IMO, compression of a RAW file (assuming no quality loss) is better than reducing resolution. That said, cropping the image down is the worst of both methods because you lose both field of view and resolution.
This is one of my biggest hopes, that the D800 would have an sRAW of sorts. Lower resolution, but still in RAW. RAW isn't just a "save your ass" feature.
If it doesn't, I'd probably use compressed RAW. I use lossless compressed now.
deepbluejh wrote:
IMO, compression of a RAW file (assuming no quality loss) is better than reducing resolution. That said, cropping the image down is the worst of both methods because you lose both field of view and resolution.
I think I agree with the compression > reduced resolution argument... though we might find that the decompression of the RAW file for handling by the raw converter adds to the horsepower requirements of the workstation.
I don't buy the complaints about astronomical storage cost increases... yeah a few extra (bigger) cards will be required (I'd probably hope to go SD for RAW, CF for JPG and shoot RAW+JPG with the JPG stored on the CF cards... for no other reason that I can get awesome deals on SD cards on black friday and this year NOTHING at all in the CF space) ... that would allow me not to spend an extra penny on CF cards and just stock up on a few SD cards.
The computer storage thing is a bleh argument for me. Once the images are deliverd to the clients there is no real reason to keep raw files. I've held this belief and continue to hold it... this camera makes that argument even more so.
As to the crop options... I think they're REALLY exciting. They are real world usable resolutions... the 1.2 is I think 22MP (or 20MP don't remember which) and the 1.5X is 16MP...
I can find two awesome uses for these options:
1. my 70-200 can reach 300mm if I need that in a pinch... with no loss of light to boot. EPIC
2. I could probably rock the reception with just the 14-24 lens on the body... switch back and forth between 1.0 for 14-24 ... then 1.2 for 17-30 or 1.5 for 21-36 ... these would all be images where 16MP will be ENORMOUSLY MORE than is needed. The 24-70 would also be awesome at the reception... acting as a virtual 24-100
Hum... I'm starting to like this idea. Better stop reading before my wallet gets suddenly lighter.
Have you guys actually used the DX crop in the FX frame? I found it very difficult to frame up well and it seemed much easier and more accurate to actually crop in post than trying to do it in the viewfinder. Of course, I could be a barely functioning moron...
The 5DII was a disappointment for a lot of people, but I wouldn't call it a flop. Many fear that Canon will remain on current upgrade path with the 5DIII, which would serve up a perfectly mediocre offering to compete with Nikon's blockbuster D800.
Besides the AF, I've not heard people complain. I'm pretty sure it was greeted as the second coming when it came out. If they fix that issue I'll gladly shell out $2700 and skip all the way back home.
Well, the AF is probably the most important system on a camera besides the image sensor. To leave that completely as-is on a camera of this caliber was a pretty serious transgression for most people (myself included). You are right in that besides the AF, people are generally very happy with it.
The 5d2 is far from being a flop. It sells extremely well and continues to do so. When it came out it offered hdslr capabilities which basically took the indie film industry by storm. Lots of accessories are built around Canon hdslr. It would be a uphill climb for Nikon to get into this segment.
I think I came across a survey that showed the 5d2 and the 5dc the go-to camera for wedding photographers. It is not a perfect camera. But working pros seem to get the job done with these cameras. I recommend some of the folks to just calm down and wait.
I am telling you guys they will most likely release a firmware update with the sRaw or nRaw or whatever they want to call it. They are likely perfecting it now (have to perfect 2 sets because of the D800e version) and wanted to get the camera out to the shelf to beat Canon. A firmware update is an easy fix which is something Canon did with the 5d2 a couple times before people were actually happy with the movie modes. If this is really their logic they ought to just tell us and I bet 25% more people would buy the camera. If I get word of the sRaw update or whatever I will get 2 instead of just one.
When that happens the D800 will slay all others.
Until then I hope Thigh land can keep up with the hard drive demands after everyone gets the d800.
hardlyboring wrote:
They are likely perfecting it now (have to perfect 2 sets because of the D800e version) and wanted to get the camera out to the shelf to beat Canon.
Not to be the antagonist, but I'm sure they would have included it in the camera if they were working on it already.
I could possibly see them adding it a year down the road, or if pressure mounts, but no sooner.
I don't believe its Nikon's MO to release new features via firmware as Canon does, only bug-fixes. I don't recall a time when they did this, but I may be wrong. As far as I can tell what you get at release time is what you get.
So D800E carries a big moire 'gotcha', but my question to all you experts is, could or would you use the D800E in preference to the D800, in a wedding situation.
I appreciate we've not seen the camera in the 'flesh' but it sounds like people handling medium-format gear already have this issue.... and medium is used by some for weddings?
I wouldn't. I'd have no requirement for the bleeding sharp images that the D800E is likely to produce and the potential for moire could increase the post workload.
Nikon's product structure with the D3/D700 was genius and they sold a lot of cameras because of it.
For some reason they broke that structure this time. I can sort of see why... but then again I am left wondering what will fill that gap. The full frame little brother to the D4.
People say the demand is there for massive MP's in a 35mm format and I somewhat agree but seriously can anyone think of a time when they had any trouble printing a shot as large as they wanted to go?
I do not buy the story that THAT many people wanted a MP beast over uber awesome high ISO performance like the D4 has.
Put 18mp's in the D800 and it is the best DSLR ever produced bar none.
Put 36mp's in it and you have a semi-niche camera that turns A LOT of people away because of massive files sizes and no need for 36mp's.
My logic is this:
Leave the camera the way it is and I buy one because I need video for my trip to Nepal.
Drop sRAW into it and I buy 2-3 because it will be useful to me then as a main camera. Even WHEN I get one it is just going to sit in the bag as a backup. Kinda sad but at the kinds of fights we go to no one needs a gun that big
Saying 36mp's is too much is like the old RAW vs JPEG arguments.
Nikon offers a full line of amazing products across a broad spectrum of pricing. Offering the D800E shows they are listening to everyone not just the largest group.
Ask a Canon user if they would rather have sRAW or a camera with solid auto-focus?
? thats stupid. taking this camera off the radar then.