Nikon D800

redhed17 said:
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:
Click to expand...


I thought my MBP would cope but apparently not. Good excuse for a new monster machine :D

I'm going shopping soon.

G.
 
essexash said:
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.
Click to expand...

Aren't they less than that for a new one?? I'd pay no more than £650-700 for a used one.
 
Love my d800! Shot about half a dozen weddings with it now and its been superb.

I've been shooting lossless compressed 14 bit with file sizes around 40-45 megs and its been fine - just added a new large HD to store files otherwise ok.
 
jpw said:
Aren't they less than that for a new one?? I'd pay no more than £650-700 for a used one.
Click to expand...

Would you now. Good for you. If you can get a mint warrantied one for that then show me where. At the time you couldn't get them for love nor money so I was happy just to find one. In fact they still seem hard to come by new, none of the main haunts have them in stock and grays said they were in short supply everywhere. So I was happy to get it. I cerainly wouldn't buy anything of that amount second hand unwarrantied. But horses for courses I guess.
 
well they would cost more, so defenitly not. Dont quite understand your post.
 
essexash said:
Would you now. Good for you. If you can get a mint warrantied one for that then show me where. At the time you couldn't get them for love nor money so I was happy just to find one. In fact they still seem hard to come by new, none of the main haunts have them in stock and grays said they were in short supply everywhere. So I was happy to get it. I cerainly wouldn't buy anything of that amount second hand unwarrantied. But horses for courses I guess.
Click to expand...

Here, scroll down:

http://www.apertureuk.com/nikon_auto_focus.html

Recently sold for £650, boxed, as new (y)
 
essexash said:
At the time you couldn't get them for love nor money so I was happy just to find one.
Click to expand...

I had the same experience when I was looking for one, eventually found a supplier with two (new) ... tried them both and wasn't happy with the results so went with the 14-24. I don't know if there was a quality issue that led to the short supply, I saw some reviews that praised them and some that trashed them .
 
Well, I'm enjoying the D800, I've had it for about 3 months and it's a great piece of kit. The file sizes are huge, but my 1 year old Macbook pro handles them fine. I use compressed 16bit RAW files and then convert to DNG in import into Lightroom.

I have just picked up one of the new Macbook pros with the solid state HD and the OLED screens and that is pretty snappy, so my old macbook pro will be hitting the classified this weekend.

The resolution is great but if I'm honest, a bit overkill for me. In some ways I miss the old D700 RAW files, they had so much tolerance I could kid myself I was better than I was. At 100% on the D800 it is much easier to introduce noise into an image with fill light or even with a bit of sharpening in Lightroom. I notice camera shake far more than before and I need shutter speeds faster than 1/focal length to be critically sharp.

I have also noticed some diffraction, this photo was shot at F20 and is pretty soft at 100% but would be fine, I'm sure, printed at 8x10.

Remember me? by ShawWellPete, on Flickr

I really like the auto ISO that adjusts ISO to keep the right shutter speed for different focal lengths and the video is pretty cool.

The resolution, I guess, would give me more pleasure if I took more landscape shots that benefitted from it.
Here is a full resolution shot I took the first weekend I had it.

All in all I would not switch back to a D700, but I would probably prefer slightly lower res with the rest of the camera as it is.
 
ShawWellPete said:
Well, I'm enjoying the D800, I've had it for about 3 months and it's a great piece of kit. The file sizes are huge, but my 1 year old Macbook pro handles them fine. I use compressed 16bit RAW files and then convert to DNG in import into Lightroom.

I have just picked up one of the new Macbook pros with the solid state HD and the OLED screens and that is pretty snappy, so my old macbook pro will be hitting the classified this weekend.

The resolution is great but if I'm honest, a bit overkill for me. In some ways I miss the old D700 RAW files, they had so much tolerance I could kid myself I was better than I was. At 100% on the D800 it is much easier to introduce noise into an image with fill light or even with a bit of sharpening in Lightroom. I notice camera shake far more than before and I need shutter speeds faster than 1/focal length to be critically sharp.

I have also noticed some diffraction, this photo was shot at F20 and is pretty soft at 100% but would be fine, I'm sure, printed at 8x10.

Remember me? by ShawWellPete, on Flickr

I really like the auto ISO that adjusts ISO to keep the right shutter speed for different focal lengths and the video is pretty cool.

The resolution, I guess, would give me more pleasure if I took more landscape shots that benefitted from it.
Here is a full resolution shot I took the first weekend I had it.

All in all I would not switch back to a D700, but I would probably prefer slightly lower res with the rest of the camera as it is.
Click to expand...


Hi Pete,

Not sure what you are using it for - and this is pretty useless for most portraits. For still subjects, I would recommend a shutter release cable, shutter delay mode (3 secs) and self timer (2 secs). Like you, hand held results can be scary at 100% :D

G.
 
My uber (a year ago...) computer has no problem with the D800 files, process them just as quick as D700 files (core i7, 16gb ram, SSD drive, files store on NAS). My laptop struggles like a dog when given them, but then again...it is 5 years old core2duo with 4gb ram and a slow hard disc! Files are 45 meg ish (lossless 14-bit).

I think someone asked about real-world photos in the dark - took these abstract shots today, both with 70-200 @ f2.8 1/160sec & handheld - sorry they aren't directly comparable but you get the idea :

These are screen shots straight out of Lightroom to show 1:1 crops WITHOUT NOISE REDUCTION...

D700 @ ISO 3200

fts9422.jpg


D700 1:1 crop :
d700crop.jpg



D800 @ ISO 2500

fts0386.jpg


D800 1:1 (insane...) crop
d800crop.jpg


...I'm left with no worries about using a D800 in gig etc. situations - and it also focuses better in the dark!
 
Last edited:
Very interesting contrast of views and opinions in this thread, glad I raised it - certainly gives me food for thought.
 
decigallen said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm currently wrangling with this exact issue. For me I feel the D700 will be perfect. I couldn't afford the lenses to get the best out of the D800 but I want to move from a 7D to full frame. Nikon seems to have beaten Canon to many punches over recent years and this camera was no exception.
 
EdinburghGary said:
Hi Pete,

Not sure what you are using it for - and this is pretty useless for most portraits. For still subjects, I would recommend a shutter release cable, shutter delay mode (3 secs) and self timer (2 secs). Like you, hand held results can be scary at 100% :D

G.
Click to expand...

Using it for...

portraits mostly. To be honest for what I do the D700 is just as good most of the time.


I haven't tried the D800 at lower resolution yet, have you?

gad-westy said:
The D800 was just made for that NYC shot. I love it.
Click to expand...

Thank you!
 
I love mine MPix monster :)

Ability to crop huge chunks of photos still amaze me .. there was no major need for it but tested it few times.

Done a small photo shoot not long ago to find out in Photoshop that one girl is using contact lenses :)

Can't fault it at the moment.


And HI GARY!!!!!!! Where have you been hiding ;)
 
There is a D800 thread but it's not very active:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=384828&highlight=d800

My concern with the D800 is the autofocus issue quite a few people seem to be reporting, I changed to the D700 from the Olympus E-3 due to focusing problems which were never acknowledged or repaired by Olympus which has been well worth it as the D700 has been superb in that regard. It's also quite a bit of money and I'm not sure it's going to give me enough benefit over the D700 which is still performing well so I'm thinking no rush and see how the D800 pans out as stocks and prices are likely to improve in time anyway.

John
 
For those that have a D800 the question I have is this - how often do you print images so big that you need 36mps?
 
ryanyboy said:
For those that have a D800 the question I have is this - how often do you print images so big that you need 36mps?
Click to expand...

Often enough. All the landscapes I have hanging up are over 20" plus, as has been mentioned, you can crop the guts out of its files and still get your 10x8's without having to resize the image.
 
ecniv said:
Question:

If you had the choice between d800 and the d800e... which would you go for?
Thought the E had an anti-alias filter removed and cost more? but was sharper images..?


Just considering an upgrade... Think most of my lens should still work... ;)
Click to expand...

I'd go for the D800 non-E as I want the camera for general purpose use.

John
 
ecniv said:
Question:

If you had the choice between d800 and the d800e... which would you go for?
Thought the E had an anti-alias filter removed and cost more? but was sharper images..?


Just considering an upgrade... Think most of my lens should still work... ;)
Click to expand...


I bought the E because I was bored waiting for the non E. 70% landscapes, 25% candid portraits, 5% studio portraits....

G.
 
ryanyboy said:
For those that have a D800 the question I have is this - how often do you print images so big that you need 36mps?
Click to expand...

My albums go up to A3 size so a double page image can be quite large. But I find the advantage more so in that I don't have to worry about losing resolution when cropping significantly.
 
Just purchased this to help with the processing. It's not bleeding edge by any means but its practical and neat / tidy. Screen is lovely too, and touchscreen friendly :)

541665_261015190667013_1408016453_n.jpg


Quad Core I5 and 6GB ram with 1TB HDD. I think it has a shedload of dedicated graphics memory too.

23" Touch screen is really nice to use.
 
Way to many mp for what I need a camera for,but a lot of people will really use them mp.

Me still hoping for a baby D4 but I dout we will see one,when the D700 finally goes,I think their a big gap for a another pro DSLR,maybe the D600 will fill it,maybe not :)
 
Think I'm gonna buy a D700 new while I can. I don't crop too much but value low light performance. The Nikkor AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G ED (FX) would be perfect as a standard lens I reckon.
 
EdinburghGary said:
Hi Pete,

Not sure what you are using it for - and this is pretty useless for most portraits. For still subjects, I would recommend a shutter release cable, shutter delay mode (3 secs) and self timer (2 secs). Like you, hand held results can be scary at 100% :D

G.
Click to expand...

Seems a bit extreme, are you saying only use this camera with tripod?
 
Noblebenj said:
Seems a bit extreme, are you saying only use this camera with tripod?
Click to expand...

No. He's being ridiculous. The d800 is perfectly usable hand held (and without VR), I thought all that had been knocked on the head months ago (along with"diffraction makes shooting above f/11 impossible" and other FUD....)
 
I have finished editing some photographs yesterday.

here is a link to a full resolution image of 4912x7360
4912x7360
 
flashp said:
Think I'm gonna buy a D700 new while I can. I don't crop too much but value low light performance. The Nikkor AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G ED (FX) would be perfect as a standard lens I reckon.
Click to expand...

For the same money as an old D700 + 24-70 you can get a new D800+50mm

1.4 instead of 2.8.
Far less weight to lug about.
Better focusing in the dark.
Just crop.

For low light it's a no brainer.
 
As I mainly shoot portrait (70%), architecture/landscape the rest, with a2 prints and file size a none issue. I really thought this would suite my need....I would be interested to know from the owners what your mainly shooting? Can't all be landscapes?
 
flossie said:
For the same money as an old D700 + 24-70 you can get a new D800+50mm

1.4 instead of 2.8.
Far less weight to lug about.
Better focusing in the dark.
Just crop.

For low light it's a no brainer.
Click to expand...

If your croping all the time,you got the wrong lens,and how do you crop to 24mm :thinking:
 
simonblue said:
If your croping all the time,you got the wrong lens,and how do you crop to 24mm :thinking:
Click to expand...

Stand back a few feet? Or walk around with a 24mm if you know you are going to be shooting in your face...

There really is no comparison between cropping on d800 and any previous camera. Especially at the real-world web resolution that 99.999999999%of photographs end up as.


the 24-70 is a big unfriendly lump with a limited range that many many people sold-on even before the d800 came along, out of the "holy trinity" of zooms it's always been the most superfluous of the 3.
 
bastic said:
I have finished editing some photographs yesterday.

here is a link to a full resolution image of 4912x7360
4912x7360
Click to expand...

Wow that's sharp. :eek: Perhaps too sharp when seen small, as the the hair looks odd, but that's probably an optical illusion of the resize on screen.

The detail in the eye is amazing. :eek:

Does the young lady wear contact lenses? It looks like it in the left eye.

Have you changed the background?
 
redhed17 said:
Wow that's sharp. :eek: Perhaps too sharp when seen small, as the the hair looks odd, but that's probably an optical illusion of the resize on screen.

The detail in the eye is amazing. :eek:

Does the young lady wear contact lenses? It looks like it in the left eye.

Have you changed the background?
Click to expand...

I had to play with background as originally photo came tad too dark and had to pull it out. With it, background become too visible( piano and walls)
And yes she wears contact lenses found out same way as you did :)
I know what you mean saying that it looks over sharpen when small. Image is really big and programs that show it smaller, create all those 'artefacts'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top