Missing the point?

[Experiment_626]

I listen to a few photography podcasts on a regular basis, and have been puzzled by the reaction to some new advancements and new cameras.

On the Photofocus podcast, Scott Bourne has been very vocal with skepticism in regard to the high pixel count offered by the Nikon D800. He says he can't figure how the image quality could be up to standards at such a resolution nor for whom the camera might be intended. Really? This is the same guy who really likes the D7000. And if you take the D7000 sensor and add real estate to it with photosites at the same density as before — and make it the size of a full-frame sensor —you get about 36 megapixels. Why is it way too silly high for the best image quality at the larger size, but not at the smaller? As for who the target market might be … studio photographers? Landscape shooters? Anyone who might be on the verge of jumping to medium format? A camera doesn't have to be ideal for every photographer, which is a good thing, as none are.

On both Photofocus and, to a lesser extent, on This Week in Photo, there has been some noise about the efforts to to get improved results at ever-higher ISO levels. Why do we need to be able to shoot in the dark? This seems to be the reaction. Bourne in particular talks about how much he prefers to have more light rather than less. Well, duh. High ISO is useful for those times when you can't add more light, or can't get the light you want if you do add it. Bourne must have never tried to shoot in the Haunted Mansion or Peter Pan's Flight. But the point that seems to be missed is that while perhaps we don't usually need to shoot above ISO 128,000 or whatever, better results at really high ISO usually translate to better results at somewhat lower (but still high) ISO. I don't always want to shoot at 3200, and even if the results were as clean as ISO 100 I still wouldn't, but I'd sure like to be able to do so. Will we ever get there? I have no idea, but I'll take what I can get. And sure, physics is physics, but we're better off now than a lot of those who cite that mantra would have believed possible — and we won't get better results from those who believe it cannot be done. Sport shooters would be able to be more creative — not always having to shoot wide open, for example.

Just some thoughts — and others to add?

SSB

 

[wbeem]

I haven't read or listened to any of Scott Bourne's comments on the D800, so I'm only going on what you've shared here.

My first thought was that I didn't want the D800 because of its additional pixel density, but also because it had a slower frames-per-second rate than my D700 with a grip, etc. Basically, the D4 seemed more in line with what I wanted from my next camera - and that D4 is one expensive puppy.

Over the last month, I've changed my mind a bit. The first reason is because the native ISO of the D800 is ISO 100, and it can get down to ISO 50. That's very helpful in studio photography when you want to use light falloff to create some high contrast, dramatic photos.

The other reason is because I now have a purpose for the 36 megapixels. I do a lot of HDR photography. One of the things I'd like to do is start collecting some high quality images to use as backgrounds for composited photos. I shoot the subject in the studio and then transfer them onto the HDR background. The extra pixel density helps on both sides, but it may also allow me to sell my HDR backgrounds to other photographers who are also interested in compositing, but may not be able to get out and shoot the same things that I do. Certainly, there are already folks who do this sort of thing.

The need for high ISO is at a different end of the photography spectrum - like shooting sports, concerts or other situations where you need to freeze motion in a low light environment. My Nikon D700 does a great job here, but the D700 wouldn't do quite as well. That's where I wanted the D4, as it's even better at this task than what I have now.

When you get down to it, these cameras are just tools we use to solve problems. In ideal conditions, any camera can take a great photograph. The reason to buy more expensive cameras is that they should be able to help you solve a problem. Getting down to ISO 50 helps me solve a studio problem. Higher pixel density helps me solve a compositing problem. Better results at high ISO helps me solve an action problem.

They're just tools. You may or may not need them.

 

[Experiment_626]

Note that my initial post might have been a bit more coherent had I not had a wife and two little boys demanding my attention every 15 seconds while I was writing it ...

Yeah, there's no question that the D800 (or D4, or virtually any other camera you could name) isn't ideal for everyone. Bourne seems to shoot birds in flight and motorsports a lot, so obviously the D4 is the best choice for him, probably because of frame rate more than any other particular feature.

I try to keep my hand in shooting a variety of subjects, and there are some I don't currently shoot (such as sports) that I'd like to get back to shooting at some point. So ideally I'd have a D800 (it would be my primary landscape camera -- and thus would get major use in the parks for me), the D4 for sports, and the D7000 for various other things. I make do (as it were, poor pitiful me ) with the latter and the D300.

I had to laugh, though, when Bourne was talking (on TWiP) about how if the light is too low, you can "always" bring strobes, reflectors and other equipment and make your own light. Sure. Let's see you try that on Haunted Mansion, Scott!

I don't mean to ridicule the man; as I say, he isn't the only one missing the point somewhat by thinking in absolute terms. And I think has given lots of sound advice on the Photofocus podcast (he is no longer the host as of the last month or so, though he has been a guest on the show most of the time since he handed over hosting duties to Rich Harrington); I know I've learned some good things from listening. In fact, I guess it bugs me a bit because I expected a little more thoughtful reaction from him.

SSB

 

[Renysmom]

I stopped listening to anything that Scott Bourne is on. He has become a very arrogant know it all. If I see him listed on a show topic, no matter the topic I delete the entire episode.

 

[WDWFigment]

I have no knowledge of Scott Bourne or how he's perceived, but I agree with his thoughts on the D800. Until memory drops substantially in price (both for hard-drives and memory cards) and computer processes can handle those files with ease, my sweet spot is 10-12mp. My D7000 had more MP than I need, but I'm pleased with the D700.

That's just me, though. I can see why others would want more MP.

 

[photo_chick]

We're reaching the point now with these high resolution sensors that we're surpassing the resolving power of the existing lenses. It's been apparent for a while with entry level glass and is now starting to show with high end glass. I'm waiting to see how the manufacturers plan to approach that issue.

 

[wbeem]

I have no knowledge of Scott Bourne or how he's perceived, but I agree with his thoughts on the D800. Until memory drops substantially in price (both for hard-drives and memory cards) and computer processes can handle those files with ease, my sweet spot is 10-12mp. My D7000 had more MP than I need, but I'm pleased with the D700.

That's just me, though. I can see why others would want more MP.

That's exactly where I am with most of my shooting. Although now I can see a specific case for a 36mp image, I don't want that for most of my shots. As you said, it eats up quite a bit of card & disk space.

I get a little over 600 RAW images on a 16GB CF card with my D700. That drops to about 200+ shots on a D800. If you don't need that kind of image size, it's an incredible disadvantage.