I agree Jared. The discussions are being repeated.

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=3732

There is a couple of other threads that discuss this. You will probably find your answer there - you are kind of mixing and comparing apples to oranges that would turn this into a whole another discussion.

I would hate to see brwmmw's topic hijacked on this topic that is much, much broader than her question.

Ok, if the lower size is just JPEG compression, then you have to see if whatever is lost by that compression is significant to you.

If you print at a size less than 100% won't there be some software compression of our image anyway?

Tom Hogan states that a 21 megapixel sensor can print 13x19 inches at 300 dpi and 10 megapixels will print 8x10 at 300 dpi.

Has anyone done this type of test? Lets say you are a amateur who will print only portraits at 8x10 and landscapes only at 11x14. You have a 16 megapixel D7000 which Tom Hogan says can print out in those sizes at 300 dpi. So you go buy a Nikon D3x at 24 megapixels and still print just at 8x10 and 11x14. Now have you wasted thousands of dollars because the 24 megapixel image won't show a difference in prints at the sizes you are printing?

Are we soon going to be buying high megapixel cameras only to have our image compressed and degraded anyway when printing a photo?

Anyone here have a D4x who feels it makes a difference in an 8x10 wedding photo book?

36mp FX should have the same "well" size as the D7000. Barring seeing what is released, I would expect it would be a D7000 with a much wider view. Good lighting = bit more detail. Low light - probably not much better to warrant an upgrade from the D7000.

I agree with everyone else, lenses, lenses, lenses. Especially since the D7000 is so new. 85mm 1.8/1.4 is even better. 105mm nuts, 70-200mm vr, workhorse and made by the gods. If you are tight on space, any of the 105 macros, or even the 60mm macro are great, especially on DX. Look for used on the macros - most have very little "hard" use.

donaldejose said:
Does anyone know how the lower pixel modes work in Nikons? Assume a 36 Nikon D800 sensor with a lower size mode such as 18 megapixels. Since the Nikon D700 is 12 megapixels (one third the pixel size) could you set your D800 to 18 megapixel size and obtain about the same IQ?

I understand your logic, but that is not how the lower resolution settings work. Lower resolution is a software compression for JPGs and has nothing to do with sensor MP. It just creates a smaller compressed file with a loss of some color and detail from the 36mp.

I would suggest that in your case you are not sure about what you want to do. You know that something is missing from your pictures, but it doesn't sound like you know whether it is the camera, the lens, the light, how you process your images or how you interact with your subject.

My suggestion is that instead of buying one thing after another and potentially finding out that they aren't helping, is to figure out what exactly it is that you want. Why is it that you are not satisfied? Is it resolution, color depth, too much depth of field, the person's pose, etc.. Once you figure that out, I would say you should rent or borrow anything before making a commitment. Going to FF is not always an upgrade, and you may find that there are things you don't like about it (like weight, size and cost of lenses, etc.)

As far as cheaper lower resolution FF cameras go, it is possible Nikon will make one, but it might not be for many years. The D800, if all the rumors are correct, could release at as high as $4000, maybe more and probably won't be available for at least 6 months, but possibly a lot longer. Alternatively, a 5d2 can be had for about $2000, and used a850's or a900's should also be fairly inexpensive. Changing systems might not be as additionally expensive as you since if you switch from crop frame to full frame you will likely need to use a different set of lenses anyway.

I have been milking 50mm 1.4 to no end. I feel I have gotten some really great pics out of my combo. There are times when I just can't get any further away from my subject and would love to not have the crop sensor. I know a different lens would help too. I also have felt the d7000 a lacking in low light which I was hoping a d700/d800 would improve. My favorite time of day to shoot families is hour before and after sunset. I feel like I get some great ones, but I am left wanting just a little more. As I am getting a more and more booked up schedule, I am feeling like I need the camera to fully extract my best work.

Being a single mom and going to school I just can't afford to go crazy with equipment. maybe a new lens would be a better start. I too am wondering if they will release a cheaper lower megapixel full frame model later. Might be worth waiting.

As Godless says, with portraiture, the lens is going to make a big difference

Looking at DX v FX

Ignore mega whatnots. a RAW full frame file will give you a bigger tonal range to play with

If you use in studio, this can be tweaked with your lighting, but if you work outside FX will be a big advantage

As lots of people have said , and will say again. The biggest difference comes from the guy behind the camera

Certainly, it will have two lower size modes using less pixels. Perhaps one can use one of the lower pixel modes in order to save file space and then use the max pixel size only when needed.

Does anyone know how the lower pixel modes work in Nikons? Assume a 36 Nikon D800 sensor with a lower size mode such as 18 megapixels. Since the Nikon D700 is 12 megapixels (one third the pixel size) could you set your D800 to 18 megapixel size and obtain about the same IQ? Would it just take the data from one third the pixels and interpolate intermediate points? Of course, each individual D800 pixel will be smaller in size than each individual D700 pixel but the D800 will also use a new generation of software and a new Expeed processor.

We will have to wait for the tests but since each generation of camera improves I would expect a D800 set at a lower size than its max will be essentially equal to a D700 at that same pixel size. If this is correct, you really are not losing anything since you can just switch to a smaller file size anytime you don't want to clog up your computer and don't need maximum pixels.

Are you sure it´s the camera format and not you?

I have seen bad FX portraits and terrific DX portraits.

What lens(es) do you use for your work?

If you haven´t tried it yet, try any 85mm/105mm/135mm prime.

Sure, with the D800 you get lots of sensor resolution, but it will only make bad or mediocre glass look worse. With a 36mpix sensor, you need a top-notch zoom or a good prime. And loads of hard drive space. And time to process the huge images..

Hi all,

I have been getting more and more business as a portrait photographer and had been waiting to get a full frame camera since the d700 replacement was close. I get some great pics with the d7000, but as my business grows I am seeing the difference those with full frame get. Anways, Now that it is almost here I am unsure how these specs will help someone like me. I hear landscape guys getting excited but I am not hearing much from portait photogs. I know we don't know the fullness of this product yet, but I need to figure out if I will be begging, borrowing, stealing, pawning, and selling haha! to get this baby. I know it is a great camera but all those megapixels on my computer is going to be trouble with the file size.