Stupid question time - again! Turning down camera resolution

[Ari]

This is probably another daft question but bear with me. With a camera like the Nikon D800 that has 36 megapixels, is it possible to reduce the resolution and get images as sharp and the same size as (say) the D600 at 24 megapixels?

Or does starting with 36 and "turning it down" to 24 (if that's even possible, I don't know how the quality settings work) mean that you'll lose image quality (I mean compared to a 24mp D600, obviously it'll have lower quality than it would at 36mp).

[GetCarter]

That is SUCH a can of worms, that I'm going to have to go to the pub.

But just to let you know, my 12 mp D3 takes as a good a 'quality' photo as my 36mp D800. It's horses and courses.

Don't confuse mp with quality.

... right.. pub.

Edited by GetCarter on Tuesday 30th April 19:26

[Ari]

What I'm thinking is, I don't need 36mp but I do need a full frame Nikon. If the D600 doesn't work out, since the D4 is too dear can I buy a D800 and "turn it down" to D600 spec, or does the fact that it starts off as a 36mp camera mean that that won't work?

[GetCarter]

That is kind of off my radar. You say you don't need 36 mp....

... like saying you don't need 155mph

If you want a full frame Nikon, the D800 is great. Don't worry that it might be too good. You can choose to shoot in low res, small frame, jpg and get as poor a result as you require with any Nikon...

I really do have to go to the pub!

[andybuk99]

I have a Leaf Aptus that is 28mp but it produces superb files due to the quality of those pixels.

[ian in lancs]

GetCarter said:

That is SUCH a can of worms, that I'm going to have to go to the pub.

But just to let you know, my 12 mp D3 takes as a good a 'quality' photo as my 36mp D800. It's horses and courses.

Don't confuse mp with quality.

... right.. pub.

Edited by GetCarter on Tuesday 30th April 19:26

I agree! I debated replacing my D700s withD800s but for mainly portraiture there were more minuses than pluses. Not least of which were increased storage and slower peocessing of larger files with detail that isnt necessary. When a D3 with10kactuations crossed my path that was added to the fleet. Seems to take nicer pics than the D700 even though the specs are identical!

[Simpo Two]

GetCarter said:

You can choose to shoot in low res, small frame, jpg and get as poor a result as you require with any Nikon...

You can in JPG - but what about RAW? (assuming OP is using RAW)

[RobDickinson]

Nikon have no way of saving lower resolution Daws, Canon does but I haven't used it much.

A 36mp image should look sharper down sampled to 24 or 12 than the lower native resolution, all other things being equal.

But you would have to print big to notice

[Simpo Two]

Ari, are you bothered by pixel count or file size? If file size is the issue you can shoot compressed RAW.

Or buy a D700!

[Ari]

Simpo Two said:

Ari, are you bothered by pixel count or file size? If file size is the issue you can shoot compressed RAW.

Or buy a D700!

File size. And I shoot jpeg (heathen, I know!)

[Ari]

GetCarter said:

That is kind of off my radar. You say you don't need 36 mp....

... like saying you don't need 155mph

If you want a full frame Nikon, the D800 is great. Don't worry that it might be too good. You can choose to shoot in low res, small frame, jpg and get as poor a result as you require with any Nikon...

I really do have to go to the pub!

Good analogy. Ok I guess what I'm asking is can I buy a 155mph D800 and drive smoothly at 100mph or is the act of "slowing down" (reducing file size) akin to removing a spark plug to lower performance. Ie it will work, but not as well as having a smaller engine designed to be at its optimum at lower "speeds" - file sizes.

[Ari]

Anyone..?

[Mr Will]

If you've got the money for a D800, you've got the money for a bigger hard-drive to go with it. Just shoot at full res and get on with it!

[Ari]

If only it really worked that way!

[Mr Will]

Ari said:

If only it really worked that way!

It actually does. At current hard-drive prices, each D800 jpeg costs about a tenth of a penny to store. Even if you can halve that by reducing the resolution, is it really worth it?

[GetCarter]

What is it that is the problem with file size? Is it storage space or processing power of your PC? If it's the former, I'm with Mr Will... Pixmania are doing a 1000 gb external for £57 at the moment. that's a st load of D800 photos. If it's processing power, I can understand the concern - you'll need a decent amount of RAM and a decent chip to work with the files that D800 kicks out.

[Ari]

It's both, although I agree that storage is reasonably easily worked around.

Ultimately I'm hoping that my D600 works out and I don't have another "dust bunny". But if I have, the D800 is the only full frame Nikon alternative (given that the D4 is over four grand!)

[GetCarter]

Ari said:

It's both, although I agree that storage is reasonably easily worked around.

Ultimately I'm hoping that my D600 works out and I don't have another "dust bunny". But if I have, the D800 is the only full frame Nikon alternative (given that the D4 is over four grand!)

Nikon knew they had screwed up bu bringing out the D800 at the same time as the D4. Myself and MANY others jumped ship from the D4... and low and behold, they put the price UP by £500 after launch.

It's a very good camera... though the D600 looks good too.

[Simpo Two]

Ari said:

File size. And I shoot jpeg (heathen, I know!)

Well you probably have a choice of at least three image sizes and at least three compressions. Why don't you try them and see?

[Major Bloodnok]

You can force it to shoot in DX mode, which reduces the RAW to about 15 Mpx. Other than switching on compressed RAW, that's it.