Today I visited my camera shop to get the actual feel of the D800 - possibly shouldn't have done that as the NAS is now unbearable. Just made great pictures two weeks ago with my D300 (take a look at www.geja-vu.nl/main/berlijn.htm - click through that image to get to the gallery) - yet, I believe they deserve to be taken by a D800 ...
One final question: I know this is a Porsche that will blow my socks off. But, does it also have a decent eco mode for in town so to say? I mean, if you switch its image size down from large (7360 x 4912) to 5520 x 3680 (normal) or 3680 x 2456 (small), how does the camera handle that (technically and in terms of image quality)? I wouldn't always need a giant image/file size ...
You can't shoot raw in smaller sizes (at least not without later converting NEFs to DNGs), but smaller-sized jpegs look extremely nice. They'll certainly look cleaner and sharper than ones from your D300.
I'd shoot raw, though. You can always downsize them later.
Absolutely, I shoot RAW in 14-bit only, no compromise. Still, just cruising at the boulevard at a slightly lower gear could sometimes be fun as well, especially when you run out of memory cards ... Thanks for the update!
> especially when you run out of >memory cards ... Thanks for the update!
I was convinced when I got mine, and moreso now, that most people go way overboard on "fast" cards, to solve a problem they will very rarely hit (filling the buffer in very long bursts), and even if they do hit it, the expensive cure is a very few additional shots and not many.
I think aiming in the mid-range speed (say 60MBs) and buying really big cards saves a lot of money and hassle. With a 64 or 128G card you never fill it up on one shoot. The 128G Sandisk SD card at 80MBs is $200. That's a LOT of shots (like 3000 or so raw).
Contrary to what a lot of people recommend, I try NEVER to change cards in the field, too dangerous (lost, get distracted and bend a (CF) pin, etc). So I have a huge SD card, a smaller but very large (64G) CF card, shoot in backup mode. No worries about "all my shots on one card", no hassles with carrying more, changing, keeping track, formatting on the go, etc.
I'm addicted to the detail - that no other camera gives me - so I shoot in RAW all the time. There is no "eco" mode in RAW. Wish there was, selectable on the fly via a function button. I also don't always need 36 Mp. 12 or 16 would be enough for a lot of my general purpose shots.
If you want to shoot the occasional snaps that don't need the high level of detail then suggest using one of the jpeg modes. Jpeg "small" at 3680 x 2456 is still a 9Mp image....but when using Jpeg you can't alter the white balance, in-camera sharpening, ADL etc after the fact....so you must get it right in-camera.
I just upgraded to the D800e from a D300s. I cannot express how impressed I am with the images and detail. I never had a complaint about the D300s, thats for sure. But the difference between the two is more than just quality of images, it is build quality, feature set and the fact is still has a DX mode for your D300 lenses.
IMHO, you can't go wrong with picking up a D800/e.
Get the D800 -- you won't regret it! Just get some more cards -- I just bought some 8 Gb Sandisk Extreme cards for 25 bucks apiece! 3Tb external drives (Western Digital My Book) are running around $130 -- at least I got a couple at that price on sale at Staples. With storage so cheap, I see no reason at all to not shoot RAW with my D800.
Gerphil -- The answer is "Yes" for the D800. Shoot RAW. Get more and larger cards, and two external hard drives. You can add cards as you go. My reasoning is that you are buying a nearly $3,000 camera (US$), and will spend only $500 more to get all I recommend. I use 32GB Lexar flash cards. Oh yes -- get a spare battery too.
Actually, just ordered mine (D800, without the e) - I will have it on Tuesday and can't wait. And yes, a spare battery is part of my initial purchase too, plus two 32Gb Lexar 800x CFs funny enough.
Regarding card speed - that is not my worry. I won't use this camera for work where fps is relevant (never had) - it is just the consumption of memory and processing speed for images that will never be printed bigger then A4 that is my concern. To address that I may, for example occasionally switch the D800 in 'eco'-DX mode (yet NEF!) for the snapshots. I surely need a new computer too (almost decided on tat one too) and then that isn't real issue either, but still it could be an option. Or don't you do that occasionally?
That's why I keep my D300 too - images that don't require the enormous resolution of the D880, they will be taken with the D300 for a while, also because I won't buy the whole range of lenses in one go. I start with the 16-35mm VR to be able to make the kind of images I made/do the type of shots as done in Berlin (see link above) on full frame - and over time (next month?) extend that with a 24-70mm.
Of course things may very well get faster than foreseen now. The idea I get from you is that once you start to use the D800 the D300 is quickly forgotten.
>That's why I keep my D300 too - images that don't require the >enormous resolution of the D880, they will be taken with the >D300 for a while, also because I won't buy the whole range of >lenses in one go.
I came from a D300 also. And while not normally am I psychic, as I gaze into my crystal ball... yes, the waters of time are clearing... there... looking a few months hence, I see a D300. It sits quietly, wait. What's this... looking further I see dust gathering, more dust. The battery discharges, the processor pines away for something to do.
Linwood, you might be more psychic then you think, I know your crystal ball will be right, but for me, at this moment, it is hard to say 'goodby' in one go to my precious. Yet, looking a bit longer I see my wife getting very happy dusting off my good old D300 again after a while ... like once I made her happy too with my D70. And in the end, we all live happily together . It really sounds like a fairy tale.
> Yet, >looking a bit longer I see my wife getting very happy dusting >off my good old D300 again after a while ... like once I made >her happy too with my D70. And in the end, we all live happily >together . It really sounds like a fairy tale.
Wow, that's eerie. I had the same vision, as my wife had adopted my D80. But she picked up the D300 once, said "too big" and wouldn't consider it, despite how much better of a camera it was.
Now she has a AW110 and doesn't pick up her D80.
I hope your luck is different, as the D300 is a huge step up from her D70, and I hate to see another D300 relegated to the dust pile. I ended up selling mine to a camera club member who needed a second body.
My D70 unfortunately died last year when she let it drop while spending a week in New York - the thing died on the spot. In order not to have our time ruined she replaced it at B&H by a refurbished D90. This one appears having some autofocus issues, which makes me a bit more hopeful. Yet, she already complains of the weight of her D90 - guess I'll need to consider your scenario too shortly ...
Sat 02-Nov-13 04:34 PM | edited Sat 02-Nov-13 04:37 PM by Wingman
I must have the right kind of wife (for a photographer)! At a large week long event we cover every year, she cheerfully runs around for 10 hours a day with a D700 and 24-120 AND a D2Xs with 70-300mm VR. Plus she is never without an SB-800 on the short lens camera! She does good, too! This was shot with the old D2Xs, handheld but braced on a golf cart.
The D700 is becoming her day to day camera as I get more and more into working with my new love -- the D800...
D2Xs with 70-300mm VR at 230mm, F25 at 1/45, ISO 280
We both thank you! She is really good at this, even though she thinks she's not a photographer. This also shows that as much as we all love the new technology (and boy do I love my D800!), there is still life in the "old tech". We're not yet ready to get rid of our D2Xs and D300 -- they still have their uses...
You are right. At least for quite a while I will continue using my D300 at least in combination with the 70-300 VR - and probably, like your wife, carrying them both. One of our photoclub members also has a D800 - and regrets that he sold his D300, for specific uses. Old technology can have its niche benefits. Occasionally I 'even' still use the old D70 of my brother (as my old one fell to pieces) for IR photography.
But in general, sure, I will just use the D800, at full resolution. And buy as much memory as I can .
Gerphal - I hope you are psychic indeed. I often find great things in images that I didn't expect to produce such value. So with storage space as inexpensive as it is, I just shoot 14-bit, uncompressed NEFS plus a basic jpg., for quick transmission from the field for me newspaper work -- something so they know I am bringing the "goods" back. But I don't see the need to produce anything less than the best for keeping. I carry my cameras everywhere with me. I tell people it prevents major air crashes, since if I'm ready to photograph them, they won't happen!
I didn't see this mentioned in this thread, and apologies if the following has already been covered. If my understanding is correct, shooting "Lossless Compressed RAW" might meet your requirements for an eco mode. Page 86 of the D800/D800E "User's Manual" says that this will result in an approximate 20-40% file size reduction, "...with no effect on image quality." This was widely discussed in another thread.
>If my understanding is >correct, shooting "Lossless Compressed RAW" might >meet your requirements for an eco mode. Page 86 of the >D800/D800E "User's Manual" says that this will >result in an approximate 20-40% file size reduction, >"...with no effect on image quality." This was >widely discussed in another thread.
That brings up an interesting question. If one really wants to be more space conscious, are you better off with loss-y compressed, or jpg? I would assume the loss-y compressed is still an improvement over jpg (14 vs. 8 bits if nothing else).
Lossless compressed is what I do now already for years and will continue to do. Why would you shoot uncompressed if compressed can be lossless? It is for sure better than jpeg. For the time being DX mode would be my eco-mode, but obviously only in cases where I will definitely not be shooting potential 'masterpieces'.
In the meantime I can eliminate the word 'almost' from the title of this thread. I bit the bullet, the beast is ordered and can be picked up tomorrow. Already downloaded the ebook on Mastering the D800 too and about to order a new pc as well. The pain in my savings account is serious, but hey, you 're hooked or not and the pleasure while opening the box, well, that will make me happy as a kid unpacking his present from Sinterklaa . Comes with a nice 16-35mm too. Will share a picture shortly.
>Why would you shoot uncompressed if >compressed can be lossless?
My recollection (from the other thread) is that, with the reversible algorithm used for lossless compression, there is some impact on write speed as compared to uncompressed. I do not recall if this was at all quantified.
Indeed, DX mode would still result in higher res images than on my D300, 15.4MP, and then obviously still in 14-bit lossless compressed RAW for enough versatility - but quite a saving (memory, processing time) compared to full size/res for images that will never see an A2 piece of paper, not even A3. If I am correct, you can also switch on DX mode with an FX lens on the camera. It is good that have that choice - and to know when to use eco-mode (without regrets later).