Nikon D800

gramps

gramps

Messages
41,879
Name
'Gramps'
Edit My Images
No
I expected to see and hear more about the D800 now that some folks have got them but it seems to have gone quiet ... is the hype over or is it just that I've been on holiday and missed it all :thinking:
 
Really good question Gramps!
There's no D800 thread listed in the sticky and almost nothing posted recently.

Really weird, especially since the comparable Canon 5DIII has some very active threads.
I quite like reading stuff about the D800 as the issues on getting the most from all those Mp are often equally applicable to the Canon 5DII.
 
I picked mine up recently and had been looking all weekend for the thread????
I need to share my excitement.....:bonk:
 
I think it's as they're still hard to get hold of, so there's just not the numbers. (fellow d800 owner, also disappointed at lack of threads )
 
Dangleman said:
I think it's as they're still hard to get hold of, so there's just not the numbers. (fellow d800 owner, also disappointed at lack of threads )
Click to expand...

Prospective D800 owner also anxious to hear loads about users experience.
 
Know of a couple of people who got one,seem very pleased with their.

Me if i could adford that much,would still go for an D3s :)
 
You can't even buy a d700 for that money. You'd have to be an idiot to think that's genuine and hand over the money.
 
Its probably stock from that nicked Nikon van starting to show on the net :)
 
Noblebenj said:
I picked mine up recently and had been looking all weekend for the thread????
I need to share my excitement.....:bonk:
Click to expand...

Well, why don't you start one?(y)
I too would be interested to read more about it as a possible camera for me, as I want to go full frame very soon.
 
I got the E edition and its great unless you want high FPS. Not given it a proper test yet but a few results on my facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/InspireStudioTeam) - just mucking about at the moment.

The D800 standard version is a NIGHTMARE to get a hold of. I was on a waiting list for over 2 months and it never materialised. I bought the E edition as I couldn't wait no more.

My Macbook Pro is struggling. I use Capture NX 2 and CS5. I can only edit one at a time and everything else (even browsing the web) slows to a crawl.

It's not as exciting as my D3 purchase a few years back as the only funky number is the 36MP. Nice but not very tangible if you catch my drift. The jump from D200 to D3 for me was insane - esp in the ISO depo.

How are you all?

G.
 
What is there to say about it that you haven't already read in a million reviews already?

Yes the resolution / cropping is insane (my test shot no. 1 had a reflection of me in my dogs eye...!)
Just like the d700 to use except with some slight improvements
You wouldn't want to shoot sport with it
It does video (shot my first ever time lapse today - in camera, perfect)
High iso is fine (d700 level ie 6400)
If you pixel peep (at 36mpix...) use a tripod but if you don't hand held is fine!

...but you knew all that already...

It's not so mind blowing that it makes the d700 redundant by any means, it's just a nice side-grade that adds video and high resolution. I'm using both simultaneously at present (save lens changes) and unless you heavily crop, at web resolutions its not generally obvious which is which...


P.s. I got mine 2 days after ordering when amazon got a bunch in stock the other week. Sorry about that... :p
 
Last edited:
flossie said:
What is there to say about it that you haven't already read in a million reviews already?

Yes the resolution / cropping is insane (my test shot no. 1 had a reflection of me in my dogs eye...!)
Just like the d700 to use except with some slight improvements
You wouldn't want to shoot sport with it
It does video (shot my first ever time lapse today - in camera, perfect)
High iso is fine (d700 level ie 6400)
If you pixel peep (at 36mpix...) use a tripod but if you don't hand held is fine!

...but you knew all that already...

It's not so mind blowing that it makes the d700 redundant by any means, it's just a nice side-grade that adds video and high resolution. I'm using both simultaneously at present (save lens changes) and unless you heavily crop, at web resolutions its not generally obvious which is which...


P.s. I got mine 2 days after ordering when amazon got a bunch in stock the other week. Sorry about that... :p
Click to expand...


Sensible comments :)

It sucks that the D3 made such an awesome leap of tech that we no longer get that WOW! factor when buying new gear.

I wonder what the next big thing is?

Have you tried in camera HDR yet?

G.
 
flossie said:
What is there to say about it that you haven't already read in a million reviews already?
Click to expand...

Non-hype, non-commercial, hands-on user experience ... oh and a few photos :shrug:
 
Well I'm sending mine back to Nikon repair under warranty tomorrow. Got a bright green stuck pixel in video mode. As the main reason I got this camera was the movie function it has to be done. Nikon said they can't guarantee a firmware update to map out rogue pixels so it's off to get remapped by a Nikon boffin.
 
gramps said:
Non-hype, non-commercial, hands-on user experience ... oh and a few photos :shrug:
Click to expand...

Heres a few 100% out of camera crops.

7489957452_4a6012d348_d.jpg



7489913956_dd1e8518fa_z_d.jpg


Uploaded to non pro flickr account as PNG files so not sure if much cope.

ISO800
f1.4
1000/s
85mm f1.4D
 
I have to say I love my 800. As flossie said, most stuff you know about, but the metering, DR, AF and of course resolution, are something to behold. It feels really nice in the hand (although some have complained that ungripped, it's not as comfortable as a D700, but I haven't noticed it).

If I had one complaint (well not complaint, more a wish), it would be for Nikon to introduce sRaw like canon, when one doesn't need the full 36mp monster but still want full frame. Other than that, its really 3 cameras in one.

1) a 36mp landscapers dream for all the resolution your likely to need.
2) a 25mp 1.2 crop general purpose camera
3) a 15mp 1.5 (DX) crop wildlife camera.

I've think I've posted these before, but some one asked for photos, so here's a very small sample.


Padley 1 by Sootchucker, on Flickr

100% crop from centre of above

100% Crop of Padley 1 by Sootchucker, on Flickr


Padley 3 by Sootchucker, on Flickr
 
Thanks, Nikon 16-35 VR (VR off), mounted on a Giottos CF tripod @ F11
 
Nah Gary, boggo standard vanilla 800 :LOL:
 
We got one recently and have now sold it (thankfully without a loss).

I'm a massive fan of the d700 and the d800 is not the heir that I'd hoped for. Don't get me wrong, its a very very good camera. Vastly superior to the D700 as a piece of engineering, but sadly nowhere near as practical for what i do.

I shoot full RAW and mainly do weddings. The file size was absolutely crippling - approx 70mb per photo. This slowed down post-processing down terribly. If you're a wedding photographer or photojournalist avoid it. If you're a landscape/studio photographer tied to Nikon I imagine its phenomenal.

I think Nikon have missed a trick (unless the rumoured d600 is the d700 replacement). Whereas the d700 was a 5d2 beater in every respect (but video), the d800 lacks the all round brilliance of the 5d3. A 16/24mp d800 would be the dream:(

We've got a D4 on its way now.
 
I've not had a chance to play yet, other than a couple of quick snaps of the misses, the detail really was incredible.

I upgraded from a D90 so I'm expecting the difference to be night and day. I'm really interested on hearing from the D700 owners who took the plunge....
 
If you're a wedding photographer or photojournalist with a 5 year old pc avoid it
Click to expand...

Fixed for you.

I think its a fantastic camera, probably not £2500 worth of improvement over a D700 mind but i moved from a D300 and it was worth every penny.

Im not sure if the file sizes are different, i think they are (they must be), but you have several crop modes you can switch the camera to. But tbh its not an issue for me. I'll check them later when im home though just out of interest. In fact its in the back of the manual so if youre interested just go download it and read it. I printed out a 20" landscape from DX mode a few weeks back and its sharp as anything so im sure it will be fine for a 10x8 wedding snap.

If i do a studio shoot and come back with 200 images. I will only keep about 60 or 70 at most anyway and delete the rest, always done that. Ive got a 3tb usb3 drive for backups which cost under £100 and 2tb of main drive storage, a new 2tb drive will cost under £100, really no issue at all. So anyone worrying about drive space, dont. If you can afford £2500 for a body and £1k a lens then you shouldnt have an issue with £100 of drive space.

The single hassle to me right now is the average cost of a decent FX lens not the PC issues. Thats the crippling bit, £850 for a mint second hand 16-35f4 was worth it but it means i wont get a full set of lenses this year.

havnt used the video side and i dont think i will, got no interest in that whatsoever so cant comment on it.

TBH if i was coming from an FX body already then i probably wouldnt bother until the second hand market matures.

Downsides ive found so far,
lens price!
the AF-C mode has been taken off the switch and onto the command dial which is just daft and needless
Aaand thats about it.

Scurrolous rumour mongering that i havnt seen:
Camera shake is more pronounced - nope, havnt seen that
Too many pixels!!11oneone - rubbish
Dpreview - just avoid it like the plague or youll never buy a camera again
 
Last edited:
To be fair my 4 mth old Macbook Pro is struggling with the files too. I still love it. Not sure i would cope with a huge workflow and huge number of files to process - would deffo need to up my game in the computer hardware depo.

G.
 
decigallen said:
The file size was absolutely crippling - approx 70mb per photo. This slowed down post-processing down terribly.
Click to expand...


Been out today with it and taken approx 50 test photos of various subjects (lots of detail)...

Smallest raw file is 38MB and largest is 45MB.

70MB seems insane...?

Gary.
 
you can set it to 14 bit uncompressed which the manual says is 73megs an image :D But there are so many other options to shrink that. 14 bit uncompressed DX is 32megs for instance if you really needed that setting.

just ripped from the manual....

FX:
NEF (RAW), Lossless compressed, 12-bit — 32.4 MB
NEF (RAW), Lossless compressed, 14-bit — 41.3 MB
NEF (RAW), Compressed, 12-bit — 29.0 MB
NEF (RAW), Compressed, 14-bit — 35.9 MB
NEF (RAW), Uncompressed, 12-bit — 57.0 MB
NEF (RAW), Uncompressed, 14-bit — 74.4 MB


DX:
NEF (RAW), Lossless compressed, 12-bit — 14.9 MB
NEF (RAW), Lossless compressed, 14-bit — 18.6 MB
NEF (RAW), Compressed, 12-bit — 13.2 MB
NEF (RAW), Compressed, 14-bit — 16.2 MB
NEF (RAW), Uncompressed, 12-bit — 25.0 MB
NEF (RAW), Uncompressed, 14-bit — 32.5 MB
 
If it's lossless, why would you choose the 70mb non compressed files?
 
EdinburghGary said:
If it's lossless, why would you choose the 70mb non compressed files?
Click to expand...

Could it be that they are faster to work with since they don't need to be uncompressed first.

Would like to hear someone expert in this comment since I take it that "lossless" refers to image quality. In which case the IQ should be the same.
 
arclight said:
Could it be that they are faster to work with since they don't need to be uncompressed first.

Would like to hear someone expert in this comment since I take it that "lossless" refers to image quality. In which case the IQ should be the same.
Click to expand...

Did a bit of reading...complicated but seems to be NOISE that is removed from the image to bring the file size down. Not sure what the real life visual implications are...

G.
 
EdinburghGary said:
If it's lossless, why would you choose the 70mb non compressed files?
Click to expand...

I think some people just don't like the idea of any compression, lossless or lossy and want 14bit . :shrug: Most reviews I've seen have not seen a huge difference between 12bit and 14bit. :shrug:


The argument against the D800 most people (who haven't got one) make is the 70mb file sizes. As can be seen from the post above, you get the 70mb file sizes if you go for 14bit uncompressed RAW files, but if you do that then you've made the decision to get the maximum file size/quality, and 70mb file sizes are the consequence of that. :bonk:

For the increase in pixels, the 12bit lossless compressed files are not that much larger than a 5DIII's files for 30% more pixels.

The D800 files, as indeed will the 5DIII files, tax most computers. If you're spending £3K on a camera and not taking into account the computer that will have to deal with the larger files, then that is very short-sighted imho.

The file sizes would put me off, but if I were to buy it, I would buy it to get the quality and organise my computer and storage to match. :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top