Nikon D800......

I think it's probably safe to say it'll make the nifty fifty look like a coke bottle bottom. These new high end lenses are what the D800 needs, the size doesn't bother me at all as long as the quality is there.
 
The price would bother me more than the size tbh :D I would only splash on something like that if I used it most of the time.
 
I took my D800 out to the local race track on Saturday and it was fantastic. I've got a set up on Flickr with 243 pictures from the day, 97 were taken with my D3 and the other 146 were taken with the D800. It may not have the best FPS ever but the AF is superb and makes up for the lack of speed. The set can be found here, the exif data has been removed because of nosey whinging family members so you'll have to guess which were taken with which camera.

I was using it handheld and mostly with a Sigma 120-300mm (non-OS) and didn't have any problems, well no more than with my D700/D3 and such a heavy lens.

I originally never wanted one but I have been blown away by the D800, it is such a great camera.
 
Well after hearing reports of Nikon UK successfully fixing cameras with defective AF points, I bought one. Wasn't too surprised to find it had the "issue" and sent it of to Richmond for repair.

I got it back today. The Left AF point is a bit better for sure, but the other AF points are all way off to the point that I can't even get it right with maxium AF fine tune. To say I'm disappointed is putting it mildly. I cannot comprehend how anyone could have tested the camera and found it to be satisfactory. I can only assume Nikon had a fiddle and then papped it out asap.

Will call them tomorrow. Very unhappy with them at the moment.
 
Last edited:
Beyond 16mp might just be too much for that lens? I imagine many people are finding same with a lot of older lenses.

It's really bad of Nikon to still be shipping out bodies that have the AF issue. They really should have recalled all that stock from the stores long before now.

I was lucky, really, not an issue with mine. I had the image freeze thing at first but bought a faster card and that solved that.
 
Cagey75 said:
Beyond 16mp might just be too much for that lens? I imagine many people are finding same with a lot of older lenses.

It's really bad of Nikon to still be shipping out bodies that have the AF issue. They really should have recalled all that stock from the stores long before now.

I was lucky, really, not an issue with mine. I had the image freeze thing at first but bought a faster card and that solved that.
Click to expand...
What lenses do you use with your D800, im getting one and will hopefully use it with a Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR and a 70-200mm F/2.8 MK1 and a 400mm f/2.8 AF-S ED II

Hope it'll be OK with those
 
Quick question for you guys that have used something like a D700 or similar and a D800. I've never really seen this answered but I do apologise if I'm stumbling over previously covered ground.

I've seen a lot of reference to needing good glass and impeccable technique 'to get the best out of' the D800. I can fully understand that with such densely packed pixels. Viewing at 100% might well reveal all sort of gremlins if you haven't taken care at the point of shooting but of course 100% on a D800 is a way smaller chunk of the image compared to most cameras. What I'm interested in is if I'm equally carefree with a D800 as I might be with a D700 and then view both images at the same size, (i.e not 100% necessarily but just a typical viewing size) is the D800 actually going to look worse? I can't see any reason why it would but worth me checking.
 
Gary Coyle said:
What lenses do you use with your D800, im getting one and will hopefully use it with a Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR and a 70-200mm F/2.8 MK1 and a 400mm f/2.8 AF-S ED II

Hope it'll be OK with those
Click to expand...

24-70 2.8, 50mm 1.8G,Nikon 105mm micro and have the 70-200 VR II on the way [hoping it'll be today, going by the tracking number it's in Dublin] + a 1.7x TC on here, I don't do much by way of bird/wildlife but I'd like to get into it maybe. Got that for some extra reach, I hope it doesn't gather dust in the bag, we'll see.

I sold off my 80-200 2.8 because I wasn't sure if it would stand up well on the D800 - But, I've seen many people still use them on newer bodies and they say they are still as sharp, if not sharper.

I thought about the 16-35, and the 50mm for that little extra. I actually bought the 50mm first off, as they didn't have the 24-70 in stock in the store I bought the camera. But after thinking on it, I don't tend to shoot very wide, even for landscape. But I hear it's very good. Never used it personally, so I'll leave it at that ;)

I bid on a 70-200 mkI on here but was just beaten to it. Tried to bid on ebay a few times but kept hitting the "Does not ship to Ireland" wall. In the end I found a seller through ebay in Holland that had the VRII for a decent price [€1750/£1400] inc postage to here. Just jumped on it. This lens is €2400 in shops here. You have much more choice in the UK though, if you shop around.
 
Last edited:
gad-westy said:
Quick question for you guys that have used something like a D700 or similar and a D800. I've never really seen this answered but I do apologise if I'm stumbling over previously covered ground.

I've seen a lot of reference to needing good glass and impeccable technique 'to get the best out of' the D800. I can fully understand that with such densely packed pixels. Viewing at 100% might well reveal all sort of gremlins if you haven't taken care at the point of shooting but of course 100% on a D800 is a way smaller chunk of the image compared to most cameras. What I'm interested in is if I'm equally carefree with a D800 as I might be with a D700 and then view both images at the same size, (i.e not 100% necessarily but just a typical viewing size) is the D800 actually going to look worse? I can't see any reason why it would but worth me checking.
Click to expand...

I have found that I need to be more careful with my focusing, I'm a bit fancy free when it comes to composing and critical focusing. If anything it's teaching me to slow down a little, and make sure I'm bang on before pressing the shutter. On the D90 I could get away with a lot more loosey-goosey shooting I feel. I'm sure I'll get used to the difference, and it will become more natural. But right now, I'm glad I'm not a sports shooter [though I may have gone for a D4 in that case]
 
Cagey75 said:
I have found that I need to be more careful with my focusing, I'm a bit fancy free when it comes to composing and critical focusing. If anything it's teaching me to slow down a little, and make sure I'm bang on before pressing the shutter. On the D90 I could get away with a lot more loosey-goosey shooting I feel. I'm sure I'll get used to the difference, and it will become more natural. But right now, I'm glad I'm not a sports shooter [though I may have gone for a D4 in that case]
Click to expand...

Cheers. The thing is that my main reason for wanting a D800 (I most definitely don't need one!) would be landscapes. In that scenario I can afford the time to get everything right regarding shutter speeds, shutter delay, sturdy tripod, remote release, perfect apertures etc.. That side of me definitely doesn't worry me as I know the D800 will shine. What concerns me is whether I can use it in for other stuff in the same way I might use my D700. Like a quick grabbed low light candid of my little girl where shutter speed might be on the marginal side. I know I get plenty of keepers with my D700 in these circumstances and though I can't see why the same wouldn't be the case with the D800 it seems best to clarify.

I suppose to sum up, two identical pictures, both taken handheld, lowish shutter speed, both printed A3. Any reason why the D800 one would look worse than the D700 one?
 
I decided to test mine today for the focus issue and as far as I can see its free off any issues,I've not even done AF micro adjust on any of my lenses.

On mine I use the 24-70 2.8, 70-200 vr2, 85 1.4G and 50 1.8G and all off them show great results.
As for it showing issues more, I,m not sure that it is more susceptible to camera shake if your not careful,some times i find it is,others i don't.
But I would say that could could miss focus slightly and still come away with a more usable picture than say with the d700,dont know if this is due to all the extra MP or just me.

Here is a picture I took not long after I got it.Was in a dark pub and I could barely see him in the view finder,plus focus missed slightly but at this size I thought the results weren't to bad, as there is still alot of detail.

paddy-iso 8063 by pmac1985, on Flickr
Nikon 50mm 1.8G
Exposure0.077 sec (1/13)
Aperturef/1.8
Focal Length50 mm
ISO Speed8063
 
Last edited:
gad-westy said:
Cheers. The thing is that my main reason for wanting a D800 (I most definitely don't need one!) would be landscapes. In that scenario I can afford the time to get everything right regarding shutter speeds, shutter delay, sturdy tripod, remote release, perfect apertures etc.. That side of me definitely doesn't worry me as I know the D800 will shine. What concerns me is whether I can use it in for other stuff in the same way I might use my D700. Like a quick grabbed low light candid of my little girl where shutter speed might be on the marginal side. I know I get plenty of keepers with my D700 in these circumstances and though I can't see why the same wouldn't be the case with the D800 it seems best to clarify.

I suppose to sum up, two identical pictures, both taken handheld, lowish shutter speed, both printed A3. Any reason why the D800 one would look worse than the D700 one?
Click to expand...

You should deal with the D800 better than I, because you own the D700. I never had one of those, much as I wanted one.

I would say the D800 will produce the better image, just about. I've shot my youngest's 5th birthday last month using it. Both with flash, and without using higher ISO [the cake/candles shots] - I wouldn't be worried about pushing the D800 to ISO 6400, to get nice shutter speeds, if needed. I've gone that high at a gig [posted example in this thread a few pages back at 10K ISO]

Don't dwell on the focus thing too much, I think people are over stating it tbh. As said, I've noticed it, it's showing me up a bit on that isde when i view my images at 100%, but that may well be me being overly fussy. Example, my partners' Dad is into plants. He's a horticulturist and landscaper ... or something ... [now retired] and he often asks me to go take pictures of certain plants or trees he spots near our house. He'll spot them as he's driving in. Yesterday i took some of a tall tree [beats me what it's called :D ] - full length and some closer in detail shots. When i showed him, I noticed they could have been sharper when I zoomed in - he was saying 'nonsense, they're pin sharp, good enough for his needs at least - but I insisted on re-shooting that tree [which I have to do today] - so ... might just be me being critical of me. I tend to do that a lot.
 
Last edited:
pmac, that confirms what I said about ISO performance. That's very clean for 8000K [well, 8063 to be precise]
 
While I was posting here the UPS man called - :clap:

My new baby just arrived, so after discussion here I decided to test a high ISO [8063] shot on her:


Ding,ding,delivery! by Cagey75, on Flickr

Same as yours, a little clean up, but very little tbh. Shot under weedy tungsten spot lights in a darkish room, i basically hit auto in LR, upped contrast a wee bit and adjusted luminance NR, dragged sharpness and clarity down a bit as they are most responsible for noise.
 
Enjoy.. I have to be honest and say I have used mine only a handful of times since I bought it a year ago,as its a bit big and heavy when out with the kids. But its a cracking lens and I won't be selling it even with the little use it gets.
 
I used my old 80-200 a lot. That was about as heavy I'd say, but more awkward as the one I had, the old push-pull type, didn't have a collar. I did chance swinging it from my D90 on the BR-sport strap and tried it on the tripod numerous times, but I will feel safer with this having a collar :) It's not one I'll take around town, but it will definitely get use down by the river/woodland area and for portrait shoots. Buying a 1.7x TC on here to try some bird shots maybe, though winter maybe isn't the best time to try get into that?
 
Cagey75 said:
Buying a 1.7x TC on here to try some bird shots maybe, though winter maybe isn't the best time to try get into that?
Click to expand...

It is, all the leaves are off the trees (well the deciduous ones), so the little buggers have fewer places to hide ;)
 
Good point. Less birds about though no? I'd love to get some wild robins and I know of one place that has some buzzards - I've heard, but never actually seen them.
 
Cagey75 said:
Good point. Less birds about though no? I'd love to get some wild robins and I know of one place that has some buzzards - I've heard, but never actually seen them.
Click to expand...

You get the ones that migrate south for the winter from the northern reaches, different selection to the ones that visit us through the summer.
 
I'll have to brush up on my wildlife! I'm a complete n00b to it really. A mate of mine is really into the wild side of things, he doesn't do photography [though he should] but brings the dog for walks to the wildest areas he can find and brings binoculars. I've been out with him a few times, saw all sorts of butterflies, rodents, birds - all of which he could name. Must get him to take me again.
 
D800 thread keeps slipping lads. I guess us D800 shooters prefer to get out and shoot than talk shop ;)

I'd like to know what set up you're rockin' - as in, what preferred AF system, mode, do you push the ISO outdoors? say for birding/wildlife in general to get the shutter speeds up? I'm betting even those of you coming from a D3/s find it's a cruel beast for critical focusing?

I just got the 70-200 VR II and though I've not got to test it thoroughly yet, I know I'm going to be pushing that ISO a little more using it on this baby. No problem, really, as I think it's very capable up to 5000 if needed. A little clean up in post, no biggy.

I'm almost always in AF-S, I don't use the drive modes, rarely. One bang on shot, done, if I miss it ... well, wasn't meant to have it. I don't like to change set ups too much, as I'm terrible for switching them back. SO I steer clear of continuous modes, should I try them more?

Anyone shooting full on 14 bit lossless RAW? and why?
 
Just to bring up an old chesnut does anythone have any UWA recommendations for a potential D800/e buyer? Landscape is my main use so stopped down edge to edge performance is my first consideration but the long end would be used for some action shots aswell.

The 14-24mm and Tokina 16-28mm arent reallt options for me due to size, range and a lack of filters(at least my current Lee system) so the two main options I'm looking at are a 16-35mm VR and a 17-35mm(either used or cheaper foreign sourced so the price isnt much different).

Specs wise theres little between them for me, the 16-35mm is a bit wider, weather sealed and has VR but the 17-35mm seems better built and could do double duty as an action lens(espeically if I go with 50mm and 85mm 1.8 G's aswell).

I'm getting alot of conflicting opinion on them looking at the net though, some point to the 16-35mm as clearly superior others to the 17-35mm as slightly better.
 
Last edited:
Moreorless said:
Just to bring up an old chesnut does anythone have any UWA recommendations for a potential D800/e buyer? Landscape is my main use so stopped down edge to edge performance is my first consideration but the long end would be used for some action shots aswell.

The 14-24mm and Tokina 16-28mm arent reallt options for me due to size, range and a lack of filters(at least my current Lee system) so the two main options I'm looking at are a 16-35mm VR and a 17-35mm(either used or cheaper foreign sourced so the price isnt much different).

Specs wise theres little between them for me, the 16-35mm is a bit wider, weather sealed and has VR but the 17-35mm seems better built and could do double duty as an action lens(espeically if I go with 50mm and 85mm 1.8 G's aswell).

I'm getting alot of conflicting opinion on them looking at the net though, some point to the 16-35mm as clearly superior others to the 17-35mm as slightly better.
Click to expand...


The 16-35 f4 is not a great lens actually, and the D800 will show it's flaws all the more. I wasn't impressed with this lens at all, and there are enough decent lens reviews out there that seem to arrive at the same opinion.... except Ken Rockwell.. who is a tool (but we all know this).

To be honest, the only ultra wide I'd use with the D800 is the amazing 14-24 2.8. Big or not, it's the best.

The best 3rd party lens at this range I've used is the Tokina AF 16-28mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro FX It's WAY better than the Nikkor 16-35.. and I mean WAY better. You need to stop it down to f4 or beyond or it's extreme edges are a bit soft, but centre is always sharp, and borders are sharp from 4f onwards. Very low distortion and low vignetting at the wide end (although there is some as is almost normal for UW)
 
Pookeyhead said:
The 16-35 f4 is not a great lens actually
Click to expand...
Yes it is, well mine is bloody superb anyway, even at f/4 its sharp corner to corner.
Pookeyhead said:
The best 3rd party lens at this range I've used is the Tokina AF 16-28mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro FX It's WAY better than the Nikkor 16-35.. and I mean WAY better. You need to stop it down to f4 or beyond or it's extreme edges are a bit soft, but centre is always sharp, and borders are sharp from 4f onwards. Very low distortion and low vignetting at the wide end (although there is some as is almost normal for UW)
Click to expand...
Funny that, the one i bought was a bag of crap and was so soft in the corners it was almost impossible to make out individual leaf shapes, the distortion was abysmal as well, it went back after 2 solid days of testing, its only saving grace was its build quality.
 
Last edited:
Gary Coyle said:
Yes it is, well mine is bloody superb anyway, even at f/4 its sharp corner to corner.

Funny that, the one i bought was a bag of crap and was so soft in the corners it was almost impossible to make out individual leaf shapes, the distortion was abysmal as well, it went back after 2 solid days of testing, its only saving grace was its build quality.
Click to expand...

I no longer have either lens, nor any test shots from them, but Photozone have reviewed both and have test shots up. Here's the Nikkor 16-35 f4 wide open.

Nikkor 16-25 f4 @ f4

Barrel distortion is awful, even for a lens like this, and look at the sharpness in the corners!! It's terrible. This is entirely consistent with the lens I used to own (and got rid of promptly.)

At f8 things improve a great deal but distortion obviously hasn't, and there's stil noticable softeness in the corners.

Nikkor 16-35 f4 @ f8

This is NOT something I would expect in a £900 lens, especially on with such a modest max aperture.

By the time the Tokina gets to f8 it's absolutely fine.. and noticably better in terms of barrelling at all apertures.

Tokina AF 16-28mm f/2.8 @ f8

Yes.. it's soft in the corners at f2.8... but by the time you get to the f4 (max aperture of the Nikkor) it's massively improved and from 5.6 onwards, it is demonstrably sharper than the Nikkor in the corners.

The Tokina is only £500.

I'll let others decide.


The logical choice, even considering the extra weight, is the beautiful Nikkor 14-24 f2.8... which is one of the best lenses ever made IMO.
 
Last edited:
I tend to 100% ignore the review sites like Photozone as they only have one sample of each lens to test, if they would have tested the 2 lenses i had (still got the 16-35) it would have been a different review

I tend to stick with the self user review sites where dozens of actual everyday owners/users post their own reviews from the real world.

There are of course variances in the quality of build, calibration etc, etc.

When i bought the 16-35mm i own now i was a tad cautious as i had used another sample previously which wasn't so good, im sure Tokina are the same.
 
The 16-35 f4 is not a great lens actually
Click to expand...

You what? I can assure you it is.

If your need is to take close up pictures of walls then every uwa will have barrel distortion. And it can all be fixed with one button press in post production.

But the posters need is for landscape work and the lens is stunning for that. Your biggest issue is actually finding one at the moment.

Another big plus is you can put filters on it and for landscape work thats a necessity.
 
Pookeyhead said:
The 16-35 f4 is not a great lens actually, and the D800 will show it's flaws all the more. I wasn't impressed with this lens at all, and there are enough decent lens reviews out there that seem to arrive at the same opinion.... except Ken Rockwell.. who is a tool (but we all know this).
Click to expand...
Ken Rockwell also says the Tokina is better than the Nikon 14-24mm yet you say Ken is a tool yet he agrees with you about the quality of the Tokina, does this also make you a ............ :D
 
All I can say is that I've owned the Nikkor, and used the Tokina. The test images I linked to are entirely in keeping with the results I got. I decided neither lens was really good enough and got the 14-24. The 16-35 f4 had too many issues to warrant it's £900 price tag. The Tokina wasn't perfect either, but at £500 made a lot more sense.

The images are there... make of them what you will.
 
Gary Coyle said:
I tend to 100% ignore the review sites like Photozone as they only have one sample of each lens to test, if they would have tested the 2 lenses i had (still got the 16-35) it would have been a different review

I tend to stick with the self user review sites where dozens of actual everyday owners/users post their own reviews from the real world.
Click to expand...

We've been here before, and it still doesn't make sense. I just gave up trying.

Photozone, whether or not you like them, are usually spot one. They do actual testing. The random people you trust on a forum are usually hailing out of the expense they've paid. Even when they know in their heart's they're wrong. Seens so many bad lenses get praised over the years, not just on here. People clinging to hope it's like.

Reviewers are not the enemy, they are there to do a job, they don't test for the sake of it.

Thinking the reviewer may have a bad copy is just a bit ... lame tbh.

I thought on the 16-35 too, because I don't do many ultra wide shots and didn't want to spend so much on the 14-24. It wasn't Photozone alone that turned me off I can tell you. But a good mix of reviews. They cannot all have received a bad copy, and if so, then Nikon's rep must have sunken lower than Sigma on that one lens.


I do agree, Ken Rockwell is a fool, I don't ever even bother looking there. Not because he's wrong, but because he changes his mind on everything soon as a newer, bigger, more modern version pops up, suddenly all that he said was glorious is now crud ... he's a tit.

But please don't turn this thread into an anti-review thing like the last childish mess, people who go around bashing reviews like their word means more ... are just worse. Really. We don't all get to hold every lens ever. We have to trust in something. And I've seen far too many forumers over the years spew crap about lenses just because they own them. Solid ... my hole.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
The random people you trust on a forum are usually hailing out of the expense they've paid. Even when they know in their heart's they're wrong. Seens so many bad lenses get praised over the years, not just on here. People clinging to hope it's like.
Click to expand...
WOW, didn't realise you were a pyschologist, beleive me, if my lens were crap i'd offload it but it isnt, ive also owned some duffers in my time also, i personally beleive that over the last 5 or so years manufacturers have dropped manufacturing and quality standards in both cameras and lenses, ive never personally had to "micro adjust" a single Nikon camera/lens ive owned but more and more people are having to do this it seems, Canon users seem to have to do it as a matter of course, if i bought a lens which needed micro adjustment it would go straight back.
 
Yeah, whatever Gary, don't stain this thread with your bitterness please.

I bought a brand new Sigma 70-200, it was horrific, people on here would have you believe it's a great lens. That's for another thread though ... Have you got a D800 yet?
 
Cagey75 said:
I bought a brand new Sigma 70-200, it was horrific, people on here would have you believe it's a great lens.
Click to expand...
Thats exactly the point im trying to make, reviews are selective and purely based on the actual lens the reviewer owns/tested, youre even backing this up with your own experience above.
 
Cagey75 said:
Have you got a D800 yet?
Click to expand...
Not yet, im still dipping a toe in and out of the D600 camp, the 36mp might just be a tad too specialist for me but on the otherhand i do need a serious megapixel upgrade from the D3S/D700 but the D600 just feels too small, need to see if i can try one with a grip which will help.
 
You're some man for the OTT-ness ...
Gary Coyle said:
WOW, didn't realise you were a pyschologist,
Click to expand...

I seem to remember you posting about 15 smilies [well, 5] in another thread after quoting me, though I made sense then too ;) I was being nit-picked to death for giving an opinion and mentioning reviews ...


The only reviews I read are impartial. I don't go to Nikon.co.bias for them or anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top