xPhoenix wrote:Lance B wrote:vbuhay wrote:Just saying.....Nikon are you listening?With all due respect, this has nothing to do with the sensor or Mp, but to do with the lens, the lighting, the photographer, the location and post processing.Yep, this could've just as easily been done with a D750, D850 or other Nikon camera, and with better colors. Lucky there's no bright backlights in this shot, or we'd probably see those lovely Sony striping artifacts.It could even be done with a Kodak DCS SLR/n... Nothing amazing about that shot that a S3pro nor any 15 years old CCD dSLR could not do. So please, come back with something else to be amazed by any über alles ultra amazing highly marketed SONY MILC.The shot below was not taken by me, but was shot on december 2003.Ok, only 14Mpx, but far better than many thing seen with all the amazing revolutionary and must have latest technology.Like Pirelli tires said : sans maitrise, la puissance n'est rien ! (Google trad : Without mastering the power is nothing)Sorry xPhoenix, it is not a reply for your post but more the OP and any other guys sustaining the OP shot has anything to do to the SONY MILC technology.

Nothing there that a D750 or even D6xx can't do if 24mp it's all you want. Plus a profile to give you that interesting skin tone!

vbuhay wrote:Lance B wrote:vbuhay wrote:Just saying.....Nikon are you listening?With all due respect, this has nothing to do with the sensor or Mp, but to do with the lens, the lighting, the photographer, the location and post processing.I think the if that if this sensor can do this, what else can it do? Geometry tells me that it has larger pixels. Physics tells me that it has better dynamic range....all you need is some light and a sensor of course the photographer to get an image the rest is just nice to have....That's not really a high dynamic range shot, though if it had been mine I would have pulled down the distracting highlights in the shirt some.

The A7III and the D850 have comparable DRThat image could have be taken with a D850, or a D610 or any Sony Fx camera for that matter, as long as the same lens is on

A Owens wrote:Nothing there that a D750 or even D6xx can't do if 24mp it's all you want. Plus a profile to give you that interesting skin tone!Agreed. Don’t understand the purpose of this thread.

rumple wrote:vbuhay wrote:Hence the Medium Raw mode with about 25MpxI have tried that and it only gives me less DR....just like dropping , I want to use the full frame with better DR!

vbuhay wrote:rumple wrote:vbuhay wrote:Hence the Medium Raw mode with about 25MpxI have tried that and it only gives me less DR....just like dropping , I want to use the full frame with better DR!This surprises me.  How much did the DR drop? How did you determine this??

vbuhay wrote:I think the if that if this sensor can do this, what else can it do? Geometry tells me that it has larger pixels.Physics tells me that it has better dynamic range....There is not such law of physics.

ARClark wrote:A Owens wrote:Nothing there that a D750 or even D6xx can't do if 24mp it's all you want. Plus a profile to give you that interesting skin tone!Agreed. Don’t understand the purpose of this thread.Purpose of this thread is to create and air of challenge and generate posts.That's it. Pure nonsense.Rob

vbuhay wrote:I do not see the D750 as a low Mpix DSLR, I have one since 2014.It's 2018 now, and now the D750 is clearly on the low side for an FX/135 format camera, and it's going to get lower....I do not like the constraints the high density (smaller pixel) sensors on Dynamic RangeI call bull.Another take from Bill Claffhere.According to Bill the D800 matches the A7m3 from ISO 200 to ISO 500 and at ISO 100 the difference is a fifth of a stop in favor of the A7m3, so that's really an irrelevant difference there. OTOH, the D5 loses big time to the higher MP cameras at lower ISOs (as seen in the screenshot above, as well as at Bill Claff's site), which illustrates that it isn't the pixel density per se but rather the way the sensor is optimized.What's more, these numbers do not tell the whole story and they are in fact misleading. Files that are larger offer more latitude for applying less sharpening and more NR while retaining equal or even greater detail, so properly handled a high MP file gives you plenty to work with in this regard.and amplify lens faults.That depends on how closely you view the files. View them equally and these camera will show the faults equally.Its like stitching phone pictures.100 phone pictures stitch together is still a phone picture.....Stop being offensive.

I don't see anything here that justifies having half the MP.  If you want the D850 to use lower resolution, just set it lower.

vbuhay wrote:rumple wrote:vbuhay wrote:Hence the Medium Raw mode with about 25MpxI have tried that and it only gives me less DR....just like dropping , I want to use the full frame with better DR!..the a7iii seems like a nice camera to play with....but to me, for more serious photos, stick with the D850 camera....in my opinion, even with the D850 in medium resolution mode of 25.6mp, and with only 12-bits, still will perform image wise better than the a7iii....the below link is just a random picture I found..https://www.flickr.com/photos/duy_tung/41562301595/in/pool-3883965@N24/..and can see the full size of the image 6000x4000 24mp..https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1753/41562301595_d896c0a6a4_o_d.jpg..and below is a zoomed in look, to me sony is still heavy handed in the image processings, and it shows..**********..on a side note....almost any lens will work with the D850 camera, just use the different resolution modes that best fits for each lens.. (L) 45.4mp, (M) 25.6mp, (S) 11.4mp....try, experiment, and have fun....Cheers..

I am left speechless by your assertion.

jshen808 wrote:..and below is a zoomed in look, to me sony is still heavy handed in the image processings, and it shows..Probably a conversion using Sony's Raw converter, which is atrociously bad (hence, their partnering with Capture One).

Tony Beach wrote:jshen808 wrote:..and below is a zoomed in look, to me sony is still heavy handed in the image processings, and it shows..Probably a conversion using Sony's Raw converter, which is atrociously bad (hence, their partnering with Capture One)...Yes, that makes sense....Cheers..

tony field wrote:vbuhay wrote:rumple wrote:vbuhay wrote:Hence the Medium Raw mode with about 25MpxI have tried that and it only gives me less DR....just like dropping , I want to use the full frame with better DR!This surprises me. How much did the DR drop? How did you determine this??He is clueless.  His response indicates he thinks medium raw is some form of crop mode.  What a waste of time this thread is.

Tony Beach wrote:vbuhay wrote:I do not see the D750 as a low Mpix DSLR, I have one since 2014.It's 2018 now, and now the D750 is clearly on the low side for an FX/135 format camera, and it's going to get lower....I do not like the constraints the high density (smaller pixel) sensors on Dynamic RangeI call bull.Another take from Bill Claffhere.According to Bill the D800 matches the A7m3 from ISO 200 to ISO 500 and at ISO 100 the difference is a fifth of a stop in favor of the A7m3, so that's really an irrelevant difference there. OTOH, the D5 loses big time to the higher MP cameras at lower ISOs (as seen in the screenshot above, as well as at Bill Claff's site), which illustrates that it isn't the pixel density per se but rather the way the sensor is optimized.Candid question :Did anyone see the DR difference between a D800 and a D810 ?Could anyone assure us such minimal DR difference could seriously be noticed ?I bet very few of us can see the DR differences between a D800 and a D810, so the difference between a D800 and the A7m3 is even less than minimal. The point ? that argument is just a big LOL.What's more, these numbers do not tell the whole story and they are in fact misleading. Files that are larger offer more latitude for applying less sharpening and more NR while retaining equal or even greater detail, so properly handled a high MP file gives you plenty to work with in this regard.and amplify lens faults.That depends on how closely you view the files. View them equally and these camera will show the faults equally.Its like stitching phone pictures.100 phone pictures stitch together is still a phone picture.....Stop being offensive.

Because of the EV. Make the jump and switch to modern times. No looking back once you have done it.

seahawk wrote:Because of the EV. Make the jump and switch to modern times. No looking back once you have done it.I'm not sure that is true.  I see Nikon gear for sale in Toronto from fellows advertising they're switching to "another system" or "Sony" in particular, but I also see ads from fellows advertising they're selling their latest Sony gear and moving to Nikon. ( or back to Nikon )I saw a little thingy one time that said you don't buy a drill because you want a drill, you buy a drill because you want a hole.Likewise, you don't buy a camera because you want a camera, you buy a camera because you want an image. ( fellows like Lens Wizard excluded I guess )But the difference is that any idiot can drill a hole, but a top image requires technical skill, luck - f8 and be there?, creativity, vision, light, etc,So how much does an EV really add to the process?

seahawk wrote:Because of the EV. Make the jump and switch to modern times. No looking back once you have done it.Personally, I think EVFs are crap.  They look awful compared to OVF.