D800 RAW File Size

X

Xjacktar

Suspended / Banned
Messages
198
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
I am still at the stage of assessing the D800 before I make the decision
and start building the funds. I would probably let go of both the D7000 and the D700 and a couple of lenses for this.

Pending computer upgrade, I was considering using the camera at 1.2 or 5:4 format for most subjects, reserving full resolution for landscape and
ships, and maybe more. I'm fed up of stitching panoramas, and would very much like to get it in 'one hit'. Does this make sense?

If the camera is set to '1.2', 'DX' or '5:4' format, will it record a cut-down RAW file? The downloaded manual isn't clear to me. I know there is a D800 thread, but this isn't a 'reply'. My apologies if this has come up before.
 
The bigger the crop the smaller the files will be, David.

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/features04.htm

Scroll down to the bit about memory cards and you'l get Nikon's table showing the file sizes for all the various options. With the D800 you get the benefit of a full frame camera and DX frame camera all in one. (You can set up the D800 so the 4 available image areas can be changed using buttons on the camera so you don't need to take camera from your eye). I replaced my D700 & D300s with the D800E.
 
Mmm, thanks Dougie.
So it basically comes down to either FX or DX, and nothing in between (for RAW). Seems a bit pointless to have the other image areas, unless you shoot JPEGs.
Oh well, it would mean an early crop in PP most of the time; do-able I suppose. Still undecided.

Will someone please tell me that unless I am printing at poster sizes and bigger, I will not see the difference in resolution. This is just a want, not a need.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't come down to DX vs FX, the other formats do result in smaller files, just not as small as DX.

I use my D800 in DX mode most of the time. As such, it is essentially a D7000 in almost every way (better AF). I do this to get the 6fps, smaller files, and "pre-crop" in camera. (requires grip and D4/AAA battery).

The extra MP's can actually be a negative as it has worse low light performance (at native file size) than the D700 (it's just like the 7000). And extra pixels don't make up for a lack of image detail as provided by the lens. You would be a lot better off getting closer/using a longer lens than cropping.

TBH, in print, yeah you need to be printing pretty huge to see the difference. BUT, it actually shows up "earlier" on the web if you don't down sample/resize.

The main reason I went to the D800 from the D7000 was interoperability w/ my D4 (batteries/controls), the better AF system, and for the "occasional" use for large file sizes (landscapes etc). TBH, I haven't actually had a "need" for the resolution as of yet (~1yr).
 
sk66 said:
The extra MP's can actually be a negative as it has worse low light performance (at native file size) than the D700 (it's just like the 7000). And extra pixels don't make up for a lack of image detail as provided by the lens. You would be a lot better off getting closer/using a longer lens than cropping.
.
Click to expand...

:thinking: - errrr what rubbish. The d800 is considerably better then the d700 at native iso. And much much better then the d7000,
 
I don't know why people buy FX bodies to use them in DX mode ... surely you'd be better to just buy a fast DX camera? And then all that stuff about it being bad with higher ISO .... clearly not using it right/enough then. As in numerous comparisons about the D800 pretty much stands up to the D4 almost:

http://www.nikonjin.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1503

try guessing which sample matches which camera before scrolling down for the answers ... You'll be surprised.
 
Dougie and Keith - did you buy the D800E specifically for landscape work.
I'm not sure whether to go for the 800 or 800E as I like, landscapes, architecture and a bit of studio work - family portraits etc.
I would be interested to hear your comments on the 800E please.
Thanks
Dave
 
Last edited:
To be honest, I got the E because it was the only one in the store I bought from at the time. I had the extra money at the time and just went for it. I would have been just as happy with the standard D800. One thing I would say about the E, I rarely ever use sharpening in post now. Where I probably used to over-do it with my D90 files.
 
nikonuser said:
Dougie and Keith - did you buy the D800E specifically for landscape work.
I'm not sure whether to go for the 800 or 800E as I like, landscapes, architecture and a bit of studio work - family portraits etc.
I would be interested to hear your comments on the 800E please.
Thanks
Dave
Click to expand...

I went for the 800E because whilst I really did not know whether it would would produce sharper pics than the 800 I knew I would have hated to have spent a lot of money on the 800 and later wished I had forked out a couple of hundred quid more for the E model (that being the difference at that time) in order to get sharper results. I still don't know if the E model produces sharper shots (technical studies seem to suggest it does produce slightly sharper pics) however I am delighted with the camera.
What I can say is that I have seen no evidence of moire with the 800E.
 
Thanks Guys, really appreciate your helpful comments.
I'm a bit the same Dougie don't want to make the mistake buying the 800 then wished I had gone for the 800E.
I will probably be buying in a few months time so still time for plenty of research
Thanks again
Dave
 
Cagey75 said:
I don't know why people buy FX bodies to use them in DX mode ... surely you'd be better to just buy a fast DX camera? And then all that stuff about it being bad with higher ISO .... clearly not using it right/enough then. As in numerous comparisons about the D800 pretty much stands up to the D4 almost:

http://www.nikonjin.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1503

try guessing which sample matches which camera before scrolling down for the answers ... You'll be surprised.
Click to expand...

Keith, that is the case because at times shots are taken in the knowledge that cropping will take place during editing. Shooting in one of the crop modes gets the photographer, in such circumstances, nearer to having got the desired result in camera. You may not be bothered whether get the result you want at the time of shooting or afterwards during processing (I don't care, in principle what method other folk use), but I prefer to go for getting as much correct as possible when the shutter is released and will therefore use the image area I see as best suited to the desired result. The D800/E is well suited to my purpose.
 
That's all very obvious, But I still don't get why you'd buy an FX body to mostly use as a DX crop! Especially those who seem to constantly complain about file sizes.

Just get a DX body, and a cheaper FX option, like a used D700 :shrug:
 
Cagey75 said:
I don't know why people buy FX bodies to use them in DX mode ... surely you'd be better to just buy a fast DX camera? And then all that stuff about it being bad with higher ISO .... clearly not using it right/enough then. As in numerous comparisons about the D800 pretty much stands up to the D4 almost:

http://www.nikonjin.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1503

try guessing which sample matches which camera before scrolling down for the answers ... You'll be surprised.
Click to expand...

If the only thing I did was use it in DX mode, then yes, I might be better off with a DX body. But I *also* use it in FX for the rare shot and I prefer the cross compatibility w/ my D4. I also prefer the AF system.

As in numerous comparisons about the D800 pretty much stands up to the D4 almost
Click to expand...
In first hand real life use side by side, the D800 isn't even in the same ballpark. The D800 is into digital gain by ISO 1200, the D4 doesn't start until above 12,800. In strict sensor performance the D800 is almost identical to the D7000. They have same pixel size/pitch and go into digital gain at pretty close to the same time (>ISO 800 for the D7000).

The problem with almost all of the tests you'll see is they are not done in low light conditions where you *need* high ISO. If you can take the same scene using a low ISO, then it is NOT the same thing. The other problem with them is they almost always down-sample the D800 image. That *will* improve the image quality significantly, but then what's the point of recording the larger image to start with?

I've owned and extensively used the D3 (D700 equiv), D7000, D800, D4 and many other Nikons previous. I'm currently using the D800/D4 and I'm pretty sure I know how to use them "correctly."
 
boyfalldown said:
Would you like to compare them, say from dxomark to give an objective result?
Click to expand...

No. That's pointless IMO. They downsize the D800 image (as well as all others) to a nominal print size (8MP 8x12 print). The downsampling is HUGE for the D800. If you're going to down sample all of your images to 8MP, then maybe it makes sense.
 
sk66 said:
No. That's pointless IMO. They downsize the D800 image (as well as all others) to a nominal print size. The downsampling is HUGE for the D800 (8MP 8x12 print). If you're going to down sample all of your images to 8MP, then maybe it makes sense.
Click to expand...

Ok, I guess you'll suggest another objective comparison instead then?
 
sk66, seems all talk, no action. please post up directly comparable examples then at the same ISO. I don't see how yours will be very different to anyone else's online. And you said the D800 was worse than the D700, I only mentioned it could stand up to the D4, didn't say it was as good or better. But I would say it's better than the D700 ...

The example I posted may not have been shot in the type of lighting where higher ISO would be required, but it's more than noise we're talking. the D800 looks to have the better detail than any of the others. And regardless of the lighting, it's just a tad behind the D4, beating the others easily, that includes a 5DIII and D700

I've used my D800 at gigs, shot up to 10K ISO, more than sufficient even for the worst lit gigs/concerts. Sure there was some noise, I'd have been extremely surprised otherwise. But it was a very easy and painless clean up in post.
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
Ok, I guess you'll suggest another objective comparison instead then?
Click to expand...

I haven't actually seen one done. You would have to take 100% crops from both (say a 200x200px cut) for images used w/ a wide aperture, min SS, and same ISO. (i.e. situations where you would have to use high ISO).

I suppose I could do it when my D800 comes back from Nikon. Maybe I'll dig thru my images and see if I have kept anything that would work....but I doubt I have.
 
Cagey75 said:
sk66, seems all talk, no action. please post up directly comparable examples then at the same ISO. I don't see how yours will be very different to anyone else's online. And you said the D800 was worse than the D700, I only mentioned it could stand up to the D4, didn't say it was as good or better. But I would say it's better than the D700 ...

I've used my D800 at gigs, shot up to 10K ISO, more than sufficient even for the worst lit gigs/concerts. Sure there was some noise, I'd have been extremely surprised otherwise. But it was a very easy and painless clean up in post.
Click to expand...

I can't post directly comparable for the D800/D3 (D700) as I don't own the D3 anymore (drowned it in a river). I can do the D4/D800 when my 800 returns and just know that the D4 is ~1.5 stops better than the D3.

Let me look around, maybe someones done a real coparison..
 
Well, as I said, I know from first hand experience how well the D800 performs. I don't have a D4, unfortunately ... to test side by side. I would guess the D4 is slightly better, but slightly .. that's what I mean about standing up to it. Considering the MP count, the price difference, the D800 performs a lot beter than it probably should. I think it surprised everyone in that department. I didn't think I'd be using it above ISO 4000, say. Which is usually enough for gigs - the only place I would really need high ISO.

here's another guy doing a quick comparison:

http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/117...-d800-vs-nikon-d600-full-frame-low-light-test
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
I haven't actually seen one done. You would have to take 100% crops from both (say a 200x200px cut) for images used w/ a wide aperture, min SS, and same ISO. (i.e. situations where you would have to use high ISO).

I suppose I could do it when my D800 comes back from Nikon. Maybe I'll dig thru my images and see if I have kept anything that would work....but I doubt I have.
Click to expand...

:) that would be a no then? That was the reason I suggested dxo mark scores (& your understanding of the test method doesnt match their published methods)at least they're objective
 
boyfalldown said:
:) that would be a no then? That was the reason I suggested dxo mark scores (& your understanding of the test method doesnt match their published methods)at least they're objective
Click to expand...

Here you go.
Same pixel size sample from a D700 and D800 images taken in low light. Last post on page1 and first post on page 2. But the D800 image is STILL downsampled...

Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks the D800 is not a great low light camera.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
Here you go.
Same pixel size sample from a D700 and D800 images taken in low light. Last post on page1 and first post on page 2.

Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks the D800 is not a great low light camera.
Click to expand...

That's a serious point is it? It's a forum discussion, can you manage an objective side by side test please? No? All talk?.not really much point continuing unless you provide that is there?
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
That's a serious point is it? It's a forum discussion, can you manage an objective side by side test please? No? All talk?.not really much point continuing unless you provide that is there?
Click to expand...

How would this forum post be any different?

I'll do a D4/D800 when my D800 comes back from repair.
I'll check with some others to see if I can get a D700/D7000 comparison done.

In the meantime, maybe some actual test measurements will help. (in the tests "read noise" ='s signal strength)
 
It is easy. The trick is in downsampling. Some reviewers compare camera sensors at pixel level some people compare images at the same resolution. Those who use down-sampled images for comparison say the D800 is the king, those who use crops must say that images from D800 are noisier than D700, D3, D4 or D600. Both are true.

The photosites on the D800 are smaller than other full-frame camera. With same gen sensor technology it means that the quantum efficiency is lower and the camera will capture more noise. The D3/D700 are older technology, Nikon (or Sony) did a great jobs on minimising read noise that helped D800 to mask the increase of noise pertaining to decrease of photosite size. But the difference is still there.

High pixel density is a double-edged sword. It allows the D800 to make perfect 12mpx images. You just need to downsample. On the other hand, this somewhat defeat the purpose of high-pixel count. Why would one want to buy 36mpx camera if need to downsample to get clean output?

I still believe that the 24mpx full-frame sensor is a sweet spot in current technology. The D600 produces much cleaner output both at native and downsampled resolution and has a plenty of details. Step up from 12 mpx is noticeable, not so much between 36mpx and 24mpx. Too bad Nikon did not use the sensor in D800-class body.
 
sk66 said:
How would this forum post be any different?

I'll do a D4/D800 when my D800 comes back from repair.
I'll check with some others to see if I can get a D700/D7000 comparison done.

In the meantime, maybe some actual test measurements will help. (in the tests "read noise" ='s signal strength)
Click to expand...

Like I said all talk.

A. That chart supports my point.
B. did you read the footnotes?

This is pointless, you said a few posts back you'd never seen side by side comparisons, then proceed to produce some very shakey ones. As I said its pointless, you carry on talking to yourself
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
That's all very obvious, But I still don't get why you'd buy an FX body to mostly use as a DX crop! Especially those who seem to constantly complain about file sizes.

Just get a DX body, and a cheaper FX option, like a used D700 :shrug:
Click to expand...

Well, as I said originally, "I was considering using the camera at 1.2 or 5:4 format for most subjects". These modes are considerably higher resolution than DX.
 
boyfalldown said:
Like I said all talk.

A. That chart supports my point.
B. did you read the footnotes?

This is pointless, you said a few posts back you'd never seen side by side comparisons, then proceed to produce some very shakey ones. As I said its pointless, you carry on talking to yourself
Click to expand...

Of course I read the footnotes....
If you want to continue to believe the D800 is the greatest; fine. Me, I'd choose a D3/D700/D3s/or D4 first.
 
I'm not even sure why you're so defensive about other models. And so anti-D800 ... I don't know many people, if any, that would choose either a D3 or D700 over it. Not least because the re-sale value is much better on the D800, so it wouldn't make much sense at all.
 
Xjacktar said:
Well, as I said originally, "I was considering using the camera at 1.2 or 5:4 format for most subjects". These modes are considerably higher resolution than DX.
Click to expand...

Just keep in mind that the less pixels you capture (or the harder you crop in post) the less you can down sample and the worse the camera will perform. In DX mode it's ~16MP just like your D7000 (and performance is very similar). At 1.2x it's 25MP and bumps your frame rate up to 5fps.

5:4 is ~30MP. Down sampled to 10-12MP and the noise should be ~equiv to the D700.

The main thing the D800 has going for it is very high detail/resolution at ISO 800 and below. (But the D7100 has even higher sensor resolution). And if you do record very large files and down sample you can get somewhat better performance than what you currently have.

Honestly, unless you have the need for the high MP's and very large prints I think you're just as well covered now. Plus you have a backup body and a couple more lenses. The move to the D800 probably isn't in your best interest, but it's for you to decide.

I do like the D800 quite a bit but it wouldn't be my only camera, not for what I do.
 
Thanks for that Steve. Good, reasoned advice. Back on the fence then.

In your earlier post in this thread, you said:

"It doesn't come down to DX vs FX, the other formats do result in smaller files, just not as small as DX."

Given that I meant 'in-camera' files (I should have made that clearer), do you still stand by that?
Dougie's reference (to a Nikon site) indicates that the D800 saves in only 2 RAW formats, FX and DX; the only other differences being bit depth.
 
Xjacktar said:
Thanks for that Steve. Good, reasoned advice. Back on the fence then.

In your earlier post in this thread, you said:

"It doesn't come down to DX vs FX, the other formats do result in smaller files, just not as small as DX."

Given that I meant 'in-camera' files (I should have made that clearer), do you still stand by that?
Dougie's reference (to a Nikon site) indicates that the D800 saves in only 2 RAW formats, FX and DX; the only other differences being bit depth.
Click to expand...

Yes, it records all sizes in raw and smaller captures are smaller files. The chart just gave opposite ends of the spectrum and left out the middle.
14bit lossless compressed:
41.3MB FX
34.4MB 4:5
28.7MB 1.2
18.6MB DX
 
Thank you Steven, first time I've seen it set down so clearly.
 
sk66 said:
The main thing the D800 has going for it is very high detail/resolution at ISO 800 and below. (But the D7100 has even higher sensor resolution). And if you do record very large files and down sample you can get somewhat better performance than what you currently have.
Click to expand...

Wha?? haha. Leave you to it man ... dish out all the wrong advice you like, good job not many are falling for it ;)
 
Cagey75 said:
Wha?? haha. Leave you to it man ... dish out all the wrong advice you like, good job not many are falling for it ;)
Click to expand...

yeah, good thing.
By resolution I am not talking about MP's, I'm talking about the ability to pull out detail in an image. This ability is due to the size and density of the sensor sites/pixels. The D7100 has more of them of smaller size and more densely placed. (24MP where the D800 is <16MP for the same portion of sensor).

That also means the D7100 will perform worse in low light, and it is even more demanding on lenses/technique.

But you probably know better....
 
sk66 said:
yeah, good thing.
By resolution I am not talking about MP's, I'm talking about the ability to pull out detail in an image. This ability is due to the size and density of the sensor sites/pixels. The D7100 has more of them of smaller size and more densely placed. (24MP where the D800 is <16MP for the same portion of sensor).

That also means the D7100 will perform worse in low light, and it is even more demanding on lenses/technique.

But you probably know better....
Click to expand...

You do talk some rubbish :thinking:

It means nothing of the sort regarding low light performance. If nothing else changes you may be right but dont you think sensor technology may move on between camera generations?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top