Quantcast
  1. XenForo is here. Problems or comments on the new site? Please report them.
  2. New stuff: Our new Classifieds have launched. Check them out!
  3. New stuff: You can now tag users in posts using the @ symbol, and they'll get a notification that they've been mentioned. Try it out.

D800

Discussion in 'Creative Pursuits' started by H8R, Nov 20, 2011.

  1. H8R Cranky Pants

    Rep  |  Likes:
    0   |   0
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Messages:
    13,981
  2. RUFUS e-douche of the year

    Rep  |  Likes:
    0   |   0
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2006
    Messages:
    3,529
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Not buying the photos but the info sounds intriguing. I still just might make it over to Canon again though.

    H8R, if you are looking for equipment, let me know.
    #2 Nov 20, 2011   
  3. H8R Cranky Pants

    Rep  |  Likes:
    0   |   0
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Messages:
    13,981
    email me a list. Now.
    #3 Nov 20, 2011   
  4. RUFUS e-douche of the year

    Rep  |  Likes:
    0   |   0
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2006
    Messages:
    3,529
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Sent what I have left to your evo email.
    #4 Nov 20, 2011   
  5. narlus Eastcoast Softcore Staff Member

    Rep  |  Likes:
    0   |   0
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2001
    Messages:
    24,595
    Location:
    behind the viewfinder
    36 mp...holy file size!
    #5 Nov 21, 2011   
  6. RUFUS e-douche of the year

    Rep  |  Likes:
    0   |   0
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2006
    Messages:
    3,529
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    I shot in RAW all the time and my files are usually 25 mp. That isn't too bad, but I don't need any larger of a file size.
    #6 Nov 21, 2011   
  7. H8R Cranky Pants

    Rep  |  Likes:
    0   |   0
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Messages:
    13,981
    #7 Nov 21, 2011   
  8. narlus Eastcoast Softcore Staff Member

    Rep  |  Likes:
    0   |   0
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2001
    Messages:
    24,595
    Location:
    behind the viewfinder
    trust me, 95% of my shots are RAW taken at high ISO, so i know how large files get...
    #8 Nov 21, 2011   
  9. H8R Cranky Pants

    Rep  |  Likes:
    0   |   0
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Messages:
    13,981
    http://nikonrumors.com/2012/02/06/nikon-d800-official-pictures-leaked.aspx/


    Looks like a good offering. (if warranted) I don't think I'd need over maybe 18 megapixels though. Like, ever. My D7000 has 16 and the crops are like having an extra 100mm of lens stropped to the front.

    I wonder how clean the ISO is going to be? I see this as more of a landscape or studio tool more than anything.
    #9 Feb 6, 2012   
  10. binary visions The voice of reason

    Rep  |  Likes:
    13   |   8
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2002
    Messages:
    21,054
    Location:
    NC
    Confirmed, with hands-on:

    http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/06/nikon-d800-hands-on/

    I don't need all the megapixels and frankly, I like DX for the purposes of pixel density - even though at this high MP count, it actually would be more pixels than my D300 in DX mode. But I don't need to pay for all those pixels.

    I'll consider a D400 if it ever gets released, primarily for dual card slots and quality video. $3k for the body is a little much for me.
    #10 Feb 7, 2012   
  11. narlus Eastcoast Softcore Staff Member

    Rep  |  Likes:
    0   |   0
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2001
    Messages:
    24,595
    Location:
    behind the viewfinder
    36MP is nuts. hard drive MFG'ers are psyched.

    but yeah, i can see this being a dream body for a studio/landscape shooter.
    #11 Feb 7, 2012   
  12. binary visions The voice of reason

    Rep  |  Likes:
    13   |   8
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2002
    Messages:
    21,054
    Location:
    NC
    Landscape guys especially - the hikers I'm sure will appreciate even a small reduction in the load they have to carry.
    #12 Feb 7, 2012   
  13. narlus Eastcoast Softcore Staff Member

    Rep  |  Likes:
    0   |   0
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2001
    Messages:
    24,595
    Location:
    behind the viewfinder
    you mean in regards to moving from Medium Frame bodies and lenses?
    #13 Feb 7, 2012   
  14. Transcend My Nuts Are Flat

    Rep  |  Likes:
    0   |   0
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2002
    Messages:
    18,075
    Location:
    Towing the party line.
    $3000 is a hell of a deal for this body. 36 MP though, really? 16MP is more than I need, and takes up enough hdd space as it is. What a nightmare for storage.

    Hell, canon just released a new 24-70 2.8 that costs $2300?? (WTF Canon?)
    #14 Feb 7, 2012   
  15. binary visions The voice of reason

    Rep  |  Likes:
    13   |   8
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2002
    Messages:
    21,054
    Location:
    NC
    I was more thinking something like a D3x. Sometimes a few ounces and a couple inches make a big difference on a long hike. If this can get you the resolution but in a normal sized body... The D3 -> D700 is about a pound difference and a 50% increase in volume. That's no small thing.

    Obviously, if you're comparing to MF, then it gets even more significant.

    If you don't need the resolution, there's no reason to shoot at that size. If the price point is acceptable, you just drop the resolution and keep shooting at 16mp or whatever.
    #15 Feb 7, 2012   
  16. Silver find me a tampon

    Rep  |  Likes:
    0   |   0
    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2002
    Messages:
    10,892
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    It'll sell to the dentists and the landscape guys who read Ken Rockwell.
    #16 Feb 7, 2012   
  17. binary visions The voice of reason

    Rep  |  Likes:
    13   |   8
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2002
    Messages:
    21,054
    Location:
    NC
    I don't think I read this right the first time around. Holy crap. I hope for that money it has a camera built into the barrel.
    #17 Feb 7, 2012   
  18. H8R Cranky Pants

    Rep  |  Likes:
    0   |   0
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Messages:
    13,981
    Once the factories are finally dried out...
    #18 Feb 7, 2012   
  19. H8R Cranky Pants

    Rep  |  Likes:
    0   |   0
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Messages:
    13,981
    #19 Feb 7, 2012   
  20. Transcend My Nuts Are Flat

    Rep  |  Likes:
    0   |   0
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2002
    Messages:
    18,075
    Location:
    Towing the party line.
    You and me both. No IS. Nothing fancy. Just a big honkin 24-70. It now extends at 70mm vs retracts, and has a focus lock switch. That's it. $1000 more expensive than the current 24-70. The ****? Although, I did read that they fixed the ridiculous barrel distortion that the current model has (and is why I do not own one.)

    Worst is, I actually need to purchase one shortly, lame. What's even worse, spending over $12 000 on camera junk in the last 2 weeks. :(
    #20 Feb 8, 2012   
  21. Transcend My Nuts Are Flat

    Rep  |  Likes:
    0   |   0
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2002
    Messages:
    18,075
    Location:
    Towing the party line.
    Precisely. HDD prices have SKYROCKETED in the last few months. The same HDDs I was buying for under $100 are now $150+... on sale.
    #21 Feb 8, 2012   
  22. H8R Cranky Pants

    Rep  |  Likes:
    0   |   0
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Messages:
    13,981
    Get the Nikkor 24-70 and the adaptor.

    :D
    #22 Feb 8, 2012   
  23. Transcend My Nuts Are Flat

    Rep  |  Likes:
    0   |   0
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2002
    Messages:
    18,075
    Location:
    Towing the party line.
    The nikkor is as bad or worse as the original canon 24-70 when it comes to barrel distortion. It's also $1900 at best. I'd get the much cheaper first version canon, or the slightly more expensive distortion free second version.
    #23 Feb 8, 2012   
  24. H8R Cranky Pants

    Rep  |  Likes:
    0   |   0
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Messages:
    13,981
    Can't you just punch the lens into Lightroom and auto-correct it?
    #24 Feb 9, 2012   
  25. Polandspring88 Superman

    Rep  |  Likes:
    0   |   0
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    3,126
    Location:
    Broomfield, CO
    Being forced to buy camera equipment must be excruciating. I can only imagine the awfulness of my GF demanding that I buy sh!t. ;)
    #25 Feb 9, 2012   
  26. Silver find me a tampon

    Rep  |  Likes:
    0   |   0
    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2002
    Messages:
    10,892
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    Real shooters only use primes, per the internet.
    #26 Feb 9, 2012   
  27. binary visions The voice of reason

    Rep  |  Likes:
    13   |   8
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2002
    Messages:
    21,054
    Location:
    NC
    NO GOOD PHOTO HAS EVER BEEN TAKEN WITH A ZOOM LENS.

    Do you hear me?!

    EVER.
    #27 Feb 9, 2012   
  28. dante Unabomber

    Rep  |  Likes:
    4   |   2
    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,960
    Location:
    looking for classic NE singletrack
    Anything a zoom lens can do a prime lens can do both sharper and 2 f-stops lower.
    #28 Feb 9, 2012   
  29. RUFUS e-douche of the year

    Rep  |  Likes:
    0   |   0
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2006
    Messages:
    3,529
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    That's adorable.
    #29 Feb 9, 2012   
  30. Transcend My Nuts Are Flat

    Rep  |  Likes:
    0   |   0
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2002
    Messages:
    18,075
    Location:
    Towing the party line.
    Damn. Well, good thing I keep that 300mm 2.8 around. Usually I just use it to keep up on my bicep curls though.

    The prime lens only nutters need to actually use their cameras once and awhile and stop pleasuring themselves to charts on the internet. Particularly the ones who wet themselves over ridiculously overpriced 30 year old russian manual focus junk.

    Only in your wildest dreams.
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2012
    #30 Feb 9, 2012   
  31. Silver find me a tampon

    Rep  |  Likes:
    0   |   0
    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2002
    Messages:
    10,892
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    Well, except zoom, of course.
    #31 Feb 9, 2012   
  32. Transcend My Nuts Are Flat

    Rep  |  Likes:
    0   |   0
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2002
    Messages:
    18,075
    Location:
    Towing the party line.
    Let's not forget the whole needing to own 3+ lenses (and cost in most cases) to do the same job, and ultimately, probably get exactly the same photo. I'll stick to my 70-200 2.8, thanks.
    #32 Feb 9, 2012   
  33. Silver find me a tampon

    Rep  |  Likes:
    0   |   0
    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2002
    Messages:
    10,892
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    You got cornered by a Rockwell reader at a party recently, eh? :D
    #33 Feb 10, 2012   
  34. narlus Eastcoast Softcore Staff Member

    Rep  |  Likes:
    0   |   0
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2001
    Messages:
    24,595
    Location:
    behind the viewfinder
    it really depends on what you are shooting.

    yeah, if you are using triggered flashes or shooting w/ a lot of ambient light, zooms are fine. if you wanna tag along w/ me for tonight's shoot in some dingy club (betting on a preponderance of red stage lighting), bring at least one prime w/ you.

    btw what does 'and cost in most cases' mean?
    #34 Feb 11, 2012   
  35. stevew unique white person

    Rep  |  Likes:
    16   |   19
    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2001
    Messages:
    23,003
    #35 Feb 11, 2012   
  36. berkshire_rider Growler

    Rep  |  Likes:
    0   |   0
    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2003
    Messages:
    2,516
    Location:
    The Blackstone Valley
    The cost of the 3+ lenses?
    #36 Feb 11, 2012   
  37. dante Unabomber

    Rep  |  Likes:
    4   |   2
    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,960
    Location:
    looking for classic NE singletrack
    While I was being sarcastic in my original post, I really can't think of a zoom lens that would require 3+ lenses just to cover the range. 2, yes, but 3? And yes, if you're going to be shooting sports a zoom is almost indispensable, but for the rest of us, primes work just fine if you usually shoot at a certain focal length (although to be honest I only have one, a 100mm f2. Most of my shots are with a 17-50mm 2.8 Tamron).
    #37 Feb 11, 2012   
  38. Transcend My Nuts Are Flat

    Rep  |  Likes:
    0   |   0
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2002
    Messages:
    18,075
    Location:
    Towing the party line.
    70-200 2.8. You will need an 85, a 135 and a 200 to over that range properly. All in 1.2 to 2 if you want to beat out the 2.8. So average cost of what $1400 for a 70-200 2.8.

    So let's see... $2049 for an 85 1.2, $1034 for a 135 2 and then $5699 for a 200 2. Yes these are pricey. If you want to go cheap, you are pretty much at 2.8 or lower - making it pointless, particularly at 200mm.
    #38 Feb 11, 2012   
  39. dante Unabomber

    Rep  |  Likes:
    4   |   2
    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,960
    Location:
    looking for classic NE singletrack
    Right, because there's certainly no relatively cheap 85mm 1.8 or 100mm 2.0 option available for sub $400...
    #39 Feb 11, 2012   
  40. Transcend My Nuts Are Flat

    Rep  |  Likes:
    0   |   0
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2002
    Messages:
    18,075
    Location:
    Towing the party line.
    That's a very far cry from "2 stops faster", not to mention any cheaper. Not to mention both of the above mentioned lenses cannot hold a candle in either focus speed, contrast/color or durability of the 70-200 2.8.

    Troll fail.
    #40 Feb 11, 2012   

Share This Page