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.
Really? Storage / memory is cheap, that's your answer?
Storage and RAM aren't even the problem with 36 megpaixel files, and the current editing solution. (Lightroom 4) It is the CPU that is the bottleneck, and in my experience even a $3,000-4,000 Mac (or ~$2,000 PC) are still downright sluggish when it comes to editing D800 files in LR4.
I'm curious to hear what kind of volume you guys are editing if you're so in love with the D800 and don't mind the file size at all, or don't even notice a difference in your editing time. How many seconds do you spend per file to fully edit it?
I ask because I shoot for a wedding photography studio and we have the most insanely fast machines but they still can't keep up with our editing speed, not even close.
Admittedly, Lightroom 4 itself is half the battle, as it is a total dog compared to LR3's speed. But there is still an incredible difference between editing D700 images and D800 images.
Maybe we should use Adobe's DNG converter to chop down the images to the ~10-15 MB that we're used to, but that is kind of a waste considering most of our shooters own both a D800 and a D700. We initially bought the D800's very excitedly because of the incredible image quality claims, but then over the course of last wedding season we basically came crawling back to our D700's for 75%+ of our overall photojournalism.
Don't get me wrong, I love the D800 for landscapes, and anything else where I don't have to edit more than a few photos per shoot / day. But shooting and editing ~10,000 images per week during peak wedding season?
We have all the storage and RAM (and SSDs) that money can buy, and it ain't solving the problem!
Really? Storage / memory is cheap, that's your answer?
Storage and RAM aren't even the problem with 36 megpaixel files, and the current editing solution. (Lightroom 4) It is the CPU that is the bottleneck, and in my experience even a $3,000-4,000 Mac (or ~$2,000 PC) are still downright sluggish when it comes to editing D800 files in LR4.
I'm curious to hear what kind of volume you guys are editing if you're so in love with the D800 and don't mind the file size at all, or don't even notice a difference in your editing time. How many seconds do you spend per file to fully edit it?
I ask because I shoot for a wedding photography studio and we have the most insanely fast machines but they still can't keep up with our editing speed, not even close.
Admittedly, Lightroom 4 itself is half the battle, as it is a total dog compared to LR3's speed. But there is still an incredible difference between editing D700 images and D800 images.
Maybe we should use Adobe's DNG converter to chop down the images to the ~10-15 MB that we're used to, but that is kind of a waste considering most of our shooters own both a D800 and a D700. We initially bought the D800's very excitedly because of the incredible image quality claims, but then over the course of last wedding season we basically came crawling back to our D700's for 75%+ of our overall photojournalism.
Don't get me wrong, I love the D800 for landscapes, and anything else where I don't have to edit more than a few photos per shoot / day. But shooting and editing ~10,000 images per week during peak wedding season?
We have all the storage and RAM (and SSDs) that money can buy, and it ain't solving the problem!
Just a big fat grain of salt for ya.
My response re storage and processing was in response to OP's reservations with "file size and cost it brings with storage and processing".
I don't think the rMBP is sluggish (8gb ram and 500gb ssd)...don't get me wrong, it's not instantaneous but nor is it a 5 sec wait. I prob shoot an avg of 1000 images a week, sometimes 200/wk and sometimes 3000/wk. I'm pretty light handed when it comes to processing.
Really? Storage / memory is cheap, that's your answer?
Storage and RAM aren't even the problem with 36 megpaixel files, and the current editing solution. (Lightroom 4) It is the CPU that is the bottleneck, and in my experience even a $3,000-4,000 Mac (or ~$2,000 PC) are still downright sluggish when it comes to editing D800 files in LR4.
I'm curious to hear what kind of volume you guys are editing if you're so in love with the D800 and don't mind the file size at all, or don't even notice a difference in your editing time. How many seconds do you spend per file to fully edit it?
I ask because I shoot for a wedding photography studio and we have the most insanely fast machines but they still can't keep up with our editing speed, not even close.
Admittedly, Lightroom 4 itself is half the battle, as it is a total dog compared to LR3's speed. But there is still an incredible difference between editing D700 images and D800 images.
Maybe we should use Adobe's DNG converter to chop down the images to the ~10-15 MB that we're used to, but that is kind of a waste considering most of our shooters own both a D800 and a D700. We initially bought the D800's very excitedly because of the incredible image quality claims, but then over the course of last wedding season we basically came crawling back to our D700's for 75%+ of our overall photojournalism.
Don't get me wrong, I love the D800 for landscapes, and anything else where I don't have to edit more than a few photos per shoot / day. But shooting and editing ~10,000 images per week during peak wedding season?
We have all the storage and RAM (and SSDs) that money can buy, and it ain't solving the problem!
Just a big fat grain of salt for ya.
Matt,
You have nicely stated your reasons related to YOUR photography and YOUR work flow needs. I have no argument with your logic or choices.
There is no universal answer to which camera is best or which camera one should buy.
And yes memory is relatively cheap today.
Alex asked for opinions, I gave him mine, you gave him yours. Alex can now decide for himself which is the better choice for him.
You have nicely stated your reasons related to YOUR photography and YOUR work flow needs. I have no argument with your logic or choices.
There is no universal answer to which camera is best or which camera one should buy.
And yes memory is relatively cheap today.
Alex asked for opinions, I gave him mine, you gave him yours. Alex can now decide for himself which is the better choice for him.
Just a big fat grain of salt for ya.
Sam
Yes, yes, yes, I agree! My point is, I am honestly interested in finding the threshold at which the D800 becomes too impractical. I was not just writing a retort, I really am curious to hear how many images people edit per week / month, and how many seconds per photo they consider to be acceptable for a FULL color correction, etc. etc. (I'm not just an internet ranter, I'm a writer for SLRLounge.com and a full-time wedding photographer. ;-)
I keep responding to this post because I feel that we are still being too general about whether or not the D800 can bog down your workflow. "Storage is cheap, just buy the camera!" doesn't cut it for me, and I think if we can be more precise it would help others make better decisions.
Yes, yes, yes, I agree! My point is, I am honestly interested in finding the threshold at which the D800 becomes too impractical. I was not just writing a retort, I really am curious to hear how many images people edit per week / month, and how many seconds per photo they consider to be acceptable for a FULL color correction, etc. etc. (I'm not just an internet ranter, I'm a writer for SLRLounge.com and a full-time wedding photographer. ;-)
I keep responding to this post because I feel that we are still being too general about whether or not the D800 can bog down your workflow. "Storage is cheap, just buy the camera!" doesn't cut it for me, and I think if we can be more precise it would help others make better decisions.
Take care,
=Matt=
I suppose that for someone who processes images like the Federal Reserve prints money these would be prudent considerations.However the OP says he likes to take landscape pictures for fun when he travels. People do purchase inessential things simply because they want something that is valuable,nice, and worth owning. I am reasonably sure it would make beautiful images.
Hmm... lots of interesting information being shared here. I'm not sure I'm any closer to a decision though. I lost shoot portraits and I am getting busier and busier at it. I can't say I'm now shooting or will ever be shooting at the volume that Matt shoots but it's still a concern for me. Landscapes will be an occasional thing for me and to be honest, my D700 has done quite well for me in that sense.
Right now, the only reason I haven't pulled the trigger on a second D700 is simply the feeling that I'm buying "old technology". I know that doesn't necessarily mean much and that the D700 is by far obsolete. Whether that feeling is rational or not, it's still a valid feeling I have right now.
Hmm... lots of interesting information being shared here. I'm not sure I'm any closer to a decision though. I lost shoot portraits and I am getting busier and busier at it. I can't say I'm now shooting or will ever be shooting at the volume that Matt shoots but it's still a concern for me. Landscapes will be an occasional thing for me and to be honest, my D700 has done quite well for me in that sense.
Right now, the only reason I haven't pulled the trigger on a second D700 is simply the feeling that I'm buying "old technology". I know that doesn't necessarily mean much and that the D700 is by far obsolete. Whether that feeling is rational or not, it's still a valid feeling I have right now.
Even portraiture can benefit from a D800, especially if you plan to go in the direction of larger canvases / prints and books and things. Even a fairly busy portrait studio could probably do just fine with the D800's file size, especially if you set up your post-production properly, and only "proof" a handful of images from each shoot. Cull in View NX 2 if Lightroom is too slow for culling, then just do simple batch processing color corrections, and only fully retouch the few images that you select, or that the client orders. With a business model like this, a D800 would be great, and the added resolution would give you a noticeable advantage over the D700.
If you're a portrait photographer whose hobby is landscapes, I would ABSOLUTELY encourage you to buy a D800. Keep your D700 around as a professional backup, and maybe as a casual / volume / sports camera, but chances are you'll prefer to just stick with the controls of one camera and let the other camera just be your backup.
It certainly is overkill to shoot 36 megapixel RAW photos of your kids' birthday party or that family reunion, but it's not the end of the world if you just shoot conservatively and don't let your post-production pile up. Heck, for personal events I usually just pay close attention to my RAW exposure and WB, then I export un-edited JPGs from Nikon View NX 2 without even going into Lightroom unless the photo is truly epic.
My curiosity is mostly NOT aimed at discouraging this particular OP from buying a D800, in fact I think it would be a good idea in this situation. In general, I am just hoping to hear as much as possible about other people's standards, volume, and tools when it comes to how much they notice (or don't notice) the TRIPLE file size difference between the D700 and D800...
I "upgraded" my kit from a D3 + D3s setup to a D4 + D800E setup awhile back. I initially intended the D4 to be my main body but that changed when I was shooting with both cameras in S. Africa. The images from the 800E were just better.
The file sizes of the D800E images have had no noticeable impact on my processing. I use a locally made PC running Windows 7. It has an Intel core i5 processor with 8GB of DDR3 RAM and a 1GB DDR3 graphics card. On board I have a 1TB HD . For backups and storage I have a 2 TB drive for my weekly back up and dual 3TB drives in a RAID format for storage.
When I go on a shoot I will usually come back with many images. My Africa trips usually result in 7,000 - 11,000 images. Since the D800E became my main body the only noticeable change has been slightly longer download times on my memory cards using USB 3.0 readers.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Although I have not yet pulled the trigger on a D800 myself, I do still keep thinking about how you can shoot a bit wider and crop up to as much as 2/3 of the image and still have the same quality of image that a D700 would have produced if you had perfectly composed and framed the image in camera. Perhaps for those with more talent than I this would not be much of a consideration, but its amazing how often I think that I know exactly what image I am after right up until the moment I start pressing the shutter button.
Although I have not yet pulled the trigger on a D800 myself, I do still keep thinking about how you can shoot a bit wider and crop up to as much as 2/3 of the image and still have the same quality of image that a D700 would have produced if you had perfectly composed and framed the image in camera. Perhaps for those with more talent than I this would not be much of a consideration, but its amazing how often I think that I know exactly what image I am after right up until the moment I start pressing the shutter button.
I do this quite a bit with my huge D800 files...mostly because I'm tired of 2x3 and am liking a "pano" look lately...I'll shoot the shot with that in mind. So, when the dust clears I'm left with a decently sized image...love my 800, but just bought a D4 to do the sports part of my interests...feeling complete!
Comments
Really? Storage / memory is cheap, that's your answer?
Storage and RAM aren't even the problem with 36 megpaixel files, and the current editing solution. (Lightroom 4) It is the CPU that is the bottleneck, and in my experience even a $3,000-4,000 Mac (or ~$2,000 PC) are still downright sluggish when it comes to editing D800 files in LR4.
I'm curious to hear what kind of volume you guys are editing if you're so in love with the D800 and don't mind the file size at all, or don't even notice a difference in your editing time. How many seconds do you spend per file to fully edit it?
I ask because I shoot for a wedding photography studio and we have the most insanely fast machines but they still can't keep up with our editing speed, not even close.
Admittedly, Lightroom 4 itself is half the battle, as it is a total dog compared to LR3's speed. But there is still an incredible difference between editing D700 images and D800 images.
Maybe we should use Adobe's DNG converter to chop down the images to the ~10-15 MB that we're used to, but that is kind of a waste considering most of our shooters own both a D800 and a D700. We initially bought the D800's very excitedly because of the incredible image quality claims, but then over the course of last wedding season we basically came crawling back to our D700's for 75%+ of our overall photojournalism.
Don't get me wrong, I love the D800 for landscapes, and anything else where I don't have to edit more than a few photos per shoot / day. But shooting and editing ~10,000 images per week during peak wedding season?
We have all the storage and RAM (and SSDs) that money can buy, and it ain't solving the problem!
Just a big fat grain of salt for ya.
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
My response re storage and processing was in response to OP's reservations with "file size and cost it brings with storage and processing".
I don't think the rMBP is sluggish (8gb ram and 500gb ssd)...don't get me wrong, it's not instantaneous but nor is it a 5 sec wait. I prob shoot an avg of 1000 images a week, sometimes 200/wk and sometimes 3000/wk. I'm pretty light handed when it comes to processing.
facebook.com/robertchenphotography
Matt,
You have nicely stated your reasons related to YOUR photography and YOUR work flow needs. I have no argument with your logic or choices.
There is no universal answer to which camera is best or which camera one should buy.
And yes memory is relatively cheap today.
Alex asked for opinions, I gave him mine, you gave him yours. Alex can now decide for himself which is the better choice for him.
Just a big fat grain of salt for ya.
Sam
Well said!
D800
16/2.8, f1.4G primes, f2.8 trio, 105/200 macro, SB900.
It never gets easier, you just get better.
I keep responding to this post because I feel that we are still being too general about whether or not the D800 can bog down your workflow. "Storage is cheap, just buy the camera!" doesn't cut it for me, and I think if we can be more precise it would help others make better decisions.
Take care,
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I suppose that for someone who processes images like the Federal Reserve prints money these would be prudent considerations.However the OP says he likes to take landscape pictures for fun when he travels. People do purchase inessential things simply because they want something that is valuable,nice, and worth owning. I am reasonably sure it would make beautiful images.
Lensmole
http://www.lensmolephotography.com/
Right now, the only reason I haven't pulled the trigger on a second D700 is simply the feeling that I'm buying "old technology". I know that doesn't necessarily mean much and that the D700 is by far obsolete. Whether that feeling is rational or not, it's still a valid feeling I have right now.
Moderator of the People and Go Figure forums
My Smug Site
easy way for you to find out: Rent a D800!
I'm sure you'll end up purchasing one, afterwards.
D800
16/2.8, f1.4G primes, f2.8 trio, 105/200 macro, SB900.
It never gets easier, you just get better.
Even portraiture can benefit from a D800, especially if you plan to go in the direction of larger canvases / prints and books and things. Even a fairly busy portrait studio could probably do just fine with the D800's file size, especially if you set up your post-production properly, and only "proof" a handful of images from each shoot. Cull in View NX 2 if Lightroom is too slow for culling, then just do simple batch processing color corrections, and only fully retouch the few images that you select, or that the client orders. With a business model like this, a D800 would be great, and the added resolution would give you a noticeable advantage over the D700.
If you're a portrait photographer whose hobby is landscapes, I would ABSOLUTELY encourage you to buy a D800. Keep your D700 around as a professional backup, and maybe as a casual / volume / sports camera, but chances are you'll prefer to just stick with the controls of one camera and let the other camera just be your backup.
It certainly is overkill to shoot 36 megapixel RAW photos of your kids' birthday party or that family reunion, but it's not the end of the world if you just shoot conservatively and don't let your post-production pile up. Heck, for personal events I usually just pay close attention to my RAW exposure and WB, then I export un-edited JPGs from Nikon View NX 2 without even going into Lightroom unless the photo is truly epic.
My curiosity is mostly NOT aimed at discouraging this particular OP from buying a D800, in fact I think it would be a good idea in this situation. In general, I am just hoping to hear as much as possible about other people's standards, volume, and tools when it comes to how much they notice (or don't notice) the TRIPLE file size difference between the D700 and D800...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
The file sizes of the D800E images have had no noticeable impact on my processing. I use a locally made PC running Windows 7. It has an Intel core i5 processor with 8GB of DDR3 RAM and a 1GB DDR3 graphics card. On board I have a 1TB HD . For backups and storage I have a 2 TB drive for my weekly back up and dual 3TB drives in a RAID format for storage.
When I go on a shoot I will usually come back with many images. My Africa trips usually result in 7,000 - 11,000 images. Since the D800E became my main body the only noticeable change has been slightly longer download times on my memory cards using USB 3.0 readers.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I do this quite a bit with my huge D800 files...mostly because I'm tired of 2x3 and am liking a "pano" look lately...I'll shoot the shot with that in mind. So, when the dust clears I'm left with a decently sized image...love my 800, but just bought a D4 to do the sports part of my interests...feeling complete!
(tin can tied to the bumper)