Archive 2013 · D800 megapixels: is it really a drawback?
DavidWEGS Offline [X]
p.2 #1 · D800 megapixels: is it really a drawback?
I tried and found the PP work too slow when you get into filters and I did not want to buy a new computer (again) to have the power to make it fast. The D600/D7100 files are much quicker to PP and where I can easily tell the D800 files are being used, I can barely tell the difference between the D700 and D600 file PP times.
However, you get what you pay for and the D800 files (assuming the camera operates correctly) are stellar.
p.2 #2 · D800 megapixels: is it really a drawback?
Do you guys have your OS and the PP software on a fast SSD and have all your raw photos on a conventional 2 or 3TB HDD? I have a fast 128GB SSD right now that I use to store everything - OS, programs, photos, etc. (all are backed up of course elsewhere) but I don't see the 128GB lasting too much longer even with my puny 7D raws right now, leave alone the D800 files.
p.2 #3 · D800 megapixels: is it really a drawback?
Compared with my D700 files, the D800 files from my assistant take around three times as long to render and process on my i7 2600K with 16GB RAM and two SSDs, plus other spinning internal drives. To me that's a huge drawback. I tend to convert them to DNG, resampled down to 12MP lossy, keeping the original RAWs for a while in case she manages to take a great image.
If I had to use D800s as my main I'd probably convert everything to compressed lossy DNG for processing, then only keep the original RAWs for the very best images.
I'd love a proper D700 replacement - ie a reasonable number of MP, decent body construction without being over the top, PC socket.
p.2 #4 · D800 megapixels: is it really a drawback?
I usually open the RAW file as is and then downsize the image to 5000x3333px before PP and saving. I only use full resolution when I really need to have the very very highest resolution. I feel I get very clean 5000px images that way, not far away from the full resolution IQ and still with all the marvelous characteristics of the D800 NEF.
I shoot less frames with the D800 compared to the 5D2, there is no need anymore for -+ variants and I choose more often to shoot jpg when that is ok for the situation. Downloading NEF's from the SD cards takes some more time though.
For me it is no drawback
p.2 #5 · D800 megapixels: is it really a drawback?
I was thinking that 36MP has made vertical grips obsolete - just shoot in landscape mode. Want it in portrait orientation? just crop it...and you still end up with 25MP!
Also, the file size issue is overhyped. I shoot 12-bit NEF in lossless compressed and each NEF is around 30-35MB. After DNG conversion, they shrink to around 27-29MB. Not too bad, considering you get FANTASTIC DR and crop-ability with each file.
p.2 #6 · D800 megapixels: is it really a drawback?
Shooting landscape then cropping effectively increases your apparent depth of field. This because the lens may be set at say 35mm instead of 70mm.
Post processing usually takes significantly more than shooting time. Anything you can do to reduce processing time is good - frame well, try to keep it level, and shoot manual so you can batch process exposure adjustments.
p.2 #7 · D800 megapixels: is it really a drawback?
I have a Win-7 PC with a 3930K and 32gb memory. OS and programs are on one SSD, and the LR Catalog and Cache are on a 2nd SSD. RAW files on a 2TB HDD. It takes a while to render D800 previews, otherwise it's okay. I convert to DNG and delete the original RAW files when the job is finished.
p.2 #8 · D800 megapixels: is it really a drawback?
derek.fulmer wrote:
Will be looking to rebuild my kit in the coming months and was wondering if the MP count of the D800 is really a drawback or negative aspect of the camera? Aside from taking up more space on discs and cards, is it that bad? Are there an limitations I should consider? Work arounds to saving raw files long term? Editing complications in Lightroom?
I'm looking at the d800 because I'd like to have a current camera body for once. Something that isn't 4-5 years old. IQ, dynamic range, and low light performance is most important to me. I shoot portraits. Have used D700's in the past. ...Show more →
I love mine! I get an image large enough to do just about anything that I need to do without spending $20k for a medium format camera or having to rent one. Yes, the raw images are large and I needed to address that with extra storage space, but drives are cheap now. I love the DR and the IQ and have got used to the fps. It's a great camera! You'll love it!
p.2 #9 · D800 megapixels: is it really a drawback?
Scrumhalf wrote:
Do you guys have your OS and the PP software on a fast SSD and have all your raw photos on a conventional 2 or 3TB HDD? I have a fast 128GB SSD right now that I use to store everything - OS, programs, photos, etc. (all are backed up of course elsewhere) but I don't see the 128GB lasting too much longer even with my puny 7D raws right now, leave alone the D800 files.
I have 128gb SSD for OSX and Applications, three internal HDD's and two externals for media and backups.
p.2 #10 · D800 megapixels: is it really a drawback?
james.d53 wrote:
I have 128gb SSD for OSX and Applications, three internal HDD's and two externals for media and backups.
Cool, thanks! I need to do something like this. I already have two network HDDs that I use to back everything up every couple of days. I might add a fast internal HDD to store media.
By the way, DNG is lossless, right? Is there a downside to converting to DNG other than the fact that it is (I think) an Adobe-only format?
p.2 #11 · D800 megapixels: is it really a drawback?
There's not much advantage having images on SSD over a spinning disk. Yes they have a higher data transfer rate, but it's the latency that matters. For large raw files being processed sequentially a hard drive is fine. SSDs provide big speed ups accessing lots of small files, ie booting your OS, starting programs, and loading caches and catalogs.
DNG can be lossy or lossless. The latest DNG converter can resample RAW files down to whatever size you like, as well as applying lossy compression. It's still pseudo raw, you can still adjust white balance and such, but they're not quite as flexible as full raw or non-lossy DNG files.
p.2 #12 · D800 megapixels: is it really a drawback?
Been using a D800 for over a year now, D700 before that. For the last two weeks I have been playing with a D600, with thoughts of down sizing to a D600 and primes.
Sure, D800 files are taxing to load, PP, store, etc. But in MHO there is more you can get out of them vs. the D600, and for sure the D700. Highlight and shadow recovery for one. And the ability to crop ... a lot. BUT there is a caveat: the D800 rewards good technique, and punishes bad. The D800 will reveal camera shake when you start cropping, so you need more attention to shutter speed. But when you get the shutter speed, watch out: the D800 is like a zoom lens effect.
The D600 images are also fantastic, especially printed at normal sizes, posted on photo sharing sites, etc. I have found so far that I can get more from RAW D800 images through ACR than MX2, but more from NX2 on D600 RAW files than via ACR. Just MHO, you mileage may vary.
Add to that the technical superiority of the D800 .... But I still think the D600 will suit my skills and needs just fine. I'll miss the D800 though. Maybe I'll keep in anyway, turn the D600 back in, and go prime...
p.2 #13 · D800 megapixels: is it really a drawback?
So far, the large MP has been a plus for me. I use LR4.4 on a i7 3820 3.6gz with 40GB of RAM. Main OS/application is on a SSD drive and the actual RAW pictures are on 4 3TB SATA6 drives.
p.2 #14 · D800 megapixels: is it really a drawback?
Scrumhalf wrote:
Can you post a link for some sample NEF files? Are D800 NEF files capable of being read by LR4 natively without any conversion required, like CR2 Canon files?
I am a 7D owner, looking seriously at the D800 and I want to see how my i5 3500K SSD system will fare with D800 files.!
Just Google 'sample D800 NEF file.' They're out there, and they load right up in LR4.
p.2 #15 · D800 megapixels: is it really a drawback?
M Lucca wrote:
Back in 2006, 12mp was considered huge. Today that 12mp seems so measly. Today the 36mp d800 seems monstrous for most people. But in a few year's time, it might be considered "meh".
We had 39MP in 2005 from phaseone. The D800 files @ 300dpi print at 24.5" by 16.4", not exactly huge so I don't really get what the fuss is about, the best lenses still have more to give.
p.2 #16 · D800 megapixels: is it really a drawback?
I have a 3770k i7 overclocked to 4.5Ghz with 32GB of ram, an SSD for Windows 7, and another SSD for my LR4 catalog+scratch area (images on spinning media) and with all this it's still painful to work with D800 files in LR. There are some tricks to speed it up, like turning off the sharpening panel during ingestion (30% boost if I remember) plus doing 1:1 previews.
Adobe really needs to implement their image pipeline with GPU acceleration to make these files workable on any volume scale.
p.2 #17 · D800 megapixels: is it really a drawback?
If you consider 36mp a "drawback" (your statement) then the D800 isn't for you. The reason one would get the D800/E is because they want the increased resolution and detail. If you don't want or need that increased resolution, then buy a camera with less megapixels, it's pretty simple.
Any difference in processing speed or storage space should be secondary, the reason we buy camera's is to take photographs. The reason we pick certain cameras is because the camera we pick will meet our needs as to obtaining that photograph.
If one is choosing a camera based on how fast or slow they can process a shot, or how much storage space a photograph will take, then I think they need to sit back and evaluate the purpose of photography. It's to capture and to present. Your viewer really doesn't care how fast or long it took you to process your shot. The viewer doesn't care how large the file is on your hard drive. They will care about whether your photo strikes an emotional chord within them or not... I am thinking some have lost sight as to the purpose of taking photographs...
p.2 #18 · D800 megapixels: is it really a drawback?
JimFox wrote:
If you consider 36mp a "drawback" (your statement) then the D800 isn't for you. The reason one would get the D800/E is because they want the increased resolution and detail. If you don't want or need that increased resolution, then buy a camera with less megapixels, it's pretty simple.
Jim
I must respectfully disagree.
The D800 has many other great improvements over the D700 that would be very compelling even if it still had 12MP:
- Dual card slots
- 100% Viewfinder
- f/8 AF sensors
- Way better low light handling (lack of sensor streaking with blown out highlights in particular)
- Lighter
- Video
- Higher DR
- etc.
Personally I chose the D800 NOT because of the increased resolution, but because it improved upon the D700 in so many other ways that impacted my style of photography. Some people will in fact buy the D800 just for the 36MP sensor, but many (like me) will buy it for other reasons and accept the penalties (and goodness) that come along with 36MP though they do not need need all those MPs.
p.2 #19 · D800 megapixels: is it really a drawback?
JimFox wrote:
If one is choosing a camera based on how fast or slow they can process a shot, or how much storage space a photograph will take, then I think they need to sit back and evaluate the purpose of photography. It's to capture and to present. Your viewer really doesn't care how fast or long it took you to process your shot. The viewer doesn't care how large the file is on your hard drive. They will care about whether your photo strikes an emotional chord within them or not... I am thinking some have lost sight as to the purpose of taking photographs......Show more →
This. I think there are many casual photographers out there who buy 'pro' gear which is why you see so many complaints about dslr weight and file sizes.
After all the planning, scouting, a 4am start and hiking or concept development, model casting, location scouting and arranging a team waiting a few more seconds on my computer for that shot to be the best quality I can get really isn't a big deal. On another forum I read a statement from a guy who shot something on a NEX7 rather than get his phaseone IQ from the car - really, if that happens I have to ask how serious you are about photography!
p.2 #20 · D800 megapixels: is it really a drawback?
I sold my D800 in favor of a D600, but one thing I liked about it is that it could actually make so-so lenses seem to perform better. With such high resolution, the camera achieves this sort of oversampling effect. It's like how people say any camera can make an image that looks good at web size... well, when you start off with 36MP, 12MP is the new "web size".
