Nikon 800 versus 700 - DPChallenge Forums

Sony Sonnar T* 35mm F2.8 ZA

04/02/2012 03:38:51 PM · #26

Sarah, welcome to the club. I just got home from shooting for the past seven days with the D800 and it is sensitive to motion due to the high pixel count. I even used VR lenses. So, a monopod or tripod is needed. Michael

Originally posted by salmiakki:

Joined the D800 owners club

Nice surprise, as I had been informed the retailer did not know when it was going to arrive and that it maybe another 4-8 weeks (this was last Wednesday). Today I received an e-mail to say it's in. Within 2 hours of receiving that e-mail I had the camera in my hot little hands. So nice to get personal service. I walked into the shop and was greeted by name and handed my bag of tricks. ( OK a little financial transaction took place in between) Internet shopping has it's uses, but sometimes it's just nice to talk to someone who understands the excitement of getting a new toy :)

Now in learning mode.

salmiakki

Sony Alpha a7R III

04/02/2012 04:22:25 PM · #27

Thanks Michael. Guess I'll have to get out and practice a bit. So far I'm happy to see that the menus and stuff like that haven't changed too much from the D300. Some buttons have moved so I found I've been turning bracketing on instead of changing the ISO, but I guess that's something I'll soon figure out.

Dphoto

04/02/2012 05:52:18 PM · #28

Well I have the D4 and waiting on the D800 (Pre-ordered). I love the D4 and can see much use this summer at Motocross events and anything else that requires fast, multiple shots. The low light shots on this are amazing. As for the D800 I see nothing but great things coming from it as well. I'm not fretting the file sizes because it's better to have and not need rather than need and not have. I'm very interested in macro with the D800. Take an image that is 1-1 for starters and crop even further with super resolution, WOW! I also have a D700 which I love dearly and it will continue to get use. Having a stable of FX glass did help in making the decision. To those that are purchasing either I say good on ya and enjoy. If you listen to every review it's no different than looking at other new equipment online. There is always someone that didn't like it or can't have it so they rate negatively. Now, back to shooting....

And no, I"m not a professional photog. It's just an expensive hobby that I work hard to enjoy.

04/16/2012 02:02:16 PM · #29

Well after realizing that unlike the Canons, the D800 doesn't allow you to select the smaller capture sizes in RAW (only JPEG, like the D7000), I finally decided to cancel my D800E order. I'll reevaluate at a later date. I just shoot too many pics to deal with 50MB+ RAW files.

I've actually considered going back to Canon for the Mark III...but that would be a lot of lenses and stuff to sell. And I love the 18-200 and 28-300 lenses, for which I don't think Canon has the equal (in range and quality for the size), and of course my 70-200 F2.8L. That's just such a good lens.

I'm also thinking of going to a D3S, or maybe even a D700 for full frame instead. Or maybe nothing.

Message edited by author 2012-04-16 14:13:10.

04/16/2012 02:16:34 PM · #30

Originally posted by Neil:

04/16/2012 02:31:41 PM · #31

Originally posted by Morgan:

Neil,

There are 14 different RAW formats under the NEF files, plus two of the TIFF file formats.

The RAW NEF file sizes range from a low of 13.2 MB to a high of 74.4 MB. In full frame they range from 29.0 MB to 74.4 MB. In the DX format, they range from 13.2 to 32.5 MB.

The TIFF formats are FX (28.0 MB to 108.2 MB)and for DX (12.5 MB to 46.6 MB).

As you indicated, there are lots of JPEG formats, in fact 18 of them. In the case of the JPEG formats, they range from a low of 0.7 MB to a high of 16.3 MB.

So, I am not clear what you mean?

Michael

Originally posted by Neil:
Well after realizing that unlike the Canons, the D800 doesn't allow you to select the smaller capture sizes in RAW (only JPEG, like the D7000), I finally decided to cancel my D800E order. I'll reevaluate at a later date. I just shoot too many pics to deal with 50MB+ RAW files.

I've actually considered going back to Canon for the Mark III...but that would be a lot of lenses and stuff to sell. And I love the 18-200 and 28-300 lenses, for which I don't think Canon has the equal (in range and quality for the size), and of course my 70-200 F2.8L. That's just such a good lens.

I'm also thinking of going to a D3S, or maybe even a D700 for full frame instead.

Hmmm. I know you have one, so I trust your reply...but the review I read indicated that you couldn't select a RAW file size like the Canon! I'm not talking about compression, I'm talking about pixel dimensions... so what are the pixel dimension choices for RAW?

04/16/2012 02:33:03 PM · #32

Originally posted by Neil:

I've actually considered going back to Canon for the Mark III...but that would be a lot of lenses and stuff to sell.

Well heck, you've got the Canon 50/1.8, what else do you need?? ;-)

Originally posted by Neil:

I'm also thinking of going to a D3S, or maybe even a D700 for full frame instead. Or maybe nothing.

I'm actually surprised that you haven't gone 35mm with the amount of landscape you do. Although going there is definitely a double-edged sword, what with the expense of really good WA glass for the format. Nikon does have the near-legendary 14-24 though, and coupled with a FF body, Oh, baby! I know there are Canon landscape photogs that use the 14-24 with adapter, it's that good.
Not that I'm trying to spend your money, LOL. Well, maybe just a little!

04/16/2012 02:43:03 PM · #33

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by Neil:
I've actually considered going back to Canon for the Mark III...but that would be a lot of lenses and stuff to sell.

Well heck, you've got the Canon 50/1.8, what else do you need?? ;-)

Originally posted by Neil:
I'm also thinking of going to a D3S, or maybe even a D700 for full frame instead. Or maybe nothing.

I'm actually surprised that you haven't gone 35mm with the amount of landscape you do. Although going there is definitely a double-edged sword, what with the expense of really good WA glass for the format. Nikon does have the near-legendary 14-24 though, and coupled with a FF body, Oh, baby! I know there are Canon landscape photogs that use the 14-24 with adapter, it's that good.
Not that I'm trying to spend your money, LOL. Well, maybe just a little!

LOL...I sold those a long time ago...just never removed them. I have nothing left from my Canon days. (ETA, Well, I do have the Sigma 18-125 with a "stuck" zoom ring!)

Yes, I realized after buying a $3500 camera with tax, I'd probably fork out another $2000 for the 14-24. And I also realized that I'm actually pretty happy with the D7000 and the Sigma 10-20 for landscapes. Not only less expensive, but a lot lighter.

What I wasn't happy with the D7000 really was for low light work. And I've actually figured that out partly...my problem is watching for blown highlights I tend to underexpose by .3 or .7 stops...especially since all the Nikons I've had seem to be really sensitive to reds. But after much cajoling by Shannon, I finally stopped worrying about it and have my camera set to +.3 or +.7 now (watching the histograms of course). And it works much better. I was in fact going to start a thread about it. I will do so later tonight.

Anyway, back on the subject of the thread...the D800 would probably be the most ideal solution for me, if I could still shoot 16MP RAW; I am not yet convinced about the low light performance yet though. Definitely looks noisier than the D3S and D4, but you do have to consider pixel counts and compare after resizing.

Message edited by author 2012-04-16 14:47:29.

04/16/2012 03:00:19 PM · #34

Originally posted by Neil:

...Anyway, back on the subject of the thread...the D800 would probably be the most ideal solution for me, if I could still shoot 16MP RAW; I am not yet convinced about the low light performance yet though. Definitely looks noisier than the D3S and D4, but you do have to consider pixel counts and compare after resizing.

I lurrrve the idea of a 36Mpx landscape camera, but from what I've seen I don't at all think that I could tolerate the noise. It's true that, after resizing, the noise probably would be better than my current (12.7Mpx) 5D, but then what's the use of the high resolution if we have to resize it to hide the noise?
Given the relative noise performance of the 5D Mk III to the 5D Mk II (barely better), it's apparent that we are unlikely to see major gains in this area until we see a radical shift in sensor technology, and in fact, we are within a couple stops of the physical limits; if we could eliminate *all* noise contribution from electronics and count every single photon with no losses, we'd only be a couple, maybe three stops better off.

04/16/2012 03:02:32 PM · #35

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by Neil:
...Anyway, back on the subject of the thread...the D800 would probably be the most ideal solution for me, if I could still shoot 16MP RAW; I am not yet convinced about the low light performance yet though. Definitely looks noisier than the D3S and D4, but you do have to consider pixel counts and compare after resizing.

I lurrrve the idea of a 36Mpx landscape camera, but from what I've seen I don't at all think that I could tolerate the noise. It's true that, after resizing, the noise probably would be better than my current (12.7Mpx) 5D, but then what's the use of the high resolution if we have to resize it to hide the noise?
Given the relative noise performance of the 5D Mk III to the 5D Mk II (barely better), it's apparent that we are unlikely to see major gains in this area until we see a radical shift in sensor technology, and in fact, we are within a couple stops of the physical limits; if we could eliminate *all* noise contribution from electronics and count every single photon with no losses, we'd only be a couple, maybe three stops better off.

Agreed. But come play with me in my high ISO thread later tonight :)

04/16/2012 03:13:31 PM · #36

Originally posted by Neil:

Agreed. But come play with me in my high ISO thread later tonight :)

Good grief, man, did you just invite me to come play with you in the dark??!!

04/16/2012 03:44:31 PM · #37

FX (35.9 x 24.0 mm) CMOS. 7,360 Ã� 4,912 pixels (L), 5,520 Ã� 3,680 (M), 3,680 Ã� 2,456 (S).

Professional 5:4 (30.0 x 24.0 mm). 6,144 Ã� 4,912 (L), 4,608 Ã� 3,680 (M), 3,072 Ã� 2,456 (S).

1.2x Canon emulation (30.0 x 19.9 mm), as if anyone cares. 6,144 Ã� 4,080 (L), 4,608 Ã� 3,056 (M), 3,072 Ã� 2,040 (S)

DX (23.4 x 15.6 mm): 15.4 MP. 4,800 Ã� 3,200 (L), 3,600 Ã� 2,400 (M), 2,400 Ã� 1,600 (S).

04/16/2012 10:27:19 PM · #38

Originally posted by Morgan:

Are you sure these are all available in RAW? I can see the three levels, because they are all crops. But the S/M/L sound like the JPEG options on my D7000 camera.

I can't find anything about this online.

I did just read an article on Canon's sRAW format. I didn't find a technical article, but I presume those aren't crops (which is better, I think).

04/16/2012 10:29:48 PM · #39

Originally posted by Neil:

I did just read an article on Canon's sRAW format. I didn't find a technical article, but I presume those aren't crops (which is better, I think).

You are correct, the Canon sRAW files are not crops.

ETA: From the D800 User's Manual (see here) pages 79-88, it seems that the selected image area (read "crop mode") does affect the RAW file size, but within each crop mode, the selected image size does not. From Page 88:
Note that the option selected for image size does not affect the size of
NEF (RAW) images. When opened in software such as ViewNX 2
(supplied) or Capture NX 2 (available separately), NEF (RAW) images
have the dimensions given for large (L-size) images in the table on the
previous page.

Message edited by author 2012-04-16 22:48:15.

04/17/2012 12:02:35 AM · #40

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by Neil:
I did just read an article on Canon's sRAW format. I didn't find a technical article, but I presume those aren't crops (which is better, I think).

You are correct, the Canon sRAW files are not crops.

ETA: From the D800 User's Manual (see here) pages 79-88, it seems that the selected image area (read "crop mode") does affect the RAW file size, but within each crop mode, the selected image size does not. From Page 88:
Note that the option selected for image size does not affect the size of
NEF (RAW) images. When opened in software such as ViewNX 2
(supplied) or Capture NX 2 (available separately), NEF (RAW) images
have the dimensions given for large (L-size) images in the table on the
previous page.

Thanks! Do you know how the Canon sRaw works? Are the sensor pixels "pooled" to create the lower res? Or is it basically just resizing in camera?

04/20/2012 01:41:32 AM · #41

Here's a good comparison of the output of the 800 and 800E

//www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nikon_d800_d800e_first_comparison.shtml

Almost wish I kept my 800 order live...might have even had it now! But I still don't know how I'd ever manage all the large photos (I just shoot too much!)

Message edited by author 2012-04-20 01:41:40.

smardaz

04/20/2012 01:45:34 AM · #42

if you can get past his annoying accent and weird antics, this guy has pretty insightful reviews:

D800 hands on review

04/20/2012 07:28:14 PM · #43

Actually, at this point I'm holding out to see what the D400 brings!