 16mp Df vs 36mp/45mp sensors. Do the same test with a 24mp D7200 vs a 24mp D750 and fill the frame with the same image. For this test you will need a zoom @ 100mm for D7200 and @ 150mm for the D750....use same lens on both. The D800/800e/810 can also be compared this way - all 36 mp except all at same focal length.
Actually, c-optical, I don't own a D750 or a D7200. If you do, I'd love to see your test results (can I be more of a Nerd?). The test, from my stand point, is to show me when, if I am before a landscape of extra beauty, I would need to use the D850 rather than my trusty Df. For the most part, I am very happy with my images from the Df. But, since from now on I will be carrying both, if the scene is special (and un-repeatable), I will want as much detail as I can possibly get.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.