Equipment Nikon D800 Thread

[eddie_dane]

Originally Posted by M_D_K

Off topic but there are some canon Rumours about the 5D3 with 22mp sensor, 61pt AF , Dual CF/SD slots which I think pretty much sells its straight for me the improved AF and similar pixel density its going to kick arse if its true .

I don't think it's off topic and I'll tell you why.

I saw the same rumors and if the 5D MIII just brings the focusing close to the D700 for the price they are quoting (around $3500) then Nikon will find out just how bad people have been waiting for an updated version of the D700 when they see Canon sell the sh*t out of the MkIII's. Because all Nikon shooters will have choice-wise is either the D4 or jumping to the 5d MkIII for almost half the price.

I've been tempted to jump to the 5d MkII on many occasions and the only thing stopping me is I think the current focusing system would kill my music photography full stop.

[LennyRhys]

Originally Posted by M_D_K

Have you completely missed the 24mp APS-C Sony NEX-7 then ??

I was meaning mainstream dSLR bodies, which the NEX-7 is not. If you think the NEX-7 has a high res APS-C sensor, how about the 46mp Sigma SD1 which is actually a dSLR... but again it's not really a mainstream dSLR with its ludicrous £4K price tag, and 46mp on an APS-C is admittedly rather silly.

I find it interesting that Nikon's latest and greatest offering, the D4, follows in the footsteps of Canon's 1Ds Mark II with a 16mp full frame sensor, seven years later. It's clearly not about the resolution any more.

[M_D_K]

Originally Posted by eddie_dane

I don't think it's off topic and I'll tell you why.

I saw the same rumors and if the 5D MIII just brings the focusing close to the D700 for the price they are quoting (around $3500) then Nikon will find out just how bad people have been waiting for an updated version of the D700 when they see Canon sell the sh*t out of the MkIII's. Because all Nikon shooters will have choice-wise is either the D4 or jumping to the 5d MkIII for almost half the price.

I've been tempted to jump to the 5d MkII on many occasions and the only thing stopping me is I think the current focusing system would kill my music photography full stop.

Much like every other market its swings and roundabouts, I just hope canon follow through with the rumours it'll bring back some balance I know quite a few people jump ship just because they had issues with the focusing on the 5DII, I have had no real problems with it I wouldn't say I'm loyal to Canon but I don't like chopping and changing its just something new to figure out and learn how to use, the 5DIII though if all is true it will be a case of how quickly can I get one 5DII with a 1D focusing system that is a dream come true .

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

I was meaning mainstream dSLR bodies, which the NEX-7 is not. If you think the NEX-7 has a high res APS-C sensor, how about the 46mp Sigma SD1 which is actually a dSLR... but again it's not really a mainstream dSLR with its ludicrous £4K price tag, and 46mp on an APS-C is admittedly rather silly.

I find it interesting that Nikon's latest and greatest offering, the D4, follows in the footsteps of Canon's 1Ds Mark II with a 16mp full frame sensor, seven years later. It's clearly not about the resolution any more.

Resolution is a requirement of a very small percentage of photography work, pro Fashion,beauty and commercial photographers eat up resolution it gives you lots of control when editing as you have so much more detail to play with & you have the ability to print as big as you like which again is not always required but when your shooting a still for a advert that is then to be put on a billboard you will not see anyone shooting with a 1DSIII it hasn't got the res.

I think personally the current breed of cameras D4 / 1DX are sticking with 18-20mp is that for most people or say a large chunk of pros that is plenty, you can get a decent print size out of that with plenty of resolution to play with in Post.

As for the NEX-7 I think that is aimed at the higher class of photographers much like the Fuji x100 etc.. your average joe is not going to be buying one, mainstream dSLRs wont see 20+mp sesnors at least I hope they wont they've made a smart move to keep them low you still retain decent quality from a less dens pixel count you also have far easier time editing a smaller file the average joe wont like messing around with a 25-30mb file, I took 38GB of images in a shoot yesterday I am having a hard time dealing with that lol.

[Pookeyhead]

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

Get a 1Ds Mark II, or III if you can afford it (seriously). I sold my 1Ds2 to get a video-capable body and currently use the 5D as my primary, and I really miss the pro body; it's just such a wonderful camera and represents a perfect upgrade from the 5D in every way. If you want top AF performance you really need a 1 series body.

And when it comes to "higher ISO range" I never understand what people are asking for - you already have at least two stops in post processing, so what does it matter if the camera only goes up as high as 1600 or 3200? You can still push that much higher if needs be, and with a pro camera it will stay remarkably clean.



Or if you already have a stack of Canon lenses - that's specifically why I got a 7D over a D7000. If I could have moved to Nikon just like that, I would have, but I guess when I started getting the expensive Canon lenses I was sealing the deal with them...but I'm not bothered - amazing cameras, amazing glass. Still a bit disappointed I won't get a D7000 but I did get a 7D at a good price so I'm happy.

I've been thinking about this, and why your reply nagged at me, and then I realised. Most of the people I know who shot the 5d mkII with video, actually use old manual Nikon lenses anyway, so a body switch from canon to Nikon won't actually bother them at all... In fact, it's a bonus.

[LennyRhys]

This is what bugged me when I downgraded my 1Ds2 - you can use Nikon glass on a Canon body, but not the other way round.

Who knows, maybe I'll go back to the Nikon camp when I tie off the last few loose ends of my work - I might sell both my 5D and 7D and get a D7000 and just be done with it.

[Pookeyhead]

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

This is what bugged me when I downgraded my 1Ds2 - you can use Nikon glass on a Canon body, but not the other way round.

But for video work why would you want to? Manual nikkors are highly sought after for vieo work now. Linear focusing... Essential quality on a video lens.

For still work.... I don't see why you'd want to lose any functionality to use L series canon lenses. There not really any better you know. Seems like a lot of trouble for nothing.

[Jasio]

Originally Posted by Pookeyhead

But for video work why would you want to? Manual nikkors are highly sought after for vieo work now. Linear focusing... Essential quality on a video lens.

For still work.... I don't see why you'd want to lose any functionality to use L series canon lenses. There not really any better you know. Seems like a lot of trouble for nothing.

Spot on. And when I do grab something manual- it's usually Carl Zeiss not Canon L. If I'm going to go "that" way, I might as well go for better glass.

[LennyRhys]

I wouldn't want to - that's precisely the point: if I have only Canon lenses, and expensive ones at that, it would be a good shortcut simply to bung them on a Nikon body. Of course if I'm starting from scratch or going for the best solution, I'll get Nikon glass for a Nikon body etc; but my problem was having enough money only for a body, not for new glass, so I had to get a 7D because it's the only camera my lenses would function with.

But I've already started to sell off my Canon lenses (no Ls left now, only Sigmas) so the future is very uncertain!

[Pookeyhead]

D800 noise levels seem well controlled.

ISO 3200

[Pookeyhead]

I was at Focus on Imaging today. NO ONE would even entertain doing a "deal" on a D800. Everyone is at £2395. Looks like Nikon has given orders to retailers that the launch price is fixed.

I'll hold off a while and wait for prices to stabilise and competition to happen.

[LennyRhys]

To be honest, £2.4K aint half bad. If I was in the market for a new body and I had the dough, I'd part with that in a heartbeat. It's a lot better than the £3K bounty on Canon's 5D3... upping the stakes to that figure, I'd sooner buy a 1 series body.

[GregTheRotter]

Heh, just because the nutters at canon think they can charge 3k for a body, doesn't mean 2.4k is a fair price. Not when the previous model costs £1800, ok, it didn't start off at that price but still.

[Pookeyhead]

It's just that I know they're cashing in on people who've been waiting a long time for this camera. In a couple of months, you'll be able to get one for £200 less I reckon.

[Cei]

It happened with the 5D2 as well, the price stuck at £2500 for a long long time, no retailer would budge and they all (funnily enough) had the same price. Eventually, something switched and the price began to fall.

D800 will be the same. Price for the early adopters will be high, and basically RRP. It'll be at least 6 months before there is a meaningful drop.

I'd also agree that £2.4k is more reasonable than Canon's £3k. That's my biggest problem with the 5D3.

[eddie_dane]

I could have very easily posted this in the Canon 5d MkIII thread but I thought this post by Dave Jackson, a photographer I admire, hits home with me and I can't really disagree with any of it.

[stonedsurd]

This is not directly addressed at Eddie's link, but it's a thought that just occurred to me - a common theme in posts that bash 'gearfaggotry' is the idea that you can make good shots with ancient body/lens combinations. This holds true only in studio situations with controlled lighting. I'd like to see $600 in gear get the same shots as, say, $10,000 at a football match or a motorcar race.

It's like that iPhone fashion shoot where the guy used a $500 phone and about ten grand in lighting.

Horses for courses. If someone tells me a D30 is as good as a 5D2 in natural light, I'll dismiss them out of hand as a flaming moron.

[LennyRhys]

Originally Posted by stonedsurd

This is not directly addressed at Eddie's link, but it's a thought that just occurred to me - a common theme in posts that bash 'gearfaggotry' is the idea that you can make good shots with ancient body/lens combinations. This holds true only in studio situations with controlled lighting. I'd like to see $600 in gear get the same shots as, say, $10,000 at a football match or a motorcar race.

It's like that iPhone fashion shoot where the guy used a $500 phone and about ten grand in lighting.

Horses for courses. If someone tells me a D30 is as good as a 5D2 in natural light, I'll dismiss them out of hand as a flaming moron.

QFT. It's a type of snobbery that I've encountered often. There is a balance between the gear and the skill of the photographer; no photographer, regardless how skilled they are, can produce a 21 megapixel image with a 3 megapixel camera.

[GregTheRotter]

LOL, saw it for 2100 at amazon. Placed an order, then cancelled it on the basis that it doesn't really have what I wanted, namely, better iso, similar MP, then I changed my mind, and it's back up at 2400. That's life eh.

[supermonkey]

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

QFT. It's a type of snobbery that I've encountered often. There is a balance between the gear and the skill of the photographer; no photographer, regardless how skilled they are, can produce a 21 megapixel image with a 3 megapixel camera.

You're changing the argument. a 21 megapixel image isn't simply better than a 3 megapixel image by virtue of the megapixel count alone. The argument could be turned around: A crap photograph taken with a 3 megapixel camera is still a crap photograph when taken with a 21 megapixel camera.

In my opinion, I think people get far too obsessed about the little details in gear comparisons. A good photographer knows how to use light, and a great photographer knows how to adapt to any lighting situation. The gear is secondary - in my opinion anyway. But then, I still use my kit lens so perhaps my opinion isn't worth much in the first place.

[stonedsurd]

Originally Posted by supermonkey

A good photographer knows how to use light, and a great photographer knows how to adapt to any lighting situation.

While this is true in some cases, again, I'd like to see how anyone can argue that one could have had these shots with older gear (I was using a $700 50D, $400 50mm f/1.4).


Ferrari California by angad84, on Flickr
(ISO 1000, f/1.8, 1/30s)


Porsche Carrera S by angad84, on Flickr
(ISO 1600, f/1.4, 1/60s)


Ess Ell Ess (Explored) by angad84, on Flickr
(ISO 1600, f/1.8, 1/40s)


Mean Glare by angad84, on Flickr
(ISO 1600, f/1.8, 1/40s)

Now they're not the greatest shots in the universe, but I was saved by the ISO performance of the body and the fast lens. Had I been cruising with a 450D kit, for instance, I'd have been sunk. Had I used the 50D's predecessor (A 20D? A D30?) with the same 50mm lens, I'd have been equally screwed. The extra MP count on the 50D reduces 'apparent' noise when I print smaller sizes- these shots were used on a desktop calendar ten inches on the long side.