cputeq
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.7 #5 · D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out | |
Heck, I bet it would be hard to tell even up close against the D700 in 24" and smaller prints.
Not as hard as you would think. When I was deciding between the A850 and the D700, I downloaded full-sized JPEGs from imaging-resource and printed both to 13x19". You could tell fairly easily which was the D700 and which was the A850. Granted these were there JPEG versions (I was stupid and didn't DL the RAWs of the same shots), but you could see the yarn threads easier and certainly the numbers on the scale to the right of their images.
I agree. The whole notion of my computer would be too slow is such a lame excuse. You can get a blazing fast computer for less than $2000. Problem solved.
So essentially a Nikon D800 is going to cost $3000 + lens + $2000 computer?
Also, people thinking the PC excuse is "lame" perhaps don't use their images like other people do.
If a wedding photographer shoots 1000 images in a day then has to upload them and sort through Lightroom (or whatever), you've now got a lot of additional processing overhead from rendering previews slower, 1:1 views slower, spot-corrections, etc.
Or, tell the Photoshop user he's being silly when he starts processing layers and masks and/or HDR in photoshop.
Even right now, opening a full-sized CR2 from the 5D2 results in a 120MB document, per layer (heaven help you if you've converted to TIFF beforehand), and this is just opening the CR2 with no adjustments. Three layers (2 duplicates) balloons the document memory footprint to almost 400MB (with OS X Activity Monitor reporting 513MB used by CS5, but again this is with zero adjustments and 3x duplicate layers).
The D800 JPEGS are 20MB+, whereas CR2s from the 5D2 clock in around 25MB...I can only imagine how large the RAWs are from the D800 (nor can I wait to get my hands on a few and try processing them). Edit - Opening the "bride" jpeg in CS5 results in a 206MB document! 
Don't get me wrong, it's a sexy little beast and in a low-throughput workflow, 36MP isn't impossible to work with. Increase your shot-counts though and the burden on processing time and resources isn't a simple linear demand.
I think I'm just disappointed in the (assumed) lack of a smaller RAW mode. Trust me, I'd LOVE to have a D800 for landscaping, assuming the DR is where it needs to be. But, I'd also love to use the camera for slightly less-stringent casual/fun shots and having to choose between full-sized RAWs (at what, ~40MB each?) or going JPEG (blah) is a small bummer.
I guess one could argue that my casual/fun shots would do well in JPEG, and maybe they would, but frankly I'm not a fan of Nikon's JPEG processing engine, and I could barely stand even Olympus's highly-praised engine on the E-5. Maybe I'm the minority 
Edit 2- Okay....So I downloaded the "bride" JPEG shot, then down sampled to 2550px wide-end using Bicubic sharper....wow, impressive stuff, I almost want to hug my 3MP monitor
Edited on Feb 07, 2012 at 09:40 AM · View previous versions
|
