Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


NIKON D800 Shock


janeez e2
6 1.2k 8 United Kingdom
15 Feb 2013 3:46PM
'scuse me sir....Sir, sir, I've got my hand up........ Wink Just wanted to say I Bl*%$y love my D800!

That's it. I'll sit down now and get on with my work! Grin

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

22 Feb 2013 3:53PM
so these issues are why someone like Jim Brandenburg bought 2 of these beasties and uses them hand held.
23 Feb 2013 10:13AM

Quote:I seem to have put rather a lot of noses out of joint with this. From the persistent but defensive attempts to discredit my 'technique' I think that actually I am now talking to the on-line representatives of the Nikon Corporation.
So, now I have your attention, this is a very serious request for you to re-design the D800 to get rid of this technical problem. You cannot continue trying to blame the photographers technique. In terms of a business strategy, this can only be a temporary stop gap excuse, while you sort the problem out. As experience of using your D800 filters through photographers will vote with their wallets.
As I said I have been a loyal Nikon user for 15 years, because I knew Nikon could be trusted to produce first class cameras. If it was only a matter of shooting still pictures then I would definitely be happy to stick to my D3. However as we have now moved into the SLR/Video world, this is no longer sufficient.
Hard working professional freelance photographers such as myself simply cannot afford to be let down by their equipment. So, Nikon..... sort it out asap !!!!!!



I am a Canon user and have never owned or used a Nikon camera. However, last week a professional photographer came to my Digital Imaging Group and he brought many A2 prints taken with a variety of cameras ranging from a 4 M Pixel Compact to the D800. We were asked to indicated which of 6 cameras were used for each photograph; not as easy as you might think. Everyone identified the shots taken on the D800 (bar one shot) as the best quality image by far. I was most impressed and although I think my 5D2 is superb, it is quite clear that the D800 is better. Interestingly, the one D800 image that we did not place top was a trick in that the photographer purposely used a cheap lens which clearly limited the image quality. In fact he did similar tricks with other cameras and demonstrated well that, while a camera may be capable of excellent quality, that will only be the case if you use appropriate quality lenses and the correct techniques. It was an interesting experiment which made members think carefully about perfecting their technique and lens quality before rushing out to buy a better camera body.

Dave
cameracat e2
11 8.6k 61 Norfolk Island
23 Feb 2013 11:46AM
This forum post is a great example of someone, Who has no idea what so ever about digital camera technology.

Far from being a warning to others about Nikons stupidity in producing high resolution cameras, It is really a warning to anyone who decides to create a forum post in the first place.

Before you get down to bashing the keyboard, THINK...!!!

Take into consideration that your post, No matter what the subject, Will be available for the entire world to read.....Smile

Do you really want the rest of the world to know just how stupid you are, Or how little you actually know about anything.

That said its your right to be as dumb as you wish to be, I suspect they are all still giggling in Grays basement......Grin

However a little research can often save a truck load of embarrassment later.....Wink
dandeakin e2
7 207 3 England
23 Feb 2013 12:02PM
It was all a wind up.
hobbs e2
10 1.2k United Kingdom
24 Feb 2013 1:17AM
I expect this thread will still be going next year, with most likely an additional complaint that the battery won't last 6mths without re-charging. Wink
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
24 Feb 2013 12:00PM

Quote:Because the sensor is so huge, you have to shoot at 2-3 times the normal shutter speed in order to avoid getting blurry pictures. So the camera is virtually useless without a tripod, and only in very bright conditions can you use it handheld.................

............... If I was on Nikon's management I would take this problem very seriously and rectify these design faults with the D800. At the moment this camera can only be severely undermining Nikon's reputation.



First time I've looked at this thread, as I am not (and never have been) a Nikon user. I note the OP has never posted anything on EPZ other than his bizarre opening statement.

It's just a wind-up, guys! Grin
Nick_w e2
7 4.1k 99 England
24 Feb 2013 12:40PM
He's right its not sharp enough hand held Tongue

Even my daughter borrowed my camera in times square at dusk and got pin sharp images. There again what do we know were not "pro's"
franken e2
12 3.3k 4 Wales
24 Feb 2013 12:53PM

Quote:Because the sensor is so huge, you have to shoot at 2-3 times the normal shutter speed in order to avoid getting blurry pictures. So the camera is virtually useless without a tripod, and only in very bright conditions can you use it handheld.................

............... If I was on Nikon's management I would take this problem very seriously and rectify these design faults with the D800. At the moment this camera can only be severely undermining Nikon's reputation.

First time I've looked at this thread, as I am not (and never have been) a Nikon user. I note the OP has never posted anything on EPZ other than his bizarre opening statement.

It's just a wind-up, guys! Grin



He's not logged in since the 13th Feb so it does look like a wind up!Smile
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
24 Feb 2013 1:34PM
I doubt the OP even owns a D800. Probably a bit envious of those who do. Wink
mikehit e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
24 Feb 2013 3:17PM
Can you recap some things to there is no misunderstanding.
I gather you are comparing the D800 to the D3. When you say the D800 image is more blurred are you comparing both images at the same physicial size or are you comparing RAW images both at 100%?

The reason I ask is the if the camera movement causes a blur of 0.1mm on the sensor it will be 0.1mm whether it is a 36MP camera, 12MP camera, FX or DX.
24 Feb 2013 5:30PM
I must admit I am puzzled by sharppictures comments. As I recent purchaser of a D800 I was naturally concerned so I carried out an immediate test. With a Nikon F1.8G lens on the camera I took pictures of my computer screen at ISO 400 and ISO 100 with the mode to P. Both images are sharp. Further more I also moved the focusing spot from the centre of the screen (where I normally keep it) to the left-hand side and still had a sharp picture. I can only assume there was a problem with his particular camera.
thewilliam e2
6 4.9k
24 Feb 2013 6:13PM
When we view an image at 100%, the D800 frame will be a bigger than the D3 frame by a factor of about 1.7 (square root of 3) so any imperfections caused by camera movement or lens abberations will be 1.7 times as obvious. Many folk forget this and complain that their new camera with more pixels gives results that aren't as good as their old camera.
25 Feb 2013 8:06AM

Quote:When we view an image at 100%, the D800 frame will be a bigger than the D3 frame by a factor of about 1.7 (square root of 3) so any imperfections caused by camera movement or lens abberations will be 1.7 times as obvious. Many folk forget this and complain that their new camera with more pixels gives results that aren't as good as their old camera.


That's it in a nutshell. The more pixels you cram onto a sensor the bigger the picture is and the more flaws you can see. Also each pixel receives less light so there's more noise pixel for pixel. But when the image is downsized these problems disappear.
26 Feb 2013 9:12AM

Quote: The more pixels you cram onto a sensor the bigger the picture is and the more flaws you can see. Also each pixel receives less light so there's more noise pixel for pixel. But when the image is downsized these problems disappear.

We are drifting a long way from the original topic and in particular whether or not the OP had the level of expertise to make a fair comment. The overwhelming feedback from experienced photographers is the OP made neither a fair comment nor seems to have the level of expertise needed to provide informed feedback.
That aside some caution is advisable when considering pixel size and high ISO noise in 2013. Pixel, signal processing and micro lens technology have improved significantly over recent years to the extent noise is much better than it was 7 years ago at 5 times the pixel density. If memory serves me correctly Canon was the first camera regarded as having satisfactory 400 ISO noise performance with the 1Ds Mk 1.
Technology improvements are part of the reason why 4/3 format now delivers better noise quality than lower MP 24x36 did 7 years ago, enabling many photographic enthusiasts to embrace 4/3 as a fully satisfactory digital format.
It is almost a year since it came to be realised that 36MP 24x36 outperformed 31 MP medium format for resolution, with obvious convenience, size and the price advantages to 35mm. That is not the same as saying there are no differences but for the majority of photographic purposes the majority of photographers are, for many reasons, likely to opt for 35mm over similar MP medium format.
In a similar way comparing similar MP current Nikon/Canon cropped sensor bodies to 35mm format; 2012/13 models provides more than 12 stops dynamic range and close to undetectable noise in 20x16 inch prints at 1600 IS0 - performance levels undreamed of in the film era. I am not suggesting there are no differences, but increasing numbers photographers are accepting for most of their photographic needs any historical concerns relating to pixel density and noise can be largely discounted or even ignored.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.