Posted Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:48PM
I am thinking about getting a Nikon D800. Has anyone got one? If yes, what are your impressions? Is it worth the money? How does it compare with a Canon of the same calibre?
If I get a Nikon D800, I would like to get this lense: Nikon AF-S 24-120mm f/4.0 G ED VR II Zoom Lens
If you have any suggestions or comment about the above lens, I am all ears. I have a Nikkor 60mm macro lens which I've been using on my Nikon D7000 for the past couple of years. I really like this lens and it should also work with the D800.
(Edited on 2013-02-21 13:52:16 by Chiyacat)
(Edited on 2013-02-21 13:53:14 by Chiyacat)
Posted Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:01PM
I have a D800 and a 24-120. I love them both. I can't really compare them to Canon since when I shot Canon there wasn't a camera like that in existence. The lens does compare to the Canon 24-105L very nicely I think.
The files are big when you shoot in full FX mode, so you need plenty of hard drive space and a decent computer to handle them, but it's not that bad IMO. The detail in each file is just amazing though. The first time you look at a file at 100% you will just be blown away. I think the camera is well worth the money.
Posted Fri Feb 22, 2013 12:11AM
Yes I use Nikon and Canon. If I shoot the 5dMII and the Nikon D800, side by side, the answer is NO! you wont note any differance on the screen nor in lets say an A3 print. This is provided youve done perfect PP, etc.
Only when you move up to MF, bigger sensors, etc, only then will you notice a differance in quality. Once you are above lets say 20MP on a small format camera, the rest is academical. Its the same with MF, you dont see any differance between a 50MP back and a 60MP back.
The advantage of MPs, is the abillity to move into the picture ( cropping) and still keep high quality. Also remember the higher the MPs the more demand on optics AND this is the most important in digital capture, the optics! any dslr with over 20MPs, will need the best of optics in order to make all the MPs count for quality. If not, its a total waste of money.
(Edited on 2013-02-22 00:19:32 by lagereek)
Posted Fri Feb 22, 2013 5:03AM
I've just upgraded to a D800 from a D300. It's a great camera, top of the line all the way. After reading all the reviews though it was a bit of an anticlimax. Now I've realized that the more I use it the more I love it and appreciate all the little improvements.
Is it necessary to upgrade? I don't think so. Lagerrek has definetely got a point. My D300 stood its ground nicely and as far as stock photography is concerned was enough.
Should you have money to spare, the best lenses is where you should put it into in my opinion. The holy trinity in particular: 14-24 f2.8; 24-70 f2.8; 70-200 f2.8. The D800 highlights any imperfection in your lens so only the very best stand a chance. For instance, I was just looking at a landscape shot with with the 24-70 and was noticing the color aberration defects. At 100% you see a lot of detail (and defects). If you use a lesser lens you probably won't be satisfied with the result. Again, it's not something necessary but I guess that we photographers tend to be perfectionsts to a fault...
Posted Fri Feb 22, 2013 6:15AM
It's got more resolution and better dynamic range than the Canon cameras (any of them). Take a look at the review on dpreview.com.
Posted Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:31AM
It's an amazing camera but IMHO it's an overkill for microstock. I own it for about half year and I can count XXXL downloads on one hand.
There is much more editing required on large files, storage problems and more processing power needed.
Oh and another thing - if you like shallow DOF you will have to send it to Nikon service for recalibration.
From 6 months perspective - I'd not buy it again, I'd stick with D700.
Posted Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:55AM
Posted By wdstock:
It's got more resolution and better dynamic range than the Canon cameras (any of them). Take a look at the review on dpreview.com.
Youre are not getting the point at all! I use everything from Canon, Nikon, Leica and Hasselblad. This is not some naive competition between Canon and Nikon.
Do you really think I compare the quality between the highest possible Medium-format Phaseone back to a little D800?
What I am saying is that cameras come and go, they are not important. The sensors are important and its ONLY when moving up to MF sensors that you will notice the differance.
I prefer my D3X to the D800, anytime, no comparison at all.
For micro however, the 5DMII, reigns supreme, no question at all.
Posted Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:46PM
I would agree that if you're buying it only to sell bigger stock files it wouldn't be worth it. But if you want a great camera you won't go wrong.
Although the D7100 just came out, so you ought to look at that as well.
I'd rent a D800 and the 24-120 for a weekend and play with it. And when the 7100 becomes available I'd rent that as well.
Posted Sat Feb 23, 2013 3:39AM
Well, honestly, D300 to D800 makes sense, almost on all levels, but a move from D700 do D800 has to be justified thoroughly.
Had I owned the latter I wouldn't have bothered to buy the D800. Since I own[ed] D300 I went for it. If you are willing to put an effort and hard work, I am sure it will reward you back.
As for the lens you've suggested, we can pick our noses as long as we like, I think the combo will produce and deliver quality stock results, might not be the absolute top notch, but then ... I am not ready to dish out over $1mil for new Pagani, since I can do 70% of the stuff it does with Nissan GTR [not saying I would pay over $100 grand for it]
Posted Sun Feb 24, 2013 11:13AM
You'll see a huge improvement moving from a D300 to D800.
Apart from the incredible detail you get at 36MP, the D800 is leaps and bounds better than the D800 in terms of dynamic range, shadow detail, high ISO quality etc.
I wouldn't say it was quite as good as the D700/D3 for low light, high ISO stuff, but it's pretty close considering you've got 3x as many pixels to play with.
I recommend it.
Posted Thu Feb 28, 2013 12:11PM
You asked how the Nikon D800 compared to a Canon.
I went from a 5D Mark II to the D800. I got the D800 a few months after it was released, so I've had it for a while. Personally I still miss the ease of use of the Canon camera. For a studio photographer, the Canon suited my work flow much better. I would personally consider switching back to a Canon if they released a 35mpx camera. The D800 is a good camea, I think I just really miss the Canon camera setup.
Posted Sat Mar 2, 2013 7:53PM
I have the D800 and the Nikon AF-S 24-120mm f/4.0 G ED VR II and like the combo very much. I can't tell you how it compares to the Cannons, but it is significantly better than the D300. I am amazed at the resolution every time I look at one of the pictures at full size (I could see the wings of a gnat from 20 ft on just the camera screen). The dynamic range is great, you can lighten up darker areas with very little noise. I find that I very seldom use any noise filtering. The lens is very sharp, but does give some blue chromatic aberration on contrasty edges (cleans up with Camera Raw). I would recommend that you get the 105 macro which also is very sharp. I do most of my shooting on a tripod with a shutter release. The resolution is so good that you will notice it in your pictures if don’t shoot at a high enough shutter speed or use a tripod. As others have stated, it may be an overkill for stock photography. I wanted to move up to an FX camera and get a camera would give me some of the best resolution available and not be obsolete in a year. I think it is well worth the money. You can send me a message directly if you have any questions.
Posted Thu Mar 7, 2013 9:49PM
I owned both the D300 and D700, and when I had to upgrade, tested the D800 and after loads of dithering eventually decided against it. I expected the D800 to be 3 x better than the 12Mp D700 and it wasn't. The dynamic range was not much better, the files at full size are sharp but need sharpening to show them to best effect.
Most importantly however, the camera is hugely demanding of your focusing skills. At 36Mp, you have to be three times as careful in getting your focus spot-on as any tiny error is hugely exaggerated by the huge image size.
I re-tested the camera a few months ago, just to be sure, and shot the same image at full size, 1.2 and 1.5x crop and all the way down to the DX crop mode, and found the smallest of the crop modes (16Mp) delivered the sharpest images.
The final clincher for me was when an inspector here told me that loads of the D800 files that cross his desk are soft. That's damning. As is the number of D800s up for sale in second-hand stores. Methinks lots of people got burnt by too much camera.
My advice would be that if you shoot food, landscapes or beauty where you need loads of detail, get the D800. The detail at that price is staggering, provided you control your lighting environment properly, shoot off tripod and make extra sure of your focus. If however you need bigger dynamic range, shoot run-and-gun in less-than-ideal lighting situations like weddings, editorial or high ISO situations, you are going to be disappointed.
The camera is too exact and demanding in my opinion for this application. The D3S is still far superior for these applications. Or the D4, which I eventually broke the bank for, and which after four weeks of constant assignment shooting has not only vindicated my decision for the higher price tag, but surpassed all my expectations.
The D4 shoots 16Mp, which I have always considered the sweet spot for sensors. The D800 at 16Mp in DX crop mode delivers similar crisp files. If I owned a D800, I would be shooting it in that mode.
Posted Fri Mar 8, 2013 1:19AM
Interesting points. I have had a D800 for nearly a year. It's an incredible camera. I come from shooting film alongside a crop sensor Nikon D2x. The D800 reminds me more of a film type camera where you have to have a more professional approach to shooting. I rarely shoot on a tripod, too restricting, but I do shoot with a higher shutter speed than I used too with the D2x, to avoid camera shake that can be mistaken for missed focus point. I have had 1600 iso daylight portriats accepted here shot on the 85 F1.4 at 1.4 at full resolution but you do have to work more carefully it is not a very forgiving camera any errors will be 36mpx BIG! But it is a huge investment in good glass and fast pc and unless everything you shoot on it goes into V/A Collections you will never justify all those extra pixels and associated costs for purely stock work. My commercial work subsidises my stock output. I was tempted by the D4 but I needed more pixels and it was just a bit too out of reach money wise at the time, but hey rumours of D4x will tempt me I'm sure.......I think the D800 would probably be the worst possible choice for shooting weddings......
(Edited on 2013-03-08 01:21:07 by ClarkandCompany)
(Edited on 2013-03-08 07:00:30 by ClarkandCompany)
Posted Fri Mar 8, 2013 6:31AM
One thing I don't get about all the comments (not just here, but all over the web) about how demanding the D800 is regarding focus/camera shake etc. (due to its high pixel density) is the fact that it's pixel density is no more than any other "DX" camera with at least 15 megapixels. There are a bunch of those around from different vendors yet sensitivity to precise focus etc. is rarely talked about for all these other cameras. Maybe it is because D800 owners are very demanding or picky? I don't deny that the D800 requires precise focus etc., but so does any DX camera with 15 megapixels or more.
Posted Fri Mar 8, 2013 7:02AM
I don't understand all the physics and optics involved with cramming pixels onto a CCD but on a basic level you are going to get more DoF on a crop sensor body than on a FX camera using similar apertures.
Posted Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:32AM
Maybe this will help. This is by no means scientific and it's just how I see the "problem" of the D800 demanding more control. YMMV
Before the D800-someone had a sharp picture and would say "wow, I can see all the little feathers on the duck". Now, with a D800 they say "wow, I can see all the little ribs on the feather on the duck". Now if those ribs are a little blurry they say the shot was OOF or camera shake got them.
Again, just a simplified analagy for a more involved subject.
Posted Tue Mar 12, 2013 1:10PM
I moved from D300 to D800, too a few months ago. I totally like the D300, and besides the lower acceptance rate, its still a great camera for stock and I use it now on vacations and in "dangerous areas". I bought the D800 specifically for moving on to video, but I did not count in the additional 3000 to 4000 $ cost of tripods, fluid heads and lossless compression recording devices etc., so that will have to wait another 1-2 years My Gitzo 2531 and Acratech Ballhead are completely the wrong thing for this purpose..
I have a 14-24mm 2.8 and 70-200mm 2.8 VRI. Of course, the 14-24mm is brilliant on the D800 (but really extremely wide angle if you use it wide open). On the other hand, I ended up even using more my 70-200 mm because on the shorter end I can capture more. The funny thing: with the high resolution of the D800, I can capture the same details at 200mm than with the D300 at 300mm (1.5x). But the distortion and light-falloff at corners are really visible with the D800 and the VRI. I am even thinking of selling my VRI and getting the VRII because of this.
Haven't really uploaded a lot since I got the D800, but please allow me to post these 2 pictures:
I would have never been able to get these two accepted from my D300 - the light was really dark and I adjusted the exposure about 0.5 in Adobe RAW, as well as sharpening, lens corrections and saturation/vibrance. I was still able to get these easily accepted in XXXL with a lot of buffer for downsizing. This is really where the D800 comes in handy. If you're landscape or nature photographer, I would recommend getting the D800 .. depending, of course, on your current gear
Posted Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:34AM
Just a few corrections to add. The sensor of the D800 is a CMOS chip not a CCD. There is a difference! Neither is the D800 a DX format, it is definitely an FX or full frame sensor so the pixels are not quite as crammed as implied. You can elect to shoot in DX mode which cuts down the picture size, but why would you when you can crop in Photoshop or Lightroom. It can't touch the D4 or the D3S for sports or birds in flight and other speedy things but great for almost everything else. I have enjoyed mine.
Posted Thu Mar 14, 2013 8:22PM
I much prefer the D800 over my D700 or my D3x. I think it is much better than anything else Nikon makes. I've shot with a Canon 5D3 and much prefer the D800. I think it is the best stock photography camera there is bar none.