This is just to calm myself down a bit since I just bought a D700 last month.
Based on what I've been reading so far, I will stay with the D700 that is $1K less.
Who would like to join this comforting thread?
raboof wrote:
This is just to calm myself down a bit since I just bought a D700 last month.
Based on what I've been reading so far, I will stay with the D700 that is $1K less.
Who would like to join this comforting thread?
You're not alone. The D800 at 3x the MP of the D700 is just too much (MP), back when I shot Canon I was always bothered by their constant jump in MP, for my line of work I do not need it or want it. 12MP is more than sufficient for the majority of work I do (wedding and portrait) so having 36MP gives me no advantage whatsoever, heck, some of my colleagues are still shooting with 5D classics. The D700 represented the best thing that happened to DSLR's since the 5D was introduced. The 5D broke new ground in making an "affordable" FF DSLR, but the D700 stole the thunder with making a FF DSLR that had superb high ISO and best in class AF system at an "affordable" price.
But I'll say it again, now that the D800 is official, Nikon may think the D800 replaces the D700 but many photographers will not agree because the huge bump in MP is niether needed or wanted.
I don't want 50+ MB RAW files, I want cleaner higher ISO, and I know many of you will give me your mumbo jumbo about if you compress down the 36MP file it will be cleaner, I don't care, I don't want 36MP to begin with for many other reasons.
So, will I be buying the D800, I don't think so, instead I'll be looking for some nice D700's to be selling for $1500 or possibly less in a short while. Nikon could have done ONE THING that would have made the D800 much more desireable for me, offer an sRAW option at 18MP, now that I would have jumped all over!
Yeah, I don't like the high MP either. I am in a computer field and I know how slow it is to transfer files back and forth and opening a 50MB file. It will eat up your processing time and with those who depend on that to make money, good luck. Upgrade your CPU, memory, and video cards. Upgrade your hard drives to 15k RPM (these are not cheap).
I'm just a hobbyist printing 16 x 20 max size. I have no need for a 36mp camera and, like wjmeyer above, don't want to deal with 50mb or larger RAW files. For me, the D700 is a perfect camera. All cameras are a compromise of some sort. The D700 just ticks all the right boxes for my needs. YMMV. I can see why a lot of pros are drooling over the D800. If I was a landscape, wedding or fashion photographer, I would be too.
I am a wedding photographer but I am not drooling over the D800, way too many MP for our uses. I shot a family portrait with a 5D some years ago, did a 24x36 wall portrait that came out stunning, I rarely sell above 16x20 so why would I need 36MP, I just don't get it Nikon?
There is one good thing about the D800, if enough people migrate to them, it means we'll be able to buy some nice (like new) D700's for a great price!
Alas, the sirens' call buy button is strong. Unlike Odysseus, I had no mast to lash myself too but at least it's a pre-order. My D3s is nervous. Will also be very interested to see how the DX 15.3 mp and ergonomics stack up. Will the new sensor equate with the D7000?
I am lusting ... but I guess I need to upgrade my puter first
Have been putting it off since I hate migrating user preferences and files and such, ugh
Then have to wait for the $ kitty to regenerate, ahhh it'll be awhile then...
raboof, you're not alone at that downshifting bandwagon. I have no D700 yet (hard to find in my area), but I'm not convinced to lust neiter D800 nor D800E.
First of all: 36 MP is way too much. You will be needing ultra-powerful computer to make the process faster, but there are little to no arguments for extra expences.
Many people out there do their work in Lightroom or other popular converter with batch-saving function. I'm desperate user of Capture NX2, the only software that allows me to avoid Adobe products at all because of pretty freaky relationship between Adobe and user. NX2 is buggy, crashes too often and is damn too slow but it has simple interface, is precise at IQ and saves tweaks with layers directly into NEF file. Very convenient if you're sharing files to different places after editing. Since all tweaks NX2 does in the real time, it drains memory very hard. Imagine how slow it will be when 36 MP RAW is opened.
Second: it is hard to judge by jpegs before getting RAW file to play with, but it seems like noise at low ISO is disaster compared to D700 or even twice more MPs D3x. Simple physics: small photosites = noisy images.
Third: there's little difference in image quality between versions with or without AA filter. D800E shows nothing special. Am I missing something?
Fourth and very important: huge bump in resolution makes most lenses look like crap. Medium format lenses are very expensive primarily because they have to keep higher resolving power. Most 35 mm format lenses were made under pressure of compromise between price and quality. If we want to extract the best the 36 MP sensor is able to, then we need hi-end glass. Not every D800 buyer can afford a line of $5000 lenses. Combine this statement with the statement number two and you'll see little gain in price between 'cheap' D800 + line of expensive optics over 'expensive' MF camera + back + line of expensive optics.
I have 2 D700's and for now I'm keeping them at least to this summer. Until that time I'll read all the reviews and decide. I'm totally not interested in video, so it's the Mpx, DR, and high iso that will decide for me. The D4 sensor in a D700(0) body would be my ideal camera.
So far I'm not lusting over the D800 yet. I'm sure it will produce amazing images, but at 36mp its gonna seriously slow things down on the processing front. The D700 produces great 12mp images that I can process and email off to clients quickly - something that I need to be able to do. It also has a higher frame rate than the D800, which is also a big consideration for me. My clients tend to use my images for press or web and therefore the quality from the D700 is more than enough for me and for them. Occasionally clients will enlarge my images up to 5ft for banners and they look spot on - I really don't need more mp right now.
I look forward to seeing more images from the D800, and maybe I will get one in a couple of years time, but for the moment I'll leave it to the studio photographers, and hobbyists with money to burn, as they are the most likely to be the first buyers of the D800.
