I have to wonder how much, if any, difference 36mp will really make in prints up to 16 x 24. Sure, landscape shooters and others who routinely print very large prints will see a benefit. But for most of us who print "normal" sizes, will anybody actually notice the difference? Seriously.
You guys keep assuming the D800's high ISO is going to be stellar. I'd wait for some non-studio examples of shots higher than ISO 640 before making the jump, especially from a great D3s.
If anyone knows of any higher ISO than the nikon samples (which topped out at iso 640 and was a studio shot), please link it
Also to OP - if you find yourself needing a grip, realize Nikon is pricing this grip excessively.
$616 USD, $435 or something CDN, and that's *only* the grip, no battery or charger (for the D4) or battery door.
So, you might not actually net $1000 extra if you're needing that capability, but spend that $1000 just reaching shot capacity of D3s.
passthegravy wrote:
I have to wonder how much, if any, difference 36mp will really make in prints up to 16 x 24. Sure, landscape shooters and others who routinely print very large prints will see a benefit. But for most of us who print "normal" sizes, will anybody actually notice the difference? Seriously.
Possibly.
You gain a lot of flexibility in cropping, people shooting video at 4K and then outputting to 1080p love the extra room you have to work with. Shooters working with 36mp still images will now find that same flexibility.
Even in an 11x14 a 36mp image could look better than a 12mp image not so much because of extra detail, but because artifacts are reduced because of the larger source file. There's lots of examples out there showing a 12mp image from a camera and the same image from a much higher MP camera that has been shrunk down. The higher MP original inevitably looks cleaner.
The question is though, who will notice? If you're a discerning photographer with excellent technique, then you likely will. If you're Jon Doe off the street and you don't spend lots of time analyzing visual imagery, you likely will not
cputeq wrote:
You guys keep assuming the D800's high ISO is going to be stellar. I'd wait for some non-studio examples of shots higher than ISO 640 before making the jump, especially from a great D3s.
If anyone knows of any higher ISO than the nikon samples (which topped out at iso 640 and was a studio shot), please link it
Also to OP - if you find yourself needing a grip, realize Nikon is pricing this grip excessively.
$616 USD, $435 or something CDN, and that's *only* the grip, no battery or charger (for the D4) or battery door.
So, you might not actually net $1000 extra if you're needing that capability, but spend that $1000 just reaching shot capacity of D3s. ...Show more →
We're assuming it because the evidence available (hypothesizing an FX'd D7000 sensor, 4 years of improvement to the D3x sensor) supports the idea that the D800 will be better than the D700 in low light.
At least for me, the MP of the sensor is a nice to have, but it's incidental to my decision to purchase. As long as the things I care about are there (more DR than D7000 at every ISO, noise performance similar to D3s, improved AF over D3s, colour fidelity similar to D3x) I'm there.
In fact i'm waiting for the D3S prices to come down because of the D800 so I can get one. 12MP is plenty for me and the high ISO of D800 will nowhere be close to the D3s, even when it's down sampled from 36 to 12MP.
I don't really like the new aesthetic approach of the D800, it looks too chubby and bubbly and too cute, like a camera you would see in a cartoon. I like the more square industrial design of the D200/300/700 bodies.
D3s superior iso. Period D4 will be same or better. D800 will not have the iso more mega pixels yes. But that doesn't mean better quality image. More mp means bigger cards, more hd storage, more CPU power etc. the ds3 and d700 are still amazing will I get a d800 absolutely .. Would I give up the versatility of the d3s for it. Abdoutley not..my 2 cents .
Seems like the D3S and D800 are a perfect combo. I've been wanting a second body to my D3S for over a year, but nothing really excited me - I've got a D800 and D800E on pre-order while I figure out which one to get. The D4 doesn't seem to be worth upgrading to from the D3S, at least for me. I'm hoping the D3S will continue to be the high ISO king for a few more years.
But if you're not shooting past ISO 6400 or need more than 5 or 6 fps, then the D3S seems to be a bit of a waste...? If I wasn't shooting past ISO 6400 and didn't need more than 5 or 6 fps, I would think the D700 would be near perfect unless you need the super high resolution of the D800...?
the d800 starts to look intriguing to me because of the added ability to crop for wildlife, but only if the high iso capabilieis are at least acceptable...and then you are still left with 'only' 4 fps shooting speed in raw...the d4 is just too expensive on a relative basis imo..but nikon isn't after me with the d4 anyway.
I think for me, the 4 FPS isn't a deal breaker. I do primarily wedding photography with the D3s as
my main body, but I always keep it on S (rather than Ch or Cl) so I never blast through the possible 9 FPS anyway. The resolution is what intrigues me about the D800. The ability to shoot wide and increased ability to creatively crop would be great for weddings, especially if shooting with primes where you're missing the flexibility of a zoom.
If the D3s does the job that you bought it for why buy a new body. Save the money and go some were nice with wife/girlfriend/ friend and take some nice images. You never know what is round the corner ie like me just had a stroke and it makes you think.
If the D800 can do a very similar job, I can save $1000 by selling my D3s and getting the D800. I could put that money towards new glass or other investments, which would be great for me
there are a couple of other meaningful differences--build quality, the grip and of course fps...the latter of which is what has me stumped about the d800..
passthegravy wrote:
I have to wonder how much, if any, difference 36mp will really make in prints up to 16 x 24. Sure, landscape shooters and others who routinely print very large prints will see a benefit. But for most of us who print "normal" sizes, will anybody actually notice the difference? Seriously.
The difference is that you will be able to crop quite a bit and still get a great 16 x 24 print.
I have to admit that I had to pay a lot closer attention to framing after switching from my 5Dii 21Mpixel to the D3s.
Again, it won't matter much for a great photographer using the right lenses.
mnakhla wrote:
If the D800 can do a very similar job, I can save $1000 by selling my D3s and getting the D800. I could put that money towards new glass or other investments, which would be great for me
But your still taking a loss in selling the D3s which I assume meets your needs. Not to mention the high iso won't be the same.
Valid points..I to have a D3s and wow the high iso is amazing there is some shots with my 24G shooting a iso 4000 that are amazing that I would have never got without the high iso. I guess you have to ask yourself if you can shoot without going that high in iso and slower AF..I too thought about selling it for a D800 but it's nice to have that high iso option when you need it even when using lighting..
I'm thinking of getting the D800e for a backup and controlled lighting situations.
