D800 as travel camera?

EMA747

EMA747

Messages
2,070
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
I don't mean travel as in small enough to travel with, but I am wondering if the Nikon D800 is really a suitable camera for travel photography or not. I have read lots about needing to be careful with technique and maybe using a tripod and basically taking your time shooting with it. The thing is when I have been overseas shooting in cities I haven't really been able/willing to use tripods and take ages setting up each shot which makes me wonder if the D800 is maybe not ideal for this use.

I could maybe see the very large file sizes being a bit problematic when on the road for weeks on end with only a laptop to backup to.

I need my travel camera to have full HD video mode, otherwise the stills side of the D700 would be much more suited that the D800 but sadly the D700 lacks video.
 
Last edited:
Gary Coyle said:
D7000
Click to expand...

???

The D7000 sensor has roughly the same pixel density as the D800 so to get a sharp shot you will need to take the same amount of care (tripod/VR etc.) with both cameras. As long as you have a VR lens e.g. 24-120 f/4 I see no reason why the D800 could not be used for travel.
 
DonnaM said:
???
As long as you have a VR lens e.g. 24-120 f/4 I see no reason why the D800 could not be used for travel.
Click to expand...
£850 as opposed to £2850, reason enough in my book

And thats absolute crap about having to tske the same amount of care with one as you need to be with the other, the D7000 can be picked up and just fired off as simply as any other DLSR, i agree the D800 is totally a different issue though
 
Last edited:
Gary Coyle said:
£850 as opposed to £2850, reason enough in my book

And thats absolute crap about having to tske the same amount of care with one as you need to be with the other, the D7000 can be picked up and just fired off as simply as any other DLSR, i agree the D800 is totally a different issue though
Click to expand...

And that's absolute crap too. I've been picking up and firing mine off just as I ever did with no appreciable loss in sharpness
 
essexash said:
And that's absolute crap too. I've been picking up and firing mine off just as I ever did with no appreciable loss in sharpness
Click to expand...

Then either your technique and lenses are already first rate, or you'll get no appreciable gain in sharpness either.

D800 is a great camera reagrdless of super high pixel count, but getting the best from it is unquestionably more difficult. (And the same does not apply to the D7000.)
 
Surely this argument is only really relevant if you print large and view close or crop heavily and print largish and view close. For more normal sized images and perhaps even quite large whole images and reasonable crops viewed anything like normally any slight softness due to smallish movement or errors in focusing which may be more visible with a higher resolution camera may very well be insignificant.

Of course, if you're not printing large or croping like mad a less high res camera might do, but you could still just want a high res camera :D
 
woof woof said:
Surely this argument is only really relevant if you print large and view close or crop heavily and print largish and view close. For more normal sized images and perhaps even quite large whole images and reasonable crops viewed anything like normally any slight softness due to smallish movement or errors in focusing which may be more visible with a higher resolution camera may very well be insignificant.

Of course, if you're not printing large or croping like mad a less high res camera might do, but you could still just want a high res camera :D
Click to expand...

Yes, you have to print very large and look very closely to see 36mp's worth or detail. It's beyond 'sharpness' as we normally refer to it (which more a function of contrast than sheer resolution) but really tiny micro-detail, invisible in normal enlargements.

Sure it's nice to have that available, but the restrictions of having to shoot only with the very best lenses (only 16 of Nikon's 60-odd recommended) at f/5.6-8 only, at high shutter speeds or tripod with mirror-lockup, are real.

The downside, and this is Canon's counter argument with the 5D3, is massive files that gobble memory and are slow to post-process, and limit the camera to a max of 4fps (5D3 does 6fps).
 
The first review I read that highlighted this issue was the 50D review on Luminous Landscape. If you think about it it's pretty obvious what problems you could get, or rather what could be revealed, as the resolution increases but it's still possible that a lot of the time the problems will only be there to be seen if you pixel peep or print very large. I personally think that much of the time for many people the issues which could arrise due to high resolution will be pretty much a non issue.

Here...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/50d.shtml
 
Thanks for all the input so far.


I should probably explain the situation a more thoroughly. I am looking into getting either a D4 and a cheapo backup or a D800 and a used D3s body, plus a 24-70 and 70-200 lenses.
On the face of it the D4 is the do-everything-in-one-body camera but it's maybe a bit on the large side for taking overseas (I had that issue with my old Canon 1DmkIV). Not saying I wouldn't be prepared to take a pro body away it's just a smaller one would be more convenient. The D4 also seems to have idea resolution, tough body and high fps, the downsides are the weight/size and the price.

The D3s/D800 combo seems to have the best on both worlds except for the downsides of the D800 when used for travel.

As already mentioned the D700 does pretty much everything I need of a travel camera except the video mode. Now I do have a pro camcorder but when overseas and it's not for clients it would be seriously advantageous to be able to leave it at home and take a DSLR that covers full HD video as well.

The pro body is to do sports photography whereas the D800/700... is for a backup but mainly for shots I take for my own pleasure/hobby with hopefully some paid work at times. When travelling, like when I was in Istanbul last month for example, I do take the time to set up some shots but for the more candid street type shots this isn't really practical or desirable as I am sure you are all aware and this is where I am slightly wary of the D800 not being suited to this type of shooting. One big problem is that there are NO demo models anywhere to be found so having a try with one first hand is impossible. It might just turn out that the high-res/blur issue is not that big of a deal in reality but I am kind of wary of shelling out close to £3K on one if it's not really what I am after.

So confusing!!
 
I'll give you my experience with the D7000 (it suffers the same problem but not to the same degree). When you pixel peep it looks soft but if you downsize it to the equivalent size as a smaller resolution camera (D90 for example) it looks better. Its something to get used to, and just remember its the actual image that matters 1000% more than the technical quality. Any DSLR available today can shoot images that are good enough quality for stock work, its the extra features, handling, sealing etc that is more important especially for travel work.
 
jacob12_1993 said:
I'll give you my experience with the D7000 (it suffers the same problem but not to the same degree). When you pixel peep it looks soft but if you downsize it to the equivalent size as a smaller resolution camera (D90 for example) it looks better. Its something to get used to, and just remember its the actual image that matters 1000% more than the technical quality. Any DSLR available today can shoot images that are good enough quality for stock work, its the extra features, handling, sealing etc that is more important especially for travel work.
Click to expand...
Correct :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top