Quantcast

D800

RUFUS

e-douche of the year
Dec 1, 2006
3,488
0
Denver, CO
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.
 

H8R

Cranky Pants
Nov 10, 2004
13,965
4
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.
 

H8R

Cranky Pants
Nov 10, 2004
13,965
4

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
21,643
397
NC
Confirmed, with hands-on:

http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/06/nikon-d800-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.
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
21,643
397
NC
Landscape guys especially - the hikers I'm sure will appreciate even a small reduction in the load they have to carry.
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,045
0
Towing the party line.
$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?)
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
21,643
397
NC
you mean in regards to moving from Medium Frame bodies and lenses?
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.

$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.
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.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,848
0
Orange County, CA
$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?)
It'll sell to the dentists and the landscape guys who read Ken Rockwell.
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,045
0
Towing the party line.
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.
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. :(
 

H8R

Cranky Pants
Nov 10, 2004
13,965
4
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. :(
Get the Nikkor 24-70 and the adaptor.

:D
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,045
0
Towing the party line.
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.
 

Polandspring88

Superman
Mar 31, 2004
3,075
0
Broomfield, CO
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. :(
Being forced to buy camera equipment must be excruciating. I can only imagine the awfulness of my GF demanding that I buy sh!t. ;)
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,848
0
Orange County, CA
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.
Real shooters only use primes, per the internet.
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,045
0
Towing the party line.
NO GOOD PHOTO HAS EVER BEEN TAKEN WITH A ZOOM LENS.

Do you hear me?!

EVER.
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.

Anything a zoom lens can do a prime lens can do both sharper and 2 f-stops lower.
Only in your wildest dreams.
 
Last edited:

narlus

Eastcoast Softcore
Staff member
Nov 7, 2001
24,658
25
behind the viewfinder
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.
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?
 

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,815
8
looking for classic NE singletrack
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).
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,045
0
Towing the party line.
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.
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,045
0
Towing the party line.
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.

Troll fail.