Don't forget the d800 is 14-bit which is ALOT more than the 12-bit sampling. Taking that into account, there's alot of data to move across.
FPS is one thing, how's the shutter lag, black out time?
Just wondering...What sort of kindergarten did you go to? AllI I did was stack blocks, pull pony-tails, and squish ants. I feel left out
Rags - I dont know if the 800e can be seen as a stepback, just another choice. If it does well, Nikon might have an E version again, and if not...they may not try again for somtime. I think its a bold, future seeing move. Time will tell.
I admire your commitment to squirrel photography - the fascinating lives of these curious rodents must be documented. This may seem silly, but you could also consider the 5D Mark III. While the D800 sensor is amazing, from what I have read a lot of the good stuff (high DR, color depth etc) happens at low/base ISO. But at ISOs typical for squirrel photography (ISO 400+) I would expect the 5D Mark III to do just as well, but it does 6 fps. It can also be paired with the 100-400L, a great lens to capture those precious squirrel moments. At 100mm you can take environmental portraits of squirrels doing interesting things (staring into space, climbing trees, searching for nuts etc) and then zoom to 400mm to get detailed photos of them kissing, wrestling, or getting crumbs all over their whiskers while eating delicious treats.
furqanfazal wrote:
I admire your commitment to squirrel photography - the fascinating lives of these curious rodents must be documented. This may seem silly, but you could also consider the 5D Mark III. While the D800 sensor is amazing, from what I have read a lot of the good stuff (high DR, color depth etc) happens at low/base ISO. But at ISOs typical for squirrel photography (ISO 400+) I would expect the 5D Mark III to do just as well, but it does 6 fps. It can also be paired with the 100-400L, a great lens to capture those precious squirrel moments. At 100mm you can take environmental portraits of squirrels doing interesting things (staring into space, climbing trees, searching for nuts etc) and then zoom to 400mm to get detailed photos of them kissing, wrestling, or getting crumbs all over their whiskers while eating delicious treats....Show more →
I am not too heavily invested in Nikon that switching to Canon would be out of the question but I am quite happy in the Nikon camp and like sticking with the horse I choose. Any deficiencies in either camp usually get addressed at one point or another and since I don't do this professionally I have no pressure on me. Now if I were more into macro stuff I'd be more tempted to move to Canon for the lovely MP-E 65mm but I find my 105mm satisfying enough.
Rags - I dont know if the 800e can be seen as a stepback, just another choice. If it does well, Nikon might have an E version again, and if not...they may not try again for somtime. I think its a bold, future seeing move. Time will tell.
In my life experience the pioneers get all the arrows (but they are deemed heroes)....
niXer wrote:
You must have an unlimited budget or maybe you won the Mega Millions last night! For the rest of us normal joes who don't do photography for a living it's a constant battle of needs vs wants vs $$$.
Yes I need a bigger buffer and more FPS and I clearly want the D4 but if a D800 can still get me the results I need I'm willing to work within it's "limitations" to tap into the benefits it offers in other areas. Of course if I had the cash I'd get both a D4 and D800 and all the beautiful super tele primes.
Also buying a D3 2X at maybe the same cost and much older tech as the D800 makes no sense and while a D3S is a cheaper alternative to a D4, it's still slightly older technology, cost significantly more than a D800 and does not come close to the amazing high resolution the D800 does.
I mean before the D800 was announced I was going to stick to DX and wait out the D400 but the D800 is too good to ignore. My problem isn't trying to use the wrong tool for the job but that the perfect tool has not come along and may never come along, so you gotta work with what you got and can afford! ...Show more →
This is an old thread so I'm sure you have your answer by now, but if not: the D800 buffer is seriously limiting. You can do all the math in the world to show how much data is being pushed around; doesn't change the fact that the D800 hits the wall quickly and hard.
I'm a little concerned/curious what your hangup is regarding newer vs older technology. The D700 and D3 are great performers that produce files almost indistinguishable from the D4 or D800 aside from size. I shoot enough sports that the combination of frame rate and buffer clearance are important to me, and I'll say this: the D700 was an almost perfect camera.
5fps is pretty reasonable, and it's easy to add the grip and get 7fps. That gets a little pricy, though, because you need to buy a new charger and batteries to make it work. What I recommend instead is a quick Google search for "D700 8fps without grip" and you'll see that it takes about 20 seconds to set a D300 or D700 up to do roughly 1-second bursts at 8fps without spending a dime.
The grip is nice, even without the big battery, because it lets you decide on a case-by-case basis whether you want a big heavy camera or a small light one. Either way, you get top-tier performance.
playerofwar wrote:
Maybe just some more info on the buffer: buy the best cards out there and you won't have any problems with buffers.
I'm not sure it's fair to make a statement like that without qualification. If you're shooting only JPEGs, that's probably true. But if you shoot RAW it's very easy to run into buffer issues when shooting multiple sustained bursts, even with the fastest of cards. You can lessen the impact of this by using DX Crop mode, but then you're back to the question of why you shouldn't just buy a DX body.
I have used D700(with grip & big battery), D3s, D800, and D600 cameras for sports (basketball) over the last couple of seasons. The D700 and D3s could rattle off shots quickly. I got the impression, though, that, the AF could not keep up at high FPS. Think I settled on 5-6 FPS on the D3s to balance shooting speed vs a higher percentage of in focus shots. Using AF-C D9 or D21.
The D800 AF system seems to have better AF performance. The in focus keeper rate using an 85/1.8g at f/2.2-2.5 seems highest with the D800. Would rather have 4 FPS with more in focus shots than a bunch of shots that are just out. D600 is not bad, focus brain seems good but the array of sensors is small.
Probably like many on this forum, I want a "D750": 24MP, 6 (or more) FPS, in a D800 body and (improved) AF system. Pretty sure that a "D750" would kill a lot of D4 sales, so it might be a few years off.
macdane wrote:
I'm not sure it's fair to make a statement like that without qualification. If you're shooting only JPEGs, that's probably true. But if you shoot RAW it's very easy to run into buffer issues when shooting multiple sustained bursts, even with the fastest of cards. You can lessen the impact of this by using DX Crop mode, but then you're back to the question of why you shouldn't just buy a DX body.
macdane
I agree.
This video shows the D800 buffer performance or lack there of compared to the 5d3. Minute 6:30 onwards. Both cameras are using Lexar 400x card.
The D800 is simply not an optimal camera for this sort of photography. If fast action is all you shoot, then I'd look elsewhere.
macdane wrote:
. You can lessen the impact of this by using DX Crop mode, but then you're back to the question of why you shouldn't just buy a DX body.
macdane
Because then you'd lose out on the DR range / superb AF / ability to return to FX for other genres, to mention just a few reasons.
Frogfish wrote:
Because then you'd lose out on the DR range / superb AF / ability to return to FX for other genres, to mention just a few reasons.
Agreed, I think there are several definite advantages to an FX body under the right circumstances. But you're quoting a small piece of my reply to the OP that misses the spirit of what I was saying. Bottom line is that he asked, "Does the D800 hit the wall right away or is it like an endless 4FPS?" The reality is that the D800 comes nowhere near offering endless 4fps.
I have a d7000 right now.Shoot wildlife and can live with 6 frames a second but hate the lack of buffer when I need it.Was thinking of jumping to fx with the d800 because of the resolution but in crop mode it is not far off from the d7000.Better dynamic range then d7000 but the same crappy buffer when I really need it.I really hope Nikon comes out with an upgrade to the d7000..D300s .Have $ burning a hole through my pocket and just need Nikon to come out with a dx camera with higher ISO performance a bit better DR and a better buffer.16 mp is fine but 24 would be the bomb.Doug M
Cagey75 wrote:
You can have it both ways. D800, for the quality, add a third party grip, fill it with AA batteries, get 6fps ... sorted.
That's a great solution if all you need is an occasional burst, but the grip won't help with buffer issues.
You know, it's really too bad Canon, Nikon, et al., aren't very interested in providing customization options. It should be extraordinarily simple to design a body with user-upgradable flash memory for the buffer. Similarly, it would be terrific to have a user-swappable memory card module so I could use dual CF cards in my D800 and D4, instead of the brain-dead options they gave me. But I digress.
macdane wrote:
This is an old thread so I'm sure you have your answer by now, but if not: the D800 buffer is seriously limiting. You can do all the math in the world to show how much data is being pushed around; doesn't change the fact that the D800 hits the wall quickly and hard.
I'm a little concerned/curious what your hangup is regarding newer vs older technology. The D700 and D3 are great performers that produce files almost indistinguishable from the D4 or D800 aside from size. I shoot enough sports that the combination of frame rate and buffer clearance are important to me, and I'll say this: the D700 was an almost perfect camera.
5fps is pretty reasonable, and it's easy to add the grip and get 7fps. That gets a little pricy, though, because you need to buy a new charger and batteries to make it work. What I recommend instead is a quick Google search for "D700 8fps without grip" and you'll see that it takes about 20 seconds to set a D300 or D700 up to do roughly 1-second bursts at 8fps without spending a dime.
The grip is nice, even without the big battery, because it lets you decide on a case-by-case basis whether you want a big heavy camera or a small light one. Either way, you get top-tier performance.
macdane wrote:
That's a great solution if all you need is an occasional burst, but the grip won't help with buffer issues.
You know, it's really too bad Canon, Nikon, et al., aren't very interested in providing customization options. It should be extraordinarily simple to design a body with user-upgradable flash memory for the buffer. Similarly, it would be terrific to have a user-swappable memory card module so I could use dual CF cards in my D800 and D4, instead of the brain-dead options they gave me. But I digress.
macdane wrote:
You know, it's really too bad Canon, Nikon, et al., aren't very interested in providing customization options. It should be extraordinarily simple to design a body with user-upgradable flash memory for the buffer. Similarly, it would be terrific to have a user-swappable memory card module so I could use dual CF cards in my D800 and D4, instead of the brain-dead options they gave me. But I digress.
Actually, customization on fairly small consumer electronics like this is pretty complex. There are a whole lot of factors to consider. Just to name a few: swappable modules inevitably increase the size overall item; it's much more expensive to build, especially when you consider that it reduces the bulk ordering options that the manufacturer has (e.g. they can't order ten million of one size buffer memory chips); it vastly complicates the stocking and inventorying with additional saleable part numbers (again, increasing cost); it substantially complicates the testing process since they have potentially dozens of configurations to test (again, increasing cost); it adds additional points of failure.
It's not impossible, of course, but unless you've held a job in the electronics manufacturing industry and seen how the supply chain works, how the test teams build requirements and test cases, how the design teams iterate, it's hard to appreciate just how much goes into making something customizable.
Computers are a little easier in this realm because you have agreed-upon standards to build to, but even there: look what happens when you try to shrink things. Apple and the Ultrabook manufacturers are soldering parts to motherboards, using non-standard connectors, even having fixed configurations of otherwise-changeable parts, like memory, so they can pack electronics into a tight space.
I just think customization would increase cost so much as to not be worth it.
