Lenses for Nikon D800?

lifeinfocus · April 6, 2012

Suggestions on quality of lenses needed to use the full 36MP?

Prime lenses?

Zoom lenses?

I have not purchased the camera but I am considering it. It would be helpful to know the total cost of ownership for this camera?

Actually, I would have preferred the Canon 5D Mark III, but feel I can't afford to sell other Nikon stuff. So, I am cautiously considering the D800.

I often take photos of kids during school events, nature (mostly flowers) and considering starting a small portrait business. So, I think this camera will fit the bill, but I am wondering how much will I need to spend on higher quality lenses.

Thanks
Phil

ziggy53 · April 6, 2012

Nikon "gold ring" lenses are a pretty safe bet. In particular:

Nikkor 14-24mm, f2.8G ED AF-S
Nikkor 17-35mm, f2.8D ED-IF
Nikkor 24-70mm, f2.8G ED AF-S
Nikkor 70-200mm, f2.8G ED VR II AF-S
Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G ED VR II AF-S

... are the classic Nikon zoom lens choices.

Add the:

Nikkor 600mm f/4G ED VR AF-S
Nikkor 500mm f/4G ED VR II AF-S
Nikkor 400mm f/2.8G ED VR AF-S
Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II AF-S
Nikkor 200mm f/2.0 G ED VR II AF-S
Nikkor 24mm f/3.5D ED PC-E
Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G ED AF-S
Nikkor 45mm f/2.8D ED PC-E Micro
Nikkor 85mm f/2.8D PC-E Micro
Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G AF-S
Nikkor 14mm f2.8D ED
Nikkor 200mm f/4.0D ED-IF Micro
Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G AF-S
Nikkor 135mm f/2.0D DC
Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G AF-S

... and maybe a couple more (I got tired) and you should be pretty good to go.

ziggy53 · April 6, 2012

Obviously, I'm poking a little fun.

While a great many people are looking at the Nikon D800 as a "do it all" camera, for the applications of, "kids during school events, nature (mostly flowers) and considering starting a small portrait business.", the D800 may be overkill.

If the school events include sports, then you really might consider some sports lenses, but a D300S may be more appropriate for outdoor sports, and a D700 may be appropriate for indoor sports. The D700 would also be a good choice for plays and such. The D700 is still a great choice for a portrait camera too. Either body is suitable for close-focus and macro.

Since a D300S and D700 combined are just a little more than the D800 alone, I really think a 2 - camera approach is worthy of consideration.

ziggy53 · April 6, 2012

I tend to think of portraits in terms of:

Head shots and head-and-shoulders.
3/4 length and full-length.
Group portraits.

I use different focal lengths depending partly on the available space. (Indoor portraits may have different requirements than outdoor portraits in every category.)

My preference is (corrected for FF field-of-view):

85mm or longer for the head shots and H-n-S. I often try to use 135mm for these outdoors.
50mm or longer for 3/4 and full-length. Again, longer is generally better as long as you have the room.
A "standard zoom" for group portraits. 24-70mm, f2.8 is typical for FF camera bodies.

Large aperture lenses give you better control over DOF and the best Nikkor large aperture lenses are expensive for a reason; they give very high image quality and tend to hold that quality out to the edges of the frame.

In addition to the lenses already discussed I would also recommend the Nikkor 105mm, f2 AF-D DC and Nikkor 135mm, f2 AF-D DC, which were designed for portraiture as one of its applications. (In this case "DC" stands for "Defocus Control".)

In Nikon, shooting DX with an eye for FX capability and looking for value, I would easily recommend:

Nikkor 85mm, f1.8 AF-D
Nikkor AF-S 50mm, f1.4 G
Nikkor AF-S 24-70mm, f2.8G ED

For school events, which might include sports, I would choose:

Nikkor 24-70mm, f2.8G ED AF-S
Nikkor 70-200mm, f2.8G ED VR II AF-S
Nikkor TC-14E II AF-S teleconverter

For close-focus and macro:

It's honestly hard to find a truly bad lens in a true macro. The one that I use is an older Tamron 90mm, f2.8 SP, that you can often find used. New it is the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Di SP 1:1 Macro in Nikon mount.

The Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Micro is extremely nice, if you can find one.

lifeinfocus · April 6, 2012

Wow! Great amount of info.
I have a D90 that is worn out and one zoom FX lens and one DX lens.

I have been looking at buying used D700 but my gut says not to go with a body that I expect will soon will be no longer sold.

Thanks so much for your support. It will help in making a decision soon.

I do wish Nikon would have released the D800 later and brought out something closer to the Canon MkIII now. My guess is that Nikon will replace the 300 and 700 with something similar but since the rumor mill has slowed down I am expecting that it will take at least six months.

Thanks Ziggy
Phil

Matthew Saville · April 6, 2012

lifeinfocus wrote: »

I have a D90 that is worn out and one zoom FX lens and one DX lens.

I have been looking at buying used D700 but my gut says not to go with a body that I expect will soon will be no longer sold.

Thanks so much for your support. It will help in making a decision soon.

I do wish Nikon would have released the D800 later and brought out something closer to the Canon MkIII now. My guess is that Nikon will replace the 300 and 700 with something similar but since the rumor mill has slowed down I am expecting that it will take at least six months.

Thanks Ziggy
Phil

I was talking to an authorized Nikon technician the other day and was asking them if I should start stocking up on D700 parts like shutters and whatever else is likely to break, and he assured me that the D700, because of it's volume of sales, will be supported by Nikon for at least 5-10 years. Personally, I'll be buying a 2nd D700 before I ever buy a D800!

However, it certainly depends on what you're going to be doing. If you love landscapes and/or studio portraits, then the D800 is just worlds beyond the D700. If you're a more casual, well-rounded shooter however, the D700 might have more to offer you. I know that for me, that is the case. I love landscapes, don't get me wrong I'd love to own a D800 as a specialty camera. But my day to day work and personal shooting is just fine with the D700.

=Matt=

bloomphotog · April 6, 2012

Unless you already have a truckload of high-resolving Nikon or Zeiss glass, just make the switch to a Canon 5D Mark III. The D800 is a hi-res specialty camera in my book, and to fully achieve the "specialty" you're paying for you will need the very latest glass available. Amazing camera, but not so great as a solo do it all machine.

Matthew Saville · April 6, 2012

bloomphotog wrote: »

Unless you already have a truckload of high-resolving Nikon or Zeiss glass, just make the switch to a Canon 5D Mark III. The D800 is a hi-res specialty camera in my book, and to fully achieve the "specialty" you're paying for you will need the very latest glass available. Amazing camera, but not so great as a solo do it all machine.

Switching, over a single generation specialty camera? Not really the best call. Every indication is that Nikon has an extra FX camera up it's sleeve, considering that they previously had no problem keeping 3 FX camera bodies in production at once.

The same with Canon. They've consolidated their 1-series line, leaving "room" for another FF camera body in the production line.

I know, I know, this is all just heresay until it actually happens, and the cameras available NOW are the ones we make decisions based on. But I think you are over-estimating the lens demands on the D800, and under-estimating it's versatilyt.

Many tests seem to indicate that an average lens will still not be "rendered soft" by 36 megapixels, at least not any moreso than 22 megapixels. In a linear sense, 22 and 36 are not far apart.

Also, there is Nikon's RAW compression and adjustable bit-rate to consider; if storage consumption is a problem the D800 can shoot compressed 12-bit RAW files that are probably about the same filesize as the Canon 14-bit lossless RAW files.

Just some thoughts. From what I can tell, it seems that the "gap" between these new Canon and Nikon cameras is not really as big as people make it out to be.

(And personally, I'm just gonna keep using my D700 till I see the NEXT full-frame camera from Nikon, which I'm certain will have far less than 36 megapixels.)

=Matt=

bloomphotog · April 6, 2012

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Switching, over a single generation specialty camera? Not really the best call. Every indication is that Nikon has an extra FX camera up it's sleeve, considering that they previously had no problem keeping 3 FX camera bodies in production at once.
=Matt=

Hey, the OP said he preferred the 5D3 to the D800. I am just encouraging the switch to an already available, better suited camera for his needs. Oh, and I own a lot of Canon stock...

lifeinfocus · April 6, 2012

Lots of food for thought
Thanks for all your replies.

Since I do a fair amount of photography of children in a few local schools during plays, events, bible schools and musicals, I am looking for a camera with a good ISO range so I don't have to use a flash.

This is why the new Canon strikes me as being a good choice, but I have a fair amount of Nikon flashes and other Nikon accessories so I would like to stay with Nikon.

I make a few bucks doing this kind of photography, but not enough to buy new cameras or lens often.

Phil

bloomphotog · April 6, 2012

A D700 or D3s would be your best bet, short of waiting in line for the D800. I loved my D700. Probably the closest thing I've ever used to a 5D3, from Nikon or Canon. Lens wise, pick up a 70-200II, 50 1.4G, and your favorite flavor wide angle.

ActionJunky · April 6, 2012

I Disagree
The have pre-ordered the D800, but I am upgrading from the D300. Now you know where I stand. The D800 seems to have remarkable low noise at ISO 3200 and very little at ISO 6400. Personally, I will never shoot at higher ISO's than those. Beyond those, I provide better lighting with strobes or continuous lighting. For sports and portraits, you should not exceed those numbers either. So the 5D MkIII is capable of two more stops of light that you should never use.

Therefore, I will take the extra pixels of the D800 and save $500 in the process.

Compared to the D700, you are getting HD video, at least 3 more years of support, in-camera HDR, better controls, and more dynamic range. If you assume the D700 is $2,300, that is an impressive list of key features for $700 more. The D700 can reach 8 FPS, which can be useful for sports, but I am willing to sacrifice 2 FPS for all the other bonuses.

To say the D800 is a portrait, landscape, or specialty camera is short-sighted. It is just a camera with a few more tools and a little less frame speed.

As for the lenses, the same lenses you have been using should work just as well. The camera may have more resolution, but prints of equal sizes, and less than 16 X 20, should yield nearly the same results. I will say that primes and gold-rings provide more sharpness, but those are only a function of the lens, not the camera. You will only notice a difference if you start pixel-peeping each photos at 100% crops. Only then, will the D800 out-resolve lesser lenses. I highly doubt you will see those issues on printed copies.

Disclaimer: I shoot a lot of indoor sports and landscapes. I am upgrading a four-year old DX camera to a brand new FX. I have two mainstream FX lenses and will be purchasing at least one more. The rest of the lenses are Pro DX lenses. I am still waiting delivery of the D800.

bloomphotog · April 6, 2012

Good points. Here's another one of my issues with the D800. Why can't Nikon offer a half and quarter resolution RAW option? My 5D3 allows me to shoot at 23, 10 and 5 megapixels, all in RAW. All my weddings and most portraits are shot at 10mp. I would need over 200GB in memory cards to shoot an all day wedding. Not to mention sports photography.

Matthew Saville · April 6, 2012

bloomphotog wrote: »

Good points. Here's another one of my issues with the D800. Why can't Nikon offer a half and quarter resolution RAW option? My 5D3 allows me to shoot at 23, 10 and 5 megapixels, all in RAW. All my weddings and most portraits are shot at 10mp. I would need over 200GB in memory cards to shoot an all day wedding. Not to mention sports photography.

And that, right there, is the biggest selling point for the 5D mk3 for me. I mused about it here:

http://www.slrlounge.com/cameratalk-w-matthew-saville-musing-on-the-nikon-d800-vs-the-canon-5d-mk3

Bottom line- The D800 is slightly less versatile, the 5D mk3 is slightly more. However neither camera is "hindered" by it's differences as much as people seem to think; the D800 is still a very well-rounded camera and the 5D mk3 is, well, the greatest wedding photography camera of our generation so far.

Personally I BY FAR prefer the controls and customizations on the Nikon bodies, and even though the 5D mk3 is leaps and bounds above the mk2, I still find my D700 to be more functionally flawless. The 5D mk3 menu system and AF / image review customization are significant drawbacks to me, and not just because I'm "used to" my Nikon controls.

But, to each their own. My point was just that both cameras are extremely capable, and I wouldn't "switch" without serious considerations deeper than just the spec sheet. Dig into the customizations and interface etc. as extensively as possible before settling on a brand...

=Matt=

perroneford · April 6, 2012

Man, there's a whole lot of people talking a WHOLE lot of stuff about the D800 here. When they've never even held one in their hands.

So let's debunk some myths about the D800, shall we?

1. You have to have super glass for the D800. Uh no. I've shot on everything from my AF-S 300/2.8 to my 24-80 kit lens that came with my F65. People are WAY overstating this. The camera looks good. Period. Even the 18-105 that came on my D7000 looks amazing on the D800. You do NOT need a major glass upgrade.

2. The files are MASSIVE. At this very moment, I am processing baseball pics in Lightroom 4 that I shot today on the D800. Practically every file I am looking at off the card is 35-38MB. I am shooting 14-bit RAW compressed.

3. The D800 does not have good ISO performance. I've shot the camera from lo.7 to ISO 25,600. I can tell you right now that it is NOT a match for my D3s, but it's DANG close. It's about equal to a D700 in ISO with 3 times the resolution. I'll take it. I'd be happy shooting this thing at ISO 3200 all day.

4. The idea of a "smaller" RAW. Sorry, RAW is what comes off the sensor without processing. Period. Canon can market sRAW or mRAW all they want. It's not RAW. It's processed data. And before anyone paints me as anti-Canon, I started on Canon systems and still shoot both systems. I just prefer Nikon.

5. The D800 cannot do sports. Well, I shoot ACC sports, as well as NAIA sports on contract. I shoot college Volleyball, soccer, baseball, softball, track & field, swimming and diving, and tennis. My D800 has relegated my D3s to the bag for outdoor sports so far. I have not shot indoor sports yet, so we'll see.

I know there are numerous "tests" out there. And that's fine. I am telling you my experiences on PAID shoots with the D800. So take that for what it's worth.

Gotta get back to processing.... Thanks.

lifeinfocus · April 7, 2012

perroneford wrote: »

Man, there's a whole lot of people talking a WHOLE lot of stuff about the D800 here. When they've never even held one in their hands.

So let's debunk some myths about the D800, shall we?

1. You have to have super glass for the D800. Uh no. I've shot on everything from my AF-S 300/2.8 to my 24-80 kit lens that came with my F65. People are WAY overstating this. The camera looks good. Period. Even the 18-105 that came on my D7000 looks amazing on the D800. You do NOT need a major glass upgrade.

2. The files are MASSIVE. At this very moment, I am processing baseball pics in Lightroom 4 that I shot today on the D800. Practically every file I am looking at off the card is 35-38MB. I am shooting 14-bit RAW compressed.

3. The D800 does not have good ISO performance. I've shot the camera from lo.7 to ISO 25,600. I can tell you right now that it is NOT a match for my D3s, but it's DANG close. It's about equal to a D700 in ISO with 3 times the resolution. I'll take it. I'd be happy shooting this thing at ISO 3200 all day.

4. The idea of a "smaller" RAW. Sorry, RAW is what comes off the sensor without processing. Period. Canon can market sRAW or mRAW all they want. It's not RAW. It's processed data. And before anyone paints me as anti-Canon, I started on Canon systems and still shoot both systems. I just prefer Nikon.

5. The D800 cannot do sports. Well, I shoot ACC sports, as well as NAIA sports on contract. I shoot college Volleyball, soccer, baseball, softball, track & field, swimming and diving, and tennis. My D800 has relegated my D3s to the bag for outdoor sports so far. I have not shot indoor sports yet, so we'll see.

I know there are numerous "tests" out there. And that's fine. I am telling you my experiences on PAID shoots with the D800. So take that for what it's worth.

Gotta get back to processing.... Thanks.

Thanks for the excellent details.

Considering the file large files sizes, Puget systems has a good review on a fast USB 3.0 card readers at: http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Card-Reader-Comparison-USB-2-0-vs-USB-3-0-126

I haven't bought this reader yet, but I expect to soon.

If you don't have USB 3.0 you can buy a card to add it to your machine.

Phil

perroneford · April 7, 2012

lifeinfocus wrote: »

Thanks for the excellent details.

Considering the file large files sizes, Puget systems has a good review on a fast USB 3.0 card readers at: http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Card-Reader-Comparison-USB-2-0-vs-USB-3-0-126

I haven't bought this reader yet, but I expect to soon.

If you don't have USB 3.0 you can buy a card to add it to your machine.

Phil

I haven't found the need. The files are certainly larger than my D3s, but I find I take many fewer photos because I am no longer shoot 2-3 frame bursts. I am back to timing my shots. So it's all a wash in the end. If I was working on tight deadline, that might be useful, but even then, I'd probably have a workflow that didn't involve me bringing every image in from the card before starting my work.

Matthew Saville · April 7, 2012

perroneford wrote: »

Man, there's a whole lot of people talking a WHOLE lot of stuff about the D800 here. When they've never even held one in their hands.

So let's debunk some myths about the D800, shall we?

1. You have to have super glass for the D800. Uh no. I've shot on everything from my AF-S 300/2.8 to my 24-80 kit lens that came with my F65. People are WAY overstating this. The camera looks good. Period. Even the 18-105 that came on my D7000 looks amazing on the D800. You do NOT need a major glass upgrade.

2. The files are MASSIVE. At this very moment, I am processing baseball pics in Lightroom 4 that I shot today on the D800. Practically every file I am looking at off the card is 35-38MB. I am shooting 14-bit RAW compressed.

3. The D800 does not have good ISO performance. I've shot the camera from lo.7 to ISO 25,600. I can tell you right now that it is NOT a match for my D3s, but it's DANG close. It's about equal to a D700 in ISO with 3 times the resolution. I'll take it. I'd be happy shooting this thing at ISO 3200 all day.

4. The idea of a "smaller" RAW. Sorry, RAW is what comes off the sensor without processing. Period. Canon can market sRAW or mRAW all they want. It's not RAW. It's processed data. And before anyone paints me as anti-Canon, I started on Canon systems and still shoot both systems. I just prefer Nikon.

5. The D800 cannot do sports. Well, I shoot ACC sports, as well as NAIA sports on contract. I shoot college Volleyball, soccer, baseball, softball, track & field, swimming and diving, and tennis. My D800 has relegated my D3s to the bag for outdoor sports so far. I have not shot indoor sports yet, so we'll see.

I know there are numerous "tests" out there. And that's fine. I am telling you my experiences on PAID shoots with the D800. So take that for what it's worth.

Gotta get back to processing.... Thanks.

I totally agree with everything except the sRAW / mRAW bit. While I understand that sRAW is indeed "processed data", I just don't care. It's still wayyyyy RAW-er than JPG. I can NOT shoot JPG for the work I do, (high-volume weddings) and I WANT to shoot 12-16 megapixel files. End of discussion for me. I understand that an mRAW file may not be as "RAW" as a full size file. So what? It's still a much, MUCH more versatile option compared to DX crop mode in my opinion.

If you ask me, buying a D800 and then shooting it mostly in DX crop mode is more absurd than wishing Nikon had provided a way to shoot the full-frame sensor in a RAW format smaller than 36 megapixels. Quite simply, it takes the camera's versatility down a notch versus the 5D mk3. That may be a non-issue to some / many, but neither is it worth dismissing.

BTW, out of curiosity, how many MB are the D800 files if you bump it down to 12-bit compressed? That's what I've been shooting on my D700 for weddings, and I LOVE my 8-12 MB filesize...

=Matt=

ziggy53 · April 7, 2012

Matthew Saville wrote: »

... BTW, out of curiosity, how many MB are the D800 files if you bump it down to 12-bit compressed? That's what I've been shooting on my D700 for weddings, and I LOVE my 8-12 MB filesize...

Nikon file size estimates for the D800 are on this page:

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/features04.htm

Basically, the smallest NEF files are:

NEF (RAW), (Lossy) Compressed, 12-bit: 29.0 MB

That's still a pretty good savings from the maximum NEF:

NEF (RAW), Uncompressed, 14-bit: 74.4 MB

perroneford · April 7, 2012

I agree the small RAW files are more versatile than a jpg. If that's working for you, then cool. Stay with it. I prefer Nikon's way of working. But that's just me. I've never used anything but the full RAW's on my Canon's either. The difference saved by shooting a smaller RAW format would amount to maybe a card or two over the course of a day. I'll just buy the cards.

I agree with you about shooting the D800 in DX mode. Except for when there is a DX lens attached, which I do from time to time because the 18-105 is SUCH a versatile lens.

I'll get back to you on the 12-bit compressed a bit later today. Gotta get today's game processed first.

-P

Matthew Saville wrote: »

I totally agree with everything except the sRAW / mRAW bit. While I understand that sRAW is indeed "processed data", I just don't care. It's still wayyyyy RAW-er than JPG. I can NOT shoot JPG for the work I do, (high-volume weddings) and I WANT to shoot 12-16 megapixel files. End of discussion for me. I understand that an mRAW file may not be as "RAW" as a full size file. So what? It's still a much, MUCH more versatile option compared to DX crop mode in my opinion.

If you ask me, buying a D800 and then shooting it mostly in DX crop mode is more absurd than wishing Nikon had provided a way to shoot the full-frame sensor in a RAW format smaller than 36 megapixels. Quite simply, it takes the camera's versatility down a notch versus the 5D mk3. That may be a non-issue to some / many, but neither is it worth dismissing.

BTW, out of curiosity, how many MB are the D800 files if you bump it down to 12-bit compressed? That's what I've been shooting on my D700 for weddings, and I LOVE my 8-12 MB filesize...

=Matt=

perroneford · April 7, 2012

And as I said, these seem to bear little resemblance to real world numbers. My 14-bit lossless compressed FX, 36MP shots are coming in around 36MB each, on average.

ziggy53 wrote: »

Nikon file size estimates for the D800 are on this page:

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/features04.htm

Basically, the smallest NEF files are:

NEF (RAW), (Lossy) Compressed, 12-bit: 29.0 MB

That's still a pretty good savings from the maximum NEF:

NEF (RAW), Uncompressed, 14-bit: 74.4 MB

lifeinfocus · April 7, 2012

perroneford wrote: »

And as I said, these seem to bear little resemblance to real world numbers. My 14-bit lossless compressed FX, 36MP shots are coming in around 36MB each, on average.

So, I wonder, after you save it as a JPEG, generally how big are the files that you upload to your website and if using LR what percent quality are using?

Thanks

Phil

perroneford · April 7, 2012

I crop in camera to 5:4 ratio. That gives me a RAW file of 4912x6144. Saved out as a 100% quality JPG in LR, I get a 17.8 MB file. So it's just about half the size of my RAW file. At least for these baseball pics I am currently editing.

lifeinfocus wrote: »

So, I wonder, after you save it as a JPEG, generally how big are the files that you upload to your website and if using LR what percent quality are using?

Thanks

Phil

perroneford · April 7, 2012

Matthew Saville wrote: »

BTW, out of curiosity, how many MB are the D800 files if you bump it down to 12-bit compressed? That's what I've been shooting on my D700 for weddings, and I LOVE my 8-12 MB filesize...

=Matt=

I just got 23.6MB for a lossless 12-bit compressed file.

Matthew Saville · April 8, 2012

perroneford wrote: »

I agree the small RAW files are more versatile than a jpg. If that's working for you, then cool. Stay with it. I prefer Nikon's way of working. But that's just me. I've never used anything but the full RAW's on my Canon's either. The difference saved by shooting a smaller RAW format would amount to maybe a card or two over the course of a day. I'll just buy the cards.

I agree with you about shooting the D800 in DX mode. Except for when there is a DX lens attached, which I do from time to time because the 18-105 is SUCH a versatile lens.

I'll get back to you on the 12-bit compressed a bit later today. Gotta get today's game processed first.

-P

This is kind of a contradiction. You say you prefer Nikon's way of working, but then you say you don't really value DX mode except from time to time.

Or, how about, simply offering both options? sRAW and DX crop mode? I know that would make things just a little more complicated, but honestly anyone buying a 36 megapixel camera should be able to handle it. And it's high time Nikon started offering "lockout options" for certain features and buttons, so that people can re-program their cameras to hide / show those crazy new features. (Like video-dedicated buttons, etc...)

Matthew Saville · April 8, 2012

perroneford wrote: »

I just got 23.6MB for a lossless 12-bit compressed file.

Is that a clear blue sky picture at ISO 100, or an ISO 3200 file of a dimly lit church?

Either way, it's good news. "Only" double the average file size of my 12 megapixel RAW files...

I guess that's the other option that I'm not even considering- Just crank up Nikon's RAW compressed mode, or add another even greater compressed mode.

Seriously, wouldn't that be a welcome function? Especially if like I mentioned before, you could "hide" it completely via a menu so you don't accidentally bump it on while shooting? Actually RAW compression is already in a menu, so you're okay...

=Matt=

perroneford · April 8, 2012

Matthew Saville wrote: »

This is kind of a contradiction. You say you prefer Nikon's way of working, but then you say you don't really value DX mode except from time to time.

I don't think it's a contradiction at all. I prefer that Nikon attempts to give maximum quality in RAW all the time. Period. The entire DX construct is born out of their decision to actually allow owners to use DX lenses on their full frame cameras. Something Canon mechanically blocks. Needlessly in my opinion.

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Or, how about, simply offering both options? sRAW and DX crop mode? I know that would make things just a little more complicated, but honestly anyone buying a 36 megapixel camera should be able to handle it. And it's high time Nikon started offering "lockout options" for certain features and buttons, so that people can re-program their cameras to hide / show those crazy new features. (Like video-dedicated buttons, etc...)

I prefer that Nikon don't do sRAW. Clearly others feel differently, and that's ok too I guess. I do agree on the locckout options and have mentioned this in the past. I'd like to lock out about half the garbage in the menus I have no use for.

perroneford · April 9, 2012

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Is that a clear blue sky picture at ISO 100, or an ISO 3200 file of a dimly lit church?

I believe that was at ISO 1600 shooting a shelf of CDs under rather dim ceiling lighting here in my office.

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Either way, it's good news. "Only" double the average file size of my 12 megapixel RAW files...

I don't find it a problem. In fact, I find I am using fewer cards to shoot versus my D3s.

Matthew Saville wrote: »

I guess that's the other option that I'm not even considering- Just crank up Nikon's RAW compressed mode, or add another even greater compressed mode.

Yea, I guess you could do that.

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Seriously, wouldn't that be a welcome function? Especially if like I mentioned before, you could "hide" it completely via a menu so you don't accidentally bump it on while shooting? Actually RAW compression is already in a menu, so you're okay...

=Matt=

Not really a function I care about one way or the other. I can't see how you'd "bump" a compression setting. It's 3 levels deep in the menu. I always shoot compressed RAW in my cameras. 14 bit in the cameras that have them, and 12 bit in the others.

lifeinfocus · April 9, 2012

700 or 800
I am considering a used D700 and buying two Nikon lenses a 50mm 1.4 and the AF Zoom-NIKKOR
80-200mm f/2.8D ED (non VR lens.) Total cost would be less than $4,000. This would be a good combination I thought for outdoor and indoor portrait work, some sports and other journalistic style photography.

What I would be missing though is a good inexpensive lens for the 20 to 100mm range. Any suggestions? It doesn't have to be a 2.8 lens. This would be for taking photos of kids during school events (not sports). Does the D700 support DX lenses like the D800 or is that a new capability?

Thanks
Phil

ziggy53 · April 10, 2012

lifeinfocus wrote: »

I am considering a used D700 and buying two Nikon lenses a 50mm 1.4 and the AF Zoom-NIKKOR
80-200mm f/2.8D ED (non VR lens.) Total cost would be less than $4,000. This would be a good combination I thought for outdoor and indoor portrait work, some sports and other journalistic style photography.

... Does the D700 support DX lenses like the D800 or is that a new capability?

...

I believe that the Nikon D700 supports a DX/crop 1.5x mode at 5.1MPix. Additionally, DX mode uses a smaller portion of the viewfinder, so many people do not find it convenient for composing. 5.1MPix is fine for enlargements to 11" x 14" for most subject matter, for instance.

ziggy53 · April 10, 2012

lifeinfocus wrote: »

I am considering a used D700 and buying two Nikon lenses a 50mm 1.4 and the AF Zoom-NIKKOR
80-200mm f/2.8D ED (non VR lens.) ... This would be a good combination I thought for outdoor and indoor portrait work, some sports and other journalistic style photography.

What I would be missing though is a good inexpensive lens for the 20 to 100mm range. Any suggestions? It doesn't have to be a 2.8 lens. This would be for taking photos of kids during school events (not sports). ...

What I don't see in your lineup is a standard zoom, which I prefer for social situations, including school events that are not sports related.

For an FX/full-frame body like the Nikon D700, the best choice for a standard zoom is the Nikkor 24-70mm, f2.8G ED AF-S. Yes, it's expensive and yes, it's worth it IMO.

An alternate might be the Sigma 24-70mm, f2.8 IF EX DG HSM in Nikon mount, but do purchase from a dealer that allows easy exchanges, just in case.

Lenses for Nikon D800?

Comments