D700 and D800 Resolution and Quality Comparison

[Derrel]

Nikon D800 | Rob Van Petten

 

[GeorgieGirl]

I saw this...photos are stunning. I can see why they say studio camera, but is it really?

 

[Trever1t]

Had you beat by 2 posts Derrel

 

[Trever1t]

From what I've read of those with hands on experience is that the D800 is as good as the D700 as far as ISO with improved DR at the lower end. (way better than the D300 so no worries mate) and due to it's fine resolution, minute issues such as lens quality and camera shake are ever more clearly apparent...making need of good quality fast lenses and shutter speeds...or tripod when presented with longer focal length...

 

[Destin]

who's to say it isn't? Seriously how often are we shooting at ISO 1600+? And if need be you have a D700 WIN WIN

Indeed if I was buying my 1st full frame of course I'd be buying the new D800! I had planned on buying the D800 in addition, but I'm going to sit on the sidelines a while on that note =)

Why don't you sell the D700 and buy a D4 with the cash from that and the money you were gonna put into a D800? I understand you'd still be like a grand short, but I'd find a way to make it happen if I was you.

Even just upgrading to a D3s would be huge.

 

[Trever1t]

because I'd still need a second body

 

[Destin]

because I'd still need a second body

D4 with a d40 backup! Duh!

 

[Trever1t]

Nikon D800 Samples Photos: Low Light, High ISO Tested

 

[KmH]

According to testing by DxOMark:
Contrary to conventional wisdom, higher resolution actually compensates for noise - DxOMark - More pixels offset noise!

Essential characteristics of noise - DxOMark - Noise characterization

The paradoxical evolution of sensor SNR over time - DxOMark - SNR evolution over time

 

[djacobox372]

if u go by megapixels the d800 has a bit less then twice the resoution (48mp would be double res).

Of course this assumes no camera shake and perfect optics, as the useable resolution is only as good as the weakest link in the photo taking chain.

 

[greybeard]

Considering just how cheap hard drive space and computer power is these days, I find it laughable to worry about the file size of a 36mp image. I've made up my mind that as soon as I can afford it I'm going with a d800 and the best glass available and that might mean going with a 24' 50, 85, and a 200mm prime and not even using any zooms. I'm not already invested so I'm starting fresh.

 

[bertsirkin]

Considering just how cheap hard drive space and computer power is these days, I find it laughable to worry about the file size of a 36mp image.

I don't think it laughable at all. I only shoot RAW and can see my post-production time increasing significantly. I have a state of the art computer system with huge storage, but even now with 15MB RAW images from the D700, post production takes a considerable time, much of that time loading images into Photoshop.

From what I can see the RAW image size from the D800 will be between 50 and 60MB - that 3 to 4 times that of the D700. Sitting down to work on 50 images will probably take an extra hour - that's a significant amount of time in an already crowded schedule.

One of the REAL issues with the D800 camera will be post-production.

And based on the comments I'm receiving from our customers, many are considering the D800E. I must admit, that I did as well initially, but I don't now believe that the D800E will provide much, if any, of a difference in image quality, but will cause many images to be unusable. Although it's sometimes possible to remove moiré from images in Photoshop, it's not always possible, and it's fairly difficult - certainly not for the faint of heart.

bert

 

[greybeard]

Considering just how cheap hard drive space and computer power is these days, I find it laughable to worry about the file size of a 36mp image.

I don't think it laughable at all. I only shoot RAW and can see my post-production time increasing significantly. I have a state of the art computer system with huge storage, but even now with 15MB RAW images from the D700, post production takes a considerable time, much of that time loading images into Photoshop.

From what I can see the RAW image size from the D800 will be between 50 and 60MB - that 3 to 4 times that of the D700. Sitting down to work on 50 images will probably take an extra hour - that's a significant amount of time in an already crowded schedule.

One of the REAL issues with the D800 camera will be post-production.

And based on the comments I'm receiving from our customers, many are considering the D800E. I must admit, that I did as well initially, but I don't now believe that the D800E will provide much, if any, of a difference in image quality, but will cause many images to be unusable. Although it's sometimes possible to remove moiré from images in Photoshop, it's not always possible, and it's fairly difficult - certainly not for the faint of heart.

bert

I just timed it on this old Dell 1525 laptop that is 5 yrs old and is still running Windows XP. to load a 16mb, 16mp raw image into PS, 4.5 sec.

 

[bertsirkin]

I just timed it on this old Dell 1525 laptop that is 5 yrs old and is still running Windows XP. to load a 16mb, 16mp raw image into PS, 4.5 sec.

Was that loading from the CF card or from a hard-drive? The big issue will be that all of the images have to be copied eventually to the hard-drive - USB 2.0 is painfully slow with 16MB images, let alone 60MB images. The D800 does support USB 3.0, which I have no experience with "yet". There are inexpensive USB 3.0 cards available, which will be required. I can't imagine copying a couple of hundred 60MB images over USB 2.0 - how fast USB 3.0 will be is still an unknown for me at this point.

bert

 

[gerardo2068]

Hard drives may seem cheap for some people, but still 36mp it's way too much for travel photography when you don't want to carry so much storage. Specially taking many photos in raw format.

One of those photos take more space than an entire music album. Also when you have so many photos, do a lot of editing and save in psd and tiff with layers and what not, it takes way more space and transfer is slower. I have a minimum of 3 back ups of my entire library, if I upgrade hard drive because running out of space then I have to upgrade all 3 like I've done in the past. I also don't just collect photos. I have movies and a lot of music too. Everything takes up a lot of space.

It all adds up

Like many D800 was not I was expecting. It's a completely awesome camera for studio shoot and videographers. Not for traveling or sport photo shoots that is what I like to do.

They should have called different. By calling it D800 people think it should be faster frame rate, higher iso than the D700

The 36mp it's a awesome feature but it is not for everybody.