Custom Search
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 3.4K All Categories
- 34 Nikon Z lenses
- 77 Nikon Z cameras
- 1.4K Nikon DSLR cameras
- 11 Df
- 237 D6x0/D7x0/D8x0
- 27 D300/D300s/D500
- 29 D3x00
- 45 D3/D4/D5
- 31 D5x00
- 94 D90/D7x00
- 387 Nikon Lenses
- 9 Videos, Nikon et. al.
- 52 Nikon 1
- 18 Nikon Film Cameras
- 56 Nikon Flashes
- 25 Nikon Compact Cameras
- 48 Nikon Software
- 26 Nikon Deals
- 767 General Discussions
- 49 Gear Reviews
- 182 Other Manufacturers
- 105 Fun & Weird
- 128 Photo-a-day
In this Discussion
Who's Online (0)
Disclaimer: This site has no affiliation with Nikon Corporation or any of its subsidiary.
Disclosure: [NR] is sponsored by displaying advertising banners and links.
All trademarks and brands belong to their respective owners.
Want to advertise on NikonRumors.com? Contact [NR].
Copyright © 2008-2017 NikonRumors.com.
See our Privacy Policy.
Disclosure: [NR] is sponsored by displaying advertising banners and links.
All trademarks and brands belong to their respective owners.
Want to advertise on NikonRumors.com? Contact [NR].
Copyright © 2008-2017 NikonRumors.com.
See our Privacy Policy.
Comments
Practically, the future of super high resolution photography is decent medium format (real medium format, not the pretenders currently being offered by Fuji, Hasselblad and Pentax), not super expensive FX.
My opinion of course.
For some it is important to be right and superior. For me, images alone speak for who we are as artists."
There are several people on NR that have the attitude (look at all the equipment I own, look at how many people liked my photo, my way is better ....) but do it in a more passive aggressive way. Peachblack may be more direct and confrontational in his comments but both styles are equally offensive.
I have read this thread several times and his rant has a lot of truth, valuable information and insight that plague many photographers and keep them from advancing their skills. I could not begin to count the number of photographers that I have encountered that have spend thousands of dollars on pro body and have a cheap lens that they had twenty years ago that wouldn't register on DXO Mark. In addition upon inspection the front lens element is so dirty I am surprised they get a image at all. They might as well have been taking photos with their phone it would have produced a better image. I have also seen many of what I call the collector that has every lens their camera company made from the beginning of time and only a handful are capable of resolving an image close to the cameras sensor. I have never been able to understand this and never will. If you want the best image you have to use the best equipment.
I do not see a single place where Peachblack demanded someone change and follow his style. He stated in several places that it is up the you to make the decision "I'm not telling you that you need to choose maximizing leverage. If you take away my megapixels, however, that choice disappears. "
I have shot a lot of Corporate Executive headshots and Celebrities and Peachblack communication style would come across as angel voices compared to theirs. If one is willing to check their ego's Peachblack has a lot of great information and you photography will improve.
Peachblack criticism of Nikon (Canon) may rub some of the wrong way. If you look at the facts much of that criticism is based on facts and is deserved. I have two Nikon 85MM f1.4 (D&G) lens that have horrible CA's, slow focus, etc.. Peachblack in a another thread posted his experience and photos with the Sigma 85 Art lens. I read several other reviews and decided I would try it and it was a great decision. The lens is incredibly sharp and focus is fast and accurate on my 810. I have always owned Nikon equipment and especially when I first started in photography I bought Nikon because it was the best equipment on the market. Through the years I have used cameras from other manufacturers but Nikon is still my go to company. I do agree with him about using the best equipment and in cases Nikon Lens lacks the quality and is expensive (especially for what you are getting). I went through my large format lens last night and like many other photographers I have lens from 7 different manufacturers. I am not sure why in 35mm film and more so in digital photography people feel that they have to stay with the camera manufacturers lenses. My Canon friends are similar in this regards. I am brand loyal to Nikon and if they produce and lens that is as good or better than the competition I will buy it but I will not buy a inferior product especially when it cost more than the competition.
Finally, this tread and several others where attacks are made and we resort to name calling and personal attacks are made serve little or no benefit and lead people to either not comment out of fear of being attacked or leave the site. As I am tying this I am sitting with a chest tube draining blood from my chest (that the doctors cannot determine the source) that came from being attacked back in November. On two occasions I was coded and the doctors pulled my wife and 14 year old daughter out of my room and told them that they should prepare themselves that they did not think I would survive. I am blessed to be here. I find it troubling the level to which we have gone to when we don't agree with a person thoughts and ideas regardless of how the idea was delivered. This is a photography and it is suppose to be fun and enjoyable and we should be learning from each other not insulting and alienating people. Life is way to short and in a matter of seconds be gone to be arguing over such topics. I agree with @donaldejose read the post that are interest to you and if you don't have any constructive to say don't say. You can disagree with someone but that can be done in a professional and non threating way.
I am don't think this is going to happen.
Practically, the future of super high resolution photography is decent medium format (real medium format, not the pretenders currently being offered by Fuji, Hasselblad and Pentax), not super expensive FX.
Fuji will be releasing three different GFX models, small (GFX 50S) , medium and large. The size of the sensor is not going to change but there will be a increase in MP and the price will scale accordingly. They have no plans to introduce a digital or mirrorless camera that would be the same size of the film MF cameras. I eluded to this in an earlier post. The current demand is for smaller and lighter cameras and a larger MF mirrorless would have a niche market and will be very expensive. The cost of developing a 645 or 6 x 7 size sensor is incredibly expensive. The companies that are all ready in that space may choose to develop that size camera but it will a long time coming. This came directly from a Fuji sales representative. Fuji has spent a lot of time analyzing the market and have a well thought out plan to grow their business. I think the same is true of Hasselblad. Pentax has been quiet but I suspect they will respond to the GFX.
I think it will take a while, but someday the cost of a large medium format sensor will be competitive. It is possible that Nikon or Canon may bide their time for 5 to 10 years and launched a medium format camera that integrates with their current system and incorporates all of the lessons learnt in their current format sizes.
Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.
First off, let me address the counter argument. If more megapixels, cropping, and having more technically sound gear is beneficial to you, your clients, your shooting style, and your workflow, then more power to you. However I do feel like the original post is very narrow minded and I want to provide other perspectives from another person that actually makes money from doing photography.
The original poster stated that “megapixels + ultrasharp lens = crop for days = better final image” ←-Blanket statement
Define “better”. I’m going to assume you mean more technically perfect? And that you are able to crop the image more?
If that were the case, every professional photographer in every genre (journalism, sports, fashion, theater, underwater) would be using a Phase One, Hassleblad, but we know this is not the case.
For me, the optimal amount is 12-16mp, and If I really wanted to crop, I would go with 24mp max, and here are my reasons why:
1. Clients now want LESS megapixels due to social media and mobile (IMPORTANT):
With the growing trend to mobile and ecommerce, every client I work with wants smaller images both in size and file size. Speed is emphasized over quality. Most of the clients I shoot literally want the image to be only 1 megapixel resized and less than 150k in file size. Many of these companies no longer print either so having more megapixels is essentially pointless.
2. I do not crop, I try to get the image right in camera because time is limited.
Let me do my logical flow for you:
Getting image right in camera → Less time needed on the backend → More time that can be used for shooting → More jobs → More MONEY $$$
Clients I work with do not require cropping and if they do, they do not require the finished product to be large in megapixels.
If your shooting style and workflow involves cropping, then more power to you, but for me, it’s an unnecessary burden that takes away shooting time from me which can be used to generate more revenue.
2a. Some clients require images right away, cropping is not an option
I’ve worked with news agencies before that literally required images to be turned in within 30 minutes after an event ended. They only wanted small JPGS also, no RAWs. I absolutely have to get the image right in camera. I barely have time to do anything other than cull through the images, resize them, and transfer the files.
3. A lot of times I shoot in dark dimly lit venues. In these cases high ISO performance over takes priority over megapixels.
Self-explanetory.
I sometimes need to be discrete in shooting. Camera size taks priority over specs.
There are times I am trying to not attract attention while I’m shooting, I need to have a smaller camera profile instead of the biggest and baddest camera brick out there.
5. High Megapixels = More Maintenance = More time and Money needed.
I always hear the term that storage space is cheap. And that is true if you only shoot a few thousand images a day. But imagine shooting 100,000 images on a yearly basis like I do and you’ll realize the size of all those raw images put together adds up very require and requires more money invested in backup.
6. High Megapixels slow down workflow:
High megapixels add onto import/export time, editing time, and put more strain on the computer.
I have upwards of 3,000 images from one assignment, my computer would easily get bogged down if I had to deal with megapixels that were in the 50+ range. Not to mention I would have to spend money upgrading a computer in order to handle the extra load.
In the end, the needs of the clients, my shooting style, and my workflow dictate what works best for me, these all matter to me more than having the latest and greatest cameras/lenses. To make a blanket statement that more megapixels and more technically better gear will get you a better photograph is very narrow minded and ignorant to many different fields where megapixels are not the be-all and end-all of photography.
To make a blanket statement that more megapixels and more technically better gear will get you a better photograph is very narrow minded and ignorant to many different fields where megapixels are not the be-all and end-all of photography.
You know, the OP seems to have made a serious effort to bring forward a point worthy of debate and even made a serious effort to acknowledge that other people will have different views that are valid for their purposes.
To thank him for his efforts, he has sustained personal attacks that have nothing to do with argument by three individuals. I think I have an idea how he feels as I had a similar experience in my "What Use is Flickr?" post.
If a user cannot bring forward a potentially controversial view, a view that may enable some of us to question our own preconceptions and grow, without risking personal attacks, what would possibly motivate a person to make that contribution?
Not me. And as soon as I realized that, it occurred to me to ask why I participate in this forum. I can't come up with a good answer for that question.
I have decided to abstain from using and reading this forum until the end of the year. I will then evaluate whether I miss it.
There are some individuals on this forum that I have learned alot from and enjoyed chatting with. I appreciate that. I particularly appreciate those that have forced me to challenge my views, in a respectful way, and I appreciate that. Most people on this forum are pretty decent and I have enjoyed chatting with you as well. There are a few others, however, that I find tiresome......
Thank you (most of you).
WestEndFoto
safyre, now let me debate you in technical terms.
When PB said "better final image", he means no effort is spared if he can get a better final image. So let's look at your counter arguments.
1. Clients now want LESS megapixels due to social media and mobile
You are trading off better image quality for less storage.
2. I do not crop, I try to get the image right in camera because time is limited.
2a. Some clients require images right away, cropping is not an option
You are trading off better image quality for less time spent.
3. A lot of times I shoot in dark dimly lit venues. In these cases high ISO performance over takes priority over megapixels.
While different sensors may be tuned different ways, mathematically, more pixels don't equal to worse ISO performance. Down sampling should produce equal noise performance at same pixel density.
4. I sometimes need to be discrete in shooting.
You are trading off image quality for discreteness. BTW, it's not even true that more pixels equal larger camera since the sensor is the same size.
5. High Megapixels = More Maintenance = More time and Money needed.
You are trading off image quality for money spent.
6. High Megapixels slow down workflow:
Again you are trading off image quality for the time spent.
So you see, all the arguments you provided had nothing related to getting the best image possible. Rather they are related to "cut the corners".
No doubt PB has contributed with considered thoughts about equipment, technique, and style of shooting. For that and his excellent illustration work, I laud him. It is the bombast and inflexibility which challenges many readers. This is not as evident in this thread as others.
In fact, at one point the take away was that he must be a Sigma ambassador and was remunerated accordingly. There was a "dogma" he created which many were overly patient with.
Fact is, as an example, when he knocks the Nikkor 58mm, he limited his trashing solely to the close up magnification at wide open aperture he requires (att times by his own admission i.e, not 100.%) for potraits. At or close to infinity wide open it is superbly sharp. Stopped down it is extraordinary (see Nikon ambassador David Yarrow's comments (current magazine article) and his recent book) in using the lens to photograph the Dinka tribe (titled, "Mankind") and his closeup image of a Polar Bear with the same lens. Unusually clean and ultra sharp images. When asked what single lens he would choose for his work if he had but one choice, he chose the 58mm, and he is s big game shooter.
Again PB's comments about the lens are the result of his limited model shooting. The images he states are "pretty", a veiled, condescending quip of a lens which others feel is superior for numerous applications.
Ask yourself, how many times will you need to shoot at 1.4 close-up range.
Again, going back to my aperture distribution chart challenge, I would bet that few if any readers would shoot more than 20% of their images at F1.4 (PB could have and did not offer his own results, another instance when I bated him. So PB rattles on and on about a single aperture at close-up range. How does that matter to 99% of this forum's readership?
He called the Nikkor 105mm f1.4 a "toy" without having used it. These are empty statements and imply that his choices are "superior". and further finds ways of rationalizing his decision not to try it. In as much as the new 105 has been compared to the luxurious 200f2 in image quality, and when I bated him with, "you know your images with the 200f2 are superior (and they are), and so the 105 is considered equal in quality", and inviting him to try this "toy", he danced around the entire recommendation. Chances are that he may not be able to afford this lens, so he knocks what he can't afford and promotes what he can. So how does that help forum members trying to make equipment decisions. It all comes across as an ego-stroke, nothing more. As another noted, some insecurity there (hence my comment establishing his own site etc).
One draws a conclusion that his choices are superior, whether or not there are equal or better options, and he will find 10,000 ways to rationalize them.
Bias is fine as long we are not trying to overstate for the benefit of one's ego. Hence my suggestion of incorporating some humility and objectivity.
Regarding the MP debate, I work very hard to compose carefully to maximize MP use. I for one agree with more than less, not for cropping purposes, but for slight down sampling to reduce effects of artifacts and noise in final prints.
Additionally, you cannot get 1.4 lenses in MF, and I would prefer improved technology with sensors to allow FF to run head to head with MF at the same MPs.
Also with MF, because of the larger sensor, you get less DOF at the same aperture as FF, thereby requiring stitching as a way of augmenting DOF. This fir me is not how I prefer to eork.
Pro Landscape photographers I know well and using Otus quality lenses with the D810 are quick to point out that the output of this combination is very close to current 50MP MF options quality wise. As to improved image quality with MF, Luminous Landscape states that the current Phase One 100MP camera produces D810 like images but on steroids. So if we can get enough MPs from a new D820, and with downsampling and ability to use 1.4 lenses, I won't need to "bulk up" with MF.
Now off to some image making!
Jerk or "the fat man".
@WestEndFoto "To thank him for his efforts, he has sustained personal attacks that have nothing to do with argument by three individuals. I think I have an idea how he feels as I had a similar experience in my "What Use is Flickr?" post."
I have been on the receiving end as well and I can relate.
If a user cannot bring forward a potentially controversial view, a view that may enable some of us to question our own preconceptions and grow, without risking personal attacks, what would possibly motivate a person to make that contribution?
This is a hard one for me. Most social media sites but someone that introduces a controversial topic or potentially controversial topic would be considered a troll. I do not like the word troll because I think you can unknowingly start a controversial topic but I think the person has to be prepared for the backlash or dissenting view and except their opinion.
@flip For me your original post came across to me that you were trying to insult Mark and single him out for his behavior that is not unique to him. You have some valid points. I think Mark technical and post processing knowledge and skills are exceptional but as you point out is for modeling shoots. Some of his knowledge can be applied to other genres of photography but not all. I shoot primarily landscapes and some headshots for advertising and corporate executives. I could not apply all of Marks concepts to my work. More MP the better for landscapes I would say yes. To headshots it depends, most corporate executives do not want a photos that shows their wrinkles, aging spots, etc.
I also agree with you about bashing Nikon lenses and he has been heavy handed in pushing the Sigma. However, he is not alone in singing the praises of Sigma and bashing Nikons lenses (especially the 85mm lens) as there are other respected sites that are as well. I bought my first Sigma lens in December, the 85mm and it is noticeably sharper than the Nikon lenses. will I buy other Sigma lens, probably not because the Nikon lens I have are sharp enough for my needs and do not produce unwanted artifacts. You need to decide the things that define you and your style and evaluate new ideas and concepts as they come along if they fit your style or you adapt you style to accommodate the new concept. If in this case sharpness is important for you, you decide what the best lens or camera should be for you.That's how we improve as photographers. I has picked up several night photography ideas from @WestEndFoto and @donaldejose a technique on using saturation for a different style image and composition and numerous post processing tips from Mark....I could go on and on and there have been some that I didn't like and don't use.
The challenge for a site like this is that we all come in with different experiences, backgrounds, levels of ability, education and training (photography and others), financial restraints (or not), shoot different genre and equipment constraints (or not).etc.. These factors and combined with trying to communicate through a social media site is less than ideal. Words that we read do not have emotions attached to them and I know from my experience I have written things that were interpreted entirely different than what I wanted to say. I am positive we could have had a conversation about this very topic in a restaurant over lunch and it would have been a great discussion.
At the end of the day, does it really matter that someone posted a rant on NR and I think he's crazy or he doesn't know what he's talking about. Will I (or that matter anyone else) remember in a month or 6 months. I doubt it. I think we all have more important things in our lives that mean a whole more to us than do I need more MP's. I know I do.
PB is too good a photographer to be producing his "rhetoric", which is unbecoming if his talent.
It may not be my place, but I am simply asking him to raise his comments to the level of his Imaging.
My intent is not to insult but to bring attention to what undermines his credibility.
He can do better!
By the way I too was once viciously personally attacked by one person on this site years ago because I questioned his "focus on the near eye wide open" portrait philosophy and suggested a "stop down to f2.8 focus on the near bridge of the nose and bring both eyes into focus" technique. If you keep the subject far from the background you will still have a bokeh background. I thought it was an interesting alternative approach which was worthwhile discussing here. What is the minimum f-stop you need to get both eyes into focus, what focus point to use, what lens to use, etc to get both two reasonably sharp eyes and as much bokeh as possible? I tried it out and generally came to around f2.8 or f4 focused on the near side bridge of the nose instead of the near eye and using a 100 to 200 mm lens. Of course, it all depends upon your distance from the subject. I was personally attacked by one name calling member such that I felt offended and almost quit visiting NR. But I didn't and I am still here while that person no longer is here; having since left photography for another line of work. I am sorry that person felt my questioning of their dictum was a personal attack. It wasn't. It had nothing to do with the person or their work. It was all about one or two eyes on focus and how to achieve it.
As to the need for megapixels, I bought a D800 when it first came out because I was seduced by all the megapixels. However, my practical experience recently has been more like safyre than like PB. Surprisingly the D500 is becoming more and more useful to me than I ever imagined when I purchased it.
I am sorry to hear about your wife's passing.
It sounds like our backgrounds are very similar. I will send you a PM.
1) your shot is not already constrained by diffraction, see here: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
and 2) you can control the light to maximize your DR, see here:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/does.pixel.size.matter/#Dynamic_Range
Otherwise having larger pixels allows for less diffraction and greater DR, and ultimately shooting in an uncontrolled setting may result in sharper and cleaner photos.
For the poster that asked what SOOC means to us, cropping doesn't feel like post processing to me. I find that sometime my architectural shots lean a little to the right and I correct that with 1 degree rotation as well, which also doesn't feel like post. Post to me is people who layer, color manipulate HDR, sharpen, add colors or moons or sunsets that didn't exist, etc. For many that is just a level of PP. For me it can be really over the top. And lets face it, cameras have built in HDR, sharpening and Vivid modes, so it seems to be splitting hairs.
Often the PP skills of good photographers makes me a bit jealous, knowing I will never shoot that same image, and some of them are beautiful. They only time it drives me nuts is on lens threads where you cant see the characteristics of a lens because the shooter has so manipulated the image that the original file, and point, seem lost.
Anyway, rambling done. Carry On.
So I am totally with everything PB has said. I hope this forum is not going the way of other Nikon Forums where departure from the Clique view by a new member usually results in a banning.
I was discouraged. I thought I had arrived, pleased with my own mediocrity.
I would still take a close up, walk back take a full head shot, walk back a bust shot, then a full body shot. Why? I want to retain the detail of that many mp in the actual print.
Cropping is a bad habit unless it is an emergency.
I also agree and disagree about lenses, The only primary lens I am missing is an 85 F/1.4.
I do 90% of my portraits with the 105 F/2.8 Macro..... Why? optical distortion. Optically Macro lenses are 1:1 (or very close to it compared to a 50mm or an 85, etc. and the distortion is minimal. I am getting what I am seeing. Minimal compression.
On that same token, I chose my lenses based on what they do optically. I might have a non-pro lens to shoot certain things, but I chose that lens because I like what it captures optically, perfect or not.
That gives a certain "Signature" to the photo's, just like what ever you do in post is "your style". It is part of what makes that specific photo unique.
Years ago when Epson and HP started making photo plotters that printed photo's 44 inches wide, I walked into the shop and was talking to the sales guy and he brought out some prints for me to look at.
And he was especially excited and impressed with one particular print (this was when I was moving from the D70 to the D700). The Sales guy was like...... Guess how many MP the this picture is? (Trying to be a smart A**.) So I responded to him by saying it was from a 1.1mp jpg. I was wrong.... it was a 2.3mp jpg.
And then he proceed to tell me how stupid 12mp is and that no one needs 12mp. I look at him, then I looked at the print again and here is what I told him. See the reflections in the models pupils and eyes. All I see is a big blob of black ink. No reflection.
He looked at me and said it doesn't matter. I replied to him and said it absolutely matters. (my course of thinking was the difference between APS film, 35mm film and 6x6 or 6x7 film in my Mamiya).
I said if I cannot see the reflection in the person's eyes, you have already lost me. I am not making a connection to your photo because of the lack of detail. That missing detail enhances emotional experience to that photo and it is missing.
If you are happy with your 2.3mp camera, then stay happy. To me it is a piece of history and a piece of (Insert what ever you want here).
I agree with you comment about photos having a certain "Signature" and "Style", I think that was one of Mark's points. I can spot one of Mark's photos on Flickr or 500PX when I am scrolling through those sites. I can't tell if he cropped or not but I can tell it is his work.
I really like the D810 and the 36MP and I am not sure if I will upgrade to the new D820 if it has more than 50 MP. Nikon or some third party lens manufacturer will have to start making lenses to take advantage of those MP's.
I love your story about the sales person, are you sure that wasn't KR in disguise. I remember when the D3X came out and people were bashing it because it had to many MP and that all you needed was12 MP (D3). That was about the time KR said all you need is 6MP.