| Moderated by: chrisbet, | Page:   ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   |
|
|||||||
| Graham With D800 in USA - Page 8 | |
Rating: 
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Fri May 11th, 2012 14:26 |
|
71st Post |
KirkP
|
I thank you... I've got lots of old pro, manual focus Nikkors and other third party lenses, but only a dozen autofocus lenses and only a couple of them are pro-level, which is why I asked. Now I just need to decide between the D800 new, or a used D3 series camera!
____________________ When you were born, you cried and the whole world rejoiced. Live your life so that when you die, the whole world cries and you rejoice. |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Fri May 11th, 2012 15:18 |
|
72nd Post |
Robert
|
Well being in a smaller but similar boat, to me the D3 wins hands down. Much more forgiving and brings the effortless high ISO, I think probably the D3S might be worth considering but the D3 would get the job done. There is also the D700 of course, same sensor, processor and image quality.
____________________ Robert. |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Fri May 11th, 2012 17:30 |
|
73rd Post |
jk
|
In hindsight the D700 does the job very well bur doesnt have some of the features on the D3 that really like e.g. Ability to lock the aperture and shutter speed when shooting in Manual mode. This feature is so useful as it ensures that the exposure is consistently what you think is correct so you can override the camera TTL metering.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Fri May 11th, 2012 19:16 |
|
74th Post |
KirkP
|
Yes, I've got to decide if I want low noise at insane ISO levels, or crazy ridiculous insane levels. I've gotten to the point that I'm spending 90% or more of my photography time taking at ISO 800 or less, just because my cameras are old... while it might be nice to have ISO 50,000 I wonder if I'll ever use it. Conversely, I'd have to buy six to ten more hard drives if the NEFs from Grahams' D800 are 50MB each. With three layers, edits saved, that balloons to 500MB per image edited. Decisions, decisions....
____________________ When you were born, you cried and the whole world rejoiced. Live your life so that when you die, the whole world cries and you rejoice. |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sat May 12th, 2012 02:31 |
|
75th Post |
Robert
|
KirkP wrote:Yes, I've got to decide if I want low noise at insane ISO levels, or crazy ridiculous insane levels. I've gotten to the point that I'm spending 90% or more of my photography time taking at ISO 800 or less, just because my cameras are old... while it might be nice to have ISO 50,000 I wonder if I'll ever use it. Kirk, in my opinion that is not a valid criteria for the decision. Having older bodies means you could (realistically) only use sub ISO800 and expect good IQ, so you had little choice, not surprising 90% of your images are ISO 800 or below. I would guess 99% of my images with the D200 and earlier bodies are ISO 400 and below. If you could take the same (or better) quality images at higher ISO, giving you greater range of options for aperture and shutter speed, that would give your photography greater freedom. Many is the time I wanted greater depth of focus but couldn't afford the slower shutter speed or a higher ISO. With a D3 or D700 you can dial in the aperture and shutter speed YOU WANT (or your image needs) and let auto ISO adjust the exposure, even in relatively 'normal' lighting. Personally I would prefer the D3 rather than the D700. The D3 is much nicer, smoother and heavier, which I consider a benefit for stability. The D3 has some useful features the D700 lacks. But... If my choice is D400DX @ 25Mp or D700FX @ 12 Mp on cost grounds, I will go with the D700. If cost were not an issue D3s. Despite the wonderful images Graham has posted here I am far from convinced the ultra high pixel count has any *real* benefit in the normal use of images. The images Graham has posted here are marvellous BUT we are only viewing them at 72dpi... They still look marvellous! It's the exposure, the composition and the skill of the photographer I am marvelling at, NOT the ultra high resolution which I can't even begin to see. Sure Graham has seen the stunning detail on his screen and no doubt in the image with the cowboy in the distance at full resolution you will be able to see the exquisite detail of the tooling on the saddle but the image stands up well without that fine detail. Unless the image were printed at something like six foot wide or more, nobody will ever see the fine detail that has cost all those bucks, required the best lenses and perfect technique to capture (not to mention the larger HD to store the files on and a beefy computer to process the image with).
____________________ Robert. |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sat May 12th, 2012 06:04 |
|
76th Post |
jk
|
Very valid points Robert. The D3 and D3s give me the ability to work more freely with my flamenco photos and prior to these cameras I struggled with the low light and the fact that I couldnt push past ISO 1600. Now I have the D3 and D3s I would like to push past ISO 3200, that I use now, up to ISO 12800 to allow me to shoot at 1/400 at f4 or equivalent as now I am using 1/100 f4 and find that I cant get really crisp images on some occasions especially when I am shooting with 300mm f2.8 lens. Unfortunately the D3 and D3S at 12800 are too grainy/noisy for me.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sat May 12th, 2012 09:25 |
|
77th Post |
Squarerigger
|
Robert wrote:KirkP wrote: I have to agree with you Robert on this issue. I have not desire to go beyond 12 to 16 mp on the sensor. My dumb question for the day is, why can't Nikon offer the same body with a choice of two different sensors. D4 or D800/D600 and option for lower mp sensor or for more money more mp's. Seems to me there are many customers who don't want to be forced to 24-30+ mp's. I am happy with less in the mp range but would like better iso. Part of this is cost driven also, as we get pushed into higher mp's the cost of computer hardware goes up also. Not everyone can afford to upgrade camera body and computer and now entry level DSLR is going into the 20mp range. Nikon needs to bundle RAM, graphics card, and TB hard drives with the camera. 
____________________ -------------------------------------------- Gary |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sat May 12th, 2012 11:52 |
|
78th Post |
KirkP
|
Robert wrote: But... If my choice is D400DX @ 25Mp or D700FX @ 12 Mp on cost grounds, I will go with the D700. If cost were not an issue D3s. Despite the wonderful images Graham has posted here I am far from convinced the ultra high pixel count has any *real* benefit in the normal use of images.I agree, that Graham took the photos. Cameras are tools, I'm quite aware of that, but I'm recognizing the chief differences between the D3 vs the D800 are the higher ISO capabilities of the D3 and the higher MP count of the D800. What I have to do, is decide if I actually NEED 50,000 ISO capability, and whether I NEED 36 megapixels. Judging from the current and recent past, Nikon may well have a camera out in another couple years that could give me both 50,000 ISO with low noise, as well as 36 megapixels. But, like you Robert, I'm unable to upgrade my camera every couple of years. I did that with Adobe CS3, 4 and 5, and see where that got me? HA! Now Photoshop is not the same as a new (to me) camera, but my point was, I have to take a hard hard look at where I am now in my photography, and where I want to go, for at least five years. When the D3 came out, I mentioned on the old forum that I was still doing well with my well used D200, and it was filling all my needs of my photography. Today however, I've come to realize that 800 ISO is holding me back. I've been on the macro side of life lately, taking shots at 1:3 or higher, especially with my tilt-shift bellows and a 17mm copy lens, giving me nearly 8:1 macros at full bellows draw. But holy crap, talk about a need for light... both my Cokin ring flash PLUS two SB-600s just to reach ISO 800 and 1/60th second. Then there is the simple fact that 36 MP would give me cropping choices that I very much lack, right now at 10 MP. Increased resolution to 36MP is better, because it increases my choices, not because it's a bigger number. I'm still old-school enough that I prefer to get it right in the camera as best I can, but I also recognize that digital darkroom work brings my photos to the best that they can be. Like nearly everything in life, I have to find a balance between the two that satisfies both needs, without sacrificing too much in any other area. I also like heavy cameras, but not too heavy, otherwise I get problems with the camera sagging the bellows on one end. At this point, I'm mostly leaning towards the D800 because with DX lenses you still get 15MP, and cropping freedom gives me the ability to compose with more freedom AND the current reviews say that the D800 is marvelous at ISO 6400. What I probably need to do, is rent each camera and force them both to perform their respective miracles of digital science, then evaluate which will give me what I need. I have to definitely include hard drive space as another cost to factor in, when speaking of 50+ megabyte photos. ISO 6400 is three extra stops... JK is using his D3 at 12,800 ISO, that's four stops and the D3s can go higher still. Sure, I can take great photos with 10MP, my D200 is going to stay right here and will continue to be a good tool. Shucks, I can take good photos with my old Fuji S1 Pro at 3MP, or the Kodak DCS620 at 2MP. I'd be happy with 20-25 MP and the ability to go to 12,800 ISO, but I don't see that in the Nikon line. It's very obvious to me that Graham is a damned good photographer, the compositions show that very well. But I also know that if I buy that D800, the level of detail will be in my photos as well, and even though my monitor only goes to 96 dpi, the pixels are still there in the photo to crop and enlarge and still retain excellent image quality.
____________________ When you were born, you cried and the whole world rejoiced. Live your life so that when you die, the whole world cries and you rejoice. |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sat May 12th, 2012 12:19 |
|
79th Post |
KirkP
|
Squarerigger wrote: I have to agree with you Robert on this issue. I have not desire to go beyond 12 to 16 mp on the sensor. My dumb question for the day is, why can't Nikon offer the same body with a choice of two different sensors. D4 or D800/D600 and option for lower mp sensor or for more money more mp's. Seems to me there are many customers who don't want to be forced to 24-30+ mp's. I am happy with less in the mp range but would like better iso. Part of this is cost driven also, as we get pushed into higher mp's the cost of computer hardware goes up also. Not everyone can afford to upgrade camera body and computer and now entry level DSLR is going into the 20mp range. I do agree, I wish Nikon had not gone all the way to 36MP.... 24 would have been more than enough, if it included an ISO 12,800 or even 25,000. But what they gave us, we now have to choose. In some ways, this is like the 's' and 'x' lineup, where the press camera is the D3 or D4, great ISO performance and 10-12 frames per second. The landscape camera is the D800 with decent ISO performance and 5 fps, but huge number of pixels. It's just a much higher difference than the difference between a D2x and D2s. But 36MP is what they're offering, or 25,600 ISO. And there is the question, do I NEED that much from my photography? Regardless of which, would I rather have 36MP or 25,600 ISO available to me? I do admit that I only have 2-3 pro autofocus lenses, but I own many pro level manual focus lenses, so I'm very hopeful that my glass is adequate for such a demanding sensor as the D800. Lots of people on the internet have commented on the need for better glass with this camera, but I waited til someone I respect (Graham) actually confirmed that for me. I don't pretend that I will be able to meet the entire capabilities of the D800 should I buy one, not immediately. But, I expanded my abilities with a D200, the D800 (or the D3 for that matter) will allow me to expand further still. Nikon got a lot right when they released their first full frame camera. We've all been reading the posts of Eric and JK and others, about how great the D3, D3s and D3x have been for them, over the past couple years. In fact, if I DO purchase a used D3, it'll be the D3x as it has 24 MP, giving me a good compromise of 6400 ISO. I'll bet it will also cost me more than the D800, even as a used D3x. Think I better try to find the nearest camera rental that has both cameras.
____________________ When you were born, you cried and the whole world rejoiced. Live your life so that when you die, the whole world cries and you rejoice. |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Mon May 14th, 2012 12:23 |
|
80th Post |
RichardH
|
I think it is the incredible eyeball behind the camera. Beautiful! Any old camera would look good with that eyeball. . . (sorry, I thought I was at the bottom of page one. . .)(Yea, it's the eyeball)
____________________ I appreciate this site because you are all fantastic. Thanks for the assistance. Looking and learning. . . |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| This is topic ID = 76 Current time is 14:14 | Page: ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | |
| Nikon DSLR Forums > Camera and Lens Forums > Cameras > Graham With D800 in USA | Top | |
Users viewing this topic |
||
Current theme is Modern editor
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk Thank you. |
Hosted by Octarine Services
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0785 seconds (72% database + 28% PHP). 85 queries executed.
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0785 seconds (72% database + 28% PHP). 85 queries executed.