Anyone with SERIOUS D800 experience?
Apr 14, 2014, 4:43 pm
#33
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: YYG
Programs: airlines and hotels and rental cars - oh my!
Posts: 2,993
Late to the party here, but hopefully I can add some helpful input for anyone else considering a D800. I've had mine for about 14 months now (replaced a D300). Thom Hogan put it perfectly when he described it as "the best of cameras, and the worst of cameras."
The most obvious positive is that you really do get Hasselblad image quality in a lighter, more portable body. You don't need to make 60-inch prints to appreciate this, either. You can crop with impunity, and get full-frame images of small subjects (birds, for example) without having to lug around an enormous 500mm lens that weighs as much as a cinder block and costs as much as a used Toyota.
The picture quality is just plain awesome ... I still find I sometimes look at my screen in disbelief and think did I really shoot that? Wow! Low light image quality is just astounding - to the point I stopped carrying a flash altogether. There was just no point, especially with the built-in wink light for fill.
The bad news, as others have mentioned, is that the D800 will make all your other equipment look pretty bad. You're going to find yourself upgrading lenses, because the D800 will show every flaw and imperfection in glass that worked perfectly well on the old camera. And it really will drive you nuts. I'm convinced that's a big reason for Nikon's return to manufacturing primes (i.e. new AFS 24mm f1.4, new AFS 35mm f1.4, AFS 50mm f1.4, AFS 85mm f1.4, etc). The D3x began showing the limitations of many of their their mid-range zooms (24-70 f2.8 excepted) ... then the D800 came along with even more resolution. They had to do something, and making AF primes seems to have been their answer. Honestly, there's just no point in having a D800 and using a 10 year-old 24-85 on it. The "suddenly visible" distortion will drive you bonkers.
The other bugaboo with the D800 is that to get that magnificent image quality, you wind up shooting raw files that run 45 - 60 MB apiece. Apart from requiring you to buy multiple huge, fast cards, you also find you need a new, fast laptop. With a ginormous external drive (or two!). Lightroom is a must.
The D800 is a monster of a camera. But it means you're going to want some new glass and a ton of RAM and HD space on our computer.
The most obvious positive is that you really do get Hasselblad image quality in a lighter, more portable body. You don't need to make 60-inch prints to appreciate this, either. You can crop with impunity, and get full-frame images of small subjects (birds, for example) without having to lug around an enormous 500mm lens that weighs as much as a cinder block and costs as much as a used Toyota.
The picture quality is just plain awesome ... I still find I sometimes look at my screen in disbelief and think did I really shoot that? Wow! Low light image quality is just astounding - to the point I stopped carrying a flash altogether. There was just no point, especially with the built-in wink light for fill.
The bad news, as others have mentioned, is that the D800 will make all your other equipment look pretty bad. You're going to find yourself upgrading lenses, because the D800 will show every flaw and imperfection in glass that worked perfectly well on the old camera. And it really will drive you nuts. I'm convinced that's a big reason for Nikon's return to manufacturing primes (i.e. new AFS 24mm f1.4, new AFS 35mm f1.4, AFS 50mm f1.4, AFS 85mm f1.4, etc). The D3x began showing the limitations of many of their their mid-range zooms (24-70 f2.8 excepted) ... then the D800 came along with even more resolution. They had to do something, and making AF primes seems to have been their answer. Honestly, there's just no point in having a D800 and using a 10 year-old 24-85 on it. The "suddenly visible" distortion will drive you bonkers.
The other bugaboo with the D800 is that to get that magnificent image quality, you wind up shooting raw files that run 45 - 60 MB apiece. Apart from requiring you to buy multiple huge, fast cards, you also find you need a new, fast laptop. With a ginormous external drive (or two!). Lightroom is a must.
The D800 is a monster of a camera. But it means you're going to want some new glass and a ton of RAM and HD space on our computer.
Apr 20, 2014, 10:01 am
#34
Suspended
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bay Area
Programs: DL SM, UA MP.
Posts: 12,729
D800 has everything that I'm interested in -- better focusing than my D7000, full frame, even in-camera HDR.
But the hold up is the size and weight.
I was almost tempted to go with D600 or D610 but same focusing system as the D7000 and no integrated Wifi were letdowns.
Lately, I think more about going lighter, even as a tradeoff for IQ, low-light, speed.
The A7s are intriguing but apparently the output from the same Sony sensors used in the D800/D800E are not the same.
Have to also think about my shooting style, consisting mostly of photos taken on trips. It's all about taking many snaps, documenting the place (geotagging all along). It isn't about deliberative shooting, waiting for the right light/situation. I pack a tripod but maybe use a tripod maybe 5% of the time, mostly for night/dusk photos, if there's a skyline or beautifully lit buildings to shoot.
I've played around with things like panos and some HDR but most of the time, will not use a tripod. Nor do I go back to a location to re-shoot under different light or with tripods, etc.
So maybe this kind of run-and-shoot, no-huddle approach, to borrow a football metaphor, wouldn't do justice to this gear, which has been compared to medium-format cameras.
But the hold up is the size and weight.
I was almost tempted to go with D600 or D610 but same focusing system as the D7000 and no integrated Wifi were letdowns.
Lately, I think more about going lighter, even as a tradeoff for IQ, low-light, speed.
The A7s are intriguing but apparently the output from the same Sony sensors used in the D800/D800E are not the same.
Have to also think about my shooting style, consisting mostly of photos taken on trips. It's all about taking many snaps, documenting the place (geotagging all along). It isn't about deliberative shooting, waiting for the right light/situation. I pack a tripod but maybe use a tripod maybe 5% of the time, mostly for night/dusk photos, if there's a skyline or beautifully lit buildings to shoot.
I've played around with things like panos and some HDR but most of the time, will not use a tripod. Nor do I go back to a location to re-shoot under different light or with tripods, etc.
So maybe this kind of run-and-shoot, no-huddle approach, to borrow a football metaphor, wouldn't do justice to this gear, which has been compared to medium-format cameras.