Equipment Nikon D800 Thread

Actually, you're changing my argument - I didn't ever say that a larger image is a substitute for a good, skilled photographer; my point was this: the best quality 3 megapixel image ever taken is still only 3 megapixels so it automatically has limited applications because of its low resolution. No matter how skilled the photographer is, if his work requires a 15-20 megapixel image, he needs a camera that can produce it.

The ISO argument that stonedsurd raises is exactly the same: wedding photographers must have cameras that provide clean performance at high ISOs for when they are shooting ceremonies in churches that do not permit flash use. I've used ISO 3200 at weddings which I simply could not have done with lesser quality gear.

I'm not saying there aren't guys who follow gear trends and see their cameras as penis extensions... but there are many honest togs out there who buy what they need for no reason other than they need it.

 

Exactly.

Therefore, 99% (alert: made-up statistic!) of gearfaggotry-bashing blog posts/articles/whathaveyou are relevant only to a certain section of photographers. Sports, photojournalism, fashion, architecture, wedding, wildlife - there a LOT more to photography than a 12'x12' room and a bunch of bulbs.

TBH, I don't even have a problem with cameras as penis extensions. Not my money, spend yours however you'd like.

 

In that case, I'm curious how professional sports, wedding, and fashion photographers have managed to get by since 1990.

I'm a little skeptical of people who claim that they just couldn't have gotten that amazing shot unless they had XYZ camera with uber-ISO performance. Perhaps what they mean to say is, "The camera with ISO 43889 makes it so i don't have to think as hard about how to get good shots in low light."

I suppose there's nothing truly wrong with a feature making something easier, (though Pook might disagree) but I wouldn't say it can't be done.

I just can't shake the feeling that ISO is the new megapixel.

 

Sorry but I'm going to have to interject here,

No. Some shots CAN NOT BE DONE, - to the same effect as with current gen dslr's. I mean you couldn't get a bird in flight, with a 400 f5.6 plus extender, with a camera that shot only Iso 800, at dusk, and still freeze the action, without a current gen DSLR. No it's not about current gen making things EASIER. Soe things are made POSSIBLE, with what we have now. A 70-300 f5.6 lens essentially having the power to take a shot that might otherwise have needed an f2 etc lens.

While I agree wth the whole sentiment that you can't polish a turd etc, and a bad photo taken with a good camera is still a bad photo, you can't deny that as tools, current and future dslr's allow us to take photos in ways we could only have dreamnt of before.

It may well be the new megapixel as so many people realise high mp images don't mean squat if the image isn't clean and you have to downsize the res to get an acceptable image.

 

Quite. Like I said, I'm open to learning (and to saving money!).

If someone can tell me how I could have taken the shots I posted above with a cheaper or older camera/lens combination, I'd be all ears.

 

Use a tripod. If your only issue is ISO noise... then using a tripod will negate the need to use high ISO in the first place. I'm sorry, but I could have taken any of those shots with pretty much any camera you place in my hands.


Needing a D800 isn't necessarily about needing 36MP, or super duper auto focus. For me, it's needing a full frame DSLR that shoots 1080P and takes all my Nikkor lenses. I couldn't care less if the D800 has no autofocus at all, and was only 16MP.... well.. I'd question it's pricing .. but you know what I mean.

 

Only camera/lens, nothing more. A tripod is obvious but I don't carry one while walking to dinner.

This is exactly why I said horses for courses earlier - because it applies.

 

...but you carry a big DSLR and a fast lens to dinner?

 

What happens if you are photographing a moving subject and can't use a flash? Bye-bye tripod, hello high ISO camera. Fast lenses and slow shutter speeds can only get you so far.

The simple answer is this: they were using gear appropriate for 1990 in the year 1990. If you carry a state-of-the-art digital camera from 1990 to do sports, wedding and fashion photography in 2012, you won't find yourself getting much work. Was there a requirement for 20+ megapixel images in 1990? No. Did media exist then as it does now? No.

Technology has advanced and new gear is relevant to its context. That's not to say that old technology is always irrelevant, but it often is. I need high ISO performance for shooting moving subjects in low light, and I must have a camera that allows me to do that.

 

Yes.

C'mon Pook, a 50D isn't enormous, and we all know how small and light a 50mm prime is. A small and light bit of imaging equipment hanging off one shoulder is a bit of a ways away from that and a tripod.

Again, just want to say that you and I appear to be on the same page

 

It's back at £2099 amazon. I've pre-ordered. Haven't put the money on my card yet so soon as it's about to get processed, I'll know whether I still want to pull the trigger.

If something gets announced a few months after, say a D400, I may sell the D700 and get that to pair with the D800. One for FX, one for DX and speed. Obviously with the D400 having equivalent Iso to the D7000 or better. Ideally with clean Iso 2000 files from the DX. Will let you know when I receive mine.

 

I wanted to come back to this argument real quick, because this evening I was going through some of my Paris photos (my wife wants to hang a couple in our bathroom).

I had forgotten about this one:


I shot this in the Catacombs in Paris. The place is almost completely dark, and the use of flash is heavily discouraged. I shot this photo on a Canon 40D with the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens (both almost 5 years old now), and the settings were as follows: ISO 1600, 1/2 sec (handheld), f/4.5. It is entirely possible to get good shots using older, cheaper gear.

Is the D800 a great camera? Most likely. Does it have better ISO performance than my aging camera? I'm sure it does - I'm not really arguing that point. I agree that most modern cameras from all the big manufacturers are packed full of nice-to-have features. Where I take exception is the idea that these features (like uber-ISO) are actually necessary for any photographer. As I alluded earlier, sports photographers didn't suddenly arrive this year and their requirements haven't really changed. The same magazines asking for 35 megapixel images today are the same ones that were printing high quality photos taken with ISO 1600 film 15 years ago.

 

First off - that's a great picture. I suppose what you're saying is I need to work on my hand-holding skills

No, but we'd have missed out on a lot of great art if we'd stuck with the daguerreotype, eh? It simply opens up more opportunities. Granted, it's always up to the user to make use of those opportunities, but then I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with that point anyway.

Yeah, but the ones from 35 years ago are probably going to be smaller and grainier. Modern tech has also made the competent sport-photog's life easier. Being able to guarantee a larger number of bigger, cleaner shots per event attended means he's able to offer his client/employer either a better selection or a larger one. It also means more high-quality images of an event are preserved for posterity.

EDIT: I realize film holds up to enlarging a damn sight better than digital, but high-MP digital at native reso with a sharp lens and the performance of modern sensors is unquestionably better than ISO 1600 film that's pushed a stop to freeze motion.

 

That wasn't your original argument, and I don't think anybody would disagree with the above statement because it is a logical position to hold. This:

...is not so. Comparing a 50D to a 40D is hardly going back to 1990, and there are a few things about that image that really don't make me think excellent equipment was required - there's obviously a reasonably good light source since it is reflecting on the central skull's forehead and casting some pretty deep shadows (contrast is good); and you've resized the image to 640x440 which would be altogether unusable for printing anything larger than a stamp. We simply cannot perceive/judge quality in a resized image, because as per my previous point one of the main reasons people use newer gear is because of the higher resolution. A crappy, soft full size image when resized to 640x440 will look "sharp" (not that that's what you have done, but the point is made).

Now I'm not saying the small image would look better if it had been taken with a full frame camera, but the quality of the D40's native 10 megapixel image would be absolutely destroyed by a Nikon D3x or a Canon 5D2 at ISO 1600, not to mention the resulting captures would be more than double the resolution. How about take a photo in poor light with a 40D and push it to ISO 6400 in post processing, and compare that to a D3x or a 5D2 at ISO 6400. No competition.

If all you are saying is that a 40D or an older DSLR or SLR can take a "good" photo then all you're doing is stating the obvious; if cameras like the D3x and 5D2 didn't have "uber" ISO performance, they wouldn't have been such big hits.

And yes it is a very nice capture, as stonedsurd says.

 

I'm holding off buying one for now. No rush.. and I'll see if prices drop a little. Damn Canon's greed! If that was priced more competitively Nikon may feel under pressure to compete.

 

Nikon slashed £300 off the D800 they are either being very nice or bricking it as the 5DIII is now shipping .

 

Probably the latter

 

I made that comment in response to stonedsurd's argument that he couldn't have taken those photographs without modern gear and a fast lens. True, the two examples compare camera models that are only 1 generation apart, but I note that I took my photo using a "slow" kit lens with settings not outside the realm of any other camera, including film.

New DSLR models are big hits because people like to buy shiny new things. People were saying the same things when the last generation of DSLRs came out. "OMG it has ISO 10,000! My 1 year old DSLR no longer takes good photos." I still get the feeling that ISO is the new megapixel, and the DSLRs are going to start touting ever increasing numbers. Perhaps I'm wrong - time will tell I'm sure.

 

Nobody is saying you can't take 'good' shots with older gear. We're saying a shot that required a faster shutter speed, would have required current gear. Hope this brings an end to the need to defend older gear.

 

Somehow I doubt that.