Toronto Photography Meetup Group

I guess we can clone and Raid 5 the owner of the D800 then, si?

Wow, is that rigged up for some weird stereoscopic thing?

It'd be a lie if someone said it was.
Flat angles does not a stereoscopic shot make.

Yeah, I think it's stereoscopic. It's not exactly easy to tell on the picture but I'm sure the cameras/lenses are angled slightly in. I'm sure of this not because I have any clue of what I'm talking about; but because I googled "3D DSLR" to find that image

See? You simply cannot get this kind of comedy on other forums.

Shit you googled?!
Now I feel like a dumb ass.
le sigh.

I googled google to see what everybody was talking about

Google? Man, you guys are so 2005. It's all about DuckDuckGo now.

I was going to ask what, but then! http://lmgtfy.com/?q=duckduckgo

Yum, roast duck.

The d800 is very tempting
but seems like a crazy upgrade from a 300

Is there any reason why someone would consider the D3X now?

$3000 usd worth of FUN!!! or, $3300...

Now that the D800 is out, I wonder when the D400 will be announced… any ideas?

Personally I'm waiting for the D900

+1

To handle the large files from a D800, one probably needs to spend another $2000-$3000 on faster computer and bigger storage. Not mention taking longer time to download photos from your camera to your computer.

I really hope D400 will be a D4 light - Full frame 16MP sensor, 6-8 fps, and ISO 100-128000.

Sorry, don't see why it would be full frame when historically that line has been crop sensor.

Don't imagine D400 will be full-frame, but kudos on everything else.

D400 will be pro crop body. That's what it is. It would make sense to announce before the London Olympics with all the promo and attention that filters through that event BUT can they maintain production for all three cameras when production has been an issue as of late?

Anyway, here's an email discussion I've been having with a cousin regarding the D800, he's a Nikonista, currently a D200 owner, and thinking about upgrading. It really got me thinking about the positioning of this camera. On paper it kills the D4. And not in the same way that the D700 cannibalized some D3(s) sales this is on a whole new level. Please excuse the use of the C word in there, me posting this is not meant to start a C vs N war, I really am curious about the positioning of this camera and if they've pulled it off. Anyway, sorry if it's a bit disjointed, but as I said, it's a cobbled together email discussion that I don't feel like editing right now. It started with a question about the ability of older lenses to resolve at the D800s level:

That's an interesting question. I've seen some math on it, that I didn't really understand, that claims most pro level glass, such as your 2.8s will resolve up to and over 40MP. Some disagree with that. Regardless of whether they would resolve or not there's more to the question. Obviously, the better the sensor the better it is at revealing flaws in the glass in front of it. Even if the lens does resolve well enough what does that mean for sharpness on a sensor that size? Pixel peeping may reveal a softness that one wasn't expecting because of the extra sensors. Let's say that those older lenses can resolve well enough for the 36MP sensor but they don't have the fluorite elements or nano coatings that are the result of optics progress in the last 20 years. Will this result in the chromatic aberration being more apparent on the D800? I love to shoot wide open and this is often the spot where older glass falls short of newer glass, will those flaws be more apparent with all those pixels? I really don't know for sure and it might take case by case examination to see.

Lenses aside, although I am certain the D800 is going to be an amazing camera and produce some fantastic results, I'm a bit worried about a few things because of that massive sensor. There are rumours floating around that the mighty photographers that got D800 test units occasionally had difficulty getting a sharp image. This is because of the shutter speed rule that says for handheld photography you should always shoot with as fast as the length of the lens. I'm sure you know this but just in case - if you're shooting at 200mm you want to make sure your shutter speed is at least 1/200 or camera shake can show up in the image. Allegedly, because of all the detail the D800 is picking up that is no longer the rule and photographers had to shoot with a faster shutter than they had with previous models. I'm a pretty steady hand but I'm just an enthusiastic amateur. If pros that have consistently refined shooting techniques are having problems getting sharp images that could be telling. Maybe it's as simple as adapting the rule to 1.5x the focal length. That might require use of higher ISO, which, luckily enough is fine with this camera as it, allegedly, has great noise control quite a ways up the ISO ladder.

The other concern I have with the D800 is the continuous shooting rate. It's a bit slow, 4fps. 5fps if you run in crop mode. Pretty much the same as the D700. Yeah, a MASSIVE amount of data has to be moved so it's going to be but what are the implications? First, I'm spoiled with 8fps on my 7D and do actually use it. Yes, that may be a bit of spray and pray photography but some subjects that's what works - bird in flight and a lot of sports photography. How quickly does the buffer fill up on the D800? 12 shots at full res raw. Not too bad. But it can shoot longer in smaller modes! Sure, but why have 36MP if I'm going to running in "smaller sensor" modes? Then again, looking at that another way is it can be seen as versatility. Also, you have to consider your current equipment, are you going to have to get all new incredibly expensive super fast CF cards just to keep up with the camera? Older cards could end up choking on just a few frames. Nikon's answer to all this is if you want speed take a look at the D4.

Speaking of the D4, it is the new flagship and it has only a 16MP sensor. Why? Speed is the first answer, but I wonder if there's more to it. Part of me is skeptical that they have pulled off a 36MP sensor with decent noise control and dynamic range. You'll be familiar that for the longest time Nikon has touted that you don't need all those MP to make a full frame sensor good and that it is the size of the sensor/how efficient it is at getting light into the little pixel buckets etc etc. They'd point to the performance of the 12MP D700, which is an incredible camera, and say look at how well it compares to the 21MP Canon 5DII. And for the most part they were right. Other than the versatility more resolution provides for cropping the differences are minor. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Sort of. Nikon has tried to put the shoe on both of the other feet and have it both ways. Which makes no sense and is what leaves me wondering. Have they really managed to triple the resolution, lower noise and increase dynamic range in one generation and do so without introducing any new problems? Staggering if true. Isn't the D4 to be Nikon's Veyron? What are the differences between the two sensors? I find it hard to believe that speed & ruggedness is the only reason the D4 is more than the D800.

If all of my concerns listed above are empty, and they could very well be as there are much smarter folks at Nikon than I am, how are they going to sell the flagship D4 to portrait & studio photographers? To wedding photographers? To any photographer that is willing or able to sacrifice a bit of speed for that much more image quality? That's almost all of them isn't it? The only analogy I can think of is it'd be like Volkswagen Audi Group/Porsche saying the new 991 Turbo platform will have Veyron besting performance with only a mild increase in price and the next Bugatti Veyron will be more or less the same as it was for the same price as its predecessor.

/End of email.

Can anyone elucidate the positioning/relation of these two cameras to me?

Thats a good question. Luckily I won't have the $$ to worry about wanting that answer anytime soon. HOWEVER. I would suggest you visit www.bythom.com He is pretty much one of the top authorities on things Nikon. He has several articles on the D800, etc that may help to give some clarification. Scroll to the bottom and click on 2012 archive. Check out February information and March 7th - fair bit of information from Thom there. And check out this - http://www.bythom.com/d800intro.htm

Cheers,

J.

Interesting read in the last link and it all sounds great but it only confirms my query of where it sits in relation to the D4...

Thom says "Still, that's a reasonable speed I can live with" when talking about the D800. Many photographers could. I could. So, if a vertical grip is important to me I add one of those, and it makes the D800 faster does it not?, and I have as much speed as I need, similar as makes no difference AF/metering and I've saved roughly $3k.... what's a D4 for? Who's left? Sports photography and high speed wedding shooters? I think in the past there are a lot of people that Nikon is aiming at in this segment that would have a D3(s) and a D700 in a bag. I can't figure out why most those guys won't become two D800s in a bag for a little more than the cost of a single D4.

Maybe I'm looking at this wrong? This is probably far more complex than a question as simple as this but, Is moving data that much more expensive than capturing data?

I don't know - I think at the end of the day - if you are a photojournalist or a sports photographer who is mainly going to have your photos posted on the web, or in a newspaper or even at most a page spread in a magazine I don't think you need 36 MP - and 16 MP is more than enough! Speed and the ultimate in ruggedness are most important and thats the D4. I think for everyone else the D800 is the better choice. Will you have to adjust your shooting technique? or need to upgrade your lenses? I don't have the answers to that - but i'm sure the early adopters will be telling us one way or the other not long after the camera is released to the masses. I think its best to wait and see what others say or just don't' worry about the minor little details and just jump in head first!

At the pro level, you don't really need THAT much change in order to warrant the price tag. Is a fractionally lighter or different golf driver worth a 100% markup? Is a fractionally lighter and differently tuned/chipped sports car worth an extra 50K? The D800 and D4 have enough differences to me to warrant that price, they are geared towards completely different photographers. While each type of photographer can live with the slight shortcomings a D800 might have over the D4, why would they want to if the camera will pay itself off anyways? The D700 was almost a mistake because it, as you said, cannibalized D3 sales. Now the differences are much more apparent and there will be a definition between a D800, D4 and maybe the more studio oriented medium format competitor D4X.

12mp was enough for full bleed double page in newspapers with room to spare so 36 is just overkill imo. As well one needs to look beyond mp and delve into the feature sets of both cameras. If I needed the quality of 36mp, I would rather shoot a mfdb and get the look those lenses have to offer.

Just watched this interview and found it fascinating - good to get a first hand report on the camera.

http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/videos ... nburg.html

Another video that proves my point. Here's a confessed D3s user who says at 3:34ish "If I had to have one body, one camera, right now, no question that's the camera I would have." K, cool. Let's assume he's sincere, once again, where does that leave the D4?

DPReview Image Samples. It kicks butt against some older stuff, still an interesting comparison though.

Just ordered my D800...... anyone want to buy a D700?

If you really check properly
the 5D2 kicks, d800 ass big time...

Yes its just mee and I own nikon