Effect of 36MP on lens performance

Regarding focus, lens quality, stability etc... none of these will be worse on the D800 than any other camera. They will be more noticeable at 100%, but only because your 100% view is showing a much smaller section of the image than it is on a D700.

Put another way, for equivalent size prints, there will be no difference between the d800 and the d700 unless you are printing very, very large, in which case the extra pixel density of the d800 will be a big help.

Craig, someone already mentioned on another thread that taking a D3X exposure and downsampliing to the resolution of the D700 gives sharper prints than prints from the D700 itself. So it's likely that something similar will be true of the D800.

Craig, someone already mentioned on another thread that taking a D3X exposure and downsampliing to the resolution of the D700 gives sharper prints than prints from the D700 itself. So it's likely that something similar will be true of the D800.

The only "something similar" that will likely be true is that the same person may make that same claim for the D800.

I have captured identical images with the D3X and D700 with the same lens, in that particular case it was a flower macro. I used the 200mm/f4 AF-D macro lens mounted on a tripod and merely swap bodies. Even the D700 has sufficient pixels to cover an 8.5x11 print at 300 dpi. I printed both images to 8.5x11 and at least I cannot tell any difference in the prints.

If you make huge prints like 24x16 inches with a lot of fine details, and you stick with the D3X's base ISO 100 and middle apertures such as f5.6 on high-quality lenses shooting from a tripod, it'll be obvious that the D3X has better resolution, but for such huge prints, we rarely look at them from up close to notice the difference.

The D3X is great at ISO 100 and 200. But when you get up to ISO 800 and 1600 under indoor, dim-light situations, pixel quality from the D3X will degrade enough that it would more than wipe out any advantages from 24MP. Under such conditions, you actually get worse results compared to what you could have gotten from the D3/D700 under low light, let alone the D3S.

This is like the third thread on the D800 and lens performance. Without an actual D800 to test with, it is all hypothetical, but in order to get the most out of 24MP, 36MP, you need to:

• Use the base ISO
• Start with a high-quality lens and stop down 2, 3 stops. A 50mm/f1.4 wide open might not be able to out-resolve the D800E, but when you stop down to f5.6, things can change
• Always shoot from a tripod. Use a cable release, or in my case, I prefer the 1-second shutter delay option so that I don't need to carry another item that occupies the 10-pin connection.

In other words, if you are a landscape photographer or always shoot from inside a studio, the D800 can be a great camera for you. If you are a wedding photographer, 36MP can be useful when you shoot formal portraits inside a studio, but if you shoot PJ style during the ceremony and reception, at least I would prefer 12MP from the D3S or 16MP from the D4 to give me good ISO 3200 results inside a dim church where no flash is allowed. Even for weddings, I prefer to have faster than 4 frames/sec in some situations.

That is partly why I wish this mega-pixel race would have ended sooner. I could buy a D800 just for certain applications, but for a more practical, general-purpose DSLR, I would much rather have 16MP with an ISO range to 12800. The D700 has served me well for a few years. For still-image capture, I need a true successor to the D700 with the kind of improvements you can get from the D3S and D4, not a big jump to 36MP.

Effect of 36MP on lens performance.

None whatsoever. The sensor will not affect the lens performance in the same way that it is not affected by a high ISO, grainy film.

D800 high ISO results seem fine:

http://www.ferra.ru/ru/digiphoto/review/Nikon-D800-preview/print/

I don't think I could pull off that kind of quality from the D700 at 25000 ISO (High-2).

The lens will perform the same (as far as image quality is concerned). Whether you put it on a 12 megapixel camera or a 212 megapixel camera, the lens will not produce a different image. Will you see the difference in performance from one lens to another a little more easily now with 36 megapixels? Probably. In other words, the older lenses will still work the way they do on older cameras, but the new camera will allow you to capture better detail with the latest and greatest lenses. Ultimately, this is to Nikon's benefit. It will drive sales of new lenses. As far as the little prints you are talking about . . . you shouldn't worry. When you start printing at 40x60, maybe you should re-visit this subject.

The Canon T2i, T3i, and 7 D all have higher pixel density than the new D800, and there are no such problems being reported by users of those cameras (meaning problems with older lenses that are "not good enough for the sensor in the camera"), so I really think all this talk about lenses not resolving enough for the sensor is meaningless.

The Canon T2i, T3i, and 7 D all have higher pixel density than the new D800, and there are no such problems being reported by users of those cameras (meaning problems with older lenses that are "not good enough for the sensor in the camera"), so I really think all this talk about lenses not resolving enough for the sensor is meaningless.

Since the introduction of the Nikon D7000 in late 2010, plenty of us have been talking about the D7000 being very demanding on lenses. A few times people did ask since the Canon 7D has even higher pixel density, wouldn't the 7D have similar problems? I searched around and found this quote in DPReview's Canon 7D review, among others:

In most situations the lens, rather than the camera, is likely to be the limiting factor.

You are better off reading it in their own words: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos7d/page30.asp

Another issue I have pointed out several times is that the 7D, D7000, etc. use a much smaller APS-C sensor. The D800 requires a much larger image circle such that edge and especailly corner sharpness become much harder to achieve. If you shoot portraits, you may not even care about corner sharpness. However, if you shoot landscape and want corner-to-croner sharpness from foreground to background, it will be challenging on the D800.

It won't be any more challenging on a D800 than on a D700. A D700 shows corner sharpness issues with cheap, low-quality lenses, just as the D800 will, but with fewer pixels, and with a slightly less "pronounced" difference between the sharpness in the middle vs. the corners. Still, the 50mm f1.8 AIS will perform beautifully, even though it is an inexpensive lens. So will many other Nikon and after-market lenses, such as the amazing Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro. If you have a Nikon D700 with a Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 or a Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G, you have nothing to worry about. Go buy the D800, and you will get better quality images. If you rarely crop and almost never print bigger than 13x19 then don't waste your money. You won't see much difference. The D700 shoots faster and the photos take up less space. No doubt the D700 produces less noise at ISO 400 and above also. (It may even produce less noise at ISO 100!)