Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Whiling away the hours, days, weeks and (I hope not too many) months until my D800 arrives, I was thinking about the advice given in the D800 Technical Guide together with something I said in another thread (the one about the Olympus OM-D in the Digital Cameras section).
What Nikon seems to be pointing up is that while this new camera will be capable of great things, it also has a number of problems which, basically, mean that in many situations, the high Mp count will leave much less margin for error than a lesser sensor might.
As an amateur with loads of time to experiment, I can regard that as a challenge.
But I wonder if the professional, for whom time is money, might see it as a pain in the backside?
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
More than likely yes ! I really think the professional would be pushed to consider the D800 with altogether too many pixels squashed into its sensor which I really cant believe is going to provide adequate noise reduction let alone the stupid file sizes, Im a Professional Canon user and can only hope they dont go down the same road ... On the other hand does turning the pixel resolution down any have any possible impact on iso performance ? I cant see it would but I am not an expert on sensors ... surely tho the pixel pitch remains the same ..
Why do you think Nikon has offered the D4 with "only" 16MP?
In many situations, the D4 will handle in much the same way as the D3 that will be so familiar. For social photography, we don't need 36MP and if I did buy a D800, the resolution would be wound down to one-half or even one-third. How many portrait customers want the ultimate in resolution? Smoothness of tones - yes - but not to show every little flaw.
My customers don't usually want the truth to spoil their pictures!
Leica and Hasselblad have decided that high pixel count calls for a sensor that's larger than full-frame. Leica nailed their colours to the mast when they ditched the R system with its excellent lenses and digital module R.
A top class wedding photographer, Well known to this site actually sold 24 mega pixel Nikon D3X bodies, He replaced them with 12 mega pixel Nikon D3S bodies...!
Actual words " I did not need that much resolution for wedding work " ....!!
I am not going to mention a name, But this photographer commands a lot of respect where weddings are concerned....!!!
This was not that long ago either, Now if a well known pro wedding photographer can & does make a very good living with 12 mega pixel cameras, What does that say about those who feel they need more mega pixels in the amateur world.....
Less is very often a lot more, If you have the ability/skill to use it.....
I photojournalist I met at a civic event told me he only shoots 5Mp JPEGs with his Canon 5D Mk I.
I wanted to upgrade to FF from my D300 and was thinking about the 800 but just couldn't see the point or justify the money. I bought a 700 which will do everything I want. I won't be upgrading again for a while but if I was going to it would be the D4. However, I can't foresee a reason to do this. I wonder how many pros who have the money to buy an 800 will just, with a little extra pain, get the D4?
I don't really see where the 800 fits in the market, who's it aimed at? I have talked to a few people who have 700s and they are not even thinking about upgrading to the 800. So where will the 800 buyers come from?
I wanted to go full frame for the extra benefit of high iso shooting and was waiting for the D700 replacement. I have a d300 which I love but I have been pushed on occasion in low lit venues.
I am now waiting for it's replacement in the hope that it won't be a high mega pixel monster too.
Should also be a lot cheaper.
Quote: I don't really see where the 800 fits in the market, who's it aimed at? I have talked to a few people who have 700s and they are not even thinking about upgrading to the 800. So where will the 800 buyers come from?
I "downgraded" from a D3s to a D800. Not because I "needed" to but because I "wanted" to. There's a big difference and pandering to "wants" rather than "needs" is something amateurs can afford but professionals may not be able to justify. Apart from the high resolution, which I see as being immensely useful for severe crops, I was attracted by the much lighter and more compact body and the fact that I was able to sell my D3s on eBay for more than enough to buy the D800 and very little less than I paid for it 18 months ago.
Quote: My customers don't usually want the truth to spoil their pictures!
Yes - there has already been the comment that Nikon's PR shots for the D800 show every pore in the bride's face and every detail of her underarm stubble. Pros are probably just waiting for an enhanced version of "Portrait Professional" that will "smooth" 36Mp down to 4Mp.
Quote: On the other hand does turning the pixel resolution down any have any possible impact on iso performance ? I cant see it would but I am not an expert on sensors ... surely tho the pixel pitch remains the same ..
...but remember that 36Mp on a Nikon FX sensor is roughly equivalent to 16Mp on something like a Canon 1.6x crop sensor. So we are not going into untried territory there. In fact, in terms of pixel size, pitch and density, the D800 is probably considerably less extreme than the Canon 7D. Either way, you cannot "turn down the resolution" of a D800 as far as I know - all you can do is select a different format which uses a smaller portion of the sensor - so yes, the pixel pitch remains the same.
But I think the responses so far do support my suggestion that the D800 may be of more interest to the amateur who has the time and money to play with it than to the professional for whom time is cash.
Mmmm D800!!!!! D4!!!!!! me I just want the replacement for the D300s' and I suspect so do many others,
I wouldn't touch the D800 until its been well tested...maybe I'll buy the D800E and get charged more for having something taken away.
I remember for years, Nikon claiming that their users did not want or need a full frame 35mm digital SLR...I take it therefore that their users are now crying out for more and more pixels.
So where will the 800 buyers come from?
According to this month's (April!! ) Photography Monthly, some will be Canon users and others will be Hassleblad users!
In his review, Group Editor Adam Scorey writes:
Quote: "The Nikon D4 is impressive but not "wow". The D800 is a very shouty "WOW" for far less cash - I'd even say it is cheap for the potential it offers photographers. Not only has Nikon changed the game, they have taken the rule book, poured petrol on it, set it alight and lobbed it into Canon's back yard, whilst flicking the Vs at the same time. Perhaps it's time to change.."
In the same review, he also identifies medium format users as a potential target market, saying that the D800 "catapults Nikon in to enemy territory. They are now playing with the big boys - the likes of Mamiya, Pentax 645 and Hasselblad".
Quote: In the same review, he also identifies medium format users as a potential target market, saying that the D800 "catapults Nikon in to enemy territory. They are now playing with the big boys - the likes of Mamiya, Pentax 645 and Hasselblad".
Has he ever used one of the above? He has to be refering to film users there because 36mp on a 645 sensor is very different in terms of output to the same on 35mm and even then many of the film users would snigger at such a suggestion.
Like me, Keith, you don't believe everything they say in the comics!
Having seen some 30x24 prints from the D800 at yesterday's Nikon NPS presentation, viewed close they showed more detail than I can get from 17 MP.
Nikon UK said they had there sample D800 only 2 weeks but felt, subject to rigorous testing, high ISO noise performance could be up to 1 speed better than the D700.
Going back in time the Kodak Pro guides explain safe shutter speeds for stopping subject movement or safe hand held shutter speeds assume a 10x8 print of a 12 foot wide subject with a standard lens and edge blur of 1/100th of an inch being OK. By current standards that is a very low bar.
If you never make bigger than A3 prints do you need a D800?
If you are not aiming to be an Olympic athlete do you need to train everyday?
Some of the challenges (not nuisances) are in the Nikon D800/e guide http://www.nikonusa.com/en_US/o/Y6wrkA9OU_z04IreazIXl_22UII/PDF/D800_TechnicalGu...
I make big landscape prints so the D800e is on my shopping list. So is buying a barometer - because I am unlikely to get sharp edge leaf detail in windy weather.
I expect 36Mp will become quite normal in 2-3 years. Once upon a time EPZers, and not all that long ago, used to say "Why on earth would anyone want more than 6Mp in a DSLR?"
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
01/09/2014 - 30/09/2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View September's Photo Month Calendar