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
This is sort of where I am landing also. I've got a preorder in, and I'm looking forward to getting the camera, but it's tough to see this as an improvement over the (2x)D700 that we use for normal wedding work.
Paul Reams wrote:
This is sort of where I am landing also. I've got a preorder in, and I'm looking forward to getting the camera, but it's tough to see this as an improvement over the (2x)D700 that we use for normal wedding work.
Personally, I think the improvement in AF focusing and metering is AMAZING! Even for normal wedding work.
LivLif wrote:
Personally, I think the improvement in AF focusing and metering is AMAZING! Even for normal wedding work.
Isn't it tough to tell at this point if it's amazing or not? Nobody has shot with it. I'm potentially with you on the af, but I'd bet that many of us shoot in Manual a pretty good chunk of the time, so we may not be as worried about the metering.
Amy Reams wrote:
Isn't it tough to tell at this point if it's amazing or not? Nobody has shot with it. I'm potentially with you on the af, but I'd bet that many of us shoot in Manual a pretty good chunk of the time, so we may not be as worried about the metering.
Cliff Mautner has shot with it... posted up some samples too. Assuming he's not just shilling for Nikon he was very impressed with the camera. I believe he specifically said the AF is superior to his D3S.
As to the metering... not everyone shoots in Manual the same way people shot in manual when calculators had a paper tape thinghie that required you to press TOT TOT TOT every time you wanted to see where you were. I shoot in "man-Oooh-al" and I'm looking forward to seeing if the metering will make the techincal work even less of a hassle.
Don't be first, don't be last, don't be the only one.
It is about the lenses too, and what happens to them with the higher mpxl. Yeah, it is a stair step effect, with both the lenses, the sensor, the filter, etc, but the one of the stairs can be reduced by the performance of any given lens on the sensor. It will be better, but by how much (the height of the lens stair in the equation) will be the question as we see how the lenses resolve.
iso 1600, iso3200, iso6400, iso12500 will be key - until I see the reviews, jumping in is too early for me.
Those wanting 18mpxl mraw--dream again, Nikon is not going to cannalbalize their pro cameras.
I'll wait to hear Spencer's workflow and extra time with weddings -- a big price to pay besides the cards, disk space, loading wait, wait for LR to add the body, wait of the LR zooming, transition, new computer if yours is 18 months old, etc...
The creative cropping sounds interesting and shooting more loosely versus tight framing and adjusting in post LR cropping
I can see it for commercial large - at low iso
I can see it for scapes - large
But there is not a clear vison for weddings yet -- and if there were, we would have heard already about 18 mpxl mraw and great iso 6400
but hey, why would they still have d3s? Some are dreamin about a prosumer camera...
I like canon for thhe glass -- they'll step up this year. It is worth the wait. After all, think albums for weddings and how much better are your albums going to get?
It is worth the wait. 18 mpxl FF is sane. Follow what happened with digicams going backwards in mpxl.
I like my weak filter on my 5dc. But I'd want more info on those two bodies before I buy -- I think they may have confused a customer base that will wait before buying to see the performance of each
so where does this play in the sandbox?
Scapes with the 14-24 and large
Commercial large at low iso
hardlyboring wrote:
I am talking about a 4x5 print.
Hell I can barely afford to make one for myself! You want to know how much a 40x60 fiber print costs...? haha
Good luck finding someone to print that size too
Buy ya I hear ya spencer! I am glad you are coming over!
I could probably make a 40x60 4x5 print off my Omega D2 if they made paper that big, but I'd have to build a custom tray to soup it in...not to mention brewing up a TON of chemistry. Biggest fiber paper I think I've seen is 20x30 though . Yep...someone would have to *really* want a print that big, and be willing to open up their wallet for it .
That said, I probably fall into the "36MP is too much wedding work" camp... The idea of having that much wiggle room to crop is kind of intriguing though...at the risk of getting lazy with comps when actually shooting, it would open up some room to get more creative when you have the time to sit and stare at an image without the pressure of the moment. I'm cheap though...I can wait a couple of generations to buy a new body and let time work it's magic through depreciation .
Question. At present 12 megapixels is quite normal for wedding work although many are shooting with 5DII's, etc. Do we consider or worry that the baseline might be brought up to a level where we have to upgrade to be taken seriously? When the most basic DSLR's start having significantly higher megapixels, do we start having to defend shooting with 'only' 12 megapixels?
Not that I believe our 12 megapixel cameras (I'm using a 5Dc but the nikonites are all using 12 also) are deficient for wedding work, personally I believe that 16-18 or so is probably the sweet point for wedding photography all things considered whether now or in a decades time. Just wondering whether there will be industry pressure with 24 megapixels on crop (bound to happen with that new sony chip) and 18-36 on FF becoming the norm. Heck my 2nd shooter uses a 1DIII with 10 megapixels.
Of course I don't intend retiring my 5Dc's till they fall apart in my hands and I assume the same can be said for so many D700/D3/D3s shooters but I remember the days when weddings were shot on 20D's, 40D's and 1DII's and the megapixels drove them into retirement.
I was just thinking this. I got flack from the Bride's brother ( a photographer ) this summer for using 2x 5Dc during the wedding. Wondered why I was not using the MK II's. He was going on and on about this 1ds MK III and his portrait work
With a 3K price tag there will be lots of rich hobbyist picking up the D800.
Time to gaffer tape every inch of my bodies so I can just say Im shooting the "new" model that I am not legally allowed to discuss.
J
Beni wrote:
Question. At present 12 megapixels is quite normal for wedding work although many are shooting with 5DII's, etc. Do we consider or worry that the baseline might be brought up to a level where we have to upgrade to be taken seriously? When the most basic DSLR's start having significantly higher megapixels, do we start having to defend shooting with 'only' 12 megapixels?
Not that I believe our 12 megapixel cameras (I'm using a 5Dc but the nikonites are all using 12 also) are deficient for wedding work, personally I believe that 16-18 or so is probably the sweet point for wedding photography all things considered whether now or in a decades time. Just wondering whether there will be industry pressure with 24 megapixels on crop (bound to happen with that new sony chip) and 18-36 on FF becoming the norm. Heck my 2nd shooter uses a 1DIII with 10 megapixels.
Of course I don't intend retiring my 5Dc's till they fall apart in my hands and I assume the same can be said for so many D700/D3/D3s shooters but I remember the days when weddings were shot on 20D's, 40D's and 1DII's and the megapixels drove them into retirement....Show more →
Ultimately what you to capture the image should really make no difference as long as your vision is realized and your client is happy.
Everything else means nothing. I will be the first to get into a debate about the new camera systems...but only because it is fun and exciting to do. I will also be the first person tell you that quite frankly it makes no difference what you use to shoot your images. I use a 5Dc and I also use a 4x5 camera that is almost 100yrs old.
I pick out my equipment based on what I need it to do. Quite frankly I do not need a d800 yet. I will need one when I go to Nepal in the fall so I will most likely get one then.
TRR has said it before as well as others. If you are buying equipment and you do not ABSOLUTELY have to have it you are making a really bad business decision.
12 mps will continue to work just fine for years and years. Film will continue to work find for years and years.
Choose your own adventure.
Someone on another forum pointed out that the average file size for a compressed, 12-bit file was closer to 30mb instead of 70+ so that might change my mind. Then again I'm saying that after Doug name-checked me for saying that you shouldn't buy things. We shoot video so I could really use a couple of still/video cameras not to mention an FX video camera so for me this is a good purchase.
TRReichman wrote:
Someone on another forum pointed out that the average file size for a compressed, 12-bit file was closer to 30mb instead of 70+ so that might change my mind. Then again I'm saying that after Doug name-checked me for saying that you shouldn't buy things. We shoot video so I could really use a couple of still/video cameras not to mention an FX video camera so for me this is a good purchase.
- trr
haha
Todd I am sure when you buy it you will have a need for it....Then again we all make purchases that would be considered bad business decisions!
To clarify I don't necessarily always think purchases are bad, though beginning-of-year purchases often are. I tend to prefer to make buying decisions at the end of the year if I have made more than I planed on and need the write offs. Sometimes you can buy fun stuff to offset earnings which is cool.
I'm a D3/D700 user right now, which is the perfect setup for me (I don't shoot many weddings, I'm 90% commercial/ad). Some of my work requires a high frame rate, which the D3/D700 are both capable of, and that's what drove my switch from 15 years with Canon to Nikon a few years ago (FF sensor, high frame rate, autofocus). So it's interesting to see that the D800 will also lack the high frame rate that the D700 hits - so definitely not the little brother of the D4, like the D3/D700 combo (and with the file size, of course frame rate will be impacted, I get it).
One other argument I find interesting is when people say "Oh it's got a million megapixels so I can shoot loose and crop later...". I want to smack you guys up side the head when I hear that! Everyone who loves shooting at F1.ridiculous for creamy DOF, etc... remember, when you back up to frame loose, you lose all of that DOF goodness in the first place. In my eyes, it needs to be framed right in the camera as often as humanly possible. Use your sensor, use your lenses, make your DOF how you envision it.
Amy Reams wrote:
Isn't it tough to tell at this point if it's amazing or not? Nobody has shot with it. I'm potentially with you on the af, but I'd bet that many of us shoot in Manual a pretty good chunk of the time, so we may not be as worried about the metering.
I shoot in Manual most of the time. However, I have been exploring lisy78's metering method and I would love to see the new metering system in action. In regards to the focusing improvements, I'm basing that on the hands-on videos of the D4 which is using the same AF system. I agree with you though. We will know 100% for sure how much better it is when people start using it in the real world. If it is as good as Nikon is saying then it will be AMAZING!!!
I'm a D3/D700 user right now, which is the perfect setup for me (I don't shoot many weddings, I'm 90% commercial/ad). Some of my work requires a high frame rate, which the D3/D700 are both capable of, and that's what drove my switch from 15 years with Canon to Nikon a few years ago (FF sensor, high frame rate, autofocus). So it's interesting to see that the D800 will also lack the high frame rate that the D700 hits - so definitely not the little brother of the D4, like the D3/D700 combo (and with the file size, of course frame rate will be impacted, I get it).
One other argument I find interesting is when people say "Oh it's got a million megapixels so I can shoot loose and crop later...". I want to smack you guys up side the head when I hear that! Everyone who loves shooting at F1.ridiculous for creamy DOF, etc... remember, when you back up to frame loose, you lose all of that DOF goodness in the first place. In my eyes, it needs to be framed right in the camera as often as humanly possible. Use your sensor, use your lenses, make your DOF how you envision it.
Add to that that if I frame in camera I am being PAID to frame. If I frame loose then crop later I am framing for free while sitting at the computer later on. I like to be PAID to work.
That's not to say that in certain circumstances I wouldn't frame loose and fix later... but those should be the exceptional emergencies, for me anyway. Free work sux.
Buy updated Nikkors to handle the high resolution.
the truth will come out
It will be the stair step rule so there will be some advantage with older lenses with a smaller stair in the IQ equation but how big that older lens stair will be -- its resolving power on the new sensor - will be the question.
eg, canon knows this... from the high mpxl jumps in the small and even tiny sensors
18mpxl FF RAW is the sweet spot for "existing lenses" -- aka 1dx
the question will be - what has happened to the d700 people shooting line?
. Yep...someone would have to *really* want a print that big, and be willing to open up their wallet for it 
.