Now that there has been a bit of activity out there and the D800 is in a few lucky hands, I was hoping to get a discussion started for reasons NOT to buy a D800 to replace or add to my existing D300s. Let's assume the money has been saved up. I shoot architecture (interiors and exteriors for real estate) and also some weddings, sports, landscapes and wildlife. I also shoot quite a bit of HDR (up to 9 images bracketed with my D300s). This would be the primary camera for general use.

We know it is an awesome piece of technology. So, play devil's advocate and give me the reasons to NOT plunk down that bag of cash.

Best regards,

Victor Chelf (vchelf)
Houston, TX

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Visit my SmugMug gallery.

Of course, the classic question: "What does your current camera NOT do that you absolutely MUST have?" For me this question is always the one that brings me back to reality (even though I have a D800 on order). The follow on question is "After the newness thrill wears off, will the new camera actually deliver what you must have?"

Also NAS becomes NWS "Nikon Waiting Syndrome" and it is KILLING me.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

If the D300s is working for you then keep it, if you want to switch to an FX camera for what ever reason then go buy the D800.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit Windsor wedding photographer.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Thanks for the reply. I understand the buy it if you need it stuff. I am wanting to explore the path of those that have the camera in their hands and are now saying "If I had known that the camera did (or didn't) do this, I would have thought differently."

For example, one post has said that the files are so large that Nik Software's HDR Efex Pro sometimes does not process a 5 bracket HDR image. I often use 9 bracketed images, so that makes me think a bit more.

What other things are popping up that we might not have thought about when shooting or processing 36mp images?


Best regards,

Victor Chelf (vchelf)
Houston, TX

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Visit my SmugMug gallery.

Well, I can toss a few general things out... Not related specifically to your scenario.


1. If you need the frame rate of your D300(s), then the D800 is NOT for you.

2. If you don't have fairly recent spec computer hardware and are not prepared to buy it or be patient, then the D800 is NOT for you.

3. If you've built your lens collection around the smaller DX sensor, then going to the D800 might be problematic or very expensive.

4. If you are still working out your technique, or don't have very good handling technique, the D800 is going to be trouble.

5. If you really need to shoot at high ISO, the D800 is probably not the camera you are looking for.

6. If you are not willing to buy a large cache of CF cards, then the D800 might not be for you.


Based on what you've personally described, the D800 sounds like a very good upgrade. So playing devil's advocate is hard.

------
Webpage: http://www.ptfphoto.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Good points, Perrone! This is a good start!

Best regards,

Victor Chelf (vchelf)
Houston, TX

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Visit my SmugMug gallery.

I have the D800 and my only regret is that I wish I had this camera a year ago !!

The D800 is going to be the best selling DSLR ever i think !

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit Windsor wedding photographer.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>I have the D800 and my only regret is that I wish I had this
>camera a year ago !!

Yea... I feel much the same way...


>The D800 is going to be the best selling DSLR ever i think !

I'd agree with this if it were less expensive. That $3k price barrier I think is going to get in the way of this happening. But like I said when it was announced, they are going to sell these things by the TRUCKLOAD. And much of it for it's video capabilities.

------
Webpage: http://www.ptfphoto.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I also have had the camera in hand for 10 days now. I agree with what everyone has said so far. You really do have to think about what you want that do don't have now.. and what you don't want if you get a new camera.

I shoot macro and close-up mostly and I don't go on photo shoots to soccer games or fashion shows...I don't shoot in continuous mode very much so speed is not an issue for me and I don't need a lot of CF cards since I normally shoot 100-200 shots and go and look at them. With macro and close-up, I did want full frame because I can often fill the frame in my work much easier than a birder can. So having a 36mp sensor full frame that I can crop with less consequence to detail was a benefit. I do want relatively low noise since I rarely shoot in low light without a macro flash set-up. etc., etc.

Make a list...what do you have now that you want to have on your next camera and what do you not have now that you do want/need in your next camera. If cost is not an issue it seems like you have options. Keeping your Nikkors is a big plus...and having to learn a new mfg technology by switching to Canon or Leica or whatever would be a big turnoff for me.

So preserving my current investment in technology and knowledge, getting what I have now and like/need in my new camera and getting what I need and don't have now is a good excercise.

I used this excercise and did not get the D7000 (I had a D90), I did not get a D300s. I thought about the D700 seriously though but wanted more resolution. My only real solution going from a D90 was a D3X (or so I thought) then the D800 came out. The D800 is exceeding my expectations...except for birding. I think that is the technique thing though.

OH..do I have second thoughts and want to give this puppy up? NO WAY

Dan

"My most rewarding photos are those that capture something I didn't 'see' in the frame....so just SHOOT."

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

What is your reason for saying it is not meeting your expectations for birding??? FPS? or something else??

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I must have either bad technique or too many requirements for sharpness. Even with 300mm of pretty good glass ( NIkkor 70-200 w/TC-17II) I just can't seem to get clear crisp shots of feathers, contrast between featherd in brightly colord birds that isn't washed out etc. I think I need a class. Oh, I have a few that are acceptable but to get hawks, kestrals, small finches, wrens an warblers etc. I just cant seem to get the quality I see on others pics. Even when I see things like Nasim Mansurov has on his site and recommending the Nikkor 300 f/4 as a terrific lens, for some reason I want more. And when I see them (and Nasim has a few) I get jealous and then frustrated. I think I need a class.

I do have great shots of humming birds though but I can get them hovering at feeders with a tripod set 4 feet away with a wireless trigger. A bird at 30-50ft with 300mm of glass is like a 90% crop unless I use a blind. And that impossible with hawks around here.

I just need help

Dan

"My most rewarding photos are those that capture something I didn't 'see' in the frame....so just SHOOT."

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>I must have either bad technique or too many requirements for
>sharpness. Even with 300mm of pretty good glass ( NIkkor
>70-200 w/TC-17II) I just can't seem to get clear crisp shots
>of feathers, contrast between featherd in brightly colord
>birds that isn't washed out etc. I think I need a class. Oh, I
>have a few that are acceptable but to get hawks, kestrals,
>small finches, wrens an warblers etc. I just cant seem to get
>the quality I see on others pics. Even when I see things like
>Nasim Mansurov has on his site and recommending the Nikkor 300
>f/4 as a terrific lens, for some reason I want more. And when
>I see them (and Nasim has a few) I get jealous and then
>frustrated. I think I need a class.
>
>I do have great shots of humming birds though but I can get
>them hovering at feeders with a tripod set 4 feet away with a
>wireless trigger. A bird at 30-50ft with 300mm of glass is
>like a 90% crop unless I use a blind. And that impossible with
>hawks around here.
>
I use a tripod. no problems

>I just need help

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

>I have the D800 and my only regret is that I wish I had this
>camera a year ago !!


What camera were you using before the D800?

Victor,
I've had my D800 since March 23rd and I have to say I love it.
From the way it feels in my hands to the beautiful images that I have been able to create. Yes, the files are huge - I'm shooting in RAW and JPEG-FINE, but I have 3 terabytes of hard drive available. Most of my shooting has been hand-held and I do not see the problems forwarned by the sceptics. This is a wonderful camera and I do not regret the switch from my D7000 at all...

Regards,
Glenn

my Nikonians gallery.

I think the D800 is probably not good for fast action sports or similar events where high fps' are needed. Lets say it took 10fps; in one second one would accumulate over 0.5 Gigs of data. That is mind boggling.

Unfortunately my D800 has not come in yet so please excuse me if I make a comment.



http://galleries.gorji.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>I think the D800 is probably not good for fast action sports
>or similar events where high fps' are needed.

I don't think high fps are needed for sports. Pick the moment and all you need is one frame. People were doing it with Speedgraphics that had one, YES ONE, 4x5 insert. Shooting sports with a shutter pressed down like a machine gun is spraying and praying that something will come out. Might as well just put the thing on video mode and you can get 30fps. If that's not high res enough then shoot 35mm film in a movie camera.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Agree with you and that's why I am waiting for the d800 myself rather than the D4. In fact I think when you leave the finger on the shutter, you will lose some composition and perhaps some sharp focusing on some frames.


http://galleries.gorji.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I'll play. Found out my wife and I can fly, get a hotel and spend a week in Madrid, Spain for the same money as a D800.

Can buy some of the best lenses that Nikon makes for $3k or less. In fact, in some cases can buy 2 or 3 lenses.

Can save the money.

Can buy some shares of stock in your favorite company or buy 2 ounces of gold.

Can buy an Omega wristwatch or at least pay for most of it.

Can buy a lot of food for the house and maybe some new furniture your significant other might approve of instead of a new camera.

Can purchase gas for the car for the rest of the year.

Can buy a television, game system, and software.

Can buy a new computer, even a Apple Mac Pro laptop (if you're into computers with fruit on it).

The list goes on. $3k is a lot of money.

>Now that there has been a bit of activity out there and the
>D800 is in a few lucky hands, I was hoping to get a discussion
>started for reasons NOT to buy a D800 to replace or add to my
>existing D300s. Let's assume the money has been saved up. I
>shoot architecture (interiors and exteriors for real estate)
>and also some weddings, sports, landscapes and wildlife. I
>also shoot quite a bit of HDR (up to 9 images bracketed with
>my D300s). This would be the primary camera for general use.
>
>We know it is an awesome piece of technology. So, play
>devil's advocate and give me the reasons to NOT plunk down
>that bag of cash.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Victor Chelf (vchelf)
>Houston, TX
>
Visit
>my
>Nikonians gallery>
>
Visit my SmugMug gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Nathan

I am going to have to disagree with you on one of your points...

gas for a whole year??

I guess we are not living in the same planet!! gas will go up and I doubt we will be able to fill a tank with a 3k check anytime soon!!!

LOL

Humberto´s, proud nikonian in Cancun, Mexico

"The important thing is never to stop questioning."~Albert Einstein

"Do, or do not. There is no 'try'."~Yoda

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Victor

I know you asked for reason not to get a D800, but I'm going to try and reduce one of your negatives.

You say you do 9 image HDR. I'm assuming these images are at one stop increments because that's the largest bracketing step you can get with a D300. the D800 is also limited to 1 stop between bracketed images, but you don't need all 9 images for HDR. Throw away the even numbered images and just work with the 5 remaining ones. Working at 2 stop intervals won't affect the quality of your HDR images, Now the storage for HDR is only 1.7 times what you used with your D300 instead of 3 times as much as you are assuming. You also won't take as big a hit on processing time as you expected either.

Gary in SE Michigan, USA. Co-organizer of the Southern Michigan Chapter
Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the camera.
D4, D800e, D300, D90, F6, FM3a (black), FM2n (chrome)
YashicaMat 124, Graflex Speed Graphic 4x5
My Nikonians Gallery & Our Chapter Gallery

Good point, Gary. I typically do as you suggested. Sometimes I try various combinations to see which comes out best.

Best regards,

Victor Chelf (vchelf)
Houston, TX

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Visit my SmugMug gallery.

I am still waiting to see someone post 2 pics of the same subject....one taken with a D700 and one taken with a D800.
Side by side.

What I want to see is where the D800 image is so much better than the D700 image that would make this camera worth the three thousand dollar price tag.

And yes, I have the money...ordered a D800 already.....then canceled the order when the things failed to be shipped on time.
Still waiting......
Perry

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

You really expect to see that in a jpg? Sized for viewing on a computer monitor? I'll save you the trouble. You won't see it.
Heck, my 4MP D2h can't even be viewed 1:1 on my monitor.

------
Webpage: http://www.ptfphoto.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I have some comparison shots I mentioned on another thread here. I did not do a good test, but there are about 8 pairs of shots you can compare.

But I don't understand comparing d700 and d800 based on price at $3000. A D700 is $800 less. It's an $800 incremental cost, not $3000.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I actually wish the camera didn't bother coming with video capabilities and thus would be less pricey. I never understood the video. If you're a videographer you are NOT going to buy this DSLR. If you want to shoot video - buy a video camera! I have experience shooting & editing video, btw, in case you're wondering. Sure - I agree completely that it's a nice add-on feature, but it's like purchasing an expensive vehicle that comes with an amazing (and expensive) ski/kayak rack on the roof... that you'll use like, once in a blue moon. I'm a wedding photographer and my clients hire videographers besides me at just about every event I shoot - I don't need the headache of trying to produce a special slideshow "with video" for them. It just adds more pressures and challenges to the task (as well as more post processing time!). Been doing it too long - forget that nonsense - I have a life too.

Yep, I saw the demo video from Nikon. Very impressive! Did you see the amount of people in the credits that it took to produce that video? Egad! Listen folks... that was one heckuva EXPENSIVE demo video done with professional stuntmen and lighting and etc. etc. etc. I sincerely doubt we'll be seeing videos of that quality coming from y'all that own the D800. The editing alone was ridiculously awesome (and time consuming). If one of you can do it please post and I will give you standing ovations and the props you deserve. Honest!

Lastly, I witnessed a local news story and there was every station with reporters and video cameras. I also saw a guy with his Canon and a very expensive microphone on the hot shoe. I talked with him and he was amiable and we talked shop. He did an interview with a person and then later I saw his edited production on the internet. It was pretty good, but it didn't come close to the big boys with real "VIDEO" cameras and proper lighting. Period.

So, for now, that's my only wish (it's not a complaint). I'd rather see the D800 WITHOUT video for a cheaper price.

Just my two cents...

A D800 without video would cost more than with video. Also I think you underestimate how many sales will come as a result of video in the D800. A lot more commercial work is done with video DSLRs than you may realize.

>I actually wish the camera didn't bother coming with video
>capabilities and thus would be less pricey.

This has been hashed out here over and over again. The camera would not be less expensive without video. It would be more expensive without it, because Nikon would not be able to sell anywhere CLOSE to as many. Fundamental economic principles of supply and demand come into play from there.

>I never understood
>the video. If you're a videographer you are NOT going to buy
>this DSLR.

As a matter of fact, I'd bet a week's wages that they will sell MORE of these to videographers than stills photographers.

>If you want to shoot video - buy a video camera! I
>have experience shooting & editing video, btw, in case
>you're wondering.

Wrong paradigm. Most people buying DSLRs for video, have never shot a still with it, nor do they have any interest in the stills capability.


>Yep, I saw the demo video from Nikon. Very impressive! Did you
>see the amount of people in the credits that it took to
>produce that video? Egad!

Did you see the list of folks it took to produce Act of Valor? Shot on the Canon 5DMk2 exclusively.


>Listen folks... that was one heckuva
>EXPENSIVE demo video done with professional stuntmen and
>lighting and etc. etc. etc. I sincerely doubt we'll be seeing
>videos of that quality coming from y'all that own the D800.

Why? I am certainly not the most talented filmmaker, but I have two films out on the festival circuit and several top 3 finishes. Of course that was on the old 5DMk2. The D800 is a much better video camera.


>The editing alone was ridiculously awesome (and time
>consuming). If one of you can do it please post and I will
>give you standing ovations and the props you deserve. Honest!

Ok. I am an Avid editor. Same software they used for Avatar, Ironman, etc. Can I edit at that level? No. But I do a pretty fair job.


>Lastly, I witnessed a local news story and there was every
>station with reporters and video cameras. I also saw a guy
>with his Canon and a very expensive microphone on the hot
>shoe. I talked with him and he was amiable and we talked shop.
>He did an interview with a person and then later I saw his
>edited production on the internet. It was pretty good, but it
>didn't come close to the big boys with real "VIDEO"
>cameras and proper lighting. Period.

And I've seen people with expensive still cameras. And when I see their photo albums, it doesn't come close to a true pro with even a D200 at their disposal.


>So, for now, that's my only wish (it's not a complaint). I'd
>rather see the D800 WITHOUT video for a cheaper price.

And as we asked the last time this made the rounds... would you be willing to pay MORE for it without the video. Because that is most surely what you'd have to do.

------
Webpage: http://www.ptfphoto.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

A separate video camera may be ideal, but then I have to drag two cameras with me in addition to the suitcase full of Nikon lenses, etc.

I will like getting hd video with stereo sound of my daughter singing at my sister's wedding. Or 10 seconds of the surf or a waterfall or whatever moves that's interesting. There's no rule I have to shoot for Hollywood.

Having 2 cameras to deal with at these locations would be inconvenient.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I suspect the video capability of the D800 will have wide appeal with the print media, which is now starting to integrate print stories with both still photographs and video clips on their websites. I see many photojournalists carrying consumer DSLRs with this capability just for this purpose.

Kerry

>
>So, for now, that's my only wish (it's not a complaint). I'd
>rather see the D800 WITHOUT video for a cheaper price.
>

Amen to that, Whalo3.

Has anyone yet seen a thread out wherever the videographers hang out bemoaning the financial death of professional videographers due to competition from "citizen/dslr videographers"? That's what's happening on the professional photojournalism forums and it doesn't make sense to me.

Leatherman(TM) and similar tools are wonderful, but mostly because of their convenience. They really don't do any one job particularly well.

I'd give up just about anything (including the camera) for a cell phone that could successfully complete a call more than half the time. But who could afford to build or buy one when the engineering/market making momentum prefers more "features" without real benefit?

As a photographer, I would definitely prefer not to pay for cameras in phones or videocams in dslrs.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I also frequently shoot HDR with a D300. I was shooting 9 frames at 1 EV change per frame until I realized that the longest exposure frame often created artifacts during the merge process with either Photomatix or CS5. I started shooting only 7 frames unless I had some really bright areas that I needed to bring out, then I would just turn that frame off in CS5 during the merge.

If I just shoot 5 frames with the D800 when it arrives at 2 EV change per frame, I may have to turn off the frame with the longest exposure. That would not provide a good HDR range unless the D800 produces different results than the D300 with long exposures.

What are your thoughts on the EV range and long exposure?

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

Maybe this isn't the thread to express this concern, but I am somewhat relieved that I had to return my D800 as being defective. I know that many of you are scientists. My son wanted to try out my D800, and I have to admit that I was reluctant to let him put this camera up to his eye. Do any of you who are scientists have any concerns whatsoever about possible radioactive problems?

jP

>Maybe this isn't the thread to express this concern, but I am
>somewhat relieved that I had to return my D800 as being
>defective.

What was the specific defect with your D800?

>Maybe this isn't the thread to express this concern, but I am somewhat relieved that I had to return my D800 as being defective.
>
>jP


What was wrong with it JP?

Well, I was tempted. I had a pre-order for the D4 and dropped it. Thought about a pre-order for the D800 but decided to wait. So what are my reasons for not buying a D800 over my D700?

1. From all the images I've seen the actual image IQ difference is pretty small with the output sizes I use (e.g. I don't print large or very often)
2. I'm doing what I can to never crop so buying this just because I can crop doesn't work for me.
3. I have a full time job doing software and am dating a nice lady. My free time is limited so investing $3000 for this when it'll spend a lot of time sitting doesn't seem like a good use of my money.
4. Resolution is nice but honestly with web sized outputs it doesn't make much sense.
5. Upgrading my skills is more useful and will get me better pics than upgrading the camera
6. Using that money to actually travel somewhere interesting is better to me than the same old stuff in my area
7. I don't sell my photos, they are strictly for my enjoyment. So there isn't any advantage in updating.
8. I'm actually contemplating downgrading to a D7000 so I can get some benefits with wildlife stuff like I did when I had a D300. Part of me thinks I shouldn't have gone to a D700 in the first place.
9. I usually do like being an early adopter. I've done it many times but it's a chasing after a dream more often than not.
10. I have other hobbies to feed that are expensive like numismatics...

- The font on the strap is hard to read, someone might think it is a D300.

- After extensive testing, and despite all the hype, it did not make me thinner, nor did I grow more hair (still testing however).

- Your significant other will say "that looks just like your last camera" and loose interest (at least until the credit card bill comes).

- The first time you almost drop it, the liquor required to settle your nerves will cost FAR too much.

- If you get a D800, you will wonder what you are missing with the D800E.

- If you get the D800E, you will wonder what you are missing with the D800.

- If you get the D800 and D800E both, you will wonder if you should have saved a few hundred and gotten a D4.

- The 72" LaCie monitor needed to get the equivilent pixel peeping view won't fit on your desk, and has an even longer waiting list.

- You know the D900 will be annouced 24 hours after you take delivery of the D800, and then what?



Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://captivephotons.com

>
>- The font on the strap is hard to read, someone might think
>it is a D300.
>
>- After extensive testing, and despite all the hype, it did
>not make me thinner, nor did I grow more hair (still testing
>however).
>
>- Your significant other will say "that looks just like
>your last camera" and loose interest (at least until the
>credit card bill comes).
>
>- The first time you almost drop it, the liquor required to
>settle your nerves will cost FAR too much.
>
>- If you get a D800, you will wonder what you are missing with
>the D800E.
>
>- If you get the D800E, you will wonder what you are missing
>with the D800.
>
>- If you get the D800 and D800E both, you will wonder if you
>should have saved a few hundred and gotten a D4.
>
>- The 72" LaCie monitor needed to get the equivilent
>pixel peeping view won't fit on your desk, and has an even
>longer waiting list.
>
>- You know the D900 will be annouced 24 hours after you take
>delivery of the D800, and then what?
>
>
>
>Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://captivephotons.com

Nikonians needs a "LIKE" button!!


Mike Guilbault
Elmvale, Ontario, Canada
http://www.PhotographyWorkshops.ca
http://www.MGPhotography.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Like

Dan

"My most rewarding photos are those that capture something I didn't 'see' in the frame....so just SHOOT."

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Thanks for the responses! This is giving me lots to ponder...

Best regards,

Victor Chelf (vchelf)
Houston, TX

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Visit my SmugMug gallery.

I am really not going to give you reasons not to move up to the D800 as you have had many replies to that above. Instead I'll give you a few reasons I did. I come from the Canon 7D (similar enough to your D300).
I have always wanted a FX camera but love the zoom too much and couldn't afford the highest end of either make to even try to satisfy my need for FF. Oh, and I did not want 2 bodies as I did not want to carry around 2 cameras and really couldn't afford both either. The D800 brought all that I wanted into one camera that I could afford. With it I get my full frame camera and my crop mode through either cropping in camera or with so many pixels just cropping the final. Great high ISO performance, great resolution and lots of quality.
I have a much larger upgrade cost than you as I had years worth of collecting Canon lenses and accessories and had to virtually start brand new but am very happy I did. The D800 is a great camera and one that I know I will enjoy working with for many years to come... well... at least till the D900 comes out

Michael Kaplan
http://www.pbase.com/mkaplan

The only reason I would see for not getting the d800 is the incremental cost compared to other cameras, or an old computer. Or simply a mindset.

(when a man decides on a path it's easy to invent many reasons why. Maybe "why" is overrated.)

My parents are completely happy with a 32 inch tube tv instead of a $900 flat screen. They are happy with Folgers coffee; grinding fresh Kona is just unnecessary. The base engine in the Buick is good enough; no need for the turbo that's $4000 more. Peas add too much color to the tuna casserole.

I rebelled in every way. But I still can't stomach a $8000 Rolex (look at me!!!!) but I love my $2,200 Omega.

I went from d200 to 300 to 700 to 800. I didn't need any of those cameras, but I truly enjoy having owned each in its time.

The d800 is an exceptionally nice camera to own and operate. Absolutely zero regrets.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Victor,

>What other things are popping up that we might not have thought about when shooting or processing 36mp images?<

If you are someone who stitches panoramas and you post process using Nikon Capture NX2 you may be in for a shock. I ran a quick test with my D3x (24.5MP) where I shot 8 images for a 1-row 360° panorama. Capture NX2 would not open the stitched panorama (a 16 bit TIFF approximately 500MB in size if I remember correctly) - it simply hangs.

Photoshop opens the file effortlessly.

Of course it could just be my experience, but I have my doubts...

Rob
www.robbuckle.co.uk

And the #1 reason not to get a D800 is......it is back-ordered for 18 months at the current rate of filling pre-orders.
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

As one of the posters already astutely stated above, the biggest reason to not upgrading to the D800 is that the 4 x 6, 5 x 7 and 8 x 10 inch, et al., printed photographs will probably not look any better. A printer's resolution is limited. I have the Epson Stylus Pro 3880, a modern and a very capable professional quality photographic printer. I doubt very much that my Epson printer could even come close to printing the additional resolution provided by the D800 camera. Heck, my existing D7000 seems to push the limits of the resolution of the Epson. So what is the point of the D800? None that I can see (literally). Really, what makes much more sense to me is designing and manufacturing a DSLR that can take better quality photos in low light.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Maybe I am not correct here (often not these days) but printing smaller size prints may not be any better for the reasons you state, if you are printing the full original image. But a crop from the original image downsized and printed at 8X10 will be better because the resolution will be there in the smaller downsized image to print. At least it is on my printer.

Dan

"My most rewarding photos are those that capture something I didn't 'see' in the frame....so just SHOOT."

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Thank you for the input. I am just trying to get my head around whether my printer can print all of the additional resolution afforded in a D800 photo. I hope that it can. It would be a waste to have that great resolution and then have a printer that cannot accurately reproduce it in a print. We'll see.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Yesterday I had the occasion to hold the new D800 equiped with the new motor drive.
My main reason not to buy is the very strange feeling that I was holding a piece of equipment that is not very well balanced. The combo is not as wide as the previous models and the weight is more to the bottom. Not a good feeling - more of a tilting feeling.
I did not have that feeling with the F5 - D1 - D1x - D200 - D300 - D700 and the D3s.

I think the F3 with the motor drive had that feeling.


Jacques G