Anyone with SERIOUS D800 experience?
Apr 10, 2014, 7:43 am
#16
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: GRR, USA
Posts: 3,298
I assume OP is a pro of shooting like one, and has read multiple reviews, including
http://www.dpreview.com/search/?quer...0d800%20review
Besides the investment in lenses, one has to think about the handling of such large RAW files. Think computing power (video cards, monitors, top-end computer).
After my long period of evaluation and comparison (including 3 trips in Japan checking out a newly release versions of D800 & D610). I opted for the D610 due to file size issues. I don't need 36 Mpx files unless I expect to blow it up to wall size prints, which I don't.
With the D610, I have to upgrade my current i7 laptop to a custom fitted tower with dual monitors.
My point: not just the camera, but the whole eco-system (or infrastructure).
Apologise, I do not have actual experience with the D800. I came across couple of trip reports where the D800 were mentioned. I think the Trip Report forum moderator Matthany uses one. His recent TR below:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trip-...d-cns-syd.html
http://www.dpreview.com/search/?quer...0d800%20review
Besides the investment in lenses, one has to think about the handling of such large RAW files. Think computing power (video cards, monitors, top-end computer).
After my long period of evaluation and comparison (including 3 trips in Japan checking out a newly release versions of D800 & D610). I opted for the D610 due to file size issues. I don't need 36 Mpx files unless I expect to blow it up to wall size prints, which I don't.
With the D610, I have to upgrade my current i7 laptop to a custom fitted tower with dual monitors.
My point: not just the camera, but the whole eco-system (or infrastructure).
Apologise, I do not have actual experience with the D800. I came across couple of trip reports where the D800 were mentioned. I think the Trip Report forum moderator Matthany uses one. His recent TR below:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trip-...d-cns-syd.html
I agree, its a whole new 'lifestyle' in terms of pieces and parts. I'm moving from a D7100 to the 800 so I already have a lot of the infrastructure - fast computer, storage, software etc. The hard part will be building the lens portfolio. prime vs short range vs telephoto mix, etc. So far I think having a 35 or 50mm prime and then adding a mid range that will cover to 120-150 and then I already have the Sigma 50-500 which I absolutely love!
Apr 10, 2014, 7:53 am
#17
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: GRR, USA
Posts: 3,298
ISO 25,000 and 1/8000 sec….makes me think of Spinal Tap "but this one goes to 11!"
As a professional photographer that has shot plenty of indoor or low light events I don't think I have really every shot/needed to use above 1600 ISO. 3200 when using film for the novelty of an added "noir" effect (i.e. walking around Paris at night).
After the NY Mag issue came out with the picture of Manhattan half dark after Sandy came out where the photograph shot from a helicopter in the 25k~ iso range people were like…WELL SEE HE GOT PUBLISHED. And how many people are in that circumstance. Assuming the OP or most people looking at this info are just using the photos for web viewing/galleries in which case you're probably safe up to the 3200 range with noise. Print large on the other hand you risk losing quality.
I'd also be genuinely curious to see the situation where you are shooting an 8000th…maybe that one or two times where you are shooting at 1.2 in extreme light?
MOST people are able to hand hold without worry about shake shooting at 60th…however if you are using a longer lens the rule is you shoot shoot at least as fast as your focal length. So if you're shooting on an 85 then probably want to be around a 125th to be safe, shooting tele with a 200 you'll want to be faster around 250th. If you're that worried then don't shoot below a 500th and even if you have a tremor you should be fine. This is a matter of knowing how to set/shoot with your camera on either Manual or even Shutter Priority to tell it what to do and not just on full Auto mode. A $400 camera and a $35000 camera on Auto are going to do the same thing, they have no idea what you're shooting, what you want to accomplish, they are just the same computer trying to push everything to middle grey.
As a professional photographer that has shot plenty of indoor or low light events I don't think I have really every shot/needed to use above 1600 ISO. 3200 when using film for the novelty of an added "noir" effect (i.e. walking around Paris at night).
After the NY Mag issue came out with the picture of Manhattan half dark after Sandy came out where the photograph shot from a helicopter in the 25k~ iso range people were like…WELL SEE HE GOT PUBLISHED. And how many people are in that circumstance. Assuming the OP or most people looking at this info are just using the photos for web viewing/galleries in which case you're probably safe up to the 3200 range with noise. Print large on the other hand you risk losing quality.
I'd also be genuinely curious to see the situation where you are shooting an 8000th…maybe that one or two times where you are shooting at 1.2 in extreme light?
MOST people are able to hand hold without worry about shake shooting at 60th…however if you are using a longer lens the rule is you shoot shoot at least as fast as your focal length. So if you're shooting on an 85 then probably want to be around a 125th to be safe, shooting tele with a 200 you'll want to be faster around 250th. If you're that worried then don't shoot below a 500th and even if you have a tremor you should be fine. This is a matter of knowing how to set/shoot with your camera on either Manual or even Shutter Priority to tell it what to do and not just on full Auto mode. A $400 camera and a $35000 camera on Auto are going to do the same thing, they have no idea what you're shooting, what you want to accomplish, they are just the same computer trying to push everything to middle grey.
The one minor fear that I have are of all the anecdotes of the D800 learning curve. Hopefully I can square it away in 2-3 weeks before heading out on a couple of trips.
Apr 10, 2014, 8:12 am
#18
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MRY - CNX - TXL
Programs: UA 1K / *G / Marriott PE / Expedia Gold+ / Hertz PC
Posts: 7,058
Cool well if you are looking for planespotting and nature then having the larger RAW image to work with to crop in will be nice...also some nice long glass will of course help that.
You're already working on a Nikon so not sure how hard the curve is...however, being a Canon shooter and when one of the students hand me their Nikons to help them I can't figure out after 2 years being at the school how there is anything intuitive or reason to the menus.
I can't say I would really recommend a Sigma lens to anyone. And also when it comes to glass/lenses most of the time you're going to find that the larger the focal range the quality is going to suffer. If you're looking for something with length try out the Nikkor 70-200mm...it's pricey but it's worth it. I shoot probably 45% of my professional work on the Canon version. If you're looking for a mid-prime no doubt check out the Zeiss 85mm.
I'm sure you can find a local place to rent them for a week and test out before committing to $1300-$2500.
You're already working on a Nikon so not sure how hard the curve is...however, being a Canon shooter and when one of the students hand me their Nikons to help them I can't figure out after 2 years being at the school how there is anything intuitive or reason to the menus.
I can't say I would really recommend a Sigma lens to anyone. And also when it comes to glass/lenses most of the time you're going to find that the larger the focal range the quality is going to suffer. If you're looking for something with length try out the Nikkor 70-200mm...it's pricey but it's worth it. I shoot probably 45% of my professional work on the Canon version. If you're looking for a mid-prime no doubt check out the Zeiss 85mm.
I'm sure you can find a local place to rent them for a week and test out before committing to $1300-$2500.
Apr 10, 2014, 11:46 am
#19
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,410
Apr 10, 2014, 3:34 pm
#20
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MRY - CNX - TXL
Programs: UA 1K / *G / Marriott PE / Expedia Gold+ / Hertz PC
Posts: 7,058
Apr 10, 2014, 6:20 pm
#21
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: GRR, USA
Posts: 3,298
Dropped the hammer tonight and ordered the D800 along with the 50mm 1.4 and 16-35 f/4. this way I have the short wide angle and walk around covered, and then my existing 50-500 Sigma rounds out the range. I'll still have my 18-140 DX lens as well.
Apr 10, 2014, 10:55 pm
#22
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,410
My closest approach to that was one day there was this pretty butterfly that was flitting around near me, never staying still. I snapped a bunch of shots, almost all were clean misses but I did manage to get him a few times. Unfortunately, his wings were blurred to nonexistence. I don't know exactly what it would have taken to actually get the shot, I'm sure it would have been under 1/1000th of a second. The butterfly departed before I could even try.
Apr 11, 2014, 2:58 pm
#25
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MRY - CNX - TXL
Programs: UA 1K / *G / Marriott PE / Expedia Gold+ / Hertz PC
Posts: 7,058
Apr 12, 2014, 11:25 am
#26
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
Apr 12, 2014, 11:30 pm
#28
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: GRR, USA
Posts: 3,298
Took the D800 out with the Sigma 50-500 to the airport for a short while today and was very happy with the first run. The biggest surprise was just how sharp the lens was between 400-500mm/free hand with a stiff wind. I did some minor sharpening, but otherwise not other post process other than crop and exporting at a reasonable size. I can honestly say that the D7100 never have me such sharp images at such high focal lengths.
This one is at 500mm, handheld (apologies for the links to flickr, I couldn't get the links to import the photo):
https://flic.kr/p/n3HBQQ
This at 450mm, handheld, stiff wind:
https://flic.kr/p/n3G41H
This at 200mm/handheld:
https://flic.kr/p/n3HBxL
This one is at 500mm, handheld (apologies for the links to flickr, I couldn't get the links to import the photo):
https://flic.kr/p/n3HBQQ
This at 450mm, handheld, stiff wind:
https://flic.kr/p/n3G41H
This at 200mm/handheld:
https://flic.kr/p/n3HBxL
Last edited by LufthansaFlyer; Apr 12, 2014 at 11:45 pm
Apr 13, 2014, 9:19 am
#29
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MRY - CNX - TXL
Programs: UA 1K / *G / Marriott PE / Expedia Gold+ / Hertz PC
Posts: 7,058
Nice I love the blur from the engines exhaust.
So what are you doing for post & what is your work flow? Since you're dealing with big RAW files I would perhaps suggest:
Shoot only in RAW, there is no reason to have fine or superfine or whatever JPEGS, it's only going to take up some more shots you can get on the card and also clutter your folders with extra files.
Buy Lightroom: It's also going to help catalogue and organize all your files/folders/hard drives and has a really easy RAW processor. Your raws are going to come in really flat with a big latitude to work with. Regardless of what settings you have in your camera with contrast/saturation/sharpness that is only being applied to the little mock up jpeg that the camera is displaying on the LCD screen.
In Lightroom you can apply small adjustments with a curve to add a little bit of contrast and make things pop. You may also like converting some files to b/w and then with that you can also use the b/w channel mixer to make adjustments based on the colors in the original image.
The beauty of RAW files is that anything you do processing in LR is just an on going workflow that is stacked on top of each other…it does NOTHING to your RAW. All you can ever do to a RAW is delete it. So the b/w, the tweaking all of that just lives on top of the RAW that you then export to a JPEG.
Which comes to the next thing….don't crop in the photo to make it a manageable size…if your want to crop to zoom in a little or get fix your framing and composition that is fine but you can use LR to export your RAW into the proper size JPEG files for web/etc.
So what are you doing for post & what is your work flow? Since you're dealing with big RAW files I would perhaps suggest:
Shoot only in RAW, there is no reason to have fine or superfine or whatever JPEGS, it's only going to take up some more shots you can get on the card and also clutter your folders with extra files.
Buy Lightroom: It's also going to help catalogue and organize all your files/folders/hard drives and has a really easy RAW processor. Your raws are going to come in really flat with a big latitude to work with. Regardless of what settings you have in your camera with contrast/saturation/sharpness that is only being applied to the little mock up jpeg that the camera is displaying on the LCD screen.
In Lightroom you can apply small adjustments with a curve to add a little bit of contrast and make things pop. You may also like converting some files to b/w and then with that you can also use the b/w channel mixer to make adjustments based on the colors in the original image.
The beauty of RAW files is that anything you do processing in LR is just an on going workflow that is stacked on top of each other…it does NOTHING to your RAW. All you can ever do to a RAW is delete it. So the b/w, the tweaking all of that just lives on top of the RAW that you then export to a JPEG.
Which comes to the next thing….don't crop in the photo to make it a manageable size…if your want to crop to zoom in a little or get fix your framing and composition that is fine but you can use LR to export your RAW into the proper size JPEG files for web/etc.
Apr 13, 2014, 11:48 am
#30
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: GRR, USA
Posts: 3,298
Nice I love the blur from the engines exhaust.
So what are you doing for post & what is your work flow? Since you're dealing with big RAW files I would perhaps suggest:
Shoot only in RAW, there is no reason to have fine or superfine or whatever JPEGS, it's only going to take up some more shots you can get on the card and also clutter your folders with extra files.
Buy Lightroom: It's also going to help catalogue and organize all your files/folders/hard drives and has a really easy RAW processor. Your raws are going to come in really flat with a big latitude to work with. Regardless of what settings you have in your camera with contrast/saturation/sharpness that is only being applied to the little mock up jpeg that the camera is displaying on the LCD screen.
In Lightroom you can apply small adjustments with a curve to add a little bit of contrast and make things pop. You may also like converting some files to b/w and then with that you can also use the b/w channel mixer to make adjustments based on the colors in the original image.
The beauty of RAW files is that anything you do processing in LR is just an on going workflow that is stacked on top of each other…it does NOTHING to your RAW. All you can ever do to a RAW is delete it. So the b/w, the tweaking all of that just lives on top of the RAW that you then export to a JPEG.
Which comes to the next thing….don't crop in the photo to make it a manageable size…if your want to crop to zoom in a little or get fix your framing and composition that is fine but you can use LR to export your RAW into the proper size JPEG files for web/etc.
So what are you doing for post & what is your work flow? Since you're dealing with big RAW files I would perhaps suggest:
Shoot only in RAW, there is no reason to have fine or superfine or whatever JPEGS, it's only going to take up some more shots you can get on the card and also clutter your folders with extra files.
Buy Lightroom: It's also going to help catalogue and organize all your files/folders/hard drives and has a really easy RAW processor. Your raws are going to come in really flat with a big latitude to work with. Regardless of what settings you have in your camera with contrast/saturation/sharpness that is only being applied to the little mock up jpeg that the camera is displaying on the LCD screen.
In Lightroom you can apply small adjustments with a curve to add a little bit of contrast and make things pop. You may also like converting some files to b/w and then with that you can also use the b/w channel mixer to make adjustments based on the colors in the original image.
The beauty of RAW files is that anything you do processing in LR is just an on going workflow that is stacked on top of each other…it does NOTHING to your RAW. All you can ever do to a RAW is delete it. So the b/w, the tweaking all of that just lives on top of the RAW that you then export to a JPEG.
Which comes to the next thing….don't crop in the photo to make it a manageable size…if your want to crop to zoom in a little or get fix your framing and composition that is fine but you can use LR to export your RAW into the proper size JPEG files for web/etc.
For these photos it was a bit of sharpening but didnt take the time to screw with exposure, color, etc.