>Hello Perrone: > >Fair enough if your belief is that the D800 will be a good >camera for weddings and I am not/did not saying/say >definitively that it won't be; but I respectfully say that I >don't think you've provided any reason for why it will be >simply by stating that because one camera is 5 years older >than another the latter will be inferior in every meaningful >measurable way when compared against the former.
Do we have reason to believe that the D800 will be WORSE than the D700? People have already stated that the pixel density will be similar to the D7000. Which I have shot at ISO3200 and sold photos at that ISO.
>I think you might agree that solely measuring >"specs" isn't the the final word on whether one >camera is better than another for a particular purpose.
Completely agree. But since none of us have D800 to do hands on comparisons at the moment, that's all I have to go on. I have seen the ISO 3200 photos from the D800 online, and it certainly looks every bit as good as I would have expected.
>For >example, if the D800's pixel count more readily exposes camera >movement -- as one of the beta testers indicated -- for me >think that's a meaningful consideration.
Perhaps, but likely not. People have been shooting 4x5 and 6x7 hand held for YEARS. And the resolution of both trumps what the D800 is offering.
>Low-light >considerations are another -- and while we await real world >examples, there's no reason to assume that the D800 will be >better than the D700 in low-light situations (or, to use your >criteria, better at every step up the ISO ladder).
I didn't say the D800 would be better than the D700. I said a DSLR of 5 years ago. Was the D700 available 5 years ago?
>By your >reasoning, in two more years the D800 of today will have a >better low-light capability than today's D3s; for that to be >the case, we'd of course now need to see that the D800 is >better in low-light than is the D3s. Perhaps you didn't >intend such a blanket statement; but if you did, this is why I >disagree with it (this is all disagreement with a small D as >this is simply a camera discussion forum ).
I don't think it's a stretch at all to think that the D800s would exceed the capabilities of the D3s. The question is whether Nikon will market and sell it.
> >In any event, my initial post wasn't that one could not shoot >a wedding with D800. And my post obviously reflects what I >believe (accurate or not) to be one of the more important >considerations for a wedding photographer: a camera's >low-light ability.
Here's the thing. If low-light ability is of paramount importance, why not buy a D3s or a D4? I had the same issues shooting night sporting events and indoor events. So I bought a pair of D3s cameras. They allow me to do my job and get paid. If I was shooting weddings where I had to deal with dark environments, I'd do the same. Buy the camera that suits the job. If the D800 won't do the job, get something that will. No harm done.