Wolfe_boy wrote:
For the record: 20-30MB jpegs, 76.5MB NEFs (according to DPR anyways).
the camera looks really great...except for the 76.5MB files. i would certainly consider a switch, but that file size is ridiculous and really a deal breaker for me.
IMO I would have liked to see this come in around 18-26 mp. 36 is WAY to much for anything. The studio shooters are not looking for a "deal" camera. They are going to shell out the big bucks for the D3x or whatever the high Mp pro body is because they can. The D800 appeals mainly to wedding photographers. Now on top of the camera we have to also buy new computers and hard drives to handle the 80+ mb files it will put out.
UGH.
Canon it is your turn...again.
Someone for God sakes PLEASE get it right.
At 36mp and most likely 2stops less iso capabilities (or about the same as the current d700) Nikon may just have shot itself in the foot with this one.
Seriously. Anyone who is even thinking about buying this camera is going to need to think about buying computers, hard drives, and all new CF cards.
Interesting to see what the files really look like. When the D3x came out everybody was saying that was too much, the lenses won't be able to handle it, but once the dust had settled it was reported to be one of the higher IQ camera out there with improved dynamic range etc.
A D4 and D800 would seem to be a nice combination for a wedding.
The problem for me, and I guess a lot of photographers is that the cost of buying a camera body for weddign photography has gone up quite a bit.
I have a D3 and I rent a second body for weddings when they come around. I was thinking of buying a second body and want it to have two card slots. The D4 is too much cash for me, and by the time I have the cash for a D3s I think I'm going to struggle to find a new one. So it could be a case of either a second hand D3s or a D800, just hope you can use the D3 battery in the D800 battery grip like you can with the current D700.
sboerup wrote:
Canon, you have 3 days to announce something comparable...or else...
THIS. Being a Canon man is getting old. With the exception of the 1DX (and arguably even there) Canon is a firm which I'm associating more and more and more with conservative, envelope-not-pushing pointlessly crippled kit. The 24-70L II is a prime example. A kick ass new top of the range zoom which will have great resolution but lacks IS for some undisclosed reason. Launched alongside mid-range prime lenses that have it and need it less. WHAT THE ACTUAL FAH!?!?
hardlyboring wrote:
IMO I would have liked to see this come in around 18-26 mp. 36 is WAY to much for anything. The studio shooters are not looking for a "deal" camera. They are going to shell out the big bucks for the D3x or whatever the high Mp pro body is because they can. The D800 appeals mainly to wedding photographers. Now on top of the camera we have to also buy new computers and hard drives to handle the 80+ mb files it will put out.
UGH.
Canon it is your turn...again.
Someone for God sakes PLEASE get it right.
At 36mp and most likely 2stops less iso capabilities (or about the same as the current d700) Nikon may just have shot itself in the foot with this one.
Seriously. Anyone who is even thinking about buying this camera is going to need to think about buying computers, hard drives, and all new CF cards. ...Show more →
This, I disagree with. The solution is simply for them to offer some proper (non-cropped) mRAW/sRAW options. The D800 looks like an awesome camera. As wedding photographers we don't need 36mp, so surely an sRAW setting that produced 18-22mp files or whatever would do the job yet give you the option of shooting the full 7000+px sided images when you need them? I'm unclear as to whether the D800 offers sRAW type features, but it needs them. If it lacks them, then I agree, it's a fail. To go one step further, some sort of pixel binning would be good on a sensor this size to allow ISO performance enhancements at high ISO.
The thing that really confuses me tbh is how and Nikon (and to some extent Canon) keep changing up their product line clarity. I'd much rather them invent new naming conventions for cameras that fulfil different roles rather than just increase the model number. The D800 appeals to a different market than the D700 so why call it the D800?!
The D800 looks cool for wedding shooters. if you can rock a 1DsII at weddings, than this should be a breeze.
(1DsII tops out at ISO 3200 and that is the extension).
the video side of things - i hope this is a good camera for nikon because the D3x was worse than the 7D. ...which meant it was behind the 1DIV and 5Dmkii.
higher price is probably due to: exchange rate, natural disaster and poor performance - financially to stock holders.
I wander if the larger file size will force shooters to change to jpeg mode?
I'm actually very surprised that Nikon hasn't come up with some sort of reduced RAW format. From what I understand, it's not a trivial thing to do. Canon uses some very proprietary algorithms for their sRAW - and even then it's not as high quality as full RAW.
I can see 36MP RAW files are going to be an issue for storage.
Aside from that nitpick, I can see this camera being a Boss. ISO6400 should be plenty for most wedding shooters.
hardlyboring wrote:
Seriously. Anyone who is even thinking about buying this camera is going to need to think about buying computers, hard drives, and all new CF cards.
Eh... I am not sure...
honestly I think the 5d3 would be a better fit for you!
Seriously I am PISSED it is 36mp with no sRAW.
I wanted to get one to take to Nepal this year but with 80mb raw files I simply cannot afford to buy all new cards. I woulld have to carry something like 15 32 gig cards. So at 100$ a piece I am looking at 1500$ worth of new cards.
Spencer honestly if I were you I would have bought a D3s.
deepbluejh wrote:
I'm actually very surprised that Nikon hasn't come up with some sort of reduced RAW format. From what I understand, it's not a trivial thing to do. Canon uses some very proprietary algorithms for their sRAW - and even then it's not as high quality as full RAW.
I've heard this, but I used to shoot sRAW at all my weddings on a 5DII and never had any problems. I never once, in thousands of frames, looked at an image and thought, hmm, this should be sharper, more contrasty, more X and was able to attribute this to the use of sRAW.
I moved to shooting full RAW when storage requirements became less of an issue and I got bored of forgetting to switch to full RAW ahead of formal groups!
tonyhart wrote:
I've heard this, but I used to shoot sRAW at all my weddings on a 5DII and never had any problems. I never once, in thousands of frames, looked at an image and thought, hmm, this should be sharper, more contrasty, more X and was able to attribute this to the use of sRAW.
I moved to shooting full RAW when storage requirements became less of an issue and I got bored of forgetting to switch to full RAW ahead of formal groups!
I have done careful, direct comparisons of both RAW and sRAW files and the sRAW files clearly display less per pixel detail than the RAW files. It's not a huge deal, but it's noticeable upon close inspection.
Still though, I find myself shooting in sRAW1 for wedding receptions with the 5DII.
hardlyboring wrote:
Eh... I am not sure...
honestly I think the 5d3 would be a better fit for you!
Seriously I am PISSED it is 36mp with no sRAW.
I wanted to get one to take to Nepal this year but with 80mb raw files I simply cannot afford to buy all new cards. I woulld have to carry something like 15 32 gigi cards. So at 100$ a pieve I am looking at 1500$ worth of new cards.
Spencer honestly if I were you I would have bought a D3s.
At that point a portable hdd based storage device would make a lot of sense.
