backtop


Print 58 comment(s) - last by EricMartello.. on Jul 1 at 10:11 PM

It will be available in late July

Nikon announced the D810 HD-SLR today, which aims to replace the D800 for professional photographers and cinematographers.
 
The D810 sports a new 36.3-megapixel, full-frame FX-format sensor without an optical low pass filter for increased resolution and dynamic range (the base ISO has been lowered from 100 to 64). Nikon’s EXPEED 4 image processing engine also allows the D810 to deliver enhanced response and performance. 
 
The sensor adds micro lenses that optimize the light-gathering capabilities, thus improving image quality at high ISOs. The EXPEED 4 image processor improves JPG output and has a 30 percent increase in overall speed.
 
Compared to the D800, the rear display is unchanged in size at 3.2 inches. However, the brightness is increased due to a 1,229k-dot design that includes white dots in addition to the standard red, green and blue.
 
The autofocus system still has a 51-point autofocus system, but it gained the Group-Area AF function. 

Some other little improvements include a redesigned mirror in order to minimize vibrations; a Split-Screen Display zoom that magnifies two separate areas of the frame; video footage at 1080p60 with H.264 compression when recording to a memory card; the ability to output uncompressed video to a field recorder; the internal microphone is now a stereo design rather than a monaural with wind reduction; automatic ISO control gradually adjusts during video; zebra stripes now mark blown-out highlights; enhanced interval recording, which creates time lapse videos; the ability to capture up to 9,999 shots over a one-week span, and a metering system that adjusts gradually from shot to shot to reduce the flickering effect. 
 
“Once a user experiences the intense level of fine detail they are able to render using the immersive resolution of the D810, it will be hard to imagine a project without it,” said Masahiro Horie, Director of Marketing and Planning, Nikon Inc.
 
“When coupled with the amazing imaging capabilities of NIKKOR optics, the D810 becomes a powerful storytelling tool to create images and broadcast-quality video with unprecedented detail, dynamic range and sharpness.”
 
The Nikon D810 will be available in late July for about $3299.95 USD. Also, the MB-D12 battery pack is currently available for $616.00 USD and the new Capture NX-D software package will be available mid-July for download at no additional cost. 

Source: Nikon



Comments     Threshold


Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By michael67 on 6/27/14, Rating: -1
RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By atechfan on 6/27/2014 8:03:20 AM , Rating: 5
Would a more expensive keyboard help you with your spelling?


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By michael67 on 6/29/2014 2:42:55 AM , Rating: 1
Wonder how you would do in a non native languish, I speak next to my self learned English, Native Dutch and Norwegian, Good Swedish and Danish, ok German, and understand if they speak slow and clear very basic Portuguese and Spanish.

But as always now a days it's cooler to attack the person then respond intelligently to the message.

As my point is still valid, many amateur buyers of this camera, they think unconsciously that buying a better camera will greatly improve there artistic performance level, but it only slightly improves technical challenging problems.

At best it will slightly visually improve maybe at best 1% a of the photos taken over a Nikon D5200, if your a real pro that makes money of its photo's, it can be a reason to take the D810.

But sure if you have money to spare buy one, its just not a a real great investment.

I my self got also a D800, as a replacement of my old and aging second hand and bulky D2X, but i had multiple sorta good reason to buy that one.
(D2X was the first camera to support FF lenses even do it's censor was only APS-C format, so all my photos got cropped)

I really wanted a Full-Frame sensor, as i still have for about $20K worth of lenses if you would have to replace them with new ones (got nearly all of the second hand), yes they are bid chunkier then the new lenses now a days, but optical there is no real difference to speak of, and the most of them are still better then the cheaper new ones.

I was going be diving off the cost of Iceland, including some planed dives with wales (that we did not find, even do they are there 85% of the time).

Ikelite still had not had his D600 housing in production, as that would have bin my first pick.
www.ikelite.com/housings/nikon/6812.8-nikon-d800. html

I really wanted to be able to film in 1080p, as i really also wanted to film and photo the wales underwater!

Butwhat i really would have preferred was a $700 Full-Frame D5300 like camera, as it got all that i really need, spot-measuring that i use most and good matrix measuring, exposure lock and aperture check button, i really don't need more then that on a camera


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By SPOOFE on 6/29/2014 4:09:39 PM , Rating: 2
You don't know what you're talking about. A $700 full-frame camera? New? You're insane.

I'm sorry you have a terrible understanding of the camera market. My suggestion is to keep your yap shut until your ignorance goes away.


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By michael67 on 6/30/2014 4:46:28 AM , Rating: 1
Imho if there is one that ignorant then it's you, at least in this case.

The FF camera market works the same as for years the 30'' monitor market works.

Ware all monitors dropped in price by about 70% over the years, the 30'' stayed the same price.

Why because it is a pro product, they can now easily make a FF $700 camera, but that would cut heavy in there margins they have now on there FF line.

And no, i don't blame them for what they do, i would do the same if i ware in charge, but that dose not mean i liked to pay $3000, ware if they would make it, a $700 mainstream FF model would do, but they would be crazy kill of there fat margin's they have now, why would they?, just because i would like one?

All i said was that if they made a D5300 with a FF sensor, it would be all i need, as a D800 is not 4x better then a D5300, at best 1.5x better in really technical challenging circumstances.


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By SPOOFE on 6/30/2014 5:17:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
they can now easily make a FF $700 camera


No, they can't. Not if they hope to make any money. What's the cheapest FF sensor you can source? Maybe you know something "they" don't.


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By michael67 on 6/30/2014 5:33:50 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By SPOOFE on 6/30/2014 7:28:21 PM , Rating: 2
... And?


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By michael67 on 6/30/2014 11:47:21 PM , Rating: 2
So you seriously think that the sensor in the D8x0 cost around $1500~$2000?

If you think that, further discussion is not even impossible.


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By SPOOFE on 7/1/2014 1:34:19 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know how you arrived at that figure.

I asked you what YOU think they cost, Mr. $700 FF Camera.


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By michael67 on 7/1/2014 2:04:35 AM , Rating: 2
I think for a high mass production sensor, a FF sensor will cost about 2~3x that of a APS-C sensor, so i think you can add about $100 to $150 for a D3300 or D5300 body.
quote:
Mr. $700 FF Camera.

Do you really have to be a ass, or can you also react normal?


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By SPOOFE on 7/1/2014 12:24:32 PM , Rating: 2
A FF sensor costs about an order of magnitude more than a DX sensor. Try ~10x the price.

quote:
Do you really have to be a ass, or can you also react normal?


I am reacting normally to YOU being am ass. You shot your mouth off without knowing what you're talking about. You were wrong, and were an ass about it.

You may know how to take pictures. You know nothing about the tech used to make them. I'm glad I could educate you, since now you can avoid being an ass in the future. You're welcome.


By michael67 on 7/1/2014 1:56:34 PM , Rating: 2
10x the price could maybe be right for the cutting edge 36MP sensor (even do i dont think its that high), but no way for a standard 24MP sensor, i think 2~3 times at most.

That is unless the laws of physics works really different for making sensors then it dose for GPUs dies, as both are based mostly on the same principals of manufacturing.

quote:
You shot your mouth off without knowing what you're talking about. You were wrong, and were an ass about it.

Actually everything you written only confirms that i most properly know more about the subject as you do.

You are 120% certain that you are right, me on the other hand, most things a written i am 100% sure of, but there are certain tings i can not check, but if i compare them with other similar tech ware i do know more of, and is more info public of, i can make reasonable calculated guises.


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By jmarchel on 6/27/2014 9:32:21 AM , Rating: 2
Vast majority of amateurs who buy camera at this price point belong to one percentile of income. They earn that much money in about a minute. You can call them idiots but they still laugh at you all the way to the bank.


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By BRB29 on 6/27/2014 8:53:42 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Vast majority of amateurs who buy camera at this price point belong to one percentile


Actually no. Most photographers are not wealthy at all. The one percentile doesn't take their own pictures, they hire photographers to do it.


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By SPOOFE on 6/29/2014 4:15:03 PM , Rating: 2
It's true most photographers aren't wealthy. Those few that are will seriously consider a camera like this. Further, a great number of them will be picked up by rental houses and other organizations, not individuals.


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By BRB29 on 6/30/2014 8:27:46 AM , Rating: 2
No, you're just guessing. Most serious photographers will pay $3k for a camera. This is no different than a poor or middle class man willing to pay $30k for a Miata or Corvette.

Everyone has enough money for one or two expensive things in their life if that's their focus. Seriously, $3k is not that much even if you're only making $40k a year.


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By SPOOFE on 6/30/2014 7:30:14 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know what you're arguing.

A working photographer can make his or her gear pay for itself.

Non-working amateurs are predominantly buying sub-$1000 cameras.


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By michael67 on 6/30/2014 11:51:19 PM , Rating: 2
I would not wane feed the prosumers that buy this camera just for hobby use, i even think that there are more of hose then that there are pro's that really need this camera for work!


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By SPOOFE on 7/1/2014 1:35:44 AM , Rating: 2
Why do you think that? How many D800's do you think Nikon sells?


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By michael67 on 7/1/2014 2:23:25 AM , Rating: 2
My buddy at the my photo shop (also the Nikon importer) tells me they sell about 4 body's a month here in Norway (5M people).

So calculating from there i would say, about a 1000 units a month?


By SPOOFE on 7/1/2014 12:30:22 PM , Rating: 2
30,000 a month. Versus hundreds of thousands for consumer-level cameras.

Amateurs are not buying the D800 in any significant quantity.


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By BRB29 on 6/27/2014 8:51:04 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks michael,

I do what I want with my money. Just because I don't spend every weekend on the track, doesn't mean I can't buy a Ferrari. Whether you think it will benefit me or not, it's none of your business how I, or anyone, spend their hard earned money.

The irony here is that a person calling others "idiots" can't spell or use sentences properly.


By koenshaku on 6/27/2014 12:27:43 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks BRB29,

for making some sense everyone has their own hobbies or professions they are willing to invest in and if they enjoy them they wouldn't mind paying a little more. I fail to see how that makes them idiots. The same logic probably applies to the car you drive they all get you to where you are going, that doesn't mean everyone should buy a one seat smart car because they're cheaper. The same is applied to photography and your narrow perspective of it.

much like your need for an extra seat in your car if you are shooting at a music venue and you need the low light functionality of higher end cameras where flashes are not allowed or you need the size of full frame for wide angle shots you going to buy the high end camera I can talk about weather sealing, shutter speed for daylight shooting, or auto focus points if you are shooting action.
I can raise points all day as to what can't do with a $500 or even $1000 camera for that matter opposed to what pro grade camera can allows. It all comes down to what you need out of your tools be it an extra seats to fit more passengers in your car or a full frame camera to fit more people in your frame both are going to cost you extra and that my friend is life not idiocy..


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By tonyswash on 6/27/2014 12:16:09 PM , Rating: 2
This seems a nice but not stunning update to the D800. I bought a D800 not long after it's release and love it. It's super high resolution is great for cropping but is really a secondary feature, it's the superb dynamic range, highlight and shadow recovery, and quality of build, great handling and control layout that are the real clinchers with this camera. It's a camera that makes taking a technically bad photo hard and which, especially if one shoots in RAW, allows a lot of room for post processing recovery. I use it often with Nikon lens like the f1.4 35 mm prime which allows me to shoot without a flash in very low light which is perfect for social occasions, it's also a superb camera for landscape shooting. The new version has some nice features but without built in GPS it seems like a small upgrade and one, given the cost, I will skip.

If you want to see the magic of this camera, and the reason why lots of people are willing to pay for it, just shoot a scene in RAW format with a huge dynamic range (typical for example in a lot of landscapes). The unprocessed image will probably show the shadows as almost black and the bright sky as a blown out white nothing. Then in something like Adobe Lightroom just open the shadows and recover the highlights and suddenly a huge amount of hidden image data is revealed. The black shadows reveal masses of hidden detail and the blown out sky becomes full of cloud detail. I was staggered by what could be recovered in an image from this camera when I first got it, now I take such image recovery for granted and cannot imagine shooting without. It was worth every penny.

The only camera that has impressed me as much, in a different class, was the Sony RX100 which is easily the best pocket camera available. It too, for it's class, allows a huge amount of post shoot image recovery.


By bug77 on 6/27/2014 11:02:13 PM , Rating: 1
I don't think this (or almost any other camera) is meant as an upgrade from the previous generation. It can be an upgrade for those using cameras from 2-3 generations ago, or a better entry point from someone upgrading from DX.
My only usual gripe is that no one builds a camera with the latest image processor and all the other goodies, that has only 10-12MP. I think that would have superb low-light performance.


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By tamalero on 6/30/2014 2:48:37 PM , Rating: 2
Nikon seems to be the "AMD" of the Camera world.
They have constant yet small upgrades to their line of cams every few months or years.
They favor a conservative upgrade approach than completely rebuild/reinvent their products.


By michael67 on 7/1/2014 4:54:10 AM , Rating: 2
I think the D800 was compared to the D700 a totally new camera.

Main upgrades, 3x MP, 1080p filming, 100% viewfinder, ware the D810 is a model update, that sits between a Mrk II update and a complete number update.

Look for your self, and see if the differences are just a small conservative upgrade.

http://cdn-4.nikon-cdn.com/en_INC/o/57qXCcC4Vtbror...


By RapidDissent on 6/27/2014 12:32:55 PM , Rating: 2
I missed the part where consumers were buying prosumer cameras and then complaining about the cost???

I like that you think the guy who buys a $5000 camera to take pictures of his dog is somehow more of an idiot than the guy who buys a $5000 gaming computer so that he can move up from 12055th place to 10387th place on leader board for (insert game title here); or the guy who bought a $5000 hipo package for his Camaro so that he could literally get to work just as fast as the Chevy Aveo.

If you are doing what you enjoy and you are not harming anyone while doing it, you are absolutely not an idiot.


By Monkey's Uncle on 6/27/2014 2:18:22 PM , Rating: 3
It is not about need. It is about passion and the desire to indulge that passion if you can afford to. That does not make people buying this camera idiots. It makes them passionate enough about their obsession that they are willing to pay any price in pursuing it.

I love photography. Do I need a camera like this? No. Can I use half the functionality it provides? No. Can I afford to buy it? No. If I won $10 Million would I buy one? Oh HELL Yes!


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By WLee40 on 6/27/2014 3:16:03 PM , Rating: 1
Michael,
You obviously know next to nothing about photography or cameras. I have a Nikon D7100 and also use a Canon point and shoot $250. The difference is indescribable. Maybe you meant a $500 DSLR which might make more sense but there are so many more features on the expensive SLRs that make the pictures better in more situations if you know what you are doing.
P.S. Read the other replies to your post, they are well written and spot on (unlike yours).


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By michael67 on 6/29/2014 3:27:28 AM , Rating: 2
Actually i do know a lot about about photography and cameras, and even own a D800, reason i own one you can read above.

I even went to the best photographer school in Holland, ware i got in, yearly 1500 students apply, only 80 get in, and only half finish school, at the end of my second year, i had a talk with my teacher, and we both agreed that even do i was technical one of the best students, artistically i was noting more then good, and i wanted to be great.
http://www.fotovakschool.nl/

I still really enjoy photography, and i could have even easily had made a living of it, if i finished my schooling, but the only options would be studio work or a photography journalist, but i wanted to follow my inspiration footsteps Anton Corbijn, but i knew that that would never happen, so now i am a piping supervisor in the offshore.
https://www.google.com/search?q=anton+corbijn


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By SPOOFE on 6/29/2014 4:21:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually i do know a lot about about photography and cameras, and even own a D800


Buying a $3000 toy doesn't mean you know anything about photography.


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By michael67 on 6/30/2014 5:00:46 AM , Rating: 2
Is that not what i have bin saying, and my point?

But the 2 years i spend in one of the better photographer school in the world dose.

And those first two years there are spend more on improving technical skills, ware the later ones are spend more on the creative skills.


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By SPOOFE on 6/30/2014 5:20:38 AM , Rating: 2
Based on your comments in this thread, I've come to the conclusion that you wasted two years at photography school.

Which class was it that taught you economics, engineering, and integrated circuits?


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By michael67 on 6/30/2014 5:30:26 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Which class was it that taught you economics, engineering, and integrated circuits?


The school of life and common sense, as no photographer gives a shit about those, and only in the results.


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By SPOOFE on 6/30/2014 7:35:48 PM , Rating: 1
And yet you're here claiming "they" can make a $700 FF camera.

You may be able to take pretty pictures, but that doesn't mean you know dick about building a camera, managing a huge high-tech business, sourcing inventory, managing marketing, etc.

Stick with what you know. Hint: It ain't technology.


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By michael67 on 7/1/2014 12:01:18 AM , Rating: 2
I never said they would build one, as it would cut in deep in to there margins of there halo product.

As pro's need the product and just pay it, and then there are the the prosumers that really think and believe that the camera will improve there abilities, they are also willing to fork that much money out of there pocket.

And I just said they could build one easily, not that it would make economic sense for them.


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By SPOOFE on 7/1/2014 1:39:18 AM , Rating: 2
"they can now easily make a FF $700 camera"

Those are your words. I retorted that they CAN'T, not as a product that ec

Now you're agreeing with me.

Like I said earlier, you don't know what you're talking about.


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By SPOOFE on 7/1/2014 1:40:14 AM , Rating: 2
*not as a product that makes economic sense.


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By michael67 on 7/1/2014 2:32:57 AM , Rating: 1
Don't start fucking cherry pick my quotes!

what i said was:
quote:
Why because it is a pro product, they can now easily make a FF $700 camera, but that would cut heavy in there margins they have now on there FF line .

Creationist are also really good at cherry picking quotes, and ignoring relevant provided contexts.

I don't mind a argument about points of view, but if you start twisting my words i get a bit irritated.


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By SPOOFE on 7/1/2014 12:32:10 PM , Rating: 2
So you KNEW it was a stupid thing to say, and you said it anyway.

WHAT, exactly, is your complaint about the D810?


By michael67 on 7/1/2014 1:16:30 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry to say, but you really have a problem with understanding what people are saying, and just ignore it and draw your own conclusions.

Yes i knew Nikon would never make a FF D5300 like model, dose not mean i would not like one, and also dose not mean Nikon could not make one.

And that was what i was saying.

quote:
WHAT, exactly, is your complaint about the D810?

Non, i think its a excellent camera, i even would be willing to pay 500 euros to replace my D800, as it supports 1080p/60, and a hole shitload of other good upgrades.

http://cdn-4.nikon-cdn.com/en_INC/o/57qXCcC4Vtbror...

What i said was that there are a shitload of amateurs buying this camera even if they don't need it.


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By bsd228 on 6/27/2014 6:45:46 PM , Rating: 1
Michael, the cheapest of the full frame DSRLs out there are closer to $1500, so you're incorrect, this camera will let you take better pictures (for most requirements) than the Canon Rebel or Nikon D3000 series crop body models will.

It is true that the D800 has required a bit more care to actually benefit from the higher resolution it offers, but the other benefits of FF come automatically - the brighter clearer view finder, the better subject isolation, the better light gathering with 2.3x the sensor area, and the typically better AF at f5.6 and f8.

The only knock against the D800 was the somewhat slow 4fps, but that's now 5 which matches what the cheapest models typically peak at it, and is generally good enough. Only a small portion really benefit from 8-10fps speed.


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By michael67 on 6/30/2014 5:25:26 AM , Rating: 2
I don't deny that the D800 is the better camera, i actually own one, for some good and some sophism reasons, and mainly because we make more money then i know ware to spend it on, and we sometimes just spend/waste some of it on things we want.
Read 3th post from the top.

What i say is that in +99% of the time, a four times cheaper D5300 is just as good.


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By bsd228 on 6/30/2014 6:35:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What i say is that in +99% of the time, a four times cheaper D5300 is just as good.


And you're wrong, for the reasons I already stated, which are relevant far greater than 1% of the time. And specific to the D5300, the single function key to control many settings makes it awkward to change quickly, which definitely hurts more than 1% of the time as well. Even if your subjects aren't moving, the sun still is.


By michael67 on 7/1/2014 12:16:41 AM , Rating: 2
If that's true, i wonder how took all those great pictures with my old mechanical FM2 camera?

Good tech can help and augment your abilities, but can not improve on them there self.

Even with the almost perfect matrix light sensor in my D800, i still take about 40% of my pictures with spot measuring and the exposure lock, just as i did on my 30y old FM2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_FM2


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By EricMartello on 6/28/2014 1:59:12 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
A lot of Prosumers that buy this camera actually dont need this camera, and most of them would be just as good of with a $500 camera.


Agree with this point...but we could expand this to say that nobody really needs a camera.

quote:
Unlike wit PC gaming, ware faster hardware and more pixels give's you a edge, or a faster faster car lets you get faster from A to B (if you ignore tickets).


Uhh...

quote:
A better camera dose not let you take better pictures, just like amateur with $10.000 sword, can not win against a master swordsman holding a $2 piece of rebar.


You're undoubtedly speaking from experience, I mean we're getting pretty specific here with the 'master swordsman' thing. Most people are unlikely to ever encounter one in this era, which suggests that the money you didn't spend on an expensive camera went toward your time machine.

quote:
But i am glad all those Prosumer idiots are out there, they pay for all the cool R&D, that later also gets in to the cheaper models.


The original D800, which I bought shortly after it was released and use quite frequently, is still probably the best all-around camera you can own. Even if some of its features trickle down into the entry-level DSLRs, they're unlikely to surpass the D800 anytime soon...and if you were implying something like "my iphone is 95% as good as any DSLR" then I can only wonder what that master swordsman did to you with that rebar.

The D810 is a nice update and I will probably be able to sell my D800 body and get a D810 for a few hundred bucks to cover the difference.


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By michael67 on 6/30/2014 5:15:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
'master swordsman' thing

No, what i saying is that a real talented photographer will take more on average better pictures, then most properly you and certainly me with our D800's.

And that even all the training and equipment only counts for a small part, compared to talented people.

And that you cant buy your way in to be a better photographer.


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By tamalero on 6/30/2014 2:54:04 PM , Rating: 2
Some people already explained why people buy high end and prosumer cameras even if they are not professionals.

Higher end cameras offers better ISO and quality in low light conditions than low end.
Cameras like the Nikon D5300 are impressive in good light conditions, but they are TERRIBLE at low light.

I'm pretty sure that the lens variety is a big point towards high end cameras as well.


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By SPOOFE on 6/30/2014 7:40:10 PM , Rating: 2
The D5300 does a GREAT job in low light. The D800 is probably around a stop better.

The reason people buy high-end cameras is for control, reliability, and robustness. The heavier build of a D800 can handle rougher conditions than a lightweight D5300. Plus, a D5300 doesn't qualify you for NPS, and if you're a working photog you want access to Nikon's pro services.


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By michael67 on 7/1/2014 1:17:19 AM , Rating: 2
Actually its more then one stop, the camera dose about 2~3 stops better, but also my lenses do more then a a stop, as they don't crop anymore.

Couple of months ago i bin taking promotion photos for a friend of mine that plays in a band.

And in the dark surroundings i was glad i had the D800 and my 28~70 and 80~200 F2.8 that i could fully use again compared to my old D2X.

Control? , even a friends old older D3000 gave me almost all the control i needed, the only hing i did not like is that it had a combined AE/AF-Lock button, yeah overall there is a difference but its not like night and day, and most of the differences are intentional made by Nikon to deviate between models and prices.

Reliability? , according to my ''buddy'' at the photo shop, that sold me mine, they are breaking down more then consumer cameras, and mine is also bin in for repair.

Robustness? , slightly stronger, but as the cheaper cameras are also lighter, a bump has less mass behind to do damage, but he is certainly not as robust like my D2X or as a D4.

Yeah if you are a pro NPS is real nice, but for me its just a nice extra, and just like all pro's i also have a backup camera.


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By SPOOFE on 7/1/2014 1:47:46 AM , Rating: 2
So your claim is that your D800 looks as good at ISO 6400 as the D5300 does at ISO 800?


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By michael67 on 7/1/2014 2:39:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the camera dose about 2~3 stops better

Is reading my post that hard?

It means that the D800 sensor is the same, as the D5300 sensor with 2~3 stops more ambient light.

I know my English is not great but i did not know its was that bad!


By michael67 on 7/1/2014 12:32:27 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry did not read the post correct.

But yeah the D800 looks about the same at about ISO 6400 as a D5200 at ISO 800 ware i took test pictures with, with the same Tokina 28~70 F2.8 and a Nikon 80~200 F2.8, as i did a hole range of test photo's whit different ISO values and aperture settings.

Using a Tethering program to shoot a hole series of photos with pre-programed different settings of the same object, as was thinking to go for one of the two.

For me 1080p filming was what finally really sealed the deal for the D800 for me.


By EricMartello on 7/1/2014 1:05:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, what i saying is that a real talented photographer will take more on average better pictures, then most properly you and certainly me with our D800's.


You are correct that a person with an eye for photography will take better photos in general regardless of what camera. As for my photography personally, I'm more than happy to put my work to any competition and for still photos I exclusively use the D800.

quote:
And that even all the training and equipment only counts for a small part, compared to talented people.


Right, training doesn't teach you photography so much as it does how to operate a camera and how various settings and lenses affect the end result.

quote:
And that you cant buy your way in to be a better photographer.


True enough...but there's nothing wrong with buying D800 and taking a stab at it if you have the cash. If it turns out that photography isn't your thing, you can sell the body and lenses for 70-80% of what you paid for it (if you bought new). If you buy it used you can usually recoup almost all of your money if you sell the equipment.


RE: Most buyers actually dont need this camera
By michael67 on 7/1/2014 1:54:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Right, training doesn't teach you photography so much as it does how to operate a camera and how various settings and lenses affect the end result.

Actually 95% of the training i got at school was not about how to use the camera, but how to control your surroundings and the lighting of it.

quote:
you can sell the body and lenses for 70-80% of what you paid for it (if you bought new). If you buy it used you can usually recoup almost all of your money if you sell the equipment.

Lenses, and specially second hand lenses are really pretty fixed in value, my 28~70 F2.8 and my old 80~200 F2.8 is now even worth more then what i payed for it, if you don't count for inflation.
kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200.htm

But i got my heavy used, but 100% working D2X for 1200 euro's, ware the old owner paid about 4500 for it.

So lenses yes, body's not so much, tho i think the devaluation will become less, as the pixel race is more or less over.

Me personally, i properly buy a D620 or so, if it start to support 4K filming, as that is one of the main things i really like with my D800, and there is no comparison with normal consumer video camera's, that a photo lens brings to the table.

I just really not looking forward to fork out a other $4k for the body and underwaterhousing.


By EricMartello on 7/1/2014 10:11:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually 95% of the training i got at school was not about how to use the camera, but how to control your surroundings and the lighting of it.


I have no formal photography training but yeah, lighting is probably the most important element to master and I've had pretty good results with getting scenes lit the way I imagined them...though there's plenty for me left to learn in that aspect and that's what I like about it.

quote:
Me personally, i properly buy a D620 or so, if it start to support 4K filming, as that is one of the main things i really like with my D800, and there is no comparison with normal consumer video camera's, that a photo lens brings to the table.


For 4K recording the GH4 has it nailed as far as DSLRs go and lumix lenses are pretty good. You can also get one of those blackmagic cameras for a little more, and I believe they use canon lenses. Would be nice if the D810 had 4K video that could match or beat the GH4 in quality, that would make it a pretty easy decision for me.

quote:
I just really not looking forward to fork out a other $4k for the body and underwaterhousing.


You can always try making your own out of lexan and epoxy.


“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki