New nikon FF action camera

stuartm1 said:
If the D800 had been 24mp I'd have bought one, but I'd love to know Nikon's logic in making the D800/D800E both 36mp. A 24mp D800 would've competed more directly with a 5D3 and a 36mp D800E would've offered something Canon (currently) don't.
Click to expand...

I still don't get why having more resolution than you need is a problem. What problems do you think a 36MP image will give you that a 24MP image won't?
 
Gary Coyle said:
Nikon DF maybe
Click to expand...

haha! Nahhhh. Nikon DF has the same archaic AF as the D610, coupled with clunky controls and a poor grip*. I bought a D610 after using the DF and much prefer it. Put that D4/DF sensor into a D810 body though and we have a winner.


*imo - don't want to start a debate on the Df here.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I still don't get why having more resolution than you need is a problem. What problems do you think a 36MP image will give you that a 24MP image won't?
Click to expand...

It's not that I imagine problems, I own a D800 so I know the issues. Firstly, I shoot a lot of RAW images. Anywhere between 2-4k per shoot. The difference between 36mp and 24mp is huge when it comes to storage for me. If shooting action, the buffer fills up too quickly. I also find that 36mp is much less forgiving when shooting fast moving action.

From my perspective, based on the nature of my photography, 36mp doesn't offer me anything I *need* but does introduce quite a few problems that slow my workflow. 24mp allows me some leeway for cropping while cutting down storage and pp headaches. My personal preference would be 16mp though.

The D800 is a great camera, I'm sure the D810 is even better, but neither suit my main work.
 
I think I probably has a similar thought process to decigallan. It's not so much I don't want 36MP as much as I don't need it. If I could have the same camera with either the 16Mp or 24Mp sensor but a longer buffer or a faster fps, I'd choose the lower MP sensor. Side benefit would be better ISO handling (probably negligible once you factor in downsampling etc). Further whilst people say "hard drives are cheap" it's still more outlay I'd rather not spend if I don't have to.

All that said, 5fps is enough for 95%+ of my uses. The new D810 AF sounds like it will be good enough and the buffer has been doubled. I now see the D810 to be a D700 replacement.

So what is this new camera going to be? Roll on September. If nothing else it will probably help drop D810 prices.
 
Yup, the 'hard drives are cheap' argument ignores the fact that most mobile HDs are 2tb max. We shoot well over 100gb per wedding as is. Shooting D810s would double that amount.
 
Like many/most D700 users we still love the camera. Not least as for many of us there has not been a suitable replacement. 36mp sounds nice, but what size CF card would I need for 700 Raw images, when I'm rattling away at a Motorsport event at 8fps? The focus system rarely gets it wrong for me either.
So, a 16 or even 24 mp , with two card slots and a decent focus system would be a start for a d700 replacement. The answer does not lie in the D610. So let's hope Nikon does listen to its users and provides us with a replacement.
 
maninsuitcase said:
I think I probably has a similar thought process to decigallan. It's not so much I don't want 36MP as much as I don't need it. If I could have the same camera with either the 16Mp or 24Mp sensor but a longer buffer or a faster fps, I'd choose the lower MP sensor. Side benefit would be better ISO handling (probably negligible once you factor in downsampling etc). Further whilst people say "hard drives are cheap" it's still more outlay I'd rather not spend if I don't have to.

All that said, 5fps is enough for 95%+ of my uses. The new D810 AF sounds like it will be good enough and the buffer has been doubled. I now see the D810 to be a D700 replacement.

So what is this new camera going to be? Roll on September. If nothing else it will probably help drop D810 prices.
Click to expand...

Is there a new Nikon FF being launched in September or am I missing something? The D810 has only just arrived.
 
Ignore the above traveling on a train at the moment, limited WIFi just read the Nikon Rumours Link - this could be the much demanded D400 (albeit rebranded). Roll on Photokina !
 
decigallen said:
Yup, the 'hard drives are cheap' argument ignores the fact that most mobile HDs are 2tb max. We shoot well over 100gb per wedding as is. Shooting D810s would double that amount.
Click to expand...

Plus the issue of actually processing them. I notice the difference when opening/processing 24mp files compared to my old 16mp files, a jump to 36mp would probably be a step too far (on a reasonably powerful/recent Mac Mini)
 
Yup, i know that. But the question can apply to all those who don't want the d810 resolution, hence my addressing it.
 
fracster said:
Lordy, how may shots are you taking?
Click to expand...

4 thousand per wedding apparently... LOL


Edit: I've just done the maths on this. There are only 1440 minutes in a day... as in 24 hours. Assuming that you spend 18 hours with the client you'd have to shoot one image on average around every 15 seconds, every 15 seconds for those 18 hours... literally without a break.. not even 5 minutes to take a pee.

4000 D800 raw files equates to 180GB per wedding. Even if you had a 24MP camera, you'd still need 108GB per wedding.

Then there's the issue that your camera will have reached the rated 200,000 actuations after shooting 50 weddings.

Your problem is your shooting style... not your raw files size :)
 
Last edited:
decigallen said:
Yup, the 'hard drives are cheap' argument ignores the fact that most mobile HDs are 2tb max. We shoot well over 100gb per wedding as is. Shooting D810s would double that amount.
Click to expand...
I hope that involves video too...100GB for a single wedding on photo only seems way too excessive. What's your % of retained shots...must be close to 5%. Which still can fill a wedding album twice over...maybe someone should be less trigger happy or spray and pray...hehe
 
Let's look at the evidence. d3s sold well, d3x which was the same but had lesser ISO performance and much better MP sold much less... So what does the market want?
 
Gary Coyle said:
Does it bleedin matter a jot how many images someone shoots to capture a wedding, if you pedants have nothing more to offer to the thread than to pick up on this then you really need to look out the window and see that there is a world beyond your PC screen
Click to expand...

My point is.... 36MP or 24MP... when shooting that much, storage will be a massive issues either way. Still over 100GB per shoot whichever camera you use.
 
Gary Coyle said:
And you always say file size isnt an issue as storage is cheap, oh dear.
Click to expand...

For anyone who doesn't shoot 4000 images in a day it isn't, no.
 
Pookeyhead said:
For anyone who doesn't shoot 4000 images in a day it isn't, no.
Click to expand...
I see, you just make things up as you go along or when you forget what you previously said.

What if you shoot 3500 images, 3000 images, 2,995 and on and on and on.

Im out of this David because you will just reel out some pedantic smart arsed drivel and thats something weve ALL seen and gotten bored with before.

Bye, bye.
 
Must be the wrong time of month :)
 
There's a bee in here...
 
:clap:
 
:)
There's no way I can afford a new body. Maybe one day...
 
Gary Coyle said:
Anyway, back on topic, i really hope its the much heralded real D700 replacement with 18-24mp
Click to expand...

It could well be !

Nikon are aware that's lots of their loyal users have switched over to Cannon or given up on FF and moved over to Fuji / Sony. Hopefully we should find out soon.
 
My shooting style is not spray and pray. Weddings are about emotion and a lot of what I shoot is documentary. I often take burst shots of the same composition in order to get that one decisive moment, and it works. The subtle differences between body language and emotion in photos taken a millisecond apart can be staggering.

Pookyhead, your calculations on time spent per photo don't take into account that oftentimes groups of 5-10 shots happen in just one second. It's a deliberate technique and one that is employed by many of my favourite photographers - Fer Juaristi, for example, told me he sometimes shoots 5-6k per wedding (more than what I and my gf will shoot together in total). Digital affords me the ability to do this, so why wouldn't I take advantage of it when the results justify it?!?

I said I shoot 2-4k images per wedding, not 4k minimum. Looking at my last 3 weddings here, my shot counts are 3,451, 2624 and 2890. When coupled with my gf's shots we (note that I did say WE in my post, before) regularly end up with over 100gb per wedding before we cull.

Storage is of course going to be an issue with such volume, but the differences in 24mp and 36mp become more significant.

We retain around 6-700 images on average, which is roughly 10-15% of what we take.

I use two camera bodies also, so no, I don't put 200k on a camera over 50 weddings but if I did it wouldn't bother me at all. The D800 is the least practical FF nikon camera that i've used at a wedding, I'd love a D710 to address the issues that I and other wedding photographers have with it.
 
I think a 16mp D710 would be the best sensor size for the lineup and would really differentiate it from the D610 and D810. I don't care if it steps on D4s sales - why should I? The reason being, if Nikon care about affecting D4s sales that can only mean one thing: profit margins are much bigger on a D4s.
 
Cool GIFS. :)
 
sk66 said:
You need a higher FPS...;)
The first one is adorable...
Click to expand...
ha! I've not used all the pictures in the burst because a) I like a chopier look and b) I found that more frames meant that it loaded really really slowly.
 
I imagine it's because of how sRAW works - it seems to average 4mp into 1mp so it was always going to be 9mp. 9mp wouldn't bother me so much but I'd have liked it to have been 14bit.
 
EspressoJunkie said:
When the D810 was announced I couldn't understand why 16 or 24mp RAWs weren't an option, but if this rumour turns out to be true then I can see why.
Click to expand...
16Mp raws are an option; it's called DX crop... or 30MP 5:4 crops... or 25MP 1.2x crops...

But that's not nearly the same thing as a 16MP FF/FX image.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top