Talk me into or out of upgrading to a D800.

anonymouscuban

So I currently shoot with a D700. Have for over 2 years now. I do a lot of portrait work but I also shoot landscapes for fun when I travel.

I'm considering buying a second body. I'm leaning towards a D800 but I have certain reservations. The main one is file size and the cost it brings with storage and processing. If I don't get a D800, I would probably buy another D700 used.

So, can you guys talk me into or out of the D800? :thumb

Zerodog

For what you do, it is a very good choice. But at the same time, you might really hate the file handling depending on your computer system. Upgrading cameras could lead to huge upgrades on computer stuff too. Rent one and try it out.

anonymouscuban

Zerodog wrote: »

For what you do, it is a very good choice. But at the same time, you might really hate the file handling depending on your computer system. Upgrading cameras could lead to huge upgrades on computer stuff too. Rent one and try it out.

I currently own an 27" iMac i5 with 12 GB of RAM. I think I'm OK from a processor standpoint... not sure if I'll need to upgrade to 16 GB of RAM though.

Matthew Saville

Two things

1.) Currently, Lightroom 4 is fine with just ~8 GB of RAM, even with D800 files. RAM is just not the bottleneck anymore. It is the CPU and the graphics. Lightroom 4 is a total CPU hog, yet on the other hand is incapable of "accellerated graphics" or whatever that situation is, I'm not sure how to describe it but basically Adobe made a couple terrible decisions when it comes to resource usage in LR4...

2.) For situations where you must shoot higher volume, use your D700. If you shoot a landscape or a very important portrait, use your D800. Done. As a wedding photographer, unfortunately all I ever shoot is volume, and thus I am going the opposite route, the 2nd D700 route. But trust me, the landscape hobbyist in me would LOVE to have a D800 to play with! It's just not practical if you shoot too much volume.

(BTW, to me, "too much volume" is about 4,000+ images per week, 30-40 weeks out of the year. In case you were wondering... ;-)

=Matt=

jmphotocraft

Is there a reduced resolution setting on the D800 that is still Full Frame? Personally I would not want to deal with 36mp for anything but landscape, but neither would I want to put the camera into any cropped mode.

duff65

I do not have any experience with the D800 but I can say with my D600 24mp produces 25 36 meg files it takes a long time to upload to my computer. IMac I5 16 megs ram so with 30% more pixels I think it would take some serious time to process .

Troy

Matthew Saville

jmphotocraft wrote: »

Is there a reduced resolution setting on the D800 that is still Full Frame? Personally I would not want to deal with 36mp for anything but landscape, but neither would I want to put the camera into any cropped mode.

If you're asking about mRAW and sRAW, no Nikon does not have one. They do however offer two RAW filesize savings options, 12-bit RAW and lossy compressed RAW. This makes the Nikon D800 files about the same size (or smaller!) than the full RAW files from say a Canon 5D mk3 that is 22 megapixels in comparison to 36.

As much as I am bummed about their being no mRAW mode on Nikon, I've tested the mRAW modes on Canon very thoroughly and I don't think I'm missing much. mRAW on Canon seriously cuts into the shadow detail quality, as you can see in my article here: http://www.slrlounge.com/canon-raw-image-size-and-dynamic-range-comparison

So, I'll take my RAW compression and bit-rate control any day over mRAW, although BOTH would sure be nice if Nikon could pull it off without horrible green/magenta banding in the shadows!

babowc

I was using D700s for a while, then used a D700 + D800 combo for awhile.
I eventually got rid of the extra D700 in favor of another D800 because I liked the ergonomics, image quality, and better ISO performance. The faster FPS didn't affect me, as I wasn't into sports.

The file sizes are a downer, but it's not that big of a problem as many claim (if you're not shooting like Matt!)
With your computer specs, you shouldn't have any hiccups with processing the D800 files... I added a 512GB Samsung 830 SSD drive for quicker file access, which helped a good bit.
I carry, at any given time, a 16GB or 32GB SD/CF cards in the camera.
I get 200/400 shots on 16/32GB cards, respectively. Unless I'm shooting some kind of event, I can't see me requiring more than 64GB in memory, ever.

IMHO, the image quality doesn't differ much from the D700 and D800 in good light, but I feel like there are major differences between the two cameras in low light.
The high ISO performance of the D800, in my opinion, blew the D700 out of the water.
I was able to get much more detail and generally "better" quality images from the D800.

I think the D800 works well for you, from the things I've seen you post thus far.

Oh.. and you can crop a good bit more :D

Edit: additional downside, stupid expensive grip. I don't understand why it's so damn expensive.

Zerodog

I second the SSD for LR. You need a 500gb one to be your main working drive. It significantly increased my LR4 speed.

On my system I can feel the crawl of the 24mp d7100 files. 36 would be a lot for me with sports. But you do portrait work. You are not shooting 3000-4000 images in one night and rapidly sorting. I say give it a shot.

jmphotocraft

Matthew Saville wrote: »

As much as I am bummed about their being no mRAW mode on Nikon, I've tested the mRAW modes on Canon very thoroughly and I don't think I'm missing much. mRAW on Canon seriously cuts into the shadow detail quality, as you can see in my article here:

I don't usually use mRAW as I find 22mp to be tolerable. 36mp would be over my limit though, so this is a big bummer, IMO, almost a dealbreaker. I'd be in a quandary if I was a Nikon sports shooter right now, without the budget for a D4. Would be a tossup between the D7100 and D600, I guess.

babowc

jmphotocraft wrote: »

I don't usually use mRAW as I find 22mp to be tolerable. 36mp would be over my limit though, so this is a big bummer, IMO, almost a dealbreaker. I'd be in a quandary if I was a Nikon sports shooter right now, without the budget for a D4. Would be a tossup between the D7100 and D600, I guess.

But, do sports shooters even use RAW?
I always thought sports shooters used jpeg, I may be mistaken!

Matthew Saville

jmphotocraft wrote: »

I don't usually use mRAW as I find 22mp to be tolerable. 36mp would be over my limit though, so this is a big bummer, IMO, almost a dealbreaker. I'd be in a quandary if I was a Nikon sports shooter right now, without the budget for a D4. Would be a tossup between the D7100 and D600, I guess.

How is it a dealbreaker, if you have options to make your 36 megapixel RAW files the same size as a 22 megapixel RAW file, instead of having to use quality-destroying mRAW mode? Personally if I weren't shooting volume, I'd go for a D800 any day over a mk2 or mk3...

Although for sports, yep Nikon has left "budget" shooters out in the cold for a while now, currently the best bang for your buck in Nikon full-frame land is a D700 with a vertical grip. 8 FPS vertical grips, FTW!!! I would take a gripped D700 over a D7100 or D600 any day if I needed to shoot action sports at ISO 3200 and 6400...

=Matt=

anonymouscuban

Good information guys. Although I'm still not completely sold on the D800. It sounds like for the type of shooting I'm doing, the D800 does fits the bill. I would also love more detail at high ISO. Shit, the D700 blows me away with its low light performance so if the D800 is better, WOW.

Someone mentioned the ergos are better on the D800 than the D700. Honestly, when I originally bought into Nikon, ergonomics over Canon was what put over the edge for Nikon but I don't see a lot of difference between the D800 and the D700. Are my eyes and photos I've seen deceiving me?

The talk about Canon over Nikon, which I knew would infiltrate this thread, is interesting to me. I know quite a few people (dgrinners too) that were die-hard Canon folk that flipped the switch onto Nikon because of the D800. And they were shooting Mark III's so that tells me that the D800 is doing something right.

jmphotocraft

babowc wrote: »

But, do sports shooters even use RAW?
I always thought sports shooters used jpeg, I may be mistaken!

At my little league fields it is common to have to shoot players standing in shade or sun, back-lit or front-lit, all during a single player's at-bat.

Here's a little write-up I did on raw vs jpeg for this, with examples:
http://www.jmphotocraft.com/raw_v_jpg/

Under consistent light, sure, shoot jpeg, if you can nail the white balance.

Matthew Saville wrote: »

How is it a dealbreaker, if you have options to make your 36 megapixel RAW files the same size as a 22 megapixel RAW file, instead of having to use quality-destroying mRAW mode?

Well I did say "almost". ;-) I don't know if I would want to throttle it down to 12-bits, or accept lossy compression.

Personally if I weren't shooting volume, I'd go for a D800 any day over a mk2 or mk3...

Yes, your preference for Nikon is well known. ;-)

Although for sports, yep Nikon has left "budget" shooters out in the cold for a while now, currently the best bang for your buck in Nikon full-frame land is a D700 with a vertical grip. 8 FPS vertical grips, FTW!!! I would take a gripped D700 over a D7100 or D600 any day if I needed to shoot action sports at ISO 3200 and 6400...

Agreed, that is another good option. Only issue there is that 12mp is starting to look small these days. Especially if you are limited to a 70-200. (which I'm not, but many people are)

Anyway, sorry for the thread-jack, I know the OP was not that interested in sports. Still I think the extra overhead associated with 36mp should be considered.

babowc

Talk me into or out of upgrading to a D800.
It's difficult to tell from pictures., but the ergonomics are definitely noticeable once you have your hands on one!

The little things make an enormous difference, IMO

Matthew Saville

jmphotocraft wrote: »

Well I did say "almost". ;-) I don't know if I would want to throttle it down to 12-bits, or accept lossy compression.

I guess my point was that mRAW is infinitely more ruinous to your image quality than 12-bit or lossy compression could ever be. Maybe they'll perfect the mRAW technology someday, but until then I''d stick with a D700 + D800 combo, it fills every need!

jmphotocraft wrote: »

Agreed, that is another good option. Only issue there is that 12mp is starting to look small these days. Especially if you are limited to a 70-200. (which I'm not, but many people are)

For portraits and landscapes, 12 MP is certainly starting to seem "under-powered". However for sports and weddings and other high volume stuff, I'd still prefer to shoot 12 megapixels and just get the right focal length for the job...

As long as you're only shooting a few hundred photos a week, the jump from 12 to 36 megapixels is not really that bad. Especially if you didn't even know about 12-bit RAW and lossy compression before when using the D700; an un-compressed 14-bit RAW file on the D700 is probably more than half the size if not equal to a 12-bit compressed RAW file from the D800. Hmm, sounds like an SLR Lounge article I ought to write!!!!

=Matt=

babowc

BTW...
D800 files are nearly 40-50mb, 14-bit lossless RAW.

Matthew Saville

anonymouscuban wrote: »

Someone mentioned the ergos are better on the D800 than the D700. Honestly, when I originally bought into Nikon, ergonomics over Canon was what put over the edge for Nikon but I don't see a lot of difference between the D800 and the D700. Are my eyes and photos I've seen deceiving me?

The ergonomics are visually very similar, however unfortunately Nikon made a few pretty big decisions with their latest cameras. They have re-designed a couple of my favorite switches relating to AF, and they added a REC button between the shutter and the exposure mode button.

All in all, for me it's three steps back and two steps forward. There are a couple handy things that I like, such as a dedicated bracketing button and a dedicated live view button. But then again I programmed both of those functions to other buttons on the D700, but I can't un-program the D800 switches to do what I'm used to them doing...

jmphotocraft

Matthew Saville wrote: »

I guess my point was that mRAW is infinitely more ruinous to your image quality than 12-bit or lossy compression could ever be.

That's beside the point. I'm not comparing anything to mRAW, because I don't use it. I'm just lamenting the fact there is no FF down-res'd mode on the D800.

If your point is that 12-bit mode makes no significant difference to IQ and produces a smaller file (say, 25mb?) then great.

For portraits and landscapes, 12 MP is certainly starting to seem "under-powered". However for sports and weddings and other high volume stuff, I'd still prefer to shoot 12 megapixels and just get the right focal length for the job...

The problem there is that going past 200mm on FF is usually either a compromise (f/5.6 lenses, or a tc) or very expensive (excepting the 300/4). Having a crop camera with 24mp, and a 70-200/2.8 is like having a 105-300/2.8 (in terms of speed at least) that you can then crop to about 400mm effective!

babowc

Matthew Saville wrote: »

The ergonomics are visually very similar, however unfortunately Nikon made a few pretty big decisions with their latest cameras. They have re-designed a couple of my favorite switches relating to AF, and they added a REC button between the shutter and the exposure mode button.

All in all, for me it's three steps back and two steps forward. There are a couple handy things that I like, such as a dedicated bracketing button and a dedicated live view button. But then again I programmed both of those functions to other buttons on the D700, but I can't un-program the D800 switches to do what I'm used to them doing...

I have to disagree!
I think the D800 ergo and button layout is much more user friendly.

However, I do wish for a couple buttons to be moved around, like the dedicated ISO button.
I've programmed the fn/preview buttons to do what I want it to do, but I think it could use a bit more programmability.

I wasn't a big fan of the D700 lever-type AF mode switching.
I was always hitting the lever, going from C to S mode..

Matthew Saville

jmphotocraft wrote: »

That's beside the point. I'm not comparing anything to mRAW, because I don't use it. I'm just lamenting the fact there is no FF down-res'd mode on the D800.

If your point is that 12-bit mode makes no significant difference to IQ and produces a smaller file (say, 25mb?) then great.

My point was, why lament if mRAW ruins image quality and Nikon offers a better/close alternative?

Matthew Saville

babowc wrote: »

I have to disagree!
I think the D800 ergo and button layout is much more user friendly.

However, I do wish for a couple buttons to be moved around, like the dedicated ISO button.
I've programmed the fn/preview buttons to do what I want it to do, but I think it could use a bit more programmability.

I wasn't a big fan of the D700 lever-type AF mode switching.
I was always hitting the lever, going from C to S mode..

Funny thing... I'm always hitting the AF lever, but because I WANT to! Now with the D800 I appreciate that they've put two functions into a single button, (both Single/Continuous as well as dynamic AF) ...however when I'm on the job and the cake / bouquets are flying, I prefer my physical switches...

=Matt=

Qarik

for the stuff you do? nahh. D800 is for landscape and studio folk who need to print big. I'd suggest a d600 over the d800 if you want a 2nd body

jmphotocraft

Matthew Saville wrote: »

My point was, why lament if mRAW ruins image quality and Nikon offers a better/close alternative?

Sigh. I'm not talking about 5D3 mRAW. I was NOT saying ooh, the 5D3 has mRAW and the D800 doesn't, score 1 for the 5D3! No. I don't think anyone in this thread is interested in shooting at 10mp, so there is no point in mentioning it, it's irrelevant.

I was saying I like that the 5D3 is "only" 22mp, and I didn't like that the D800 is 36mp, and as far as I knew, offers no Full Frame reduced resolution mode. Say 16 or 27mp, which could both be done without interpolation. I didn't know about the D800's 12-bit mode, so if that addresses my concerns then great.

Dreadnote

Qarik wrote: »

for the stuff you do? nahh. D800 is for landscape and studio folk who need to print big. I'd suggest a d600 over the d800 if you want a 2nd body

For what it is worth, and I know that this might sound a little vain, BUT when I went to Costco a couple weeks ago and held a D600 in my hands, it felt just like a D5xxx or a D3xxx. What I mean by that, is that it felt like a plastic toy camera. I know that this does not affect image quality, but I don't think I could ever buy one after about 5 minutes of handling one. It seemed very cheap build quality wise to me. Id be afraid that one drop and the whole thing would shatter.

jmphotocraft

Dreadnote wrote: »

For what it is worth, and I know that this might sound a little vain, BUT when I went to Costco a couple weeks ago and held a D600 in my hands, it felt just like a D5xxx or a D3xxx. What I mean by that, is that it felt like a plastic toy camera. I know that this does not affect image quality, but I don't think I could ever buy one after about 5 minutes of handling one. It seemed very cheap build quality wise to me. Id be afraid that one drop and the whole thing would shatter.

That's not vain, it's a real consideration. I bought the original Rebel 300D, but then returned it after handling my friend's 10D. I carried on with only my p&s until I could afford my own XXD (by then a 30D).

Point is, if you don't enjoy holding it and using it, you won't want to as much. Every time you use it you'll just be reminded of the camera you really want. That is, unless you're one of those people who gets off on getting a bargain.

lensmole

Just buy the thing get some more damn ram or whatever it takes to makes this monster sing, and don't look back.

Matthew Saville

Dreadnote wrote: »

For what it is worth, and I know that this might sound a little vain, BUT when I went to Costco a couple weeks ago and held a D600 in my hands, it felt just like a D5xxx or a D3xxx. What I mean by that, is that it felt like a plastic toy camera. I know that this does not affect image quality, but I don't think I could ever buy one after about 5 minutes of handling one. It seemed very cheap build quality wise to me. Id be afraid that one drop and the whole thing would shatter.

It might be vain only if you're saying it from the standpoint of, "oh I don't want other photographers to see me with a camera that looks like a beginner camera". Since that is clearly not your implication, you're safe.

Getting a lighter, smaller camera is simply a choice. Some people would LOVE to have the D600 and it's image quality, considering how small and lightweight it is, and the plastic feel is totally fine considering they'll probably someday be backpacking 10+ miles a day with that camera on their back.

Other people, of course, need a camera they can pound nails with... ;-)

babowc

I also purchased the D600, but promptly returned it after trying it out.
I REALLY hated the AF points.. I figured, "It can't be that bad". But it is!

Other than that, it was light which was good and bad.
It didn't balance well with most of the lenses I use (1.4 primes and 2.8 zooms).
However, I felt the ergonomics were similar to D800.

troopers

lensmole wrote: »

Just buy the thing get some more damn ram or whatever it takes to makes this monster sing, and don't look back.

Totally agree.

Storage is cheap. I use rMBP 15" 8gb ram (with two D800's) and for me, processing time is a non-issue.

I bet you'll never touch the D700 after buying a D800.

Sam

Alex,

Can you really have too much quality? Too much information? Too much cropping ability?

Memory is cheap!

You can always decrease the image size, by cropping, going to 8 bit, using dng. You can't increase detail, and quality.

Buy the darn thing!!

Sam