Ya Sorry..... the D800 is exactly what I have been wanting for the last 4 or so years. I was holding onto my Mamiya AFD in the hopes of getting an affordable digital back for it. Now -- D800 Hell ya.
I should say however -- You having bought a D700 a month ago will not make you any better or worse of a photographer. The photography should speak for itself. So don't get upset in your choice to buy a D700. And if you really are kicking yourself. Then sell the D700, and get a D800.
Haha funny to all of you who recently bought a D700 for way way too much for a 3 year old camera... I hope it drops to $1000 used next month. I'm so happy no one crazy enough will pay over $2000 for it now
D. Diggler wrote:
Was that with the 5DII or the classic?
Classic... With the 5D Mark II I rarely shot straight RAW except when doing large group photos and even then I probably didn't "need" it. Funny, I think I sold fewer large prints with the 5D Mark II than I did with the 5D, it seems not a lot of people want huge wall prints of themselves like they used to, could just be the economy or it could be my pathetic marketing skills
Juan Francisco wrote:
As it sounds now, however yet to be confirmed, is that the D800 will have EQUAL low light performance as the D700.
Everyone already seems thrilled with the low light performance of the D700. Yes we are, which is why we were expected after 3-1/2 years we'd have even better. I'd take a 1 stop improvement in high ISO anyday over more MP.
Soo..... You get:
Same great ISO performance Don't want the same, want better. Higher resolution Don't want higher resolution and don't need it. Better AF/Metering system Will have to see how much better, the D700 already fulfilled this need. Great video performance (as opposed to none) If you want video, don't really need it.
Sure I'm missing more......
Seems like a nice replacement to me. If you wanted uber MP then yes, if you did not, then not at all. Again, Nikon could have avoided some of the backlash they'll get on the D800 by simply offering sRAW.
ShutteredMe wrote:
Lower fps
And all the above at the expense of MASSIVE 75MB RAW files.
I do realize this camera will have a place for many photographers, but for those who loved the D700 for what it was, this is a bit of a disappointment.
This has made me realize its time to update the old pc, its not superfast with the d700 raw files so it's definitely time. I don't think the d800 files will be that horrrible to work with if we update our pcs. Can someone enlighten me on how the d800 will bog down our pcs? I don't keep my raws after I'm done with them, so I'm not too worried about space.
I'll have to continue to shoot my more than capable D700 for another year or two before picking up a refurbed or used D800. Though I don't want all those pixels, the other upgraded features over the D700 does make it attractive to me.
Perhaps in the mean time Nikon will come out with a D700(s)-type of FX camera that has less MP, better DR, and perhaps is a bit less expensive. One can hope.
jhinkey wrote:
Perhaps in the mean time Nikon will come out with a D700(s)-type of FX camera that has less MP, better DR, and perhaps is a bit less expensive. One can hope.
John
I've hoped that too; however, since I read Nikon's own literature stating this is the D700's "replacement" my hope has dwindled
deadwolfbones wrote:
Honestly, the only thing I really want that the D800's offering is the 100% viewfinder coverage.
+1 along with the low light af and less weight/ smaller body.
i'm waiting to see how the colour, dynamic range and how the highlights/ shadows handle in post compared to my d700. post process recovery is a big deal to me.
I'll be dusting off my D700 and telling my great grandchildren how this was the best DSLR of it's time some day, and they'll laugh at me and say "but great grandpa, my Nikon D700000000000 has 500 Gigapixels and can do ISO 640000 and take video at 100k"
trevanian wrote:
... Can someone enlighten me on how the d800 will bog down our pcs? I don't keep my raws after I'm done with them, so I'm not too worried about space.
Depends on your workflow. If you're a high-count shooter and you use Lightroom, it will take longer to
A) Import the files
B) Render Previews
C) Render 1:1 views
D) Render local and global edits slower.
Photoshop
A) Use a lot more memory per layer
B) use more processing time for each plugin or action.
It won't really "bog down" your PC in the general sense - it's just that any actions you take on the files will be slower.
"instead I'll be looking for some nice D700's to be selling for $1500 or possibly less in a short while."
Maybe high click 700's, but I'll keep my babies. I think many who own a 700 will do so also. You couldn't wish for a better backup camera in the same price range.
As far as adding a D-800, I'll wait till the critical reviews come in before I gave another thought to possibly buying one.
I will say the sample images Nikon posted are truly fantastic.
trevanian wrote:
This has made me realize its time to update the old pc, its not superfast with the d700 raw files so it's definitely time. I don't think the d800 files will be that horrrible to work with if we update our pcs. Can someone enlighten me on how the d800 will bog down our pcs? I don't keep my raws after I'm done with them, so I'm not too worried about space.
as others have said, it will be slower to work with the larger files. manipulating images uses raw cpu power and memory mostly...i guess graphics a bit as well but less so i believe. my guess is that if you have a core i7 processor and at least 4gb of reasonably fast ram you might not notice much of a slow down, but if you have much less it might take a bit more time to do render and alter image files.
