Those are some really great shots - In my opinion I think it is accurate to say it is NEAR medium format, Still I think the files from my 22 MP Sinar back are sharper and cleaner at pixel level - however given the ease of use of the D800 and plain "workability" of a DSLR I think its close enough for me to sell my MF rig....I cant tell you how happy I will be not to have to shoot firewire tethered !
I've always thought it is hard to tell much from posted photos except general quality. Personal experience in comparing what I had been shooting to what I'm shooting now is really what matters to me. Every step up I've made with Nikon bodies has yielded pretty major advances in quality. So it would surprise me if Nikon hasn't raised the bar significantly with the 8.
That's the nub of it. By the time you reduce the file size, adjust the color profile and view it on a monitor at 96dpi, you can produce a good enough image for a computer screen with a decent P&S. But that's not the point of a D800 or any good DSLR. The difference will show in larger prints.
I have a D700 and can take pics just like the ones I posted with the D800 for practical purposes. I do not profess that those were litmus test of any measure, just that I am pleased with them handheld and all. I will look forward to taking some with my tripod and "better" lenses but hey I am not a pro just an enthusiast so what do I know?
P.S. Why are some so sensitive on this D800 , it seems to me that some may be trying to talk themselves out of buying one.
Sun 25-Mar-12 12:50 AM | edited Sun 25-Mar-12 12:33 PM by DigitalDarrell
>After reviewing the forum today, it is my observation that >the D800 photos were no better and no worse than other Nikon >current DSLR cameras. Is my observation generally accurate >-- or not?
After shooting several great images today I will say that the image quality seems better. The color seems smoother somehow. The dynamic range is amazing, more like what my eyes can see.
However, even if the image looked the same as other excellent Nikons, the big point for the D800 is that there's a LOT more image to play with.
Cropping is back!
============================================== Darrell Young (DigitalDarrell) www.pictureandpen.com "Better too many words than not enough understanding." ==============================================
Actually, seeing them has helped me see that there isn't enough visual change for me to upgrade. I took shots in the Valley of Fire in NV today with my D700. Lots of sharpness and tone. I just have a hard time seeing significant improvement, enlargement aside, with the D800. Besides, what does 1 stop more EV in range really translate to in practical terms anyway?
>Actually, seeing them has helped me see that there isn't >enough visual change for me to upgrade. I took shots in the >Valley of Fire in NV today with my D700. Lots of sharpness and >tone. I just have a hard time seeing significant improvement, >enlargement aside, with the D800. Besides, what does 1 stop >more EV in range really translate to in practical terms >anyway?
You need to look at your own talent and think what would be possible with the new cam. Your gallery work is fantastic!
Well to start with I don't have a D700 or a D300/s. I have waited for this next generation camera (FX) for some time. I print large prints 20X30 and want to go bigger. Could I get away with a D700, yes I probably could re size them up to that size as I do now. But why when I can buy new technology for a little more than I can buy old technology and don't have to re size to get them big enough and get the detail I want from the pictures. But most of all is being able to take pictures in low light along with the detail. Being able to shoot FX and DX is another. I am moving up from really old technology that I can't shoot past ISO 400.
What is true, I agree, is that for the majority of photos, like the excellent ones in your gallery, if you are not going to print very large and if you are not going to crop significantly, you probably won't see a difference in 99% of the shots.
I believe the dynamic focus is much improved. I believe the ability to crop and still maintain high resolution will be a significant advantage in some cases. ISO performance is somewhat, but not dramatically, better. And... if you ever want to use it, the ability to take high quality video is, for many people, a significant plus.
Whether or not those factors are worth spending the money is an entirely individual matter.
I think that it goes without saying that the average photo re-sized for the web from a modern D-SLR look pretty similar. Its like saying that you are surprised that the latest BMW does not get you from NY to FL any faster than a WV?
I still can produce fantastic images with my D200, yet I still purchased a D3. The differences (for me) between the D3 and D200 were a breakthrough for my style of photography. But for landscapes with good light, maybe the difference between these 2 cameras was not so significant and would not have been worth it to me if landscapes were all that I shot.
I suspect for some who need more resolution, the differences between the D800 and D700 will be revolutionary to them too. But the fact that the D800 exists now will not be a game-changer for many, nor does it need to be for people to continue to be making great images with their current D-SLR's.
Everyone is going to have to make their own decisions about if the D800 is worth it for them. Personally, I think its likely not necessary for a huge populous who wants one right now. But I would not argue against anyone who buys one for the increases in performance that it can deliver.
The question is are you willing to pay for what differences the D800 does bring to your shooting possibilities.
Sun 25-Mar-12 12:59 PM | edited Sun 25-Mar-12 02:24 PM by mdonovan
Unfortunately for me ... the right camera is the D4 which I doubt I can afford. I need the video for work (Special FX supervisor), I want to be able to shoot fast bursts for sports photography (hobby), I want to move to FX (landscape photography - hobby), I want low light capabilities (street/concert photography in NYC hobby).
I would have preferred the D800 be an improvement to the D700 rather than this godpixel monster they have come up with.
So ... I am torn ... on one hand I am blown away by the technical spec of this thing. On the other hand, I wish it were capable of faster bursts and I did not have to worry about blurry images when shooting street/concert photography without a tripod.
I just realized this is probably the most redundant post ever ... sorry guys ... just struggling with this. ___________________________________________________________
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one. - A. Einstein
I would loved to had it the last two and a half years traveling through China. The ability to shoot in low light over here would have been great. I am retired and taking pictures is what I do now in my travels. I am coming home in 10 day for the rest of the year and then going back for another two years most likely, with a camera that can capture the detail and in low light.
I have saved and thought about the D4 but I don't shoot in a burst of speed and think I would do better with the detail of the D 800 and a couple of new lens. Thinking of trading in my old camera in for a D7000 as a backup camera. I should have done that already but cameras here in China cost as much a 40% more than the US. Never made it to Hong Kong and probably could have got one there for the right price. I can decide while I am back home. I think of all the shot I missed with the old technology in my travels here. I have taken 30000 pictures here and look forward to taking a lot more. Now is the time for me for the 20X30 and larger prints that I want to have printed.
Sun 25-Mar-12 04:58 PM | edited Sun 25-Mar-12 05:02 PM by Ferguson
>Still concerned. Day 2 of viewing D800 photos and I >have only seen one (1) photograph taken with the D800 >in this entire forum that I would rate as being > outstanding. Houston, we have a problem???
Sorry, but why are you "concerned". Did you buy one and are disappointed? I'm not sure what you are looking to have validated here, or if this thread has an agenda, but to play it straight...
I suspect many who have one like me are experimenting. Testing. Shooting things that are not interesting because they are art, but interesting to see how the camera handles it.
I also don't find hardly any images posted on the web (except full resolution or raw) to be very good in evaluating fine differences in technical aspects of a shot -- you can evaluate the art of the photographer of course. But that's not your point (or is it?).
Here are two where the camera impresses me, not that the images are art. The first is a handheld shot with a 24-70 @ 70mm @ 1/350s F5.6 ISO 100. The full frame is shown, and the 200% crop is below it. Notice you can see the eyes clearly, and the grass behind it. To me that's pretty impressive at 200%.
The second is a 100% crop, meant to show something else. It was a wheat stalk blowing in the wind. I set the camera to auto focus, 3D tracking, and let it follow it for a couple seconds as it bounced around and then shot. I shot two frames (at 4fps) and they were both in focus despite the wind (there is substantial movement in the FX frame). This is the SECOND shot. No throw-aways, no trying several times. I'm not so much impressed with the detail but that it tracked and was in focus. Again, 100% crop, the red box is the same relative size as on the ducks (it's the focus marker from ViewNX.
The wheat was at 1/3000th at F4, also the 24-70/2.8 lens @ iso 200.
Sun 25-Mar-12 05:28 PM | edited Sun 25-Mar-12 05:29 PM by Ferguson
>Were these handheld or mounted on a tripod ??
Handheld, just walking around with the new camera. And the lens lacks VR, so I am sure there is some blur from my unsteady hands.
That's why I say I am impressed - The detail and quick focus I am getting with no real effort leads me to believe there's a lot more available here (I am travelling on business and have nothing but the camera and lens I bought to go with it, so no tripods, no photoshop or lightroom, etc.).
Maybe my eyes are not as good as your eyes, but the ducks don't look all that sharp to me. Again, I am viewing comments from folks vigorously defending their D800 purchase(s), but I am not seeing better photos from the D800 on this and other forums than from other current Nikon DSLRs.
>Maybe my eyes are not as good as your eyes, but the ducks >don't look all that sharp to me. Again, I am viewing >comments from folks vigorously defending their D800 >purchase(s), but I am not seeing better photos from the D800 >on this and other forums than from other current Nikon DSLRs.
I don't need to defend my purchase to you or anyone (except maybe my wife). I've bought many a dud. It's not like I BUILT it afterall, I can hardly take credit for it.
I wish I had my D300 with me, to give you a comparison. But to your point, please get a FX shot with the camera of your choice, take a similar size crop (in terms of frame percentage), scale it (I think you'll need more like 400%) and post to compare.
Incidentally, maybe the word "sharp" is incorrect. What I'm seeing is resolving power. Sharpness is more generally (when one says "that image is sharp") about edge contrast. I did no USM or other sharpening on the above images, they are screen shots from an unedited nxView. What I am commenting on is that the eyes are actually able to be seen at that scale.
Did you see the crop size???? "Sharp" is a relative concept. Given the incredibly small crop, well... try that with your D300. And then compare what you get to those crops.
I think what is happening here is that a number of us are providing shots that test the limits of the camera in the extreme, and then people are reacting to the image as if they were shot in more normal circumstances. I posted some shots that were taken in virtually complete darkness and some said, "well they look grainy to me." Yeah, no kidding. And the same with this crop. They are pushing the extremes to test what the camera can do. It is like taking great athlete and making him run ten miles and he comes back panting and someone says, "well he must be out of shape, look at how he is panting." Yeah!!!!