Is it impossible to do a convincing clone from another chair? (I ask, as someone who has done no work in Photoshop, only Aperture and LR).
It's time consuming and each scene is going to be different. Do you really "want" to spend your time that way?
Many subjects respond well to RAW image moiré reduction, but I only recommend the Nikon D800E for landscapes and "some" studio applications. I do not recommend it for sports, because of the preceding comments and demonstrations about problems with moiré.
For anyone unsure about which version to purchase, I suggest waiting until you see enough examples from both bodies, the Nikon D800 and the Nikon D800E, to make an "informed" decision. It's possible that Nikon has produced enough photosite density that moiré may be minimized for some applications and software solutions may exist to reduce the impact further still.
Amazon apparently sent out a email to everyone that preordered through them...saying that they thought delivery would be Jan 2013
If anyone here got that please post.
Also if that is true then D700's just went up in price :ivar
Gary
Amazon apparently sent out a email to everyone that preordered through them...saying that they thought delivery would be Jan 2013
If anyone here got that please post.
Also if that is true then D700's just went up in price :ivar
Gary
but B & H is saying March 22, 2012
Nikon D800, Pentax K1000
You don't take a photograph, you make it. ~Ansel Adams
I honestly can't see all the hype with this camera. It has an over kill sensor size and is way too slow for my liking. If you are interested in Sports photography then I would reccommend the D700. Much better camera in my opinion.
I honestly can't see all the hype with this camera. It has an over kill sensor size and is way too slow for my liking. If you are interested in Sports photography then I would reccommend the D700. Much better camera in my opinion.
The only advantage I see to the D700 is one of frame rate. And potentially file size if your editing ecosystem is not up to par. Other than that, the D800 offers superior focus, superior resolution, superior low light capability (or at least equal), video capability for those that want it, facial recognition which can come in handy for certain sports and certainly other uses, and the price seems to be quite fair. I had mine on pre-order day 1. I've shot or own most of Nikon's top cameras and I've been a sports shooter for nearly 30 years. The D800 is exciting to me as any camera I've ever purchased.
And if you've never run into ugly moire in your real world, have a look at the chair across the table. Fix that in post. I couldn't.
Edit: Sorry. For some reason there's no Exif in the image. Anyway, this was shot about six years ago with a D70.
Yep, pretty nasty. The moire reduction brush in the public beta version of LR4 will remove the color bands but leaves the pattern bands. You probably didn't see any kind of banding on the chair in real life.
Yep, pretty nasty. The moire reduction brush in the public beta version of LR4 will remove the color bands but leaves the pattern bands. You probably didn't see any kind of banding on the chair in real life.
Jerry
The rods and cones of a human eye, the sensory parts of the eye, are random and disorganized. A typical camera sensor has both luminance organization, an X-Y array, as well as chrominance organization, typically an R-G-B-G pattern in Bayer based chips. Both can create interference patterns (luminance and chrominance moiré, respectively) with other regular patterns as exist in many man-made objects.
A Foveon sensor design has all 3 - primary colors represented at each photosite, greatly reducing color moiré problems. (Foveon sensors have many other problems, however.)
The only advantage I see to the D700 is one of frame rate. And potentially file size if your editing ecosystem is not up to par. Other than that, the D800 offers superior focus, superior resolution, superior low light capability (or at least equal), video capability for those that want it, facial recognition which can come in handy for certain sports and certainly other uses, and the price seems to be quite fair. I had mine on pre-order day 1. I've shot or own most of Nikon's top cameras and I've been a sports shooter for nearly 30 years. The D800 is exciting to me as any camera I've ever purchased.
The main problem I see with the D800 is the fact that it is too slow. Especially if a sports phogorapher or high action like I am. D800 as many people see it is a great studio camera but as far as high action goes many are waiting to see about the D400 or staying with D700.
I honestly can't see all the hype with this camera. It has an over kill sensor size and is way too slow for my liking. If you are interested in Sports photography then I would reccommend the D700. Much better camera in my opinion.
I don't disagree that the D700 would be the better answer for sports. I don't disagree that the D800 has more pixels than necessary. But as I mentioned in an earlier post, my objectives are (for a camera that I will own) are specific (and I can rent a D4 when the mood dicatates).
Yep, pretty nasty. The moire reduction brush in the public beta version of LR4 will remove the color bands but leaves the pattern bands. You probably didn't see any kind of banding on the chair in real life.
Jerry
No, I did not. And this was shot before the days of shooting tethered, so I was chimping on the D70's little LCD and didn't see it there either. Not 'till I uploaded the image and looked at it was there an "Oh s**t! " realization of what I had captured. I'm guessing that had I been a few inches closer or farther away, I wouldn't have had the problem, but there was no way to know it was going to happen.
John :
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
The main problem I see with the D800 is the fact that it is too slow. Especially if a sports phogorapher or high action like I am. D800 as many people see it is a great studio camera but as far as high action goes many are waiting to see about the D400 or staying with D700.
What exactly is "too slow" about the D800 for sports? It's a darn sight faster than my AE1 ever was! And my T70 as well when I was shooting sports for the newspaper.
The Nikon F4s was 5.5, and even more recently, the D2x, the worlds top sports camera at the time, was 5fps, as was it's companion the D200.
What exactly is "too slow" about the D800 for sports? It's a darn sight faster than my AE1 ever was! And my T70 as well when I was shooting sports for the newspaper.
The Nikon F4s was 5.5, and even more recently, the D2x, the worlds top sports camera at the time, was 5fps, as was it's companion the D200.
How fast do you need it to be?
The bottom line is that yeah, you can get the job done with 3 FPS. We've all heard the "back in the day, they used to focus MANUALLY" lecture. But no matter how you slice it, 3 FPS still makes your job a little harder than 5, or 8.
You don't see full-time NFL photographers saying "Ahh, I can get the job done with 3 FPS if I try hard enough, so I might as well...just for fun. Not much is at stake, just my career and maybe a few magazine covers, and the competition has 10-12 FPS at their disposal. But I'm gonna use 3 just because I'm really good at timing the shot just right..."
Of course, that would be absurd and I think everyone here would agree. So what we're ACTUALLY discussing now is, whether or not a hobbyist should be ALLOWED to feel that same "need" for FPS. We're arguing the difference between "need" and "want" here.
I think that's a pretty weak focus for a discussion, though I know nobody asked my opinion . My point is, even hobbyists are allowed to have standards and "needs". Why not?
The bottom line is that yeah, you can get the job done with 3 FPS. We've all heard the "back in the day, they used to focus MANUALLY" lecture. But no matter how you slice it, 3 FPS still makes your job a little harder than 5, or 8.
Maybe. Maybe not. I find that even when I burst shoot, 95% of the time the keeper in the series is my first press of the shutter. The other stuff generally get's tossed out in Lightroom. So by that perspective, shooting 5 or 8 actually makes my job harder. And I still focus manually sometimes. I shot a soccer game last year with my manual 300mm sitting on a D2x in crop mode. That's the field of view of a 600mm lens. Certainly didn't get as many keepers as I do with my AF glass, but it got the job done and I got paid.
You don't see full-time NFL photographers saying "Ahh, I can get the job done with 3 FPS if I try hard enough, so I might as well...just for fun. Not much is at stake, just my career and maybe a few magazine covers, and the competition has 10-12 FPS at their disposal. But I'm gonna use 3 just because I'm really good at timing the shot just right..."
It's odd you mention that because what you DO see is some of them shooting with D3x's and 1Ds's to get the resolution. At least on one of the bodies. They are certainly not doing it for fun. They are doing it because the tradeoff of superior frame size is worth the loss of frame rate.
Of course, that would be absurd and I think everyone here would agree. So what we're ACTUALLY discussing now is, whether or not a hobbyist should be ALLOWED to feel that same "need" for FPS. We're arguing the difference between "need" and "want" here.
I'm not arguing that at all. I am arguing the point whether there is actually a POINT to shooting at very high frame rates. For some shooting, absolutely. For others, I think it's more habit that we've gotten accustomed to. I was recently shooting a softball tournament, and had intended to only shoot 2 games. I had 10 CF cards with me. As it turned out, I shot 4 games. I had my main body and two remote cameras. By the middle of game 3 I was running way short on cards with no way to dump. So I shut down the remotes, and put my main body on single shot. I still got every shot I wanted, I still froze the ball by the batter or leaving the pitcher's hand, etc.
I think that's a pretty weak focus for a discussion, though I know nobody asked my opinion . My point is, even hobbyists are allowed to have standards and "needs". Why not?
Of course. The only question to my mind, at least for the sake of this argument, is whether or not 4fps fills that need. As to what people WANT, I can't speak to that. Some people want 24fps just like a movie camera so they are guaranteed not to miss anything. We'll get there eventually. The Sony A77 shoots 12fps at 24MP. It does that at the expense of light gathering though, but if you've got the light for ISO 400 or less, that might be the ticket. It's cheap too. My fastest cameras shoot at 9fps and that it more than fast enough for me.
No, I did not. And this was shot before the days of shooting tethered, so I was chimping on the D70's little LCD and didn't see it there either. Not 'till I uploaded the image and looked at it was there an "Oh s**t! " realization of what I had captured. I'm guessing that had I been a few inches closer or farther away, I wouldn't have had the problem, but there was no way to know it was going to happen.
No way man! (actually, it might be fun to see what i could do :lift )
No, I was just curious. I've been spending too much time reading discussions on dpreview about moire and the D800 vs. D800E. It always seems quite heated over there, and a particular thread I was reading today was about whether tis better to shoot a D800E and repair moire or shoot a D800 and do some extra sharpening (to, it is thought, get you to the same image the D800E would have provided without moire). All of which is pointless speculation at this point, of course (but potentially fun speculation - though I think a religious divide is opening over which is better 800/800E, much like Nikon/Canon, Mac/PC, etc.)
It went on for some time before I realized they were arguing about which image was better, and that both started as a JPG re-sized for the web (at least i think they were arguing over JPGs. all i can be sure of was that they were arguing).
I would think it would be doubly difficult to prove anything from JPGs, and not all that relevant to figuring out what the D800 or D800E plus good post processing is capable of (given enough time in post).
So that got me wondering whether your experience had been with NEF or JPG (just me gathering data points). I'm still up in the air (got a couple months to decide) about whether I will prefer tinkering with a D800E and a lot of computer time (maybe some macro stuff) or an 800 without moire concerns. (As it happens, I have more computer time available to me than shooting time - so an "E" might provide room for my hobby to grow).
Maybe. Maybe not. I find that even when I burst shoot, 95% of the time the keeper in the series is my first press of the shutter. The other stuff generally get's tossed out in Lightroom. So by that perspective, shooting 5 or 8 actually makes my job harder. And I still focus manually sometimes. I shot a soccer game last year with my manual 300mm sitting on a D2x in crop mode. That's the field of view of a 600mm lens. Certainly didn't get as many keepers as I do with my AF glass, but it got the job done and I got paid.
It's odd you mention that because what you DO see is some of them shooting with D3x's and 1Ds's to get the resolution. At least on one of the bodies. They are certainly not doing it for fun. They are doing it because the tradeoff of superior frame size is worth the loss of frame rate.
I'm not arguing that at all. I am arguing the point whether there is actually a POINT to shooting at very high frame rates. For some shooting, absolutely. For others, I think it's more habit that we've gotten accustomed to. I was recently shooting a softball tournament, and had intended to only shoot 2 games. I had 10 CF cards with me. As it turned out, I shot 4 games. I had my main body and two remote cameras. By the middle of game 3 I was running way short on cards with no way to dump. So I shut down the remotes, and put my main body on single shot. I still got every shot I wanted, I still froze the ball by the batter or leaving the pitcher's hand, etc.
Of course. The only question to my mind, at least for the sake of this argument, is whether or not 4fps fills that need. As to what people WANT, I can't speak to that. Some people want 24fps just like a movie camera so they are guaranteed not to miss anything. We'll get there eventually. The Sony A77 shoots 12fps at 24MP. It does that at the expense of light gathering though, but if you've got the light for ISO 400 or less, that might be the ticket. It's cheap too. My fastest cameras shoot at 9fps and that it more than fast enough for me.
When shooting sports, you want as many fps as you can get. Yes, timing plays a critical part in sports. However, for stuff like a receiver about to catch a pass, or a play at second, or a layup, having more fps can be a tremendous advantage. Having mp's to crop more doesn't mean much when you don't have the pic to crop from when a slow camera missed the play. Being able to choose 9-10 pics in a sequence compared to 3-4 can be a huge difference in a good or great pic. No way would I get a D800 if it were going to be a sports camera.
When shooting sports, you want as many fps as you can get. Yes, timing plays a critical part in sports. However, for stuff like a receiver about to catch a pass, or a play at second, or a layup, having more fps can be a tremendous advantage. Having mp's to crop more doesn't mean much when you don't have the pic to crop from when a slow camera missed the play. Being able to choose 9-10 pics in a sequence compared to 3-4 can be a huge difference in a good or great pic. No way would I get a D800 if it were going to be a sports camera.
Having shot with the 18mp M9 for two years (no aa filter) I can't say I'd be worried about moire. It just doesn't come up that often.
As well, Nikon and Adobe are both adding moire removal tools to their next software editions.
That being said, until the 800e has been out a while the real answer is that we just don't know how moire will affect things with this sensor. If it is really a concern wait and see.
Having shot with the 18mp M9 for two years (no aa filter) I can't say I'd be worried about moire. It just doesn't come up that often.
As well, Nikon and Adobe are both adding moire removal tools to their next software editions.
That being said, until the 800e has been out a while the real answer is that we just don't know how moire will affect things with this sensor. If it is really a concern wait and see.
If, as I do, you shoot a lot of scenes with different kinds of fabrics, you WILL have a problem from time to time with moire.
John :
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Ok, you've rented the D3s and your looking for a sports camera in the form of the D800? There is little doubt that the D4 will trump the D3s, but the D3s will maintain frame rate, give the ISO range you need, 300k shutter life, hellish battery life, AF performance only bested by the D4 (and possibly the D800 series).
I don't know what the D3s will sell for when the D4 ships, but I think is gives all your looking for and is a known performer. I know its good enough I'm staying with it in spite of the new toys hitting the market.
I just have a feeling the no-filter version will be a specialty camera in the end.
Comments
It's time consuming and each scene is going to be different. Do you really "want" to spend your time that way?
Many subjects respond well to RAW image moiré reduction, but I only recommend the Nikon D800E for landscapes and "some" studio applications. I do not recommend it for sports, because of the preceding comments and demonstrations about problems with moiré.
For anyone unsure about which version to purchase, I suggest waiting until you see enough examples from both bodies, the Nikon D800 and the Nikon D800E, to make an "informed" decision. It's possible that Nikon has produced enough photosite density that moiré may be minimized for some applications and software solutions may exist to reduce the impact further still.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
If anyone here got that please post.
Also if that is true then D700's just went up in price :ivar
Gary
but B & H is saying March 22, 2012
You don't take a photograph, you make it. ~Ansel Adams
Blue Moon Originals
The only advantage I see to the D700 is one of frame rate. And potentially file size if your editing ecosystem is not up to par. Other than that, the D800 offers superior focus, superior resolution, superior low light capability (or at least equal), video capability for those that want it, facial recognition which can come in handy for certain sports and certainly other uses, and the price seems to be quite fair. I had mine on pre-order day 1. I've shot or own most of Nikon's top cameras and I've been a sports shooter for nearly 30 years. The D800 is exciting to me as any camera I've ever purchased.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Nah, I think my 10TB of free space oughta cover me for a while.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Yep, pretty nasty. The moire reduction brush in the public beta version of LR4 will remove the color bands but leaves the pattern bands. You probably didn't see any kind of banding on the chair in real life.
Jerry
The rods and cones of a human eye, the sensory parts of the eye, are random and disorganized. A typical camera sensor has both luminance organization, an X-Y array, as well as chrominance organization, typically an R-G-B-G pattern in Bayer based chips. Both can create interference patterns (luminance and chrominance moiré, respectively) with other regular patterns as exist in many man-made objects.
A Foveon sensor design has all 3 - primary colors represented at each photosite, greatly reducing color moiré problems. (Foveon sensors have many other problems, however.)
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
The main problem I see with the D800 is the fact that it is too slow. Especially if a sports phogorapher or high action like I am. D800 as many people see it is a great studio camera but as far as high action goes many are waiting to see about the D400 or staying with D700.
I don't disagree that the D700 would be the better answer for sports. I don't disagree that the D800 has more pixels than necessary. But as I mentioned in an earlier post, my objectives are (for a camera that I will own) are specific (and I can rent a D4 when the mood dicatates).
Chooka chooka hoo la ley
Looka looka koo la ley
No, I did not. And this was shot before the days of shooting tethered, so I was chimping on the D70's little LCD and didn't see it there either. Not 'till I uploaded the image and looked at it was there an "Oh s**t! " realization of what I had captured. I'm guessing that had I been a few inches closer or farther away, I wouldn't have had the problem, but there was no way to know it was going to happen.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
What exactly is "too slow" about the D800 for sports? It's a darn sight faster than my AE1 ever was! And my T70 as well when I was shooting sports for the newspaper.
The Nikon F4s was 5.5, and even more recently, the D2x, the worlds top sports camera at the time, was 5fps, as was it's companion the D200.
How fast do you need it to be?
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
The bottom line is that yeah, you can get the job done with 3 FPS. We've all heard the "back in the day, they used to focus MANUALLY" lecture. But no matter how you slice it, 3 FPS still makes your job a little harder than 5, or 8.
You don't see full-time NFL photographers saying "Ahh, I can get the job done with 3 FPS if I try hard enough, so I might as well...just for fun. Not much is at stake, just my career and maybe a few magazine covers, and the competition has 10-12 FPS at their disposal. But I'm gonna use 3 just because I'm really good at timing the shot just right..."
Of course, that would be absurd and I think everyone here would agree. So what we're ACTUALLY discussing now is, whether or not a hobbyist should be ALLOWED to feel that same "need" for FPS. We're arguing the difference between "need" and "want" here.
I think that's a pretty weak focus for a discussion, though I know nobody asked my opinion
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
It's odd you mention that because what you DO see is some of them shooting with D3x's and 1Ds's to get the resolution. At least on one of the bodies. They are certainly not doing it for fun. They are doing it because the tradeoff of superior frame size is worth the loss of frame rate.
I'm not arguing that at all. I am arguing the point whether there is actually a POINT to shooting at very high frame rates. For some shooting, absolutely. For others, I think it's more habit that we've gotten accustomed to. I was recently shooting a softball tournament, and had intended to only shoot 2 games. I had 10 CF cards with me. As it turned out, I shot 4 games. I had my main body and two remote cameras. By the middle of game 3 I was running way short on cards with no way to dump. So I shut down the remotes, and put my main body on single shot. I still got every shot I wanted, I still froze the ball by the batter or leaving the pitcher's hand, etc.
Of course. The only question to my mind, at least for the sake of this argument, is whether or not 4fps fills that need. As to what people WANT, I can't speak to that. Some people want 24fps just like a movie camera so they are guaranteed not to miss anything. We'll get there eventually. The Sony A77 shoots 12fps at 24MP. It does that at the expense of light gathering though, but if you've got the light for ISO 400 or less, that might be the ticket. It's cheap too. My fastest cameras shoot at 9fps and that it more than fast enough for me.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
Icebear - was this shot as a NEF, or JPEG?
Chooka chooka hoo la ley
Looka looka koo la ley
NEF raw. Why? You want to have a go at it?
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
No way man! (actually, it might be fun to see what i could do :lift )
No, I was just curious. I've been spending too much time reading discussions on dpreview about moire and the D800 vs. D800E. It always seems quite heated over there, and a particular thread I was reading today was about whether tis better to shoot a D800E and repair moire or shoot a D800 and do some extra sharpening (to, it is thought, get you to the same image the D800E would have provided without moire). All of which is pointless speculation at this point, of course (but potentially fun speculation - though I think a religious divide is opening over which is better 800/800E, much like Nikon/Canon, Mac/PC, etc.)
It went on for some time before I realized they were arguing about which image was better, and that both started as a JPG re-sized for the web (at least i think they were arguing over JPGs. all i can be sure of was that they were arguing).
I would think it would be doubly difficult to prove anything from JPGs, and not all that relevant to figuring out what the D800 or D800E plus good post processing is capable of (given enough time in post).
So that got me wondering whether your experience had been with NEF or JPG (just me gathering data points). I'm still up in the air (got a couple months to decide) about whether I will prefer tinkering with a D800E and a lot of computer time (maybe some macro stuff) or an 800 without moire concerns. (As it happens, I have more computer time available to me than shooting time - so an "E" might provide room for my hobby to grow).
Chooka chooka hoo la ley
Looka looka koo la ley
When shooting sports, you want as many fps as you can get. Yes, timing plays a critical part in sports. However, for stuff like a receiver about to catch a pass, or a play at second, or a layup, having more fps can be a tremendous advantage. Having mp's to crop more doesn't mean much when you don't have the pic to crop from when a slow camera missed the play. Being able to choose 9-10 pics in a sequence compared to 3-4 can be a huge difference in a good or great pic. No way would I get a D800 if it were going to be a sports camera.
Ah well. I guess I'm doomed.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
You can get by with a 1fps camera for sports too. Just if I had a choice and sports photography is the main reason for getting a camera, fps matter.
I like the natural selection signature.
Having shot with the 18mp M9 for two years (no aa filter) I can't say I'd be worried about moire. It just doesn't come up that often.
As well, Nikon and Adobe are both adding moire removal tools to their next software editions.
That being said, until the 800e has been out a while the real answer is that we just don't know how moire will affect things with this sensor. If it is really a concern wait and see.
www.finesart.com
If, as I do, you shoot a lot of scenes with different kinds of fabrics, you WILL have a problem from time to time with moire.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Nah. I'll just use the D3s until the D4s or D4x comes. If I need fps. Generally I don't.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
I don't know what the D3s will sell for when the D4 ships, but I think is gives all your looking for and is a known performer. I know its good enough I'm staying with it in spite of the new toys hitting the market.
I just have a feeling the no-filter version will be a specialty camera in the end.
www.spanielsport.com
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-d800-d800e-digital-slr-hands-on-review-18420
This one has some photos of the inside workings and how it's laid out.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d800/nikon-d800A.HTM
Facebook - Twitter
Nikon D200, D80, SB600, nikon 50mm 1.8, nikon 18-135 3.5-4.6, nikon 70-200
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/nikon_d800e_exclusive_cp_interview_news_311455.html?aff=rss
Gary
Also great info and interviews about the Olympus scandal that I have not finished reading