Nikon D800......

flossie said:
Eh? I think you misunderstand me...I shoot at high iso all the time, because I have to. In fact, if you'd clicked on the last picture I posted to Flickr shown in my .sig, you'd have seen it was ISO 6400, 1/30sec, F2.8...(and handheld, no flash allowed...) which is so far out of the possibilities for old film cameras its not even worth contemplating! :naughty:

The Auto-Iso function with minimum shutter speed is invaluable but I will still choose to keep the ISO as low as possible to maximise picture quality however, and so frequently disable the function to force ISO 200 when shooting outdoors (e.g. landscapes).
Click to expand...

Apologies if I did, I thought you were saying that we should not be using high ISO to achieve high shutter speeds, 1/1250 sec at 6400 ISO was the figure you questioned.

Shooting birds in flight I will use 1/1000sec and ISO 6400 if required to do so.
 
ryanyboy said:
So for those less technically minded, is the general concensus that the D800 will be worse than the D700 (say) at high ISOs? I thought the buzz was it was as good as if not better.

Personally I always doubted that a 36mp would be as good as 12mp for noise but I'm more than happy to be proved wrong.....
Click to expand...


The answer from every (expert) quarter is that its NO it will be marginally better than the D700.... if you downscale the image to the same 12mp....

The downscaling thing is (as i mentioned previously) the latest buzz in noise reduction - shoot MASSIVE and downscale. That 41mp Nokia phone does this *in camera*
 
desantnik said:
I have had enough gash, noisy images from my D300 but am just having a eureka moment about exposure that probably is a lot of the answer.... I wonder how many other high ISO fans are also moaning about it because they also haven't clicked what the trick is to keep it down....
Click to expand...

Care to enlighten us on your Eureka moment as I am reluctant to use my D300 above ISO 800 for birds.

I am also very interested in comparisons between D800 in DX mode and D300/D300S. Having just pre-ordered an "E", I wonder whether I have done the right thing.
 
But if you're going to downscale a D800 image to 12mp there's not much point in buying one is there?

As a wedding photographer I'm becoming more and more convinced the D4 is the right tool for the job.
 
ryanyboy said:
As a wedding photographer I'm becoming more and more convinced the D4 is the right tool for the job.
Click to expand...

I get the feeling that as far as Nikon are concerned, "pro's should use the D4 for everything except landscape and fashion" - we aren't going to have another "affordable pro" body again anytime soon, unless the D400 surprises everyone by being a mini-d4 (as the D700 was a mini D3) but this is unlikely... they can sell every D4 they make anyway, and the D800 will sell in boatloads to amateurs...

The difference in price between a gripped D800 and a D4 is less than one decent job to a Pro, especially if you ignore VAT - there's plenty of them dual-wielding D3S'es at present...
 
ryanyboy said:
But if you're going to downscale a D800 image to 12mp there's not much point in buying one is there?
Click to expand...

Yes, to get super-ninja high ISO.... either that or to crop the f*** out of it to get back to 1.5x DX crop :bonk:

I'm not saying that either concept appeals to me, but it seems that is what the experts and Mr Nikon-San is saying too... go google it
 
desantnik said:
Yes, to get super-ninja high ISO.... either that or to crop the f*** out of it to get back to 1.5x DX crop :bonk:

I'm not saying that either concept appeals to me, but it seems that is what the experts and Mr Nikon-San is saying too... go google it
Click to expand...

Thanks for that Kim. It's always handy to have techie guys on hand :)

Now what's this "google" you mentioned.......?

:coat:
 
ryanyboy said:
But if you're going to downscale a D800 image to 12mp there's not much point in buying one is there?
Click to expand...

Yes there is in certain situations. With 36Mp you can use the resolution cropped as an effective zoom lens. If you are stuck in a hide with an APS-C camera and telephoto prime all set for small birds and then something bigger than expected comes close, it more than fills the frame and the shot is lost. With a D800 instead of my D300 fixed to a 500mm, I have enough MP to have an effective 500 - 750mm zoom which for me is great. Plus I get all the fun of FX for landscapes when I want it.
 
I think the D800 would have made a near perfect camera with a few additions, sRAW (12mp), mRAW (24mp) - similar to what Canon does, and a slightly more generous FPS. That would of course affect D4 sales, but it would give you awesome high ISO shots when you need it, large pixel density when you need it.
 
Is this D800 blur thing really something to worry about? Wouldn't it be the same problem for the D7000 which I think has a similar pixel pitch?
 
DonnaM said:
Yes there is in certain situations. With 36Mp you can use the resolution cropped as an effective zoom lens. If you are stuck in a hide with an APS-C camera and telephoto prime all set for small birds and then something bigger than expected comes close, it more than fills the frame and the shot is lost. With a D800 instead of my D300 fixed to a 500mm, I have enough MP to have an effective 500 - 750mm zoom which for me is great. Plus I get all the fun of FX for landscapes when I want it.
Click to expand...

Hmm.

I think trying one out for a good few hours is in order. At the moment I'm not convinced.
 
Had a watch. An interesting article. Along with everything else……..















D4
 
D800 has been down-sampled to a 22mp output.

compmi.jpg
 
Last edited:
grum said:
D800 is interesting to me, looks like a great camera but not enough to warrant switching.
Click to expand...

Ditto the Canon ... in fact I would imagine that it would take a massive difference for the majority of users to switch from one make to another considering the investment in lenses.
 
Möntgomery;4499769 said:
D800 has been down-sampled to a 22mp output.

compmi.jpg
Click to expand...

They look almost the same. Maybe the D800 is a tad sharper but not much in it.

But all this down sampling sounds like a lot of extra work for the working pro…..
 
Martyn... said:
Ditto the Canon ... in fact I would imagine that it would take a massive difference for the majority of users to switch from one make to another considering the investment in lenses.
Click to expand...

I bought most of mine second hand so I wouldn't lose that much, but it's a lot of hassle.

ISO samples look very very similar. I hadn't realised until just now though that the Nikon doesn't have equivalent to sRAW and mRAW? So unless you go into crop mode you have too shoot in the full 36MP?

That would be quite a major drawback for me, I usually have no need for files anywhere near that big.

(Wish Canon would do the DX crop mode equivalent though, would be handy)


redddraggon said:
Is it not just as simple as exporting from Lightroom (or wherever) at whatever resolution you want?
Click to expand...

I guess but it still means dealing with unnecessarily huge files most of the time, more hard drives, more time spent managing backups, bigger memory cards needed, longer transfer times from memory cards, etc
 
Last edited:
grum said:
I bought most of mine second hand so I wouldn't lose that much, but it's a lot of hassle.

ISO samples look very very similar. I hadn't realised until just now though that the Nikon doesn't have equivalent to sRAW and mRAW? So unless you go into crop mode you have too shoot in the full 36MP?

That would be quite a major drawback for me, I usually have no need for files anywhere near that big.

(Wish Canon would do the DX crop mode equivalent though, would be handy)




I guess but it still means dealing with unnecessarily huge files most of the time, more hard drives, more time spent managing backups, bigger memory cards needed, longer transfer times from memory cards, etc
Click to expand...

According to the D800 brochure you can store FX files in 12 or 14 bit lossy or lossless formats, 74.4MB for 14 bit uncompressed lossless down to 29MB 12 bit lossy NEF. Similar range for DX as well: 32.5MB max 13.2 MB min
 
Last edited:
ryanyboy said:
But all this down sampling sounds like a lot of extra work for the working pro…..
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm missing something here:
When you create a jpeg for web, say 800 pixels wide, or you create a jpeg to print, say 10" x 8" at 300 pixels per inch, doesn't your software automatically down or up samples as required?

The down sampling we're seeing here is just for comparison purposes.
 
DonnaM, true but I'd rather keep quality/bit depth the same and reduce resolution personally.

I don't see the downsampling as an issue though, apart from dealing with the size of the files in the first place.
 
grum said:
DonnaM, true but I'd rather keep quality/bit depth the same and reduce resolution personally.
Click to expand...
ie, you'd like a newer, better D700. That would be nice, that just isn't what the D800 is, the D800 is different. The D800 adds a high res body to their under £3k range.

Maybe there'll be something more similar to the D700 in another couple of years.
 
Triggaaar said:
Maybe I'm missing something here:
When you create a jpeg for web, say 800 pixels wide, or you create a jpeg to print, say 10" x 8" at 300 pixels per inch, doesn't your software automatically down or up samples as required?

The down sampling we're seeing here is just for comparison purposes.
Click to expand...

This
 
grum said:
DonnaM, true but I'd rather keep quality/bit depth the same and reduce resolution personally.

I don't see the downsampling as an issue though, apart from dealing with the size of the files in the first place.
Click to expand...

With 14 bit lossless, you don't lose any quality, and you'l end up with a file close to or around the same size in mb as a 5Diii.

So you effectively get the file size benefit of M or Sraw but not lose any information.

My D700 files go from around 25mb down to 13mb, so you save quite allot on file size...

D800 files should end up being around 39mb with 14 bit lossless compression...
 
Last edited:
Am I correct in thinking that in DX mode it will be around 15MP and in 1.2x mode around 25MP
 
Möntgomery;4500160 said:
With 14 bit lossless, you don't lose any quality, and you'l end up with a file close to or around the same size in mb as a 5Diii.

So you effectively get the file size benefit of M or Sraw but not lose any information.

My D700 files go from around 25mb down to 13mb, so you save quite allot on file size...

D800 files should end up being around 39mb with 14 bit lossless compression...
Click to expand...

I often shoot in mRAW for weddings/events though which gives a much smaller file size while retaining quality.
 
Martyn... said:
Cheers Donna, that is certainly tempting, I shall see what the real world samples look like before I decide.
Click to expand...

You are obviously more patient and more sensible than I. I am committed, so I shall post some shots when mine arrives. Lets hope the sun comes out in Cumbria to do the shots justice.
 
DonnaM said:
You are obviously more patient and more sensible than I. I am committed, so I shall post some shots when mine arrives. Lets hope the sun comes out in Cumbria to do the shots justice.
Click to expand...

I am indeed patient, plus I have just squandered a fortune redecorating and fitting out a bedroom :D

I am waiting to see what the results are, if not too spectacular I am going to add another Zeiss lens to my collection :)
 
gman said:
Is this D800 blur thing really something to worry about? Wouldn't it be the same problem for the D7000 which I think has a similar pixel pitch?
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing,but isnt going to be like say using slow film Kodachome 25-50 asa,you will just have to more carful with your shutter speeds,or use an tripod.

And if the light really bad just push the iso up ? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top