CortezBlue
Super Nomad
Posts: 2213
Registered: 11-14-2006
Location: Fenix/San Phelipe
Member Is Offline
|
|
Any Nomads get their new Nikon D800? What do you think?
My new D800 came in and I am picking it up today and wanted to see what you think about the D800, good, bad and otherwise.
|
|
|
Marc
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 2802
Registered: 5-15-2010
Location: San Francisco & Palm Springs
Member Is Offline
Mood: Waiting
|
|
I am still poking along with my D60 & D3200. Somehow my Cannon Power shot gets most of the work.
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8088
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
A full frame sensor DSLR. I wonder how it compares to Canon's 5DII. The reviews look promising. $3000 for just the body.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/30
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
It's about 24 megapixels, way more than one would need for most any purpose. I like the 7 fps in continuous mode, but, again 4 or 5 fps would be
quite, quite adequate.
Not criticisizing here, not at all. Technology is coming along splendidly, but what is happening is a bit of overkill, so my gripe is not the
'overkilling' capability, just that 'overkill' and paying for it doesn't accomplish much.
That many pixels just means that if you take a photo the composition of which is not very good at all, but, accidentally and through no deliberate
intent of your own, there is a tiny part of the photo that looks great. With 24 MP you could crop out 85% of the crappy photo and then magnify the
good part sufficiently to print out an 8x10. But, is that what you want to pay $3000 USD for? To save inadvertent small parts of photos to print?
JFK Junior's wedding photos were taken with Canon MKII, a 6 or 8 megapixel camera at about a 1.5 crop factor.
For making photo slide shows (which is what I recommend doing with most of your photos), all you need is 2 or 3 megapixel photos taken at medium
compression quality. I took 4,000 photos on my one month Italian vacation a couple of years ago and was quite satisfied with the quality as they were
used to make slide shows or show on a computer and on my wide screen TV. You know, slide show software knock down the size of the photos to less than
one MP for use in the slide show.
Also, a lot pixels helps your photos stand up to photoshop processing better than lower megapixel photos. But, again, is the goal to have a camera
that mostly makes up for bad photo technique in your not properly controlling the light, the blur due to hand shake, not using the proper camera
settings, and to compensate for poor composition?
Looks and sounds like a great camera. Go for it if you have the money. But, do you need a new Ferrari to go to the corner 7-11, or will a new Toyota
Camry get the job done quite well?
[Edited on 6-6-2012 by MitchMan]
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8088
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
The D800 is 36MPixels and the MKII is 24 MPixels.
Yes, there's more to sharpness than the number of megapixels. You need a lens that can deliver detail at that level and a large enough processor so
that the pixels aren't crammed at a density where sharpness is no longer improved.
In the old days you increased sharpness by increasing the size of the film (from 35mm to Hasselblad). Now we're keeping 35mm but putting more grains
in the film. There has to be a limit to how much is beneficial. I'm told that 35mm film corresponds to 24Mpixels on a full frame sensor.
P.S. I'm a big fan of getting as much information as possible (MP) into a file (raw mode, no compression). You just never know how technology will
inprove in the future and it could make old images obsolete.
Aside from sharpness that D800 is a great camera. It's so sensitive that you can take pictures at low light conditions without a flash (and still high
shutterspeed). That must be nice.
|
|
|
CortezBlue
Super Nomad
Posts: 2213
Registered: 11-14-2006
Location: Fenix/San Phelipe
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
The D800 is 36MPixels and the MKII is 24 MPixels.
Yes, there's more to sharpness than the number of megapixels. You need a lens that can deliver detail at that level and a large enough processor so
that the pixels aren't crammed at a density where sharpness is no longer improved.
In the old days you increased sharpness by increasing the size of the film (from 35mm to Hasselblad). Now we're keeping 35mm but putting more grains
in the film. There has to be a limit to how much is beneficial. I'm told that 35mm film corresponds to 24Mpixels on a full frame sensor.
P.S. I'm a big fan of getting as much information as possible (MP) into a file (raw mode, no compression). You just never know how technology will
inprove in the future and it could make old images obsolete.
Aside from sharpness that D800 is a great camera. It's so sensitive that you can take pictures at low light conditions without a flash (and still high
shutterspeed). That must be nice. |
Ditto, I couldn't agree with you more. If I could afford it I would have a medium format digital back on a Hasselblad, but, from what I have read
this is competing with the medium format sensors.
I actually did not pick up my camera yesterday due to the fact I have one on order from Amazon and I want to save the $300 sales tax to apply to a
few new lenses. To me it is all about FAST FAT GLASS.
I have the 80-200 2.8 FX Nikkor lens and the 50mm 1.2, but need the 14-24 2.8 and another lens from 24-70 range, but haven't decided which one yet.
|
|
|
CortezBlue
Super Nomad
Posts: 2213
Registered: 11-14-2006
Location: Fenix/San Phelipe
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by MitchMan
It's about 24 megapixels, way more than one would need for most any purpose. I like the 7 fps in continuous mode, but, again 4 or 5 fps would be
quite, quite adequate.
Not criticisizing here, not at all. Technology is coming along splendidly, but what is happening is a bit of overkill, so my gripe is not the
'overkilling' capability, just that 'overkill' and paying for it doesn't accomplish much.
That many pixels just means that if you take a photo the composition of which is not very good at all, but, accidentally and through no deliberate
intent of your own, there is a tiny part of the photo that looks great. With 24 MP you could crop out 85% of the crappy photo and then magnify the
good part sufficiently to print out an 8x10. But, is that what you want to pay $3000 USD for? To save inadvertent small parts of photos to print?
JFK Junior's wedding photos were taken with Canon MKII, a 6 or 8 megapixel camera at about a 1.5 crop factor.
For making photo slide shows (which is what I recommend doing with most of your photos), all you need is 2 or 3 megapixel photos taken at medium
compression quality. I took 4,000 photos on my one month Italian vacation a couple of years ago and was quite satisfied with the quality as they were
used to make slide shows or show on a computer and on my wide screen TV. You know, slide show software knock down the size of the photos to less than
one MP for use in the slide show.
Also, a lot pixels helps your photos stand up to photoshop processing better than lower megapixel photos. But, again, is the goal to have a camera
that mostly makes up for bad photo technique in your not properly controlling the light, the blur due to hand shake, not using the proper camera
settings, and to compensate for poor composition?
Looks and sounds like a great camera. Go for it if you have the money. But, do you need a new Ferrari to go to the corner 7-11, or will a new Toyota
Camry get the job done quite well?
[Edited on 6-6-2012 by MitchMan] |
I have been involved in photography since I was 8 years old and one of my rewards from my mom was to buy and develop film on her Brownie Hawkeye
I work with new/young photographers and I always make the point that a camera is a tool and there are many tools that are available.
Massive Megapixels=Massive information, it also can = massive heat and noise, if not handled correctly.
Massive information for a good photographer is not a necessity. I love it when I have to tell photographers who want to do weddings that you have to
get in their faces sometimes. To many photographers at weddings today sit in the shadows with long lenses, I tell them to use prime glass and use
your legs as the zoom. They then have to crop the crap out of the image and it looks like crap.
However, for me, I do tons of stitching of panoramas and print photos that are 6 feet wide and 18 - 24 inches high on canvas. More more more, I want
it all.
This will be the first full frame digital I will have used and can't wait to give it a go. My D300 I have now has an intervalometer and love this
tool for doing star trails in baja by taking shorter timed images and stacking them. Much less noise and heat issues.
But, I did not buy my new body yesterday as I decided to wait til my amazon order come in. I can save $300 in taxes. Also, heard there is an issue
with the display monitor showing a greenish cast.
Can't wait
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8088
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
I found this short discussion on resolution in modern DSLR's. One thing to keep in mind is that this is a nature photographer that's shooting zoom at
it's greatest focal length to get closer to his subjects.
There’s lots of it. Like really a lot. How much I doubt I will ever know, since few if any of Canon’s lenses appear able to feed this sensor the
detail it is capable of devouring. Specifically, I was very disappointed in my choice of taking a 100-400mm zoom instead of a fixed 400mm f5.6. Fully
85% of my keepers from this lens were shot at 400mm. At that focal length, the 100-400mm simply doesn’t have the gas. Notwithstanding its branding
as an “L” lens, it’s just not up to meeting the resolution challenge offered by the 5DII. The shots I produced in 2007 with the 400mm on a 1DsII show
greater enlargeability. This is a serious let-down.
I was also disappointed by a lot of the shots taken with the 24-70 f2.8L under 50mm. The only lens which performed to the resolution of the camera was
the 70-200m f2.8L, which is not surprising given its stellar reputation. But even then, I can’t help but feeling that a very aggressive anti-aliasing
filter is at work. While the 5DII produced beautiful files, they lack the “bite” in the fine detail that a perfectly exposed Phase One files shows.
While I have not examined any D3x files, I can say that the same is true for the Sony A900 in most instances.
What does all this mean? To be blunt, Canon needs to build a lot better lenses. And a lot of them.
If you’ve been reading closely, you’ll notice that very little of the foregoing discussion on resolution had much to do with the camera.
That’s because the limits of resolution performance are now dictated by lens performance and optical stability, not the camera’s
sensor. My gut feeling is that I really don’t know what the 5DII can really produce in terms of raw, eye-ball lacerating resolution. If
anybody wants to lend me some Leica glass, I’ll let you know.
As it is, in the real world where most photographers use zoom lenses, I would question the real value in the jump from 16-18MP to the 22-25MP range.
I’m simply skeptical about how much actual quality is being gained. In studio, under strobes, with a prime lens at optimum aperture, I’m certain the
5DII will visibly outperform lesser-spec’d cameras. But in the field, files from my 1DsII mostly match its performance with any “L” zooms I own.
It’s perversely ironic that Leica this week announced cessation of their “R” line of lenses, since ne plus ultra optics have never been more relevant.
The real advantage of 35mm systems lies in the vast availability of lenses – especially zooms. Lens quality is now, by far, the most limiting
function in the photographic equation. To truly wring the last drops of quality out of cameras in this class, one really has to use super
high-quality glass, coupled to some form of optical stabilization. While what one can achieve with the better zooms is very, very good, we are at a
point in camera evolution where the last 5% really shows. This is true of some simply stunning images I have seen taken with the superlative 135mm
f1.8 Zeiss on Michael’s A900 and the 85mm f1.2L on the 5D2
It is hard to understand how the obvious synergy of Leica’s optical excellence and Canon’s ability to build pixel-starved sensors has gone ignored for
so long. Shear, stupid corporate pride appears to be the only plausible explanation.
To put this all in context, however, let’s remember that the baseline of quality from which the conversation now begins is already far higher than
most photographers will ever need. In commercial print reproduction, a Canon G10 now pumps out more than enough pixels for a double-truck layout.
Printed on inkjet or photographic paper, images from just about any higher-end DSLR will look great up to 11x14. It is only in the rarified air of
really, really big prints, done with really, really good post-processing, on really, really well profiled systems that the differences we are speaking
of will be visible.
To some extent, we are all quibbling about the price of champagne in the promised land, and we should remember that.
BTW,Cortezblue, all this talk about lack of sharpness at high focal lengths supports your comment that if you want to take good wedding pictures you
need to rely on your legs, not the camera's optics.
[Edited on 6-6-2012 by Skipjack Joe]
|
|
|
tripledigitken
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4848
Registered: 9-27-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by CortezBlue
I have been involved in photography since I was 8 years old and one of my rewards from my mom was to buy and develop film on her Brownie Hawkeye
I work with new/young photographers and I always make the point that a camera is a tool and there are many tools that are available.
Massive Megapixels=Massive information, it also can = massive heat and noise, if not handled correctly.
Massive information for a good photographer is not a necessity. I love it when I have to tell photographers who want to do weddings that you have to
get in their faces sometimes. To many photographers at weddings today sit in the shadows with long lenses, I tell them to use prime glass and use
your legs as the zoom. They then have to crop the crap out of the image and it looks like crap.
However, for me, I do tons of stitching of panoramas and print photos that are 6 feet wide and 18 - 24 inches high on canvas. More more more, I want
it all.
This will be the first full frame digital I will have used and can't wait to give it a go. My D300 I have now has an intervalometer and love this
tool for doing star trails in baja by taking shorter timed images and stacking them. Much less noise and heat issues.
But, I did not buy my new body yesterday as I decided to wait til my amazon order come in. I can save $300 in taxes. Also, heard there is an issue
with the display monitor showing a greenish cast.
Can't wait
|
CortezBlue,
Have you tried out your D800? Would like to see some of your images.
Ken
|
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
