My D800 Dilemma.

[MNiles]

Hey guys,
Alright so I'm having a Dilemma with my D800 pre-order. First off I'd like to say I'm not a pro. I have been paid for a few of my shots, some are on display and some have appeared in publications but don't consider myself a pro by any means.

I started with Nikon back in my D90 days when I get serious about my hobby and then upgraded to the D7000 and I love it. But I'm finding that I want to move to a full frame format with something that may have the ability to provide decent video(I come from a video background) Before the D800 news broke I almost pulled the trigger on the Canon 5D Mark II but since it's around 3 years old figured they would be doing an update at some point and of course it will happen if I decided to buy the 5D MII the very next day. I'd like to stick with Nikon due to the fact that I have invested so much money in glass and lots of our video gear have Nikon mounts as well.

My issue is all this negative info about the D800 and it's not even released yet. From image blur due to the high MP count to the **** ISO, over priced grip and so on.

I'm not worried about the ISO - I shoot my D7000 at iso100 almost all the time even in low light, so I have grown my skill around that.

What bugs the hell out of me is for every one person that gives the D800 a positive mark there are two negatives.

I'm not looking for someone to stroke my ego and tell me that the D800 is the perfect camera and I'm not committed to my pre order I can back out anytime before the camera ships. But I am looking for some none Canon fanboy feed back and maybe to hear from a few others who have pre ordered the D800 as well.

I wish I could afford the damn D4 and call it a day but I'm only going to be able to pick up one camera this year and I want to make it count.

 

[manaheim]

I think that the D4 and the D800 were both a bit of a dissapointment to a lot of Nikon buyers. I think folks were expecting more of the D4... and probably less from the D800. Kinda weird, but kinda true. I think most folks are struggling with it.

In the end I think the D800 is essentially a specialized camera. If it's the kind of camera you happen to need, then it's a winner. I think the D4 is a little bit more generalized, but of course at 2x the price.

I wouldn't strain yourself too much over the grip. It appears the real price you're going to pay isn't nearly the MSRP, and frankly, for all the money you're not spending on a D4, even at $1,000 it's not that bad a deal. (kidding)

Just be mindful of what you're getting yourself into and keep in mind the D700 is still a viable option and now will be $2,200 instead of $2,700.

 

[matthewo]

the bodies are not even out yet to the public. we can look at talk about the specs all day long but we dont know how this 36mp sensor is going to be ISO wise. so lets not jump to conclusions and just wait till the people get their hands on them...

sure i wish the d800 had the d4 sensor in it. i think 16mp is a perfect size sensor for FX for great ISO and still enough mp for printing size.

if i was to guess, i think the iso on the d800 is going to be similar to the d7000, but just with a higher MP count. im sure the d4 will murder anything before it as far as ISO.

and as far as i go, if the d4 and d800 are the only FX cameras released this year then i will just buy a d700 and be very happy...

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I was hoping for more from the D800, enough "more"over my D700 for me to purchase one. I'm not bashing it, it may come out to be the total bomb and I'll have to tap my savings once again.

 

[molested_cow]

Blah blah blah blah.... if you are going to make a decision to buy based on hear-say (not actual user review), then your decision will easily be swayed by the same hear-say.

First of all, whether you are a pro or not isn't a factor. I use D700 and I am NOT a pro by any means. In fact, I probably only use 50% of what the camera is capable of. You have the money, you have the interest, then you have the right to make it yours.

Secondly, ask yourself why you have chosen the D800 over other options. Then pit those reasons against those nay sayers. Wait, that doesn't make sense. None of those nay-sayers have even touched the D800 yet. So why get bothered? And I suspect that most of the nay sayers are nay sayers because they expected the D800 to be a direct replacement to the D700. Well, the world doesn't revolve around them and I say Nikon made a good strategic move to distinct the D800 from the D4. Imagine all the lost in sales of the D4 if they made the D800 a mini D4 within such a close time frame. Doesn't make sense at all.

Say if I am in the game of getting a new camera, I will be more than happy with what the D800 offers even compared to the D700. More megapixels to play with. Equal or better ISO performance. Video. All the extra goodies for a similar size and weight as the D700 (these are facts in numbers, not opinions). It's basically the D700 plus everything that I wished the D700 had. For $3000, it's a no brainer. Of course, it's your money, so it's your reasoning that matters.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Get a film camera

And if you're worried about movies or video, get an F5!

 

[MNiles]

Blah blah blah blah.... if you are going to make a decision to buy based on hear-say (not actual user review), then your decision will easily be swayed by the same hear-say.

It's not just the people, Nikon has about 4 / 5 pages in the Tech manual about how the camera will take blurry pictures and how and what you need to do to avoid the blur. Take a look for yourself here is the PDF http://www.nikonusa.com/en_US/o/Y6wrkA9OU_z04IreazIXl_22UII/PDF/D800_TechnicalGuide_En.pdf

To me it's not hear-say if the company is telling the user on the first page that "At the high resolutions offered by the D800/D800E, even the slightest camera motion can result in blur. The technique revealed in this section minimizes blur through a combination of live view photography and a tripod"

They also tell you not to stop the aperture down to far. To me when the company starts telling you how to work around these issues and has an entire couple chapters in the start of the book about them it's not the best of signs. My Nikon D7000 didn't have a chapter saying... Your holding it wrong, Use LV, Use a tripod every shot !

If I had D4 funds this would be easy, But i need something full frame with decent video. If the D7000 had clean HDMI out like the D800 I would have just said screw the FX format.

I really don't want to go Canon I defend my Nikons everywhere I go and enjoy rubbing it in everyone's face when my D7000 can see in pitch black with almost no noise. But as far as HDMI clean out full format cams go it's D800 or the D4.

Not trying to get personal since I'm sure no one cares but I just can't afford the D4, I have a premature baby in the NICU who has been there for some time and as much as I hate having to go back to work I need to have a few good cams around me that will get me thru the day. I have enough budget for the D800(or around that) with some nice glass , leaving enough padding should the insurance decide they can't or won't pay for some other medical bill they decide we are not covered by. The D4 is the perfect camera for me but I just can't pull the trigger on it.

 

[soxOZ]

Although Nikon didn't release a warning, but I remember the same problem when Nikon went from 6Mp to 12Mp and then to 16Mp with the D7000, and also the amount that complained and even sold their D7000 (16Mp) cameras due to having trouble getting a sharp shot, and not mentioning the D3x (24Mp).

Basically all Nikon are trying to say (and warning people early) is because of the 36Mp sensor it will show the flaws a lot easier that is either in your lenses or in the technique you use, especially when you have been using a camera with the lower resolution sensor, it can show up as a soft or slightly blurred shots.
And 99.9999% of everything you hear at the moment is just people opinions and hearsay. If you so concerned, well just wait until it's released and see some example from everyday users...

Or just bite the bullet, buy it, and if you don't like it, sell it to me at a cheap price... :mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen: LOL...

 

[molested_cow]

That's not a "bad" thing if that's what you are thinking. It just means the photographer needs to be even more technically specific when using the camera than other cameras.
The camera is capable of taking sharp images, the variable is the photographer.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

I think the D800 will be great at what it does, it will be a great studio based and landscape camera. It seems to produce terrific results when used well and I didn't expect anything less from the boys at Nikon. It is not a camera I want though, I am into portrait work, landscape and macro with occasional action shots. I want a versatile camera, the D4 is a very very versatile camera. But it is a PRO camera with a price to match, a price I could never afford.

Shocking as it sounds, I think Canon have done the right thing. I would choose a 5d Mark 3 over the D800 if given the choice of those two cameras, I think Canon have made a good choice with the new 5D design. This is a camera built as an all round beast for the consumer/mid level buyers. They will release another camera I'm sure, which will cater for the high MP crowd. 22MP is incredible resolution and 22MP is not as much overkill as 36MP is for general shooting IMO anyway.

 

[molested_cow]

Hmmm Josh you sound like you already know what we don't. 5D MIII?

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Hmmm Josh you sound like you already know what we don't. 5D MIII?

Hmmmm, the specs seem to be out now from numerous sources! I could be wrong though.. GOD FORBID that though, me being wrong!

This is the spec list, to me it seems enticing. It just seems like a more general photography tool. 22MP will produce great resolution I'm sure.

22 MP, 61 point autofocus,2 stops better ISO than 5D mark II, 3.2″ LCD, Dual CF/SD Slots, Digic 5 Processor, 6.9 fps, Eye Control Autofocus.

I also think Canon will work very hard on improving low light performance and Dynamic range, simply because they HAVE too, because they know they have to compete with Nikon now and have lost customers over the crappy AF systems and poor Dynamic range and High ISO performance. The new AF system should be good (No poxy consumer level AF system), the DR should be much improved (No shadow banding), the High ISO performance should be better. No doubt, it will have great video performance aswell for the people who want and need it.I won't deny the fact I am simply speculating here, as NONE of us know the real deal with the 5D Mark 3 yet. But at the same time, the Nikon D800 is just a spec list at the moment. The sample images we see are not from unbiased sources for a start, I only trust review images from truly unbiased sources. I put little weight in comments from Nikon ambassadors, they will say whatever Nikon wants them too simply because they want more free camera gear next year.

So in my opinion, both cameras are simply spec list cameras before they hit the market and streets.But from PURELY a 'spec list' perspective.. I prefer the deal Canon are offering over the D800. That's not to say I will be switching anytime soon, I am hoping to snap up a D700 at a good price point. But if I was starting fresh and had to choose between these two cameras based on specs, the NEW 5D would suit my needs better.

 

[MReid]

The d800 will be an amazing camera for those that can make use of it's capabilities. The vast majority of people do not need what the d800 will provide and will be better served with a d700, or d3s or d4 if you can afford it.

 

[o hey tyler]

I'm not worried about the ISO - I shoot my D7000 at iso100 almost all the time even in low light, so I have grown my skill around that.

Can I ask why?

 

[MNiles]

I'm not worried about the ISO - I shoot my D7000 at iso100 almost all the time even in low light, so I have grown my skill around that.

Can I ask why?

Detailed Why - Because I come from a video background where Gain would be the same as ISO and in broadcast you have to keep gain low or your footage wont pass for broadcast. So when I got into stills I enjoyed not seeing noise and stuck to what I liked as far as a style. My ISO almost never leaves the 100 to 160 range. If I shoot video on my DSLR It stays parked at 160 min produces less noise there then at 100. For example. 160 and the

multiples like 320 640 and so on seem to produce less noise then their lower counterparts.

I prefer the look of having less noise, if it takes me 30 mins longer to light a shoot so be it. I have great glass thats fast and sharp and great lighting..

Smug Why - because it's how I like to work and how i like my images to look. ​