Lotusm50 wrote:
It's still cheap. You can 16GB of RAM for as little as $80 (4 sticks of 4GB). It is really unlikely you'll need more than 16GB -- 8GB is really enough. Also, I wouldn't be using a laptop for processing images -- other issues beyond just memory.
I use my laptop for 100% of my image processing
and there is no way I'm back to using a big computer.
8GB sure isn't enough for me.
Look, I'm not saying it's not doable, it's just
a step backwards in my workflow.
Don't think it's worth it.
That's a mighty impressive camera for sure. Could do with slightly less MP, the 21MP of the 5D2 seem heavy enough.
Going to be very interesting to see how much the 5D3 will match, Nikon has set a tough spec just to meet - yet harder to surpass. But a simple tilty LCD would do miracles for what I like to do :-)
As for articulated LCD:
That is because of durability and water resistant. This makes it a lot more robust camera. I'd even love to have flash removed to keep it more water resistant as I never use it
As for File size:
Seems to me this will be a future proof camera so that owner don't have to upgrade their camera for next 5 years, maybe forever?. Seems a feature to me other than downside and save me (costumer) some money from upgrade to X Meg camera from Sony, Canon.......
Nikon do listen! they fix all small shortcomings of D700 make this a ultimate final image machine to me.
I can't even think of anything I need other than they offered.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Yes, but it's cheap. 1TB of storage costs about $100 - $130.
I was simply saying that, if many of us expect similar workflow performance with the D800 when compared to our current cameras, the cost of both hard drive upgrades and potentially RAM/processor/computer upgrades should be figured in. I didn't mean any negative connotations. I certainly upgraded some things when I went from a 12mp DSLR to the A900.
"Machine Time" here was my own typical processing script running unmanned on a Mac pro with 8 cores running at 2.66GHz and fitted with 12GB of RAM. So that's just the time the machine takes. The script is normally interactive so that I can make decisions at every important step. The interactive time will likely be close to the same across all sizes and different for every file so this "Machine Time" is just the time you spend waiting for a processes to finish up (ie. 11 hours of waiting vs 4 hours of waiting when processing 100 files at 36mp and 14mp respectively). I don't normally use any kind of app that imports and then generates previews but if I did that time would also be dramatically affected. Probably it would take three times as long to import and make previews for 36mp files as it would for 12mp files.
So yeah, while storage is getting cheaper and cheaper it's not really getting much faster. HDDs today are about the same speed they were 5 or 6 years ago. And also I guess this cameras is still using USB v2 right? So there's another 3x on previous times. Storage capacity is only really a concern when you're doing something consumer-ish like backing up to DVD. 12mp files is already a bit unmanageable for DVD backup and indexing. 36mp images is only going to be three times the headache.
So all I see here is slow slow and headache headache! And for what? Printing without cropping won't matter. Print-size is mostly based on viewing distance and 8mp is already big enough to print the entire width and height of the Empire State building. Web an screen resolution? Nope! Not better than 16mp! So all you get is the ability to crop smaller. Hmmm
Like I said 36mp is WAY too big! 22 or 24 is already too big IMO. Somewhere between 8mp and 16mp is about right IMO. Computing power and resources on typical PCs just isn't ready for 36mp unless you're mega-rich and install a blade server in your house!
zhangyue wrote:
Why throw away information with Storage are so cheap these day. I agree Canon's small raw feature are nice to have. But it will not be a decision factor for me.
I would prefer to have something in 18M-24M range for FF. But again more pix here doesn't hurt other than processing power and file size, which anyway going to update very quickly based on current trend. This is a really sexy camera.
76.5M per DPREVIEW.
Bifurcator wrote:
Way too many pixels!
I think they scaling the specs to exclude kind of a few too many common people.
What would be the RAW file size on that? About 50 megs? And what is the resulting continuous drive hindered to? 4FPS with a 4 or 5 shot buffer? I didn't see those specs in my quick skim...
Mostly you would yes. Of course! And my script above already scales twice during processing so the majority of the time there it's working on scales of the original! Not the original the whole time!
Bifurcator wrote:
Mostly you would yes. Of course! And my script above already scales twice during processing so the majority of the time there it's working on scales of the original! Not the original the whole time!
But then yoy cannot scale the processing time.
I seriously wonder if your script is doing any good to your images though
zhangyue wrote:
As for articulated LCD:
That is because of durability and water resistant. This makes it a lot more robust camera. I'd even love to have flash removed to keep it more water resistant as I never use it
meh, the difference in durability is large if you drop the camera from 6 ft with the screen folded out but small with it folded in. the weather proofing is mostly just more expensive not necessarily better. it's not like the camera is waterproof anyway. i'd much prefer the articulated screen when trying to get a ground level shot in the rain to better weatherproofing and needing to kneel down to use the angle finder. obviously everybody has different preferences though. after having articulated screens it's very difficult to go back to not. nevertheless, somehow people managed to take pictures without lcds at all for a hundred years.
sebboh wrote:
meh, the difference in durability is large if you drop the camera from 6 ft with the screen folded out but small with it folded in. the weather proofing is mostly just more expensive not necessarily better. it's not like the camera is waterproof anyway. i'd much prefer the articulated screen when trying to get a ground level shot in the rain to better weatherproofing and needing to kneel down to use the angle finder. obviously everybody has different preferences though. after having articulated screens it's very difficult to go back to not. nevertheless, somehow people managed to take pictures without lcds at all for a hundred years. ...Show more →
Hehe, I'm kinda there too. I want articulated. But at the same time besides when I actually use it articulated I don't use it at all. So I'm kinda articulated or just leave it off.
Bifurcator wrote:
Mostly you would yes. Of course! And my script above already scales twice during processing so the majority of the time there it's working on scales of the original! Not the original the whole time!
alundeb wrote:
But then yoy cannot scale the processing time.
I'd say it scales in an almost perfect linear fashion:
Mirek Elsner wrote:
This is 50% - 100% more resolution than 5D2 that I currently have. With 5D2 there isn't enough resolution for 13x19" and some cropping, so the extra resolution would be welcome. .
I'm sorry, this makes me laugh. The 5D2 doesn't have enough resolution for 13x19 with a little cropping? What are you doing, viewing them with a magnifying glass from 5 inches? A slightly cropped 5D2 file at 19" wide is about 270 dpi. The limit of human vision is around 300 dpi at 12 inches viewing distance, which is way closer than normal viewing distance for a 19" print (around 24 inches is typical viewing distance for a 19" print). So you're saying that a camera that when cropped that can deliver resolution at the limits of human vision isn't good enough. Better tell all those people doing 40" gallery prints with the 5D II that they have to shut their exhibitions down.
This image quality snobbery is just getting out of hand...
I can see wanting the extra resolution if you print really large...I'm sure a 36" print would see a little improvement, and 40-60" prints would see big improvements with this camera, but you aren't going to see a lick of difference between a 5D II and the D800 at 19".
I agree but I don't think you'll see any difference at 40x60 either. Because to view that image you need to be about 2 or 3 meters back and at that point human vision is around 50dpi.
alundeb wrote:
Come on. Even if the camera has 36 MP, you don't have to run you entire workflow with full res files for all jobs.
Exactly, nor do you have to shoot 14bit NEF files, JPEG Basic medium could be fine for some things
When I'm shooting for some of my NCAA clients with my D3s I just use JPEG basic because they want smaller files for fast transfers and most of their usage is web anyway these days
If I'm shooting some landscape shots for my own enjoyment, then it would be 14bit NEF's because I'm realistically only going to be working on a handful of images and the file size, and processing time is fine.
I mean heck, I might spend a few hours doing revisions to a single file before I make my final print so if it takes 3 seconds vs 5 seconds to process does that really matter ? No, I can take 2 instead of 1 sips of coffee perhaps
I mean I guess if your way of shooting a landscape is to take 800 frames then to try to caption and transmit them all in the field with 36meg NEF's then yeah, you'll probably have problems.
But again though, who really shoots landscapes with the same overall workflow they would use when covering a NFL football game ??
Different tools, different lenses, different workflow, different deadlines etc, unless of course you've got picture desk editors for your sunrise landscape photo that require 6-10 different images with full captions sent within 15 minutes of the sun making it 5 degrees past the horizon, much like what many agencies want moved by the end of the 1st half of play.
"Machine Time" here was my own typical processing script running unmanned on a Mac pro with 8 cores running at 2.66GHz and fitted with 12GB of RAM. So that's just the time the machine takes. The script is normally interactive so that I can make decisions at every important step. The interactive time will likely be close to the same across all sizes and different for every file so this "Machine Time" is just the time you spend waiting for a processes to finish up (ie. 11 hours of waiting vs 4 hours of waiting when processing 100 files at 36mp and 14mp respectively). I don't normally use any kind of app that imports and then generates previews but if I did that time would also be dramatically affected. Probably it would take three times as long to import and make previews for 36mp files as it would for 12mp files.
So yeah, while storage is getting cheaper and cheaper it's not really getting much faster. HDDs today are about the same speed they were 5 or 6 years ago. And also I guess this cameras is still using USB v2 right? So there's another 3x on previous times. Storage capacity is only really a concern when you're doing something consumer-ish like backing up to DVD. 12mp files is already a bit unmanageable for DVD backup and indexing. 36mp images is only going to be three times the headache.
So all I see here is slow slow and headache headache! And for what? Printing without cropping won't matter. Print-size is mostly based on viewing distance and 8mp is already big enough to print the entire width and height of the Empire State building. Web an screen resolution? Nope! Not better than 16mp! So all you get is the ability to crop smaller. Hmmm
Like I said 36mp is WAY too big! 22 or 24 is already too big IMO. Somewhere between 8mp and 16mp is about right IMO. Computing power and resources on typical PCs just isn't ready for 36mp unless you're mega-rich and install a blade server in your house!
Re USB, the D800 offers USB 3/ 5GBit/sec as stated in it's specs.
Perhaps you were using something cutting edge 5-6 yrs ago but I have seen a dramatic increase in HD speed over that time. Processor speed has also kept pace, ram is dirt cheap, most software is 64 bit, and son on. Honestly, 36MP is nothing to deal with on current hardware unless your using an iPad or something (but then the next quad core version is right around the corner). Each individual's needs and requirements are obviously unique/ different though. More power to anyone who wants to stick with their 128K computers! For me, 36MP will do just fine though I would prefer 60-80MP.
?. Seems a feature to me other than downside and save me (costumer) some money from upgrade to X Meg camera from Sony, Canon....... 
Yeah, I'm doing all that for nothing. It's just too much fun to watch those process bars crawl across the screen.