Reduce the image size and resolution of the jpg file you save for the web which is quite easy. Many do that already to make the photos virtually unprintable so Internet image theft becomes as much of a non-issue as possible.
>A lot of people may be happier with 12 MP. Easier to process. >For many 36 MP will be overkill. How do you easily downsize 36 >MP to jpeg for output to the web?
For people who want 12MP, there are some great older cameras that will be at good prices. I can't think of anything easier for a photographer to do than re-size an image to the web. It's got to be the most trivial post-processing step imaginable. "Save for web" works well in Photoshop (along with batch routines) and Lightroom's export options (which include presets) makes it incredibly easy to batch. Other programs have similar capabilities.
Wed 08-Feb-12 07:28 AM | edited Thu 09-Feb-12 03:05 PM by briantilley
I think you missed the point of the post. Going from 36 MB to a few hundred kbs means that you are throwing away a hell of a lot of information. A lot more than going from 12 MB? Nobody - I suspect - has done it yet so I am wondering what king of quality is left?
The Tiff files are over 100 MB according to Thom Hogan. Therefore you would be reducing them to less than 1% of the original. Also Photoshop has an upper file size to what can be reduced. Not trivial?
Wed 08-Feb-12 11:16 AM | edited Wed 08-Feb-12 11:32 AM by walkerr
Yes, it's trivial. I've resized 4000 dpi 6x7 film scans to 800 pixel wide web images. Those start at around 9000 x 11000 pixels (bigger than the D800's native image size of 7360x4912), and the process is just the same as with smaller images. I'm not exactly the only person in the world who has shot and scanned medium format or larger film and then re-sized the images for the internet, so this isn't new. BTW, the quality looks great because the resampling process eliminated film grain visible in the larger images.
The largest native size of the D800 is 7,360 x 4,912 pixels, or 36,152,320 pixels, 36.1 MP. Assuming Thom Hogan is correct, and what he's said about file size makes sense to me, the largest file size chugged out of the D800 will be TIFF's at about 108 MBs.
For versions of Photoshop prior to Photoshop CS, Photoshop had a 2GB file size limit, as well as a 30,000 pixel limit in each dimension. Therefore, even in older versions of Photoshop the file size limitation is far in excess of what the D800 is capable of producing.
In the current version of Photoshop CS 5.5, that limit still holds for the Photoshop (PSD) file format, however, you can actually work with images far larger than that. In Photoshop CS 5.5 the maximum pixel dimensions are 300,000 x 300,000 pixels, or 90,000 MP, if you work with files saved in the TIFF format. They can also have a file size up to 4GB, which is the maximum size the TIFF standard supports. Moreover, you can use the newer PSB file format, the Photoshop large image format, essentially the large-image version of the Photoshop PSD format, though you do have to activate that capability in Photoshop preferences, if you want to use it. PSB files have the same size limitations as the TIFF format.
Therefore, there is no need to worry about Photoshop's file size limitations for the D800.
One thing we don't know for sure, however, is how quickly Adobe will update Camera Raw to handle the D800's RAW files and the D4's RAW files, for that matter. I'm guessing it will be in the next release of CR, due on or about March 10th.
As to file reductions, while I've never had a Photoshop file which I've worked with larger than about 85MB, to the best of my recollection, I routinely work with Photoshop files around 60MB-70MB and reducing their size for the web has been trivial. I can't say I expect any trouble with D800 image files in Photoshop.
Thu 09-Feb-12 11:17 AM | edited Thu 09-Feb-12 03:05 PM by briantilley
This is fine if you have a computer with good specs. Photoshop/lightroom likes plenty of power. However a lot of members will be struggling now with the files from the D700 and D7000. this means updating ram or even a new computer. Thom Hogan seems to dismiss the upgrading of ram and specs in a rather dismissive way.
but you're going to do that anyway ;~). If not this year, maybe next or the year after.
It all adds up with respect to cost and I fear some who will buy the camera won't have added in the extra costs?
So you agree you were incorrect about Photoshop's file limitation having any effect on the handling of D800 images, and that Photoshop can easily handle the D800 file size? And you agree that reducing the file size as discussed is trivial as we've pointed out?
If you don't have a computer with good specs you're not going to be able to run a program like Photoshop CS 5 Extended or regular edition, or Lightroom 3 very well any way, even with a smaller file, such as that which you get from a D700 or D7000.
I guess I have a higher opinion of our members than you, as I think they are smart enough to understand that more MPs mean bigger files and bigger files mean more powerful computers with lots of RAM are the order of the day, and that if they have a marginal computer, it will be somewhat more marginal when handling larger files. Before you jump on the next reason for not upgrading being the need for more storage for larger files is necessary, I'll bet Nikonians all over the world understand that too.
I've got a 4 year old computer with 4 megs of ram and it's doing just fine with CS 5 extended, handling 70MB image files, and it even did well with that 85MB image I mentioned. Sometimes I even have 3 or 4 of these files open at once. I guess with a 100MB file, I can only have 2 or 3 open at once.
Ned it isn't about agreeing or not agreeing or jumping on anything. I was asking pertinent questions that others - and myself - may be interested in the answers? Are you interested in a debate about the merits of the new camera or do you want to restrict questions to what you think should be asked? Looking at your posts you are not sure about which camera to buy after pre ordering - perhaps prematurely - two cameras. I bet that most members wouldn't have pre ordered two cameras and they were smart enough to figure that one out
You didn't frame your post which spoke of a Photoshop file having a size limitation which would pose a problem in processing D800 images as a question, but as a statement of fact. In fact, as I stated there is a limit, but it is so much larger than the file sizes of the D800 images as to be completely inconsequential. The same is true of the triviality of file size reduction.
Clearly I am interested in looking at the merits of the new camera, but with accurate factual details offered.
Yes I am in a quandary about which camera to purchase. I ordered them once ordering opened so as to not be very far down on the shipping list, knowing I had time to cancel one or the other before shipping occurred. I ordered neither on rumor or speculation as you infer, but ordered both after Nikon released their announcements of the cameras. One of my D700 cameras is about at the end of its useful life and needs replacement before it fails during a shoot.
I am in a quandary, not because I am questioning the merits or value of the two cameras, but because their specifications are so good, and because most of the specifications important to me are very close to each other, with a few of the others far apart. I am in a quandary not because these aren't excellent cameras, not because I anticipate problems using them, not because processing their images will be at all difficult, but because they also have specs in some places which are significantly apart, and I'm having trouble balancing the choices.
Your inferences and insinuations are far off target.
Ned I am afraid you seem to - imo - have personalized it? I was merely asking questions that the members may be interested in. You interpreted one of my questions as a statement - imo - erroneously. I think it would be better that the thread got back to questions and possible answers that the members can benefit from? A lot of the questions will be answered in a few weeks time because testing and assumptions will be made.
Your statement about Photoshop having an upper limit on file sizes was certainly not phrased as a question. As has been pointed out, it was a complete red herring with regard to the D800's file sizes.
By the way, there is no need to use "reply with quote" to repeat the whole of the post being replied to. I've edited a few of your posts above to remove the quoted text and make what is a very long thread slightly easier to follow
Brian one of the problems with this forum is the linear and threaded views tend to distort the order of things. I have just viewed a reply of yours on a different thread that you have a partial quote which means that I would have to go through all of the posts to see what the context was. Doing a partial quote means that it can be taken out of context. A poster has done that on a different thread which distorts what I originally said in one of my posts. I am not complaining about it because it was innocuous. That is why I like to do a full quote. Also posts in this forum can be edited afterwards which is potentially a problem? As to the question I am diligent in putting ? after my posts. Did the post in question - no pun intended - have one? Was it taken out of context. Please point out the post.
The recommended convention at Nikonians is to use a partial quote when responding to a particular item in a previous post, and not to quote when making a general reply. This saves everyone's bandwidth, particularly when making a short response to a long post. Each post automatically contains a link back to the post being replied to, so anyone who wants to check the context complete can do so. A further convention is to avoid editing a post to change its meaning after a reply has been posted - or if an edit is essential, to indicate clearly what has been changed.
Most of us are happy to comply with these conventions, for the benefit of all
>Did the post in question - no pun intended - have one?
The statement being referred to is in your reply #86 above. You said (my italics):
Also Photoshop has an upper file size to what can be reduced.
Also Photoshop has an upper file size to what can be reduced. Not trivial?
Note the question mark. It was put there to designate it as a question. Also in the remaining part of the post there are two other question marks. The whole post,as a post, was designated as a question. This I see this as nit picking. The members can make up their own mind. BTW I think in this instance copy & pasting the whole post to see the context would have been appropriate?
For versions of Photoshop prior to Photoshop CS, Photoshop had a 2GB file size limit, as well as a 30,000 pixel limit in each dimension. Therefore, even in older versions of Photoshop the file size limitation is far in excess of what the D800 is capable of producing.
In the current version of Photoshop CS 5.5, that limit still holds for the Photoshop (PSD) file format, however, you can actually work with images far larger than that. In Photoshop CS 5.5 the maximum pixel dimensions are 300,000 x 300,000 pixels, or 90,000 MP,
You, Ned and I all agree that Photoshop has an upper limit. Ned and I agree that limit is so high as to be completely irrelevant to downsizing D800 files - which is what was being discussed - but you seem to be ignoring that.
>I see this as nit picking.
Me too, so please drop it now - it's not helping anyone. Thank you!
>However a lot of members will be struggling now with the files from the D700 and D7000. this means updating ram or even a new computer. Thom Hogan seems to dismiss the upgrading of ram and specs in a rather dismissive way.>
I don't think Thom is being dismissive, but is looking at the amount of the required RAM in another way. Photoshop CS5 is recommended to have 3.2 Gig of Ram for 32bit version and as much RAM as possible for the 64bit version. Lightroom 32 and 64bit is a minimum recommended 2 Gig RAM, although 4 is recommended. Much has to do with whether the PC is cluttered and I have a brand spanking new Intel i7 windows 64 PC, but also have my 6 years old dual core Intel running Windows 64 bit. Both PC's have Photoshop, Lightroom and Nikon Capture NX2 and I regularly run all three together. I only have 4Gig memory on both PC's. I can tell you that I have never had file handling issues with my D700 or D7000 on my 6 years old or brand new pc.
Most of my program installation differs from others. I have partitioned my hard drive and my C uses all other programs apart from photography progs. My partitioned G drive is used exclusively for Photoshop CS5, Lightroom 3 and Capture NX2.
I can only recommend that all who may be struggling to process D700 /D7000 files really maintain their PC's and clear out all histories, temp files especially internet and pay attention to unwanted registry entries. Believe me, taking 15 minutes a week with appropriate clean up software pay dividends.
I think Thom is assuming that with attention paid to PC maintenance 4G of RAM is adequate. If course if you only have 32bit windows 7, then your maximum RAM can only be 4G (available 3.2G).
36.3 mega pixels. 3 times the D700. That seems like overkill for an amateur photographer though professionals might be able to use the extra pixels. Image editing all those pixels will mean that photographers with older computers will struggle. Add the extra cost of RAM or a new computer and then the overall cost will go up. Not good news for some but possibly for the professionals?
Tue 07-Feb-12 07:46 AM | edited Tue 07-Feb-12 07:52 AM by richardd300
I agree. It could be argued that the D800 combines both FX and DX at image sizes that makes sense, dependant of course on user feedback results being positive. It makes little sense to me as to afford it I'd have to sell both my D700 and D7000 + grips and still be well short of the price. Also, I like having two bodies for completely different genres.
It looks a fantastic spec and sure it will live up to all the hype, good luck to all who buy one. However I still only need 12Mp for printing out 16x12 inch quality images so will pass on this one and wait.
You can realize one thing, as far as weddings go, and portraits...the D700 with it's 12 MP...just got put out to pasture. There will be a rash of higher, better performing cameras to follow. I wouldn't want to be a wedding photographer showing up with a 12 MP camera and have Uncle Bod or his wife sitting there shooting a D800. Order yours now. LOL...not really joking, though.
It's ok, I haven't got camera envy. I turned up to do a few weddings where well meaning guests had D3s's and at one had a D3X! It was always the same chat, but mostly "so, how do you find the D700, mines the D3s you know" my reply was always the same "75% of your camera for 50% of the cost with virtually equal IQ if it's used properly". What made me laugh was one guy who had a D3s with a Tamron AF18-200mm f3.5-6.3 AF XR Di II fitted. Yep, the logic of that took me a while to work that out too.
Tue 07-Feb-12 09:56 AM | edited Tue 07-Feb-12 09:57 AM by LMMiller9
I know it is popular to explain why you don't "need" 36mpx, will stick with my D700, etc. However, now that the facts are not just rumors I have a few observations:
1. Nikon Rumors, as far as I can tell, was exactly right about every rumor. 2. The price of this camera is VERY fair given its extreme capability. If you need to buy a new computer or hard drive you really can't blame Nikon for that. You'll need to do that sooner or later anyway. And, the price difference between the D800 and D700 is virtually insignificant. 3. It appears (although we haven't seen comparative photos yet) that the ISO performance is either equal or very close to the D700's, which is amazing given the amount of pixels. 4. The video, which appears to be excellent, is just a big bonus as far as I am concerned. 5. Built in HDR is a plus. 6. Lighter than the D700 is a plus. 7. The ability to crop with little degradation in image quality for shooting birds and other wildlife is a huge plus.
I am glad I got on Berger Bros list almost 18 months ago and will be very happy to receive mine with the first shipment (I assume). I couldn't be more pleased with this announcement.
So help me understand the significance of the anti-aliasing filter (D800E) and the cost of an extra $300 for not having it. But most importantly (if you didn't get my drift) what is the real impact of NOT having the anti-aliasing filter!?
I've got a D800 on order. We'll see how long it takes.
My thought process is that the photosites and pixel density are bout the same as the D7000 - which I have and like. Like the D7000, more pixels will mean AF issues. Expect to see more viewing at 200%.
The anti-aliasing filter is used to prevent moire. This is an issue with patterned subjects - fine feather details, shingle roofs, fields of grass, fine mesh, lace, etc. The AA filter creates a little intentional blurring that is corrected with sharpening. It is possible to correct some moire in post processing, but it can also be very difficult to fix.
I shoot more landscapes and macro than sports, photojournalism, and weddings. I'm giving up a bit of low light performance which would be important for wildlife and this is a concern.
I rarely shoot bursts of images. Typically a 2-4 image burst is plenty given my style.
I already have all the FX lenses for the FX body.
The battery compatibility with the D7000 is a plus.
I can't wait to hear hands-on reports.
I expect ISO performance to be about 2 stops worse than the D700/D3, 2 1/2 stops worse than the D3s, and 3 stops worse than the D4. That's okay for me but a little bit of a concern for wildlife photography which occurs in lower light.
Well, this is a nice thing to wake up to. I have had a deposit down on one for a while now at a local store and I am pretty sure that I will NOT get the 800E. 36Mp is enough and sharpening in post will certainly help. I will keep my D3S and D300S for sports, gigs, and other events ... very happy with them. The 800 will most likely live on a tripod for landscape, architecture and product photos. Moire will be a problem with at least the architecture and product photography ... not so much with landscape. I would imagine, though I have never seen it that the moire effect might even show up in some bird shots in feather patterns etc. All I know is it is a #### to clean up in PS. I never could do it. Well, now we all wait...
On the other hand, I have a D700 already, and if I need continuous shooting speed, I was thinking I could use it and I would still have its high ISO/low noise capability. I'm also thinking with all those MP's when I shoot a warbler, for example, and need to crop it, I'm going to get a cropped image of considerably superior quality, and a much larger number of pixels for printing than I can get with the D700.
Plus, if I can shoot with the D800 at ISO = 800, with no noise, as I can with the D700, then generally for most wildlife conditions, I'm going to be okay. How's the D7000 at ISO = 800, as far as you are concerned?
I've got both a D4 and D800 on order, but I'm going to have to cancel one of them, as I can't justify both purchases. Any additional thoughts at this point?
Ned. I shoot both D700 and D7k. At ISO800 on a reasonable crop the noise is almost non existent visibly with the D700 and what there is is easily removed without affecting sharpness. On the D7k it's certainly more noticeable and I never use the D7K above ISO 1000. compared to the D700, the images on close cropping allowing for the variance in distance is pretty poor and sharpening is affected vastly when applying noise reduction. That's why I am hoping for the D400 with upgraded noise handling.
Thanks Richard. I shoot wildlife with the D700 at ISO 800 all the time and have no noise problem. I've not personally used a D7000, so your characterization is very helpful.
If we assume, for a moment, that the D800's noise characteristics are similar to the D7000, albeit with more MP's, then I'll likely be sticking with the D4 at this time, then when one of my D700's gives out, move it up to a D800, perhaps at the end of the year, rather than fix its shutter which will be nearing, or have exceeded its useful life by then. Under that circumstance I could justify it, and we'll know much more about the camera by then.
Thanks, sounds like a good idea Ned. My thoughts of the D7k are at odds to many many others, but I've said many times as a landscape, architectural of portrait camera it is terrific. With close crop wildlife IMHO it is poor!
Thanks Eric, that was useful. I am hoping my next camera will be a D400, but in the meantime I will continue to shoot wildlife principally with my D7000 which is not as noiseless as my D700, but I need the reach. You mentioned feather details and with the elimination of moire could this could be an asset for wildlife photographers? I am suitably unimpressed with my 16Mp D7000 for wildlife work and as a wildlife photographer yourself, do you consider at these very early stages that the 36Mp may lead to even more problems.
What I am trying to say is, do you or anyone else see this as a potential wildlife camera with advantages over an APS-C sensor camera now that the high DX Mpixels availabilty will be an advantage for large crops ?
As an aside, I notice out of interest that the blurb says "Incorporating an optical filter with anti-aliasing properties removed" not that the physical filter has been removed! I suppose I may be being picky, but many references here seem to talk about the removal of an actual filter.
My guess is the D400 will have the same size photosites and pixel density as the D7000 and D800, but a DX size sensor. What it will likely add is write speeds of the D800/D4 which means 10 fps for 16 megapixel files. It will also offer improved AF of the new generation cameras. It will also offer video of the D7000 format and quality. Now this is all speculation - just applying exisitng standards to a D300 successor.
For wildlife there are tradeoffs. Increasingly I've found that using a longer lens to blur backgrounds has advantages, so the FX sensor is better if you can fill the frame and if you have enough shutter speed.
If you lack reach, the crop factor of DX becomes more important. The key is the amount of pixels you put on the subject with your ending image. In that case the D800 with a DX crop is equal to the D7000, so you are not really loosing anything.
Now the wild card in all this is the amount of light. In theory, you need 1.5 times the focal length for DX shutter speed, but 1x for FX - unless you plan to crop to DX format where you need 1.5x just like DX. But more important is that for birds, I want 1/1000 sec to freeze motion regardless of the camera. That's where the D4/D3s/D3/D700 still have an advantage in that you can increase ISO by 2-3 stops for equivalent noise. That means with low light conditions of 1/250 sec, I could increase ISO and still get my 1/1000 sec shutter speed with a D4/etc.
The other wildcard is the impact on noise of downsizing the image. With DXO's testing, the impact of sensor size is neutralized by standardizing the image size at a smaller size than the camera generates. You can see the impact with a D3x/D300 comparison. That means noise gets smaller and is less of a problem. So if your goal is 12x18 prints, you could easily downsize a 36 mp image and eliminate a lot of the noise of higher ISO levels.
Finally for wildlife, some photographers shoot large bursts at critical activity. You won't get that with the D800. Even in DX crop mode, it is relatively slow. If your style is to shoot bursts, the D4 is the champion.
There is in-camera HDR. We don't know what that is, but it sounds promising.
There is a 1.2 crop mode for a little extra reach but qapprox 24 mp images.
Like the D4, the 9 cross sensors will AF at f/8. That should mean improved AF with existing f/4 lenses and the 2.0 teleconverter - or stopped down.
The D800 is keeping the 10-pin connector - a nice plus and helps avoid the need for still another cable. The connector is still on the front of the camera which is better with L-brackets than the side positioning of the D7000 USB.
The D800E is addressing AA with software - and possibly hardware as well. (if just software, why the price increase and why not make it a standard menu option?) We need more details. The moire removal tool in CNX2 might be useful for other situations.
Yep Eric, these are my concerns and as you say I need fast bursts. I have always suspected and probably wrongly that the D7000 is the precurser and proving ground for the D400. If that is the case then they will have to up their game for me, but perhaps an Expeed 3 processor will help. Most folks would disagree with my jaundiced view of the D7K, but as a landscape, close wildlife (minimal cropping) architectural and studio camera it's no doubt a very capable camera. In my view it isn't a bird in flight or fast wildlife camera due to high noise associated with Hi ISO's required for fast shutter speeds. The other extra with the D800 is memory, say bye bye to the current 4, 8 and perhaps even the 16Gb cards.
I am going to enjoy watching the D800/800e debate unfold, especially when users get to hold them. In a months time is the UK Focus on Imaging Show and a chance, queues permitting, to get to actually see a real D800. Personally and I am usually wrong, I feel my D400 is a long way away. I also think that Nikon have played a blinder, certainly UK wise as London 2012 will certainly give users a great playing field for both the D4 and D800 Pro's and the likes of me as well. Mind you a few may be disappointed, if they turn up as a spectator with a dSLR especially with a longer zoom fitted, they will probably have to hand it in. That happens a lot over here now!
The D7000 is a superb sensor in an inferior body. As the D4 sets 16MP as the new pro standard, the D400 could well follow suit. Rumour had placed the D400 in early March, but it's been awfully quiet. While I like to see Nikon winning - and the D800 is clearly a big win - it doesn't suit my style of wildlife photography, and I don't want the bloated files.
The D800 drove NX2's 2.3 release, which included both 64-bit, as well as a de-moire function. Based on what I've seen with D3X files in 2.3, there's a substantial improvement in rendering times, etc. and hopefully that will translate well to D800 files. It still won't be a speed demon, but it should be okay.
> >I would have preferred a camera in the 18-24 megapixel range >with more dynamic range. I'll still take delivery on a D800, >though, and it'll be interesting to see how often I shoot in >DX mode. > You will not have anything to be concerned with in DR at lower ISO since it has a similar technology sensor as D7000 which has superb DR at 100 ISO. This is not a wildlife or sports camera however so it is less of a replacement of the D700 than a left turn, something that never existed before. The tendency for shooters to have backups of the same model will likely change towards having 2-3 very different bodies each with optimum capabilities for specific subjects. That is going to protect investments in older models because there will still be a need for them in some situations. Nikon has done some really wise business moves recently, and jumped their market share by creating some very interesting products that are compelling enough for people to switch to Nikon. Still shooters will have a hard time for a while getting a D800 or D4 due to the suddenly much larger customer pool if soon to be ex-other-brand shooters or video types. As I hear it, Nikon ramped up production facilities in anticipation of selling more D4's than any prior flagship model. Reading the buzz regarding the D800 and its surprisingly affordable price, it will be a killer profit center at high volume. Hopefully, the D400 will be taking after the D4, lower res, higher ISO and faster frame rate for those who desire that. I would not be surprised if there are a lot of 3 camera households D400, D800, D4 because they each will have compelling reasons to be owned by the same person. 2012 will be Nikon's best sales year ever.
>>I wonder how many members who have pre ordered the D800 >>will now be having second thoughts? > >Surely those who pre-ordered (or at least, the realistic ones) >were expecting a 36MP sensor and will have been able to work >out what file sizes they will need to deal with...?
Brian what makes you think that they knew it would be a 36MP sensor. After all they had only rumours to go on? Some - as indicated by posts on here - are having second thoughts for various reasons. The perils of pre ordering? Personally a wait of a couple of months might be more prudent to see what the "experts" think of the performance of the camera after in field testing. As I stated in another post for a couple of years we have been led to believe the the pixel race was over and then Nikon releases a 36MP sensor. This will need "rigorous" testing by independent reviewers before myself and others are tempted. Tempted yourself Brian at this time of posting, or will you be waiting?
Man you guys don't know how good you have it. Coming from cutting video at nearly a GB per minute, these file sizes are positively trivial to me!
I would hope people would be prepared for the file sizes. Personally, I plan on going through a couple 2TB drives every quarter or 6 months. Drives are cheap, and memory cards can be erased. Just glad I am not buying film now!
I'm a bit more optimistic and I don't think it's that way away. After all I imagine it as a hybrid between D800 and D7000, therefore a great deal of development work must be really advanced. Jordi -Barcelonian-
I worry about low light performance even for landscapes. Last spring on my southwest trip it was very windy almost all of the time, and I found myself shooting some landscapes at ISO 1600 and higher just to get a shutter speed fast enough to freeze the foliage/flowers and also give me the DOF I wanted.
I'm very intrigued by the D800, though, and can't wait to see more images taken with it.
I just got a call from my local Nikon dealer, I'm first on there list. Got on the list almost a year ago when the rumors started coming up.Now I have a BIG problem I have a D7K and some good lens and I'm very happy with it. Now what to do????
There are only a few cameras on the market with better high ISO performance than the D7000 - they are the D700, D3, D3s, and D4. The D800 will add to that list and pick up a stop on the D3x and a half stop on the D7000 (due to downsizing for comparative purposes). So in the scheme of things, the D800 is very good with low light.
The D7000 is perfectly fine for most situations at ISO 1600. Even my D300 has been used for published images at ISO 1600 if the size is kept moderate. But for fine art prints or cropped images, there is noise even at ISO 800.
The related issue is dynamic range - which is better at lower ISO levels. In an ideal world, I'm trying to shoot at ISO 400 or lower with a D7000. That translates to ISO 1600 with a D700 and ISO 640 more or less for the D800.
Hopefully Bill Claff can get his hands on some files for comparison.
So, let's just get this right. We can pay extra for having the model with the AA filter properties removed? That seems to suggest that we pay more, but we get less in the D800e. Interesting equation!
The fact that there are two versions appears to suggest that Nikon currently does not have the technical capability to include a switchable AA filter as an option in just one model. Sure, the AA filter is probably a physical device, but why does Nikon lack the innovation to find a tech solution? Have they rushed this model to market for some reason, rather than waiting longer to provide a single body solution?
The announcement of the D800 ahead of any mention of a DX format D300S replacement also says something about Nikon's perception of the future of DX. If the D800 can mask FX at 36Mp down to DX at 14-15Mp, where does that leave the future of a D400? The D400 was already more overdue than a D700 replacement, so Nikon possibly seems to have voted for FX as its preference?
Steve (Bedfordshire, England) My Nikonians Gallery- please visit and leave a comment A Nikon in the hand is worth two in the bag!
Nikon is trying to channel users to FX, which only makes sense from a profit perspective. But I can't see buying a slow 36 MP camera only to use it as a slow DX camera with inadequate magnification in the viewfinder. Thom is hinting heavily that the D400 is still coming.
My understanding is and I'm not trying to be padantic, but the physical filter has not been removed, but has been re-engineered to remove AA filter elements within it.
The Nikon website quote is "Modified to deliver unprecedented sharpness, its 36.3 megapixel FX-format sensor features an optical low pass filter with anti-aliasing properties removed".
From the forum I believe this may well lead to sharper images, but may result in extra postprocessing to remove moire, which I don't believe will be onerous as eg. Capture NX2 already has this facilty.
That's my understanding of the physical modification - probably replacing one low pass filter with another.
The difference between this modification and the one done by Lifepixel and others is the dust removing function remains in place. The Lifepixel removal of the AA filter also removes the dust removal function. The design of the D800 sensor assembly may have been redesigned or modified to make this practical.
There are some images where you cannot remove moire. You have to accept that as a consequence of eliminating the AA filter.
My D200 had the AA filter removed during conversion to IR. I've had one image over three years that had moire. The moire was clearly visible in a rook of one of the historic buildings at Bodie. I minimized it with sharpening but could not come up with an acceptable image for printing and selling.
Removing the AA filter is not that easy, the glass panels needs to be made up to equal the precise refraction index of what was removed. The refraction index of the sandwiched assembly that includes the AA filter and cover panel impacts the placement of the sensor or else the sensor needs to be moved. IF someone really needs large prints with maximum res, the D800e will be the camera of choice. The upside potential overshadows the minor risk of uncorrected moire. NX2 2.3 and LR 4 beta already have moire suppression tools. Sounds very interesting. Stan St Petersburg Russia
It's the EN-EL15 and the same battery as the D7000 and although it will have more work to do, it's a very longlife battery. I've managed well over 1000 images from one charge. That included having VR on most of the time and checking the display after most images. It's certainly superior to the EN-EL3e which was pretty good anyway.
>It's the EN-EL15 and the same battery as the D7000 and >although it will have more work to do, it's a very longlife >battery. I've managed well over 1000 images from one charge. >That included having VR on most of the time and checking the >display after most images. It's certainly superior to the >EN-EL3e which was pretty good anyway.
Thanks kind Sir! That's exactly what I need to know!
Over on FM there are some high resolution images after seeing them and comparing to similar photos I've taken I'm sticking with the D7K over the D800. Man I just saved myself $3000. I'll put that toward more good glass.
>>Does the D800 have dual memory card slots? > >Yes, it does. One slot for CF and one for SD-XC
I currently own a D3 and really like the dual card slots. I may consider selling the D3 and buying the D800 so as to get the added features. The dual card slots would be a factor in my buying decision.
Graham From St. Augustine, FL. "I like photographers, you don't ask questions." Ronald Reagan to White House Press Photogs
Gentlemen, if you read the B&H site, they stay what D800E is optimize for RAW, and if one likes JPG, the D800 is better. So what does it exactly mean - JPG is better from D800, or RAW is better(sharper, understandable) from D800E, and both of JPG's are equal? Or JPG from D800E is a bit sharper, too? Then, why? Dimitri
My understanding is that RAW remains as RAW, an indestructable file, whereas I suspect they are saying that jpegs processing with the D800 have been improved. They will still be subject to deterioration via post processing as always. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
I wouldn't read anything bad into that statement (assuming it is correct). I'd guess it simply means that the D800E, since it lacks an anti-aliasing filter, is more likely to require careful post-processing when shooting some types of subject.
It is one heck of an interesting Camera(s). Unless it has some yet to be seen fault it could appeal to a wide range of shooters, not just Nikon shooters (do a quick check on some Canon forums ). Lots of MP, a move to FX with a big Dx crop, reasonable high iso, huge prints, HDR in camera, better Video and a not huge price.
I would think Nikon has a real winner. The only people that will not be jumping for it are those that shoot fast action and want, and know how to use, the high fsp or really dislike a cropped VF . That's OK, they have the D4 , and hopefully a D400 .
Since all of my cameras are better than I am(including the D200) I really do not plan on the D4 or D800 but I am really looking forward to some reports from users here. Shame that a D400 will require new batteries and grip Exciting times! Tom
I'm not sure the D800 misses any of the requirements you listed other than file size. Maybe a small difference in FPS, but still pretty good.
Physical size is similar but slightly lighter. Advantage D800
The D800 is an FX sensor. - no difference
Noise will end up testing lower. This is a little different, but the reason is due to advances in the sensor design demonstrated on the D7000, plus the impact of a much larger sensor. DxO's sensor testing of the larger sensor downsized to a standard print will mean a lot toward reduced noise. In the case of the D3x, it meant about 1.7 stops. The D7000 is only one stop off the D700. Advantage D800.
FPS of the D800 is 1 FPS slower than the D700 - but the battery grip increases the speed on both. Advantage D700.
Excellent quality - this is subjective, but AF, colors, and dynamic range all exceed the D700/D3. D800 advantage.
Weatherproofing is virtually the same.
And there are several crop modes and quality modes that may benefit JPEG situations.
Eric, high ISO/low noise is the critical characteristic to me.
I read what you've said, but I've looked at the photos Yvan has given us links for, and I see noise in them, that while it's not bad, in my opinion, it's not as good as the D700.
It's for this reason, that I still am having a hard time deciding D4 or D800. I have both on order. This decision is made even more difficult by the speed of shooting differential. With the grip I get a consistent 8 fps on my D700, both slower than the D4 for wildlife shooting.
On the other hand the cropping ability with 36MPs to work with is amazing with the D800.
Do you have any suggestions to help me figure this out? I've got a D700 which will expire pretty soon and can only justify one camera purchase, the D4 or the D800. Clearly the D4 is better at high ISO/low noise than the D800, but ... it it better enough.
The thing being missed in the discussion is the impact of downsizing images to a standard size. We have the benefit of the D3x vs. D3 specs as a point of reference for the impact of large megapixels on standardized ISO performance.
Llevine: As a D700 owner who is not interested in a D800/e in it's new guise and to be honest a dedicated D700 user, I am inclined to think it a bit of a strange advancement, if advancement is the right word. It seems to me to be a down sized, except in pixels, D3X. If the replacement had been a 16Gb expeed3 replacement with even better ISO processing I may, just may have taken a greater interest. I am not interested in printing images above 16x12ins and even less the D800's ability to fire the shutter only up to 4fps. It appears not to be a tool of interest to someone who takes fast moving wildlife or sport. However, I shall watch the D800 forum with interest just to see if I've missed something vital.
So yes, I agree with you, a definite disappointment. I hang my hope on a fast replacement for the D300s. I still think my D700 is the best camera I have ever bought and hope it continues to give me many more years of landscapes, portraits and architectural photography.
Whoever stated that the D700 cannibalized sales from Nikon is mistaken. Yes, perhaps if photographer had the money and didn't mind the extra weight, they might have bought a D3 or D3s. Or they might have skipped the purchase entirely and stayed with a DX or (perish the thought) gone to another brand.
Now consider all the accessories that the D700 owner bought. I bought a 28-30 2.8, a 16-35 f4, a 70-200 2.8 and a 200-400 f4. These were all bought after I decided to migrate to a D700.
I want high ISO, low noise, no extra workflow time in having to downsize files, faster fps, and they can throw in video. I'm not saying that the D800 is not fantastic but it is not a D700 replacement in my mind.
>I want high ISO, low noise, no extra workflow time in having >to downsize files, faster fps, and they can throw in video.
(I anticipate you will say you want it for the price point of your D700 to which I will say wait a years and the D3s will be there. An you'll say you want it in a camera the size of your D700, and I will say, right, you want everything the way you want it perfectly. Maybe it will happen, maybe not.)
Thu 09-Feb-12 07:15 AM | edited Thu 09-Feb-12 07:17 AM by richardd300
I can understand how people feel about the D700 - D800 situation and I feel agrieved too that the D800 does not meet the expectations I personally would have hoped for if I'd being looking forward to a replacement D700. However, it was never my intention to upgrade anyway as my D700 is only 2.5 years old and still does and will continue hopefully to do everything I need. However, I would like to replace my D7000.
My opinion is that the D3X was brutally expensive and perhaps didn't sell as well as Nikon thought whereas the D3s was a great success. So, IMHO Nikon gone for what they think is a two way win win situation. This being achieved by giving D700 users an upgrade and those who needed massive amount of pixels, potential and current D3X users who will be the new D800e users, a respectable and less costly alternative. This way Nikon could have a greater market share with only the design and production costs of one camera. Of course from a truly personal standpoint I see the D700 users as the loosers (D800 being extra cost and a less versatile camera for certain applications)and the D3X users as the winners (D800e being more than they had at a knock down cost).
I do hope Nikon's marketing is working towards a new APS-C sensor replacement to the D300s because as a fast moving wildlife photographer who needs the extra length and speeds I am otherwise left out in the cold.
You know, I use my D700 for non-action shots. Got a D300s which I use for movers and telephoto work.
I could really use those 36mp in my 'telephoto' camera to try and resolve more detail and to let me crop in harder when I've run out of reach with distant subjects.
For sure, the 300s does very well, but it could stand improvement and the D7000s' 18mp isn't enough extra (and it's not got CAM 3500 anyway) to make it a viable replacement.
On the FX front, I don't find the D700 lacking in any way at all. I'm not saying the 800 isn't better- for sure it must be. Just not sure if I could put the 800s improved specs to work in a way that would cause my D700 'work' to improve.
In my case, a 24 mp or better, pro quality DX cam like an upgraded D300s would genuinely be a lot more useful.
I agree with all you say except perhaps not even 24Mp as I suspect that a high noise ratio will be a problem with large crops. I'd settle for 16Mp with improved noise reduction and therefore the ability to use higher ISO's than I currently can on the D7000.
As I have said many times, the only time I need more than 12Mp is when I want to print images above 16x12ins and I know there are folks here who have successfully printed larger than that on 12Mp sensors. I just want lower noise for reasonable crops principally for web work. There is a tendancy with any camera/lens combination to try and overeach on a distant subject and I suspect no matter how much the technology advances, this will remain the case. No one has been more guilty of expecting too much in the past than myself
For us who need these things then the D800 is a disappointment, however for those who don't it's undoubtably a triumph of technology and marketing. Roll on a new D300s with all the things we need . I suspect our audience is small so I won't be too upset if it doesn't happen and will have to learn to just settle for the available cameras and lenses we do have.
Lance, your frustration is the feeling of many. That being said, it seems clear that Nikon took a look at their marketing strategy and decided to not to continue shooting their top pro camera sales in the foot again. I could be way off base, but I don't expect them to put out a D4 light, which is what the direct D700 replacement would be. If it would come out,it would be at least not for quite some time, like a minimum of a couple of years and would be paired, I think, with a D5 which would jump well ahead again. If they did come out with a direct replacement now, or so, especially with the price of the D4 being what it is, they would likely kiss the sales of that baby goodbye.
>Lance, your frustration is the feeling of many. That being >said, it seems clear that Nikon took a look at their marketing >strategy and decided to not to continue shooting their top pro >camera sales in the foot again. I could be way off base, but I >don't expect them to put out a D4 light, which is what the >direct D700 replacement would be. If it would come out,it >would be at least not for quite some time, like a minimum of a >couple of years and would be paired, I think, with a D5 which >would jump well ahead again. If they did come out with a >direct replacement now, or so, especially with the price of >the D4 being what it is, they would likely kiss the sales of >that baby goodbye.
So do you think that they will continue with the D700 for the immediate future? It's clear that the D800 is not the D700 upgrade but a different camera and has a different spot in their product lineup.
I think it will be around for a while, but don't know how long. Of course, the fly in the ointment is that they haven't been in general stock for a long time, so it's hard to tell what's going on with the camera.
I'm personally getting toward the decision to not upgrade to the D4 as originally planned, but continue to use one of my D700's instead in lieu of it, but upgrade the other D700 to the D800. It lacks the speed, and it looks like it lacks some of the dynamic range at ISO values above 1200, but it has other significant advantages, especially when we're talking about cropping in for a small bird, or for macro, landscape, and portrait work. The general characteristics of noise seem to be on a par with the D700 at equivalent print sizes and darn good at least through ISO 800 at any size.