raboof, you\'re not alone at that downshifting bandwagon. I have no D700 yet (hard to find in my area), but I\'m not convinced to lust neiter D800 nor D800E.
First of all: 36 MP is way too much. You will be needing ultra-powerful computer to make the process faster, but there are little to no arguments for extra expences.
Many people out there do their work in Lightroom or other popular converter with batch-saving function. I\'m desperate user of Capture NX2, the only software that allows me to avoid Adobe products at all because of pretty freaky relationship between Adobe and user. NX2 is buggy, crashes too often and is damn too slow but it has simple interface, is precise at IQ and saves tweaks with layers directly into NEF file. Very convenient if you\'re sharing files to different places after editing. Since all tweaks NX2 does in the real time, it drains memory very hard. Imagine how slow it will be when 36 MP RAW is opened.
Second: it is hard to judge by jpegs before getting RAW file to play with, but it seems like noise at low ISO is disaster compared to D700 or even twice more MPs D3x. Simple physics: small photosites = noisy images.
Third: there\'s little difference in image quality between versions with or without AA filter. I see difference in contrast, but that\'s all. Nothing special. Am I missing something?
Fourth and very important: huge bump in resolution makes most lenses look like crap. Medium format lenses are very expensive primarily because they have to keep higher resolving power. Most 35 mm format lenses were made under pressure of compromise between price and quality. If we wan\'t to extract the best the 36 MP sensor is able to, then we need very expensive hi-end glass. Not every D800 buyer can afford a line of $5000 lenses. Combine this statement with the statement number two and you\'ll see little difference in price between \'cheap\' D800 + line of expensive optics and \'expensive\' MF camera + back + line of expensive optics.
raboof, you\'re not alone at that downshifting bandwagon. I have no D700 yet (hard to find in my area and also I\'m under loan, one month remaining), but I\'m not convinced to lust neiter D800 nor D800E.
First of all: 36 MP is way too much. You will be needing ultra-powerful computer to make the process faster, but there are little to no arguments for extra expences.
Many people out there do their work in Lightroom or other popular converter with batch-saving function. I\'m desperate user of Capture NX2, the only software that allows me to avoid Adobe products at all because of pretty freaky relationship between Adobe and user. NX2 is buggy, crashes too often and is damn too slow but it has simple interface, is precise at IQ and saves tweaks with layers directly into NEF file. Very convenient if you\'re sharing files to different places after editing. Since all tweaks NX2 does in the real time, it drains memory very hard. Imagine how slow it will be when 36 MP RAW is opened.
Second: it is hard to judge by jpegs before getting RAW file to play with, but it seems like noise at low ISO is disaster compared to D700 or even twice more MPs D3x. Simple physics: small photosites = noisy images.
Third: there\'s little difference in image quality between versions with or without AA filter. I see difference in contrast, but that\'s all. Nothing special. Am I missing something?
Fourth and very important: huge bump in resolution makes most lenses look like crap. Medium format lenses are very expensive primarily because they have to keep higher resolving power. Most 35 mm format lenses were made under pressure of compromise between price and quality. If we wan\'t to extract the best the 36 MP sensor is able to, then we need very expensive hi-end glass. Not every D800 buyer can afford a line of $5000 lenses. Combine this statement with the statement number two and you\'ll see little difference in price between \'cheap\' D800 + line of expensive optics and \'expensive\' MF camera + back + line of expensive optics.
raboof, you\'re not alone at that downshifting bandwagon. I have no D700 yet (hard to find locally in my area and also I\'m under loan, one month remaining), but I\'m not convinced to lust neiter D800 nor D800E.
First of all: 36 MP is way too much. You will be needing ultra-powerful computer to make the process faster, but there are little to no arguments for extra expences.
Many people out there do their work in Lightroom or other popular converter with batch-saving function. I\'m desperate user of Capture NX2, the only software that allows me to avoid Adobe products at all because of pretty freaky relationship between Adobe and user. NX2 is buggy, crashes too often and is damn too slow but it has simple interface, is precise at IQ and saves tweaks with layers directly into NEF file. Very convenient if you\'re sharing files to different places after editing. Since all tweaks NX2 does in the real time, it drains memory very hard. Imagine how slow it will be when 36 MP RAW is opened.
Second: it is hard to judge by jpegs before getting RAW file to play with, but it seems like noise at low ISO is disaster compared to D700 or even twice more MPs D3x. Simple physics: small photosites = noisy images.
Third: there\'s little difference in image quality between versions with or without AA filter. I see difference in contrast, but that\'s all. Nothing special. Am I missing something?
Fourth and very important: huge bump in resolution makes most lenses look like crap. Medium format lenses are very expensive primarily because they have to keep higher resolving power. Most 35 mm format lenses were made under pressure of compromise between price and quality. If we wan\'t to extract the best the 36 MP sensor is able to, then we need very expensive hi-end glass. Not every D800 buyer can afford a line of $5000 lenses. Combine this statement with the statement number two and you\'ll see little difference in price between \'cheap\' D800 + line of expensive optics and \'expensive\' MF camera + back + line of expensive optics.
raboof, you\'re not alone at that downshifting bandwagon. I have no D700 yet (hard to find locally in my area and also I\'m under loan, one month remaining), but I\'m not convinced to lust neiter D800 nor D800E.
First of all: 36 MP is way too much. You will be needing ultra-powerful computer to make the process faster, but there are little to no arguments for extra expences.
Many people out there do their work in Lightroom or other popular converter with batch-saving function. I\'m desperate user of Capture NX2, the only software that allows me to avoid Adobe products at all because of pretty freaky relationship between Adobe and user. NX2 is buggy, crashes too often and is damn too slow but it has simple interface, is precise at IQ and saves tweaks with layers directly into NEF file. Very convenient if you\'re sharing files to different places after editing. Since all tweaks NX2 does in the real time, it drains memory very hard. Imagine how slow it will be when 36 MP RAW is opened.
Second: it is hard to judge by jpegs before getting RAW file to play with, but it seems like noise at low ISO is disaster compared to D700 or even twice more MPs D3x. Simple physics: small photosites = noisy images. I saw a pair jpegs (shoot in RAW, converted) made with Leaf Aptus II 12 digital back. They were amazing.
Third: there\'s little difference in image quality between versions with or without AA filter. I see difference in contrast, but that\'s all. Nothing special. Am I missing something?
Fourth and very important: huge bump in resolution makes most lenses look like crap. Medium format lenses are very expensive primarily because they have to keep higher resolving power. Most 35 mm format lenses were made under pressure of compromise between price and quality. If we wan\'t to extract the best the 36 MP sensor is able to, then we need very expensive hi-end glass. Not every D800 buyer can afford a line of $5000 lenses. Combine this statement with the statement number two and you\'ll see little difference in price between \'cheap\' D800 + line of expensive optics and \'expensive\' MF camera + back + line of expensive optics.
raboof, you\'re not alone at that downshifting bandwagon. I have no D700 yet (hard to find locally in my area and also I\'m under loan, one month remaining), but I\'m not convinced to lust neiter D800 nor D800E.
First of all: 36 MP is way too much. You will be needing ultra-powerful computer to make the process faster, but there are little to no arguments for extra expences.
Many people out there do their work in Lightroom or other popular converter with batch-saving function. I\'m desperate user of Capture NX2, the only software that allows me to avoid Adobe products at all because of pretty freaky relationship between Adobe and user. NX2 is buggy, crashes too often and is damn too slow but it has simple interface, is precise and saves tweaks with layers directly into NEF file. Very convenient if you\'re sharing files to different places after editing. Since all tweaks NX2 does in the real time, it drains memory very hard. Imagine how slow it will be when 36 MP RAW is opened.
Second: it is hard to judge by jpegs before getting RAW file to play with, but it seems like noise at low ISO is disaster compared to D700 or even twice more MPs D3x. Simple physics: small photosites = noisy images. I saw a pair jpegs (shoot in RAW, converted) made with Leaf Aptus II 12 digital back. They were amazing.
Third: there\'s little difference in image quality between versions with or without AA filter. I see difference in contrast, but that\'s all. Nothing special. Am I missing something?
Fourth and very important: huge bump in resolution makes most lenses look like crap. Medium format lenses are very expensive primarily because they have to keep higher resolving power. Most 35 mm format lenses were made under pressure of compromise between price and quality. If we wan\'t to extract the best the 36 MP sensor is able to, then we need very expensive hi-end glass. Not every D800 buyer can afford a line of $5000 lenses. Combine this statement with the statement number two and you\'ll see little difference in price between \'cheap\' D800 + line of expensive optics and \'expensive\' MF camera + back + line of expensive optics.
raboof, you\'re not alone at that downshifting bandwagon. I have no D700 yet (hard to find locally in my area and also I\'m under loan, one month remaining), but I\'m not convinced to lust neiter D800 nor D800E.
First of all: 36 MP is way too much. You will be needing ultra-powerful computer to make the process faster, but there are little to no arguments for extra expences.
Many people out there do their work in Lightroom or other popular converter with batch-saving function. I\'m desperate user of Capture NX2, the only software that allows me to avoid Adobe products at all because of pretty freaky relationship between Adobe and user (@#$% I don\'t wish to import my images in your stupid library!). NX2 is buggy, crashes too often and is damn too slow but it has simple interface, is precise and saves tweaks with layers directly into NEF file. Very convenient if you\'re sharing files to different places after editing. Since all tweaks NX2 does in the real time, it drains memory very hard. Imagine how slow it will be when 36 MP RAW is opened.
Second: it is hard to judge by jpegs before getting RAW file to play with, but it seems like noise at low ISO is disaster compared to D700 or even twice more MPs D3x. Simple physics: small photosites = noisy images. I saw a pair jpegs (shoot in RAW, converted) made with Leaf Aptus II 12 digital back. They were amazing.
Third: there\'s little difference in image quality between versions with or without AA filter. I see difference in contrast, but that\'s all. Nothing special. Am I missing something?
Fourth and very important: huge bump in resolution makes most lenses look like crap. Medium format lenses are very expensive primarily because they have to keep higher resolving power. Most 35 mm format lenses were made under pressure of compromise between price and quality. If we wan\'t to extract the best the 36 MP sensor is able to, then we need very expensive hi-end glass. Not every D800 buyer can afford a line of $5000 lenses. Combine this statement with the statement number two and you\'ll see little difference in price between \'cheap\' D800 + line of expensive optics and \'expensive\' MF camera + back + line of expensive optics.
raboof, you\'re not alone at that downshifting bandwagon. I have no D700 yet (hard to find locally in my area and also I\'m under loan, one month remaining), but I\'m not convinced to lust neiter D800 nor D800E.
First of all: 36 MP is way too much. You will be needing ultra-powerful computer to make the process faster, but there are little to no arguments for extra expences.
Many people out there do their work in Lightroom or other popular converter with batch-saving function. I\'m desperate user of Capture NX2, the only software that allows me to avoid Adobe products at all because of pretty freaky relationship between Adobe and user (@#$% I don\'t wish to import my images in your stupid library!). NX2 is buggy, crashes too often and is damn too slow but it has simple interface, is precise and saves tweaks with layers directly into NEF file. Very convenient if you\'re sharing files to different places after editing. Since all tweaks NX2 does in the real time, it drains memory very hard. Imagine how slow it will be when 36 MP RAW is opened.
Second: it is hard to judge by jpegs before getting RAW file to play with, but it seems like noise at low ISO is disaster compared to D700 or even twice more MPs D3x. Simple physics: small photosites = noisy images. I saw a pair jpegs (shoot in RAW, converted) made with Leaf Aptus II 12 digital back and I\'m sure: nothing matches true medium format quality. No way! Why Nikon forces itself to the MF ground with 35 mm camera?
Third: there\'s little difference in image quality between versions with or without AA filter. I see difference in contrast, but that\'s all. Nothing special. Am I missing something?
Fourth and very important: huge bump in resolution makes most lenses look like crap. Medium format lenses are very expensive primarily because they have to keep higher resolving power. Most 35 mm format lenses were made under pressure of compromise between price and quality. If we wan\'t to extract the best the 36 MP sensor is able to, then we need very expensive hi-end glass. Not every D800 buyer can afford a line of $5000 lenses. Combine this statement with the statement number two and you\'ll see little difference in price between \'cheap\' D800 + line of expensive optics and \'expensive\' MF camera + back + line of expensive optics.
raboof, you\'re not alone in that downshifting bandwagon. I have no D700 yet (hard to find locally in my area and also I\'m under loan, one month remaining), but I\'m not convinced to lust neiter D800 nor D800E.
First of all: 36 MP is way too much. You will be needing ultra-powerful computer to make the process faster, but there are little to no arguments for extra expences.
Many people out there do their work in Lightroom or other popular converter with batch-saving function. I\'m desperate user of Capture NX2, the only software that allows me to avoid Adobe products at all because of pretty freaky relationship between Adobe and user (@#$% I don\'t wish to import my images in your stupid library!). NX2 is buggy, crashes too often and is damn too slow but it has simple interface, is precise and saves tweaks with layers directly into NEF file. Very convenient if you\'re sharing files to different places after editing. Since all tweaks NX2 does in the real time, it drains memory very hard. Imagine how slow it will be when 36 MP RAW is opened.
Second: it is hard to judge by jpegs before getting RAW file to play with, but it seems like noise at low ISO is disaster compared to D700 or even twice more MPs D3x. Simple physics: small photosites = noisy images. I saw a pair jpegs (shoot in RAW, converted) made with Leaf Aptus II 12 digital back and I\'m sure: nothing matches true medium format quality. No way! Why Nikon forces itself to the MF ground with 35 mm camera?
Third: there\'s little difference in image quality between versions with or without AA filter. I see difference in contrast, but that\'s all. Nothing special. Am I missing something?
Fourth and very important: huge bump in resolution makes most lenses look like crap. Medium format lenses are very expensive primarily because they have to keep higher resolving power. Most 35 mm format lenses were made under pressure of compromise between price and quality. If we wan\'t to extract the best the 36 MP sensor is able to, then we need very expensive hi-end glass. Not every D800 buyer can afford a line of $5000 lenses. Combine this statement with the statement number two and you\'ll see little difference in price between \'cheap\' D800 + line of expensive optics and \'expensive\' MF camera + back + line of expensive optics.
raboof, you\'re not alone in that downshifting bandwagon. I have no D700 yet (hard to find locally in my area and also I\'m under loan, one month remaining), but I\'m not convinced to lust neiter D800 nor D800E.
First of all: 36 MP is way too much. You will be needing ultra-powerful computer to make the process faster, but there are little to no arguments for extra expences.
Many people out there do their work in Lightroom or other popular converter with batch-saving function. I\'m desperate user of Capture NX2, the only software that allows me to avoid Adobe products at all because of pretty freaky relationship between Adobe and user (@#$% I don\'t wish to import my images in your stupid library!). NX2 workspace is buggy, crashes too often and is damn too slow but it is precise and it saves tweaks and layers directly into .NEF file. Very convenient if you\'re sharing files to different places after editing. Since all tweaks NX2 does in the real time, it drains memory very hard. Imagine how slow it will be when 36 MP RAW is opened.
Second: it is hard to judge by jpegs before getting RAW file to play with, but it seems like noise at low ISO is disaster compared to D700 or even twice more MPs D3x. Simple physics: small photosites = noisy images. I saw a pair jpegs (shoot in RAW, converted) made with Leaf Aptus II 12 digital back and I\'m sure: nothing matches true medium format quality. No way! Why Nikon forces itself to the MF ground with 35 mm camera?
Third: there\'s little difference in image quality between versions with or without AA filter. I see difference in contrast, but that\'s all. Nothing special. Am I missing something?
Fourth and very important: huge bump in resolution makes most lenses look like crap. Medium format lenses are very expensive primarily because they have to keep higher resolving power. Most 35 mm format lenses were made under pressure of compromise between price and quality. If we wan\'t to extract the best the 36 MP sensor is able to, then we need very expensive hi-end glass. Not every D800 buyer can afford a line of $5000 lenses. Combine this statement with the statement number two and you\'ll see little difference in price between \'cheap\' D800 + line of expensive optics and \'expensive\' MF camera + back + line of expensive optics.
