Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Creative Pursuits' started by H8R, Nov 20, 2011.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the Nikon D800 | Nikon Rumors
Please register to disable this ad.
Not buying the photos but the info sounds intriguing. I still just might make it over to Canon again though.
H8R, if you are looking for equipment, let me know.
email me a list. Now.
Sent what I have left to your evo email.
36 mp...holy file size!
I shot in RAW all the time and my files are usually 25 mp. That isn't too bad, but I don't need any larger of a file size.
Megapixel Calculator - digital camera resolution | web.forret.com
A 12-bit raw would yield a 54mb file. I'm sure the D800 will do 14 bit uncompressed. Yikes.
trust me, 95% of my shots are RAW taken at high ISO, so i know how large files get...
Looks like a good offering. (if warranted) I don't think I'd need over maybe 18 megapixels though. Like, ever. My D7000 has 16 and the crops are like having an extra 100mm of lens stropped to the front.
I wonder how clean the ISO is going to be? I see this as more of a landscape or studio tool more than anything.
Confirmed, with hands-on:
I don't need all the megapixels and frankly, I like DX for the purposes of pixel density - even though at this high MP count, it actually would be more pixels than my D300 in DX mode. But I don't need to pay for all those pixels.
I'll consider a D400 if it ever gets released, primarily for dual card slots and quality video. $3k for the body is a little much for me.
36MP is nuts. hard drive MFG'ers are psyched.
but yeah, i can see this being a dream body for a studio/landscape shooter.
Landscape guys especially - the hikers I'm sure will appreciate even a small reduction in the load they have to carry.
you mean in regards to moving from Medium Frame bodies and lenses?
$3000 is a hell of a deal for this body. 36 MP though, really? 16MP is more than I need, and takes up enough hdd space as it is. What a nightmare for storage.
Hell, canon just released a new 24-70 2.8 that costs $2300?? (WTF Canon?)
I was more thinking something like a D3x. Sometimes a few ounces and a couple inches make a big difference on a long hike. If this can get you the resolution but in a normal sized body... The D3 -> D700 is about a pound difference and a 50% increase in volume. That's no small thing.
Obviously, if you're comparing to MF, then it gets even more significant.
If you don't need the resolution, there's no reason to shoot at that size. If the price point is acceptable, you just drop the resolution and keep shooting at 16mp or whatever.
It'll sell to the dentists and the landscape guys who read Ken Rockwell.
I don't think I read this right the first time around. Holy crap. I hope for that money it has a camera built into the barrel.
Once the factories are finally dried out...
Marketing vid. They are definitely going for the studio shooter with this one.
Nikon D800 In the Studio with Rob Van Petten on Vimeo
Perfect camera if your vision is shooting models in sh1tty 80's new wave style.
You and me both. No IS. Nothing fancy. Just a big honkin 24-70. It now extends at 70mm vs retracts, and has a focus lock switch. That's it. $1000 more expensive than the current 24-70. The ****? Although, I did read that they fixed the ridiculous barrel distortion that the current model has (and is why I do not own one.)
Worst is, I actually need to purchase one shortly, lame. What's even worse, spending over $12 000 on camera junk in the last 2 weeks.
Precisely. HDD prices have SKYROCKETED in the last few months. The same HDDs I was buying for under $100 are now $150+... on sale.
Get the Nikkor 24-70 and the adaptor.
The nikkor is as bad or worse as the original canon 24-70 when it comes to barrel distortion. It's also $1900 at best. I'd get the much cheaper first version canon, or the slightly more expensive distortion free second version.
Can't you just punch the lens into Lightroom and auto-correct it?
Being forced to buy camera equipment must be excruciating. I can only imagine the awfulness of my GF demanding that I buy sh!t.
Real shooters only use primes, per the internet.
NO GOOD PHOTO HAS EVER BEEN TAKEN WITH A ZOOM LENS.
Do you hear me?!
Anything a zoom lens can do a prime lens can do both sharper and 2 f-stops lower.
Damn. Well, good thing I keep that 300mm 2.8 around. Usually I just use it to keep up on my bicep curls though.
The prime lens only nutters need to actually use their cameras once and awhile and stop pleasuring themselves to charts on the internet. Particularly the ones who wet themselves over ridiculously overpriced 30 year old russian manual focus junk.
Only in your wildest dreams.
Well, except zoom, of course.
Let's not forget the whole needing to own 3+ lenses (and cost in most cases) to do the same job, and ultimately, probably get exactly the same photo. I'll stick to my 70-200 2.8, thanks.
You got cornered by a Rockwell reader at a party recently, eh?
it really depends on what you are shooting.
yeah, if you are using triggered flashes or shooting w/ a lot of ambient light, zooms are fine. if you wanna tag along w/ me for tonight's shoot in some dingy club (betting on a preponderance of red stage lighting), bring at least one prime w/ you.
btw what does 'and cost in most cases' mean?
The cost of the 3+ lenses?
While I was being sarcastic in my original post, I really can't think of a zoom lens that would require 3+ lenses just to cover the range. 2, yes, but 3? And yes, if you're going to be shooting sports a zoom is almost indispensable, but for the rest of us, primes work just fine if you usually shoot at a certain focal length (although to be honest I only have one, a 100mm f2. Most of my shots are with a 17-50mm 2.8 Tamron).
70-200 2.8. You will need an 85, a 135 and a 200 to over that range properly. All in 1.2 to 2 if you want to beat out the 2.8. So average cost of what $1400 for a 70-200 2.8.
So let's see... $2049 for an 85 1.2, $1034 for a 135 2 and then $5699 for a 200 2. Yes these are pricey. If you want to go cheap, you are pretty much at 2.8 or lower - making it pointless, particularly at 200mm.
Right, because there's certainly no relatively cheap 85mm 1.8 or 100mm 2.0 option available for sub $400...
That's a very far cry from "2 stops faster", not to mention any cheaper. Not to mention both of the above mentioned lenses cannot hold a candle in either focus speed, contrast/color or durability of the 70-200 2.8.