Definitely a landscape photographer's dream camera. Actually, it's pretty damn good for anyone who shoots in the studio, Macro, Architecture, etc. as well. Basically, anything short of sports and action photography.
Pretty good piece of kit despite its GIANT file sizes. Seriously Nikon, create a firmware update to include different RAW file sizes. That would be a HUGE update for anyone concerned about buying this camera.
Tommy_D wrote:
Definitely a landscape photographer's dream camera. Actually, it's pretty damn good for anyone who shoots in the studio, Macro, Architecture, etc. as well. Basically, anything short of sports and action photography.
Pretty good piece of kit despite its GIANT file sizes. Seriously Nikon, create a firmware update to include different RAW file sizes. That would be a HUGE update for anyone concerned about buying this camera.
Indeed.
This is the new 35mm landscape dream camera.
SloPhoto wrote: I am actually disappointed in the DR numbers. (I was hoping for a base figure of 15 stops)
You are kidding, right. It's 2 stops better than the D700 at their best figures, and stays about a half stop better at their worst figures. That's a pretty huge upgrade.
Tommy_D wrote:
You are kidding, right. It's 2 stops better than the D700 at their best figures, and stays about a half stop better at their worst figures. That's a pretty huge upgrade.
d7000 scaled up to ff with no improvements would net this number. There has been some talk of minor improvements at a pixel level. Still going to be a stunning camera.
Looks to be 1/2 to 3/4 of a stop improvement at 3200 & 6400. Makes me feel better about thinking of buying a used D700 and upgrading to a D800 when the fervor dies down.
Ryukyu wrote:
Not to create a firestorm here, but how credible is DxOMark?
I've seen a number of comments at different forums questioning this.
Usually people's opinions on it are skewed to fit their own agenda. The best way to tell is getting your hands on different bodies, testing them and seeing how they compare on DxO. I've burned through a lot of different bodies and use the DxO DR and iso scores to determine how a sensor may perform if I get it. The thing to understand is when some of these scores are close it's hard to see the difference between them.
Great. This speaks well about the direction Nikon is going with their camera technology. An improvement in DR and noise in the D800 can only mean they are going to do well in future dSLRs.
Tommy_D wrote:
Definitely a landscape photographer's dream camera. Actually, it's pretty damn good for anyone who shoots in the studio, Macro, Architecture, etc. as well. Basically, anything short of sports and action photography.
Pretty good piece of kit despite its GIANT file sizes. Seriously Nikon, create a firmware update to include different RAW file sizes. That would be a HUGE update for anyone concerned about buying this camera.
Lets get back to the sensor review.
This is a game changer for many I'm sure. I would have no issues shooting NBA, College BB,
and College football with this ( Daytime or Nighttime). None of the above disciplines require more than ISO 4000. I could see using this as my short short yardage, end-zone camera with the 24-70 or the 70-200 VRII, set to FX jpeg normal large. This setting reduces my file size by 45% and keeps it more manageable . Shadow detail is huge in football and the DR excels here just behind the D4. Overall I think this WOULD work as a second sports camera, just have to be on your
game to catch the peak action given a slower shutter....
Tommy_D wrote:
You are kidding, right. It's 2 stops better than the D700 at their best figures, and stays about a half stop better at their worst figures. That's a pretty huge upgrade.
Can't be arsed reading dxo but if it's 2 stops better than my d700 I'll learn to live with its 4fps... Well it'll be the e for me!
I am actually disappointed in the DR numbers. (I was hoping for a base figure of 15 stops)