where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
I think I'm gonna buy one of them D800 things if it's not too expensive.
Personally, I can't see anything not to like about the camera specs posted on the [NR] Blog.
I might wait for the AA-filter-less version which should, in theory, be cheaper by the cost of an AA filter.
For $4,000 I'll wait to see what else comes out (D400) or see what the used D3s drops down too.
ToaTeJared,
Assuming $4,000 as average price of used D3s, and no D400. Which one would you buy, a new D800 or a D3s? & Why?
Nikoner said:
ToaTeJared,Assuming $4,000 as average price of used D3s, and no D400. Which one would you buy, a new D800 or a D3s? & Why?
I need the low light capability 90% more than resolution for everything I shoot. 36mp and Video really are not the performance I need. I rarely have anything printed over 11x14 and my D300 handles it great. The extra room of usable ISO (not to be confused by limit) for poorly lit scenes is my needs arise.
From the Sony 24mp sensor (approx same pixel pitch as a 36mp), the noise is the same as my D300 for the usable iso of 800. Even if the D800 would get me a stop or to 2000, it is not what I'm willing to pay for as I still will have the need for clean 3200 and B&W at 6400 is a bonus.
Personally I would love to see a DX (D400) that can go clean (as the D3s) to 6400. I actually like that my 70-200 is a 105-300 2.8. I'm not in a hurry and will start looking around July to see what's coming out. That will put me at almost 3yrs with my D300 and ready for an upgrade.
I couldn't agree more with TTJ.
I work in low light and would like the noise of a d3s but I also like the crop factor of the dx body for my longer lenses (and hate the crop on my shorter ones).
At this point, I am waiting to see what the d400 brings. I'm hoping it has the noise of a d3s, 16-20mp, and is about $2200. If it is, I'll buy one. If not, a used d300 and a used sigma 120-300mm f2.8 fits my wants, needs, and budget pretty well, or maybe a couple d700s, or a d3s. My busy season isn't until May, I have plenty of time to think about the options.
I find myself a little underwhelmed with the D800. I didn't expect it to shoot fire out of its metaphorical ass, but I did expect emphasis on other features.
I'm sure it'll be a great camera, but I'll be in line for the Next Big Thing.
TaoTeJared said:
From the Sony 24mp sensor (approx same pixel pitch as a 36mp),
pretty sure you're wrong on this. pixel pitch is a function of area as far as i can tell, and area is achieved by multiplying the two right angle sides of a rectangle together (or some such).
FX is 2.25X larger than DX in terms of area. 1.5X is just one edge.
A D800 with a 36Mp sensor will have the same pixel pitch as a D7000.
Granted, this camera will not be for everyone, but it will definitely be for me. I only get 166ppi when printing on my new Epson 3880 at 17" X 25.5". With the D800, i can crop and still get 300ppi!
atm the best low light camera is the D3s, I agree nikon needs to bring out a killer low light camera as well, but why expect one camera to do everything. they can just bring out a low MP D(x), and it looks as though they will.
As for the people complaining about slow write speeds. we will see, but the expeed3 looks impressive. with this camera i would be happy with 5Mp in FX and 7-8 in DX mode.
Pixel pitch refers to the pixel size (yes basic math) and it's light gathering capability. Note "Approx" = approximation. (Sorry I didn't have my pocket protector with or my calculator watch on ;) You are right it would be closer to the D7000 Pixel Pitch A77 = 3.91µm D7000 = 4.78µm. In reality it is almost the same (1/10th of a hair? or something ridiculous like that.) The cleanest images from sensors from all companies is still at the 5µm-6µm. MF, Leica, Nikon, Canon...
The Sony sensor is newer and generally in the past Sony and Nikon share the same design tech (in that period of time) so sensors tend to test about the same. Nikon always has cleaner images 1 stop over Sony (software fixes), but the ISO that one "really doesn't want to go above" has been the same +/- 100. That is the "rule of thumb" I have learned in the last few years.
I hear you on the large print size. If I did that all the time, I too would want one bad.
I did print a cropped (actual 6.75x12) to 32x56 and the lab used software to "stretch" it. (Genuine Fractals or Topaz I think) It looked better printed than what I sent them with looking at it from 1ft. Nuts really. It cost me some extra $$$, but at least I know on the rare occasion I can.
Gareth said:
...they can just bring out a low MP D(x), and it looks as though they will.
I'm starting to have my doubts on anything less than 24mp on a D400. I would love to see a D7000 killer with a 15-18mp with clean ISOs matching the D3s to 6400. Something will have to separate the D7000 and the D400 with something. I don't think more MP will do it. That just gives me the confidence to go after the high iso rather than the MP.
elvishefer said:
I find myself a little underwhelmed with the D800. I didn't expect it to shoot fire out of its metaphorical ass, but I did expect emphasis on other features.I'm sure it'll be a great camera, but I'll be in line for the Next Big Thing.
Holly cow - what's underwhelming about it? The video? (I'm not a video guy so I really don't track it much.)
TaoTeJared said:
Holly cow - what's underwhelming about it? The video? (I'm not a video guy so I really don't track it much.)
Underwhelmed because the emphasis in design seems to be on more megapixels, and that's not what interests me for my photography. Similar to you, I'd be more interested in a cleaner ISO 6400 18 MP in a D700ish price range... ya know?
It will be a nice camera, for landscape/studio shoots, without a doubt. The control layout looks a little cramped due to the smaller body. Would I trade my D700 for it, nope. Double the price of the D700 (I got mine for $2100 Cdn) and may not be as good in low light... no thanks. The pictures on the main page leave me a little doubtful though, the mirror box (front shot) looks too small to be for a full frame camera. Maybe it is really the D400? The grip looks like the MB-D11, so maybe the D7000, D400 and D800 will all share it?
elvishefer said:
Underwhelmed because the emphasis in design seems to be on more megapixels, and that's not what interests me for my photography. Similar to you, I'd be more interested in a cleaner ISO 6400 18 MP in a D700ish price range... ya know?
Me too, as Tao says low light capability is vital for my type of shooting as well, I also don't tend to need to print big. If they've tripled the number of pixels, they must be a third of the size? Has sensor technology progressed so far in the last few years that the D800 will have the same low light ability as the 700, in spite of having a much more crowded sensor? And if so I'd like to have the new sensor with 12-15 megapixals and give me superb quality at 100k plus ISO. Maybe that's where the D4 comes in? The star improvement for me is the duel card slots, I use my 3s much more than my 700 in good light just because of the extra peace of mind this gives me.
Going on 101324 clicks on my D90 (bought less than a year ago), I hope it lasts at least till the D400 is available. I know a shutter replacement can be done, but I really want to upgrade to a D700ish low light / fast fps & video camera. At present D3s is way out of my budget.
Is it possible the "revolutionary" in D800 would be that inspite of its higher MP it still has a reasonable file size?
Nikoner said:
Is it possible the "revolutionary" in D800 would be that inspite of its higher MP it still has a reasonable file size?
This isn't likely. A 14-bit raw file (1.75 Bytes per pixel) means a 36MPix image will be 63 megabytes uncompressed (overhead is negligible on files this huge). I don't think the raw compression could be much more aggressive than the lossless compression of the D7000 NEFs without making people angry, and that takes a would-be 28MB image to ~18MB on average. This means D800 users will be looking at 40MB lossless compressed NEFs!
You're going to need a big hard drive...
edit: I think some day we'll laugh that we ever thought 40MB was unreasonable. This is still much smaller than if you saved these as 16 bit tiff files. There you're looking at 8 Bytes per pixel (16 bits per channel x 3 channels), which turns out to be 288 MB.
You're going to need a lot of RAM...
Again, someday we'll laugh to think tying up 288 MB of RAM was a big deal.
jonnyapple said:
edit: I think some day we'll laugh that we ever thought 40MB was unreasonable.
We will laugh, but with files that big and "today", I will have to update my whole editing set-up. There's another $3-5k making a huge mp upgrade cost in the $6-7k for the year. 24mb files may do the computer in as well. Memory space may be cheap now, but continuously setting up external drives (3 daisy chained now + online backup) is cumbersome to use and a pain to set up.
I didn't say I laugh about it now, TTJ. I'm with you: editing these files would seriously sink my machine. I'm still on 32-bit Vista, so even with my upgrade to the RAM limit when I got my D7000, I sometimes push the limits of my poor system.
Elvishefer you share the same feelings as many posters its seems. I'm going to be pleased because it seems like its going to be a very powerful landscape camera. You might be more impressed maybe with the D4 when it gets released next year as will many others I think.
bjrichus said:
@SkintBrit ... Don't you mean 70p? I still have a ten pound note and a couple of fivers stashed away from my last trip back to the UK.
The way things are going here I think it's 40p isn't it? If I were you I'd get them cashed in while they've got a value :-)
Still could be worse, you could have Euro's!
TaoTeJared said:
I need the low light capability 90% more than resolution for everything I shoot. 36mp and Video really are not the performance I need. I rarely have anything printed over 11x14 and my D300 handles it great. The extra room of usable ISO (not to be confused by limit) for poorly lit scenes is my needs arise.From the Sony 24mp sensor (approx same pixel pitch as a 36mp), the noise is the same as my D300 for the usable iso of 800. Even if the D800 would get me a stop or to 2000, it is not what I'm willing to pay for as I still will have the need for clean 3200 and B&W at 6400 is a bonus.
Personally I would love to see a DX (D400) that can go clean (as the D3s) to 6400. I actually like that my 70-200 is a 105-300 2.8. I'm not in a hurry and will start looking around July to see what's coming out. That will put me at almost 3yrs with my D300 and ready for an upgrade.
Indeed it is nice to have a 105 - 300 f2.8. Withe the 1.4 TC it becomes a 420 f4 which is awfully nice too. I am awaiting the D300s replacement although I could see a competitively priced FX body finding a home in my kit as well...not a D 800 at $4k, but something in the D 700's price range.
I would like 36MP for printing as well but admit its over kill for most. I will wait until I can get one locally to see if I like it. Before my D7000 I had only used my D700 and D200. I didn't think the controls being located in different places or having to go into the menu system would make that big of a difference in how well I could concentrate on taking the pictures Vs messing around with the camera. Even the D200 and D700 are not exactly the same but much closer than my D7000 is. The D7000 is a great camera but just wish it was more like my DX00 types that I had already gotten used to.
I am sure as things go on in time I will have to adapt to more changes but I realized that this will be looked at when I upgrade.
Yes at 36mp just image the kind of glass you would need for it! Not to mention hand holding would be tough as well as it would be very picky. The specs make it sound like a landscape tripod hugging body or studio tripod hugging. Good for me! I already got my street shooter so bring it on Nikon! :)
yes, i have no problem with my d700, if this d800 pans out like spec'd and i get it, the 700 will get used for my low light/candid stuff and the d800 for the stuff I have set up lights for. it's actaully good practise to keep the iso 400 or lower on those kind of shots anyway.
i have great glass, so see no issues with that. i will sell my d300s, which i have never really liked and am only keeping for birding, and get the d800 which i can shoot birds with in DX mode. there may be some noise, but the d7000 is better than the d300s as far as noise goes, so i don't see an issue with the d800 having the same pixel pitch.
You must log in to post.
