Steve Beck wrote:
I have and still use my d800 for action shots and macro and landscape and portraits and and and.... My d700 I use right along with it and am very happy. The d700 files amaze me still to this day. I really use the d800 for me and my d700 is my work horse money making machine. Guess I'm getting another d7000 as well soon for a little more reach. I loved my first d7000 but needed extra cash at the time to get other equipment...
Even thought I don't own, or intend to buy a D800, I'm with most everything you've stated here Steve. The D700 is an amazing machine. And I did the same as you... sold my first D7000 to help fund the second D700. I just got my "fresh" 2nd copy of the D7000 cropper. Man I'm so glad to have one back in the arsenal!
I bought a low shutter count, one owner unit and loved it. So much so, I bought another one brand new when the price dropped to $2100 @ PhotoCraft (Washington DC Nikon authorized dealer.)
They're fantastic machines!
love photocraft, got my gently used 700 from them for under $1900. Eldar rocks.
Good to know. I was of the understanding that only through jpg files could you down size. Was their a firmware update that came out for it or was it just bad information given from the beginning.
Kerry Pierce wrote:
They already have a way to reduce the size of the raw files. They have 3 levels of compression. The more compression you use, the smaller the file and, if the manual is to be believed, the differences in file sizes are significant.
brewercm wrote:
Good to know. I was of the understanding that only through jpg files could you down size. Was their a firmware update that came out for it or was it just bad information given from the beginning.
You can change the compression level from 14 bit uncompressed, 14 bit lossless compression, and 12 bit, but you cannot change the resolution of the raw files unless you select one of the crop modes. You can however change the resolution of jpeg and tiff files.
brewercm wrote:
Good to know. I was of the understanding that only through jpg files could you down size. Was their a firmware update that came out for it or was it just bad information given from the beginning.
AFAIK, it's been there from the beginning and AFAICT, it's similar to the way Canon does their Sraw thing.
It's on page 86 of the US PDF manual, under NEF recording type, where you can choose 1 of 3 settings, lossless compressed, compressed, uncompressed. The manual states that the Compressed option will reduce file size approximately 35 to 55%.
Right below that is the choice for 12 or 14bit depth. I assume that 12bit files would be smaller.
Now, just to make sure we're on the same page, this doesn't change the files from 36mp to 16mp or anything like that. It simply uses a couple of compression schemes to reduce the amount of disk space that is required. For example, if you have a file that is 60mb uncompressed, the same image might be reduced to 30mb or less by using the compressed option.
If you're talking about actually changing from 36mp to 16mp, that can't be done with NEF. There are JPG options which allow you to do that. The info on that is on page 87 of the US PDF manual. You can get that manual from Nikon USA, if you want to get the full info.
Kerry Pierce wrote:
AFAIK, it's been there from the beginning and AFAICT, it's similar to the way Canon does their Sraw thing.
It's on page 86 of the US PDF manual, under NEF recording type, where you can choose 1 of 3 settings, lossless compressed, compressed, uncompressed. The manual states that the Compressed option will reduce file size approximately 35 to 55%.
Right below that is the choice for 12 or 14bit depth. I assume that 12bit files would be smaller.
Now, just to make sure we're on the same page, this doesn't change the files from 36mp to 16mp or anything like that. It simply uses a couple of compression schemes to reduce the amount of disk space that is required. For example, if you have a file that is 60mb uncompressed, the same image might be reduced to 30mb or less by using the compressed option.
If you're talking about actually changing from 36mp to 16mp, that can't be done with NEF. There are JPG options which allow you to do that. The info on that is on page 87 of the US PDF manual. You can get that manual from Nikon USA, if you want to get the full info.
Yes that's what I was looking more in the range to be able to drop down to 24mp or so if you wanted. Still hoping Nikon comes out with a firmware upgrade down the road that can handle something like this.
Kerry Pierce wrote:
It's on page 86 of the US PDF manual, under NEF recording type, where you can choose 1 of 3 settings, lossless compressed, compressed, uncompressed. The manual states that the Compressed option will reduce file size approximately 35 to 55%.
If you're talking about actually changing from 36mp to 16mp, that can't be done with NEF. There are JPG options which allow you to do that. The info on that is on page 87 of the US PDF manual. You can get that manual from Nikon USA, if you want to get the full info.
Kerry
brewercm wrote:
Yes that's what I was looking more in the range to be able to drop down to 24mp or so if you wanted. Still hoping Nikon comes out with a firmware upgrade down the road that can handle something like this.
Pardon my ignorance, but I don't understand the distinction. If you're willing to throw away 12mp anyway, why wouldn't the compressed option work fine, assuming that it actually does reduce file sizes 35 to 55%? The end result would seem to be the same, to me. Of course, if you need more than that, then use DX mode for 15.3mp.
Kerry Pierce wrote:
Pardon my ignorance, but I don't understand the distinction. If you're willing to throw away 12mp anyway, why wouldn't the compressed option work fine, assuming that it actually does reduce file sizes 35 to 55%? The end result would seem to be the same, to me. Of course, if you need more than that, then use DX mode for 15.3mp.
Kerry
Postprocessing.
Going from 43MB to 30MB files is nice for card space, but isn't actually that big a deal in the long run (hello 32GB+ cards).
The issue is if you open them up to edit, as your computer needs to store a full resolution image in memory, and that can be an issue (36MP and 24-48 bits per pixel depending on the editor and mode).
Overall it's still a spurious concern (50% image size increase in the same period we have had a ~1000% increase in memory capacity per unit of currency and a similar increase in processing speed (no need to go to disk as much with more memory, more cores, faster cores). But that won't stop people complaining.
While I have not owned the D800, I did consider it to replace my D700's. After looking and researching a fair bit, I stayed with the D700. 12mp is plenty of res for the images you need, and the D700 seems better in low light than the D800.
I think the D3s tops them both, but has the larger body... which I don't want.
DavidWEGS wrote:
While I have not owned the D800, I did consider it to replace my D700's. After looking and researching a fair bit, I stayed with the D700. 12mp is plenty of res for the images you need, and the D700 seems better in low light than the D800.
I think the D3s tops them both, but has the larger body... which I don't want.
When a new camera comes out with a higher mega-pixel count the forums are filled with negative comments from people saying no one needs the extra resolution and a lot of people posting comments assume the current camera they're using (pick one) suits them and therefore is good enough to meet everyone else's needs. Sure, 12mp is sufficient for a lot of uses. And when a lot of people were using 6mp cameras and the 12mp cameras came out, a lot of people said 6mp was enough.
The D800 is about much more than resolution and the extra pixels are only part of the story. The clean image files at low iso with state of the art dynamic range and colour fidelity are what make it a game changer, and you don't need to print poster sizes to see the difference. It's even obvious in an 8x10. Surfing various reviews and reading forum chatter from mostly amateur photographers isn't going to tell you the whole story. This is something each prospective purchaser should try and evaluate for themselves.
If the improved image quality means nothing to you, then yes, the D700 will do. It's still as good a camera as the day it came out and it isn't going to get any worse as each generation of new sensor technology overshadows it. In the meantime though, the world is moving forward. Most photographers strive to produce high quality images. What's the point of recommending equipment that isn't even being manufactured any more, when the new stuff is so much better?
DavidWEGS wrote:
While I have not owned the D800, I did consider it to replace my D700's. After looking and researching a fair bit, I stayed with the D700. 12mp is plenty of res for the images you need, and the D700 seems better in low light than the D800.
The D800 is significantly better than the D700 in High ISO for both noise and dynamic range, when normalized to the D700's resolution. The D800 is almost identical to the D3s for noise and a bit behind in dynamic range (again for High ISO). I did a comparison here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1124157/0
I am not saying the D800 is not as good, in fact by all accounts it easily tops the D700 in many ways.
The improved IQ does mean a lot in some circumstances/situations, as does the added MP to resolve. However, for the described uses, its overkill IMO…, I M O. 12 MP is fine and does more than enough for most shooters.
Yes, DR is superb, and it helps in certain ways. Color fidelity is another great thing, but not so much in the circumstances the OP asked about…, I M O.
I personally could not see spending the extra 800+/- on a body that I would merely "normalize" to a D700 file for high ISO capabilities (BTW, if you look at my for sale stuff, I sold my D700's (well a couple of them at least) in prep for buying the D800's. However, as you can also see.. I repurchased a couple of D700's after some careful consideration.
The OP asked a specific question and about whether or not the extra 800 will be a good investment for their work. My answer (which is based on MY opinion) was that the D700's are plenty, and are what I chose, given a similar question.
You both need to be happy with your choices, I am.
Judging by your original post and currently-intended use, you should go with a D3s upgrade. Or, yes, a D700 is a viable alternate bow to budget conditions.
But the D800 is a rather different animal from anything else in the current DSLR spectrum. I really think your current requirements are more fully met with a D3s body and for a longer period in your applications.
I have copies of, and use, the items discussed above and I'm not 'blowing smoke'. But in your case, the D3s or D700 is the most sensible next step as determined by budget.
hans98ko wrote:
Recently, I am using both the D700 and D800 and both are good cameras without the reported focus issue on my D800.
For your type of shooting I would say D700 suits you more than the D800 due to the following reasons:
1) D700 are for machine gunners and D800 are for snipers. Machine gunners just blast away hoping to get just that one shot that hits the target, while the snipers wait for just that single shot to make a kill.
2) D700 are for functions, sports and wedding where lots of shots are taken and sorting and processing are needed, with the smaller file size do help.
D800 are for advertisement, arts, landscapes, studio work where only a few well planned shots are taken, and the large file size helps in the enlargement needed for final printout. Just like most medium format users do....Show more →
Yes. nobody uses the D700 for studio or off camera / controlled settings shooting.
I came from a 5d2 pretty high res by most standards and switched to the d700 and love the files. I almost shoot exclusivley with off camera lighting / strobes / studio lights. The D700 does just fine. So o a couple of friends of mine, as well as my brother. I imagine @ some point the D800 will end up in my bag but certainly not because its a " studio only" camera.
This seems like perhaps the narrowest argument yet. I have a freind in SC who shoot senior portraits for a living. she uses one of the Rebels with really good glass. Just saying.
You will never keep up with tech but you can with technique.
Tete wrote:
Yes. nobody uses the D700 for studio or off camera / controlled settings shooting.
I came from a 5d2 pretty high res by most standards and switched to the d700 and love the files. I almost shoot exclusivley with off camera lighting / strobes / studio lights. The D700 does just fine. So o a couple of friends of mine, as well as my brother. I imagine @ some point the D800 will end up in my bag but certainly not because its a " studio only" camera.
This seems like perhaps the narrowest argument yet. I have a freind in SC who shoot senior portraits for a living. she uses one of the Rebels with really good glass. Just saying.
You will never keep up with tech but you can with technique. ...Show more →
Did I ever stated that the D700 can't shoot studio or the D800 can't shoot sports?
I stated very clearly that the D700 is suited more for sport because of its smaller file size which will not fill up its buffer just as fast, and the D800 is suited more for studio because it has larger file size that will help in the enlargment.
For me I can even shoot an F15 Eagle flying at over 600 kmph or a Formular 1 car speeding at over 180 kmph in front of me with a Lumix GF1 view finder camera that many people said it can't be done, and when I show them the pictures on my camera, their jaws just dropped and fall silent.
To do that all one needs is the right equipment like a LCDVF (a 3x scope) attached to the GF1 and using the right skill by using both eyes, the right eye to keep the target in the middle of the LCD and the left eye to track the target outside of the LCD because of the LCD time delay.
The above requires alot of of practise because of the difference in the magnification ratio between the right and left eyes, and the panning motion of your arms and hips.
You are not the only one that has the technique, a lot of the people here have it too.
GF1 is a great little camera. My apologies if you thought I was critiquing your technique. I am simply stating that many on this forum and in real world use, shoot w D700 in studio. And not just 8fps blast and grab. Which, unless I'm really missing something, I did not see mentioned in your post. Which may help decide which to buy. Specific to senior portraits and things of that nature. I would rather have a D700 and 24-70 than say d800 and tamron 28-75mm. If money is a concern.
Tete wrote:
I would rather have a D700 and 24-70 than say d800 and tamron 28-75mm. If money is a concern.
Used lenses can also be a very good option. The Nikkor 28-70 AFS, for instance, is a sharp lens and renders lovely skin tones, making it a suitable candidate for the OP's portraiture needs.
