Nikon D800......

The sharpness is indeed breathtaking. The focussing is fast and silent. It pretty much replaces my 24-85mm zoom even for pictures of playing children etc., because I can crop in so much with incredible quality.

By the way, I was told the USB dock for the Nikon bayonet will arrive in July, but they couldn't say start or end of July.

Btw., I don't remember where there was this Megapixel discussion saying that everything above 12 MP is useless. I disagree with this. Higher res - if you have a good enough lens - is good for cropping, you really don't need a zoom anymore.

And the argument that most images are viewed on a monitor with their limited resolutions and hence 36MP is a waste forgets that the 4K televisions are just around the corner. And on a large TV screen, 1920 or 3840 pixels horizontally make a really big difference in quality.
 
Anyone who argues against the resolution, simply

Does not have one.

The sigma is £699 on the link I gave btw.
 
Last edited:
It's about the same. My 24-70 is sold. Awaiting pick up. Much as i like it. I don't fall in love with lenses like some so. If it's not being used, away with it.
 
I've been in Thailand last month and saw loads and loads of 4K TV's in the shops. The quality on large screens is indeed dramatically better than the HD we have currently (1920x1080). This will be a huge step ahead for viewing photos.

With 4K, a 50% crop of the image of a D800 will already have less than the screen resolution of a 4K TV. So the resolution of the D800 is really not exaggerated for the technology of even next year, but certainly two years from now. And at least I will still want to view my this year's photos in two years...
 
I bought the sigma 35mm 1.4 last week from Amazon for £652.96 it was that price for a few days last week, it was also the same price for about a week in the first week in June. So probably worth keeping an eye on amazon for the price drop and save £45 quid or thereabouts if you are in the market for the lens.
 
Oh and yes I agree with the other guys it is one seriously sharp lens, its a perfect match for the D800 resolution, a great walkabout lens.
 
Roxo said:
I bought the sigma 35mm 1.4 last week from Amazon for £652.96 it was that price for a few days last week, it was also the same price for about a week in the first week in June. So probably worth keeping an eye on amazon for the price drop and save £45 quid or thereabouts if you are in the market for the lens.
Click to expand...


Nice price that. I paid £799 a while back.
 
AchimT said:
Btw., I don't remember where there was this Megapixel discussion saying that everything above 12 MP is useless. I disagree with this. Higher res - if you have a good enough lens - is good for cropping, you really don't need a zoom anymore.

And the argument that most images are viewed on a monitor with their limited resolutions and hence 36MP is a waste forgets that the 4K televisions are just around the corner. And on a large TV screen, 1920 or 3840 pixels horizontally make a really big difference in quality.
Click to expand...

4k is the equivalent of roughly 8mp so your 36mp sensor images will be downsized still (as will the not-good-enough 12mp you refer to). It will be a long time before 12mp is smaller than the resolution of mainstream TVs.

The main mp argument is about printing. Unless you're printing massive images (billboard massive) you don't NEED 36mp. Nevermind large prints, many people don't print their images at all these days. As for cropping, I personally think its a bad habit to get into - not just as it might make you lazier with your compositions but because it increases pp time.

No one says that anything above 12mp is useless, its just that in the majority of cases it's wholly unnecessary. I don't need much over 12mp so why should I buy a camera with 36mp giving me a resolution I don't need and cripplingly huge file sizes for the type of shooting I do.

Anyone who argues against the resolution, simply

Does not have one.
Click to expand...

That, is simply untrue. I owned one for a month when it came out. I quickly sold it and bought a D4. I argue against the resolution because I think Nikon has limited the practical user base of an otherwise great camera.

If it had the mp of the D4 or d600 (or even the D700) in its current body I would own at least 2 of them.
 
Last edited:
decigallen said:
..... It will be a long time before 12mp is smaller than the resolution of mainstream TVs. .....
Click to expand...

That depends how fast 8K comes in - it's over 33MP, or roughly sixteen times the resolution of current HD televisions.
 
Cagey75 said:
Nice price that. I paid £799 a while back.
Click to expand...

In fairness, I got lucky. I set it up as a price watch on camelcamelcamel.com and two days later the good news arrived via email. So I didn't hang around and got the order in.

Its the problem with electronics though, you buy one week and the next week there's been a 100 quid price drop:(
 
Ozei said:
That depends how fast 8K comes in - it's over 33MP, or roughly sixteen times the resolution of current HD televisions.
Click to expand...

Do you really think that 8k will be the standard TV resolution before a d800 successor is announced? 4k will barely even be the norm by then.
 
decigallen said:
That, is simply untrue. I owned one for a month when it came out. I quickly sold it and bought a D4. I argue against the resolution because I think Nikon has limited the practical user base of an otherwise great camera.

If it had the mp of the D4 or d600 (or even the D700) in its current body I would own at least 2 of them.
Click to expand...


Well, it is true. You just argued against it, and you don't have one ;)
 
AchimT said:
And the argument that most images are viewed on a monitor with their limited resolutions and hence 36MP is a waste forgets that the 4K televisions are just around the corner.
Click to expand...


4K = 8 mega pixels. :thinking:

You can crop successfully to quite stupid levels on almost any decent camera above 16MP if you're only ever going to publish images on a screen. If anyone is routinely cropping in to the extent of these pictures posted above, I suggest you need to rethink your technique, not buy a 36MP camera :)


BTW.. I own a D800 and love it.. before people start hating.... but if you're not printing, 36MP is wasted most of the time.

[edit] It still rocks though... and still nice to have :)
 
Last edited:
decigallen - don't forget, our photos will still exist when 8K or even higher resolutions become the TV and monitor standard. Personally I think it will be nice if they then have the resolution to really shine in these new display formats. 36MP makes them future proof.

I fully agree that right now 36MP hardly ever beneficial, but it is nice that our current photos will still shine on the displays which will be used in 10 years. I see it this way: it's not that 36 MP are overkill, it's rather that today's displays aren't yet good enough to show their full beauty ;)

Your buying a D4 makes me think maybe you're a professional photographer and your photos are sold and shown right now - and for this of course, 36 MP is usually overkill, and sacrifices other aspects which are more important to many professional photographers.

decigallen and Pookeyhead

I disagree that cropping is a bad habit. I got my first camera approximately 45 years ago, and indeed, at that time and in the 30 years thereafter, composition at shooting time was almost everything for hobby photographers. Zoom lenses began to compromise that a bit, but they were expensive, I couldn't afford one as a young man. And anyway, it was generally considered good style to compose a shot carefully.

It is still good style today to diligently compose a shot. At shooting time, you still have options WRT composition you don't have anymore at PP time. But there are so many reasons why you maybe cannot compose to perfection at shooting time. Or you simply don't see an option, and then later in PP you become aware of it.

It's really all about options. You shouldn't be sloppy when you take the picture, but personally I really like the option that I still have options in PP I didn't have 30 years ago.

Pookeyhead - the keyword in your posting is 'routinely'. If you have to crop so dramatically routinely and you don't have a very good reason for it, then indeed you might work on your shooting technique.

However, even a well composed shot may reveal new options at PP time. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think additional detail may also bring additional shades of colour into an image which can then be used to modify the light in PP, so more detail is really interesting for all aspects of PP.

I used to think exactly like you two - why all these MP, they're really useless. But I've changed my mind. That said, I'd be perfectly happy with 24 MP too. 36 is indeed a very high number, and I think it would be nice if they would have used that sensor technology to further increase DR, lowlight capability, or fps for example.

But in general, I now think that high MP counts can be beneficial and put to good use.
 
Pookeyhead said:
4K = 8 mega pixels. :thinking:

You can crop successfully to quite stupid levels on almost any decent camera above 16MP if you're only ever going to publish images on a screen. If anyone is routinely cropping in to the extent of these pictures posted above, I suggest you need to rethink your technique, not buy a 36MP camera :)


BTW.. I own a D800 and love it.. before people start hating.... but if you're not printing, 36MP is wasted most of the time.

[edit] It still rocks though... and still nice to have :)
Click to expand...


You clearly didn't get me either then. Anyone who moans that it's too much because of 36mp, clearly doesn't have one, because most of us to begin with did not buy it for the mp count. We bought it because of everything else. Being the successor to the D700 it was always going to be a great camera. It's noise performance plenty enough for low light photography, such as gigs.

Anyone who makes a big thing about the 36mp mustn't have one. Not many who do complain about that, because they also [should] have good specs on their Pc and laptops to cope. D800 users simply do not complain about the megapixel BS ... and that is what I meant about 'anyone who complains about it, doesn't have one' - the guy above had one, didn't get on with it, because the 36 thing got to him - therefore ... he doesn't have one ;)
 
The implication that we complain because we 'don't have one' is a bit of a moot argument given that if it had a more modest resolution, those complaining would likely own one. That makes the complaints about MP count from non-d800 owning nikon users valid. Unless your implication was that we are somehow jealous? That's just silly.

I was impressed by the d800 in terms of DR and AF. I also liked its build and weight (although was perplexed why ISO couldn't be assigned to REC button like the D4). The resolution was the only thing that didn't sit well with me. I'm irritated that nikon didn't release a 16mp D800 and keep the 36mp sensor for the D800E. That, to me, would be a lethal combination appealing to a broad range of photographers. I would likely have bought two d800s and maybe a d800e in that configuration.

As for future proofing by having 36mp, by that logic a lot of the work by some of the world's finest photographers is not future proof! If this work is to be discarded because it doesn't look good on a TV in the year 2025 then we've got no hope.

I've no doubt that in the future I'll own a camera that has a higher resolution than what I currently use, but by then HDs, cards and processors will be more advanced to deal with the files without slowing my workflow - my current computer is more than adept at dealing with the files but I can't justify the HD space that the d800 consumes as I shoot around 4-8000 image per week.

The d800 is simply not a d700 replacement.
 
I have a moderate level laptop. It has absolutely zero problems processing bunches of D800 RAW files. I'm not exactly the most up-to-the-minute techy type. There are way faster machines than the one I use. It's running the files quicker than my previous laptop, which was only a 2 year old model, handled files from my old D90 - a now 5yr oldmodel[?] ...

The RAW files from my Fuji X100s are 30+mb - it is already becoming the norm. You can of course choose not to use these large output cameras. But My point, which nobody seems to be getting, is that the people who moan about the MP count, and it seems you continue to do so .... simply do not have one. Because it clearly bothers them ... I don't know howmuch cleared I can state that. And it probably doesn't matter one bit anyhow, as anyone who actually wants own [and can afford to] - already has one.

And like I said. If you don't like large RAW files, don't go near any of the new Fuji models.
 
decigallen said:
The main mp argument is about printing. Unless you're printing massive images (billboard massive) you don't NEED 36mp. Nevermind large prints, many people don't print their images at all these days. As for cropping, I personally think its a bad habit to get into - not just as it might make you lazier with your compositions but because it increases pp time.
Click to expand...

#1, far smaller images than 36MP have been printed on billboards - they're not that great resolution!
#2, I fully agree that too few people print these days - if all you want are files for the internet or digital frames, just get an early DSLR (if you want the SLR feel) or compact - both will far out resolve any current screen/frame.
#3, I'm no fan of PP but do crop - it's a lot cheaper than longer lenses (not to mention lighter). I only do it to increase the apparent reach, not to ease composition.

Cagey75 said:
Being the successor to the D700 it was always going to be a great camera.
Anyone who makes a big thing about the 36mp mustn't have one. Not many who do complain about that, because they also [should] have good specs on their Pc and laptops to cope.
Click to expand...

Successor? Surely it's much more than just that - it's a fairly significant upgrade IMO! Not only that but in some ways it's not even an upgrade (FPS?)
I don't make a big thing about the D800's MP count even though I do have one and neither do I have a mega performing PC - they're adequate for the job I ask of them and the desktop is up to handling the D800's large files (although I always shoot JPEG so don't need to handle the huge NEF files!).
 
decigallen said:
The d800 is simply not a d700 replacement.
Click to expand...

Who said it was going to be.. or is?

decigallen said:
The main mp argument is about printing. Unless you're printing massive images (billboard massive) you don't NEED 36mp.
Click to expand...

You're talking nonsense. I shoot and print for exhibition regularly. Even A2 can stretch things to limit, and if you disagree, you've got some weird ideas about quality.
Anything can be printed billboard size, because the quality of print on a billboard is pants!

decigallen said:
Nevermind large prints, many people don't print their images at all these days. As for cropping, I personally think its a bad habit to get into - not just as it might make you lazier with your compositions but because it increases pp time.
Click to expand...

I agree with you here. Most amateurs who own a D800 will never actually use that resolution. Many will not print at all, and just sit at home zooming into their images going "wowwww" and then post their work online at 2MP.



decigallen said:
If it had the mp of the D4 or d600 (or even the D700) in its current body I would own at least 2 of them.
Click to expand...

Well.. you know what. The D800 isn't a D700 replacement. It's not for you. Get over it :)
 
I'd like to just add i have printed pretty large already from the D800. Something i never did so much from the D90 files.

Also, replacement, successor, upgrade . . . Who cares? Call it what you will. I said thats what "I" see it as. Again that problem on here where you're never allowed just post as you'd speak. The constant corrections on here over the use of one word. Jaysis.
 
Last edited:
decigallen said:
As for future proofing by having 36mp, by that logic a lot of the work by some of the world's finest photographers is not future proof! If this work is to be discarded because it doesn't look good on a TV in the year 2025 then we've got no hope.
Click to expand...
Why going to extremes? Nothing will be discarded, but it will not look as good as it could on those future display devices, if it doesn't have the resolution (and colour depth?) supported by these future devices.

Please understand me right. I'm not saying 36MP is a must have right now. Or even in the future. But I say it does have its merits, and for those of us who want to use those, it is a good thing.

So, I disagree with those who say it is useless. It is not - it does have its merits. Maybe moderate merits, but merits :)
 
Pookeyhead said:
Who said it was going to be.. or is?
Click to expand...

Cagey75 did, a few posts up. That's what I was responding to.

Pookeyhead said:
You're talking nonsense. I shoot and print for exhibition regularly. Even A2 can stretch things to limit, and if you disagree, you've got some weird ideas about quality.
Anything can be printed billboard size, because the quality of print on a billboard is pants!
Click to expand...

I said billboards as a flippant remark about size rather than specifics. If you shoot and print for exhibition regularly then you'll need a high resolution camera. Most d700 users (even professionals) don't need that resolution and were hoping to get a direct replacement for their camera which simply didn't happen. Most d800 users have that high resolution and don't need it.


Pookeyhead said:
Well.. you know what. The D800 isn't a D700 replacement. It's not for you. Get over it :)
Click to expand...

Put a smiley face after a snide comment and everything is ok. I was countering a resolution argument by saying that a very narrow percentage of people who own a D800 actually NEED the resolution. Also a great amount of people have not bought one purely because of the resolution. Is this not true? Surely this would tell you that Nikon would've been better served creating a smaller mp d800 or at least the 16mp d800/ 36mp D800e combo that I suggested. I'm hardly making revolutionary comments here - tonnes of pro photographers, bloggers and writers have made similar comments. If those comments aren't vocalised/written then Nikon won't know that they have a disgruntled customer base. This thread is about the D800 and shouldn't be immune to criticism.

AchimT, who is to say that in the future the software to resize images will have changed to a point where it is easier to enlarge images and maintain quality? Look at the evolution of photoshop alone and try and imagine where it'll be in ten years time.
 
Last edited:
decigallen said:
The main mp argument is about printing. Unless you're printing massive images (billboard massive) you don't NEED 36mp.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty serious exaggeration, I can see a clear resolution benefit from my D800 over my old 550D when printing A2.

I'd point out aswell that if someone is taking pictures for their own viewing alone then 8K doesn't need to become "the standard" for that resolution to be exploited.
 
Last edited:
decigallen said:
...who is to say that in the future the software to resize images will have changed to a point where it is easier to enlarge images and maintain quality?
Click to expand...
That is true - it could happen.

And I also agree that it was a surprising decision by Nikon to offer 36MP when keeping it at 24MP with an increase of pixel size on the sensor from 4.9 to 5.9 and all the advantages which go with that (and still have been way ahead of the competition even in terms of resolution) would probably have been very very attractive to a lot of users as well.

Maybe it is really the D600 which was meant to appeal to the D700 users, while the D800 was meant to reach (or even create??) a new market segment?
 
AchimT said:
That is true - it could happen.

And I also agree that it was a surprising decision by Nikon to offer 36MP when keeping it at 24MP with an increase of pixel size on the sensor from 4.9 to 5.9 and all the advantages which go with that (and still have been way ahead of the competition even in terms of resolution) would probably have been very very attractive to a lot of users as well.

Maybe it is really the D600 which was meant to appeal to the D700 users, while the D800 was meant to reach (or even create??) a new market segment?
Click to expand...

Most D700 users say its the size, weight, grip, overall balance of the body they love. The D800 is much the same. Bit of a better grip I think. And it's as great at ISO performance as the D700. Those right there are the first 2 things I look to in a camera. Handling/controls and performance. So what it's only 4fps? How many of you use more than that regularly? You should be looking to the D4 or a Sony maybe.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I agree with you here. Most amateurs who own a D800 will never actually use that resolution. Many will not print at all, and just sit at home zooming into their images going "wowwww" and then post their work online at 2MP.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with that, :shake: as long as they are truthful to themselves why they have bought it. ;) I doubt many Ferrari owners are going over 70-90mph regularly, and nowhere near the 200mph of some of those cars. :shrug: It's nice, I would assume, to have something capable of that performance.

People buy stuff for different reasons, as long as they are not hurting anybody, and getting enjoyment out of it, good luck to them. :thumbs: Some people may think it's waste but... :shrug:

Pro's should be thanking them, (apart from when they can't get stock ;)) because these are normally early adopters, and so pay the new camera premium. And of course help keep companies like Nikon in business. If only Pro's bought the D800 there probably wouldn't be a big enough market for the camera.
 
I actually bought the D600 first. I bought the D800 only because my D600 has the sensor dirt issue, and I didn't see myself cleaning the sensor every day while travelling on vacation. I already had Nikon FX lenses, and I liked the D600's handling and image quality, so I thought another Nikon would be the right way to go. I bought the D800 rather despite the MP than because of the MP. I personally would have preferred larger photosites instead.

But once I had the D800, I noticed that the high MP does have a few merits - even though I could still perfectly live with less MP.
 
decigallen said:
Put a smiley face after a snide comment and everything is ok.
Click to expand...


It's not a snide comment.... you need to lighten up.... and get over it. The D800 is not for you.. we get it, so why are you hear trying to convince everyone else it's not for them either?

Why are you even in a D800 thread? Seems to me like you're just trying to ram your opinion down everyone's throat. Of course no one in here will agree with you, as they all have a D800. Some will have a need for one, some will just want it. You can't realistically start patiently explaining to us about all it's disadvantages, because we obviously don't appear to be suffering from them as you are. Storage? Hard drives are cheap as chips, and even my wife's 7 year old PC handles D800 files with ease.

Answer me this: If, in your opinion, a D800 is sheer overkill, explain the PhaseOne IQ180 or the 'blad HD5-50. What do you suppose they are designed for... and who?

What you mean is YOU have no need for one. Are you arrogant enough to assume that if YOU don't need one, no one else does? I've no idea what you shoot for a living, but there's more than one kind of photography, and each one has specific needs.


redhed17 said:
Nothing wrong with that, :shake: as long as they are truthful to themselves why they have bought it. ;)
Click to expand...

IF they do, yes.. I agree with you. Nothing wrong with it at all.


redhed17 said:
I doubt many Ferrari owners are going over 70-90mph regularly, and nowhere near the 200mph of some of those cars. :shrug: It's nice, I would assume, to have something capable of that performance.
Click to expand...


yeah, but it's also a mechanical marvel, beautiful to look at, and worth a six figure sum, that WILL appreciate in value: It's also an investment. A D800 is just a camera... a tool. Not remotely sexy, attractive, or desirable. It's a merely a tool. It's worth a very small amount, and will be obsolete in 5 years time.

Besides... those who can afford a Ferrari.. WILL be driving it as it's meant to be driven... on race tracks and autobahn's. Except the few who bought F50s and put them in storage as an investment (idiots).



redhed17 said:
People buy stuff for different reasons, as long as they are not hurting anybody, and getting enjoyment out of it, good luck to them. :thumbs: Some people may think it's waste but... :shrug:
Click to expand...

I've never once disagreed with you.. nor will I.
 
Jeff.B said:
My workflow is import from camera into LR4 'copy to DNG' on my hard drive. Is this procedure still OK for the d800 size files. Is there a better workflow process to suit these large files.

jeff
Click to expand...


I just work on it in lightroom if necessary, then export as 16bit TIFF and carry on in PS if needed.
 
I'm usually done on first process of any image in LR these days, and export as full res Jpeg.
 
Hi Jeff, using the 'smaller filesize with full quality' option for the RAW files in the D800's menu, the filesizes are around 35 MB. I think you won't have to change anything in your workflow.
 
AchimT said:
Hi Jeff, using the 'smaller filesize with full quality' option for the RAW files in the D800's menu, the filesizes are around 35 MB. I think you won't have to change anything in your workflow.
Click to expand...

Where do I find this setting the menu.
 
AchimT said:
Hi Jeff, using the 'smaller filesize with full quality' option for the RAW files in the D800's menu, the filesizes are around 35 MB. I think you won't have to change anything in your workflow.
Click to expand...

Jeff.B said:
Where do I find this setting the menu.
Click to expand...

There isn't an option to do this. The closest you come to it is in the NEF compression options where you can set the bit depth and compression.

RAW 14 bit using loseless compression gives you (roughly) a 45mb file.
12 bit is obviously smaller, and with compression you can get RAW files down to 30-35mb
 
I use 12 bit losless compressed atm. I tried 14 bit losless uncompressed, and honestly, could not tell the difference between identical images taken at each setting. So I stick to 12 bit to keep things nice and smooth. Unless I was planning to print huge, I don't think I need the 14 bit option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top