Nikon D800

[Andrew1]

For those keeping track, the Nikon D300 specs state a 100% viewfinder.

[aeras]

Nikon issued a guide as to how to use the Nikon D800 at http://www.nikonusa.com/en_US/o/Y6wr...alGuide_En.pdf

It seems that going beyond F8 means loosing detail.
Cannot cancel my order , so I will also try to get a cheap D700 !!!

[Dave Humphries]

It seems that going beyond F8 means loosing detail.
Cannot cancel my order , so I will also try to get a cheap D700 !!!

Where did you read that Charles? p13 Diffraction? or p16?

Diffraction affects all cameras, perhaps this one moreso because of squeezing 36MP onto the sensor, but my guts tell me;
a) I'd be surprised if it is more than a stop worse than competitors with say, 24MP sensors
b) Effective sharpening will have greater effect and hide it
c) I'd expect the larger file size of 36MP to be more of a handicap than Diffraction is

Besides, on p17, it demonstrates how diffraction helps to reduce Moire

Photography is a compromise, and possibly, for your shooting, maybe 36MP isn't the best choice, dunno what to say really

[thequacksoflife]

Nikon issued a guide as to how to use the Nikon D800 at http://www.nikonusa.com/en_US/o/Y6wr...alGuide_En.pdf

It seems that going beyond F8 means loosing detail.
Cannot cancel my order , so I will also try to get a cheap D700 !!!

Charles

have a quick read of Thom Hogan's views today on this.... (dated Feb 17th) he briefly mentions diffraction

[thequacksoflife]

perhaps this one moreso because of squeezing 36MP onto the sensor,

curiously the sensor has less pixel pitch (is that the right term??) that the d7000 and certainly less than the a77 and nex7 so I wonder why this should be worse?? curious eh

[Dave Humphries]

curiously the sensor has less pixel pitch (is that the right term??) that the d7000 and certainly less than the a77 and nex7 so I wonder why this should be worse?? curious eh

My gut tells me it almost certainly isn't worse than these cameras - just no one has noticed - or had mentioned so publically before!

Just that paying somewhat more for a D800 than the other models listed, I guess Nikon wanted to expose it before any possible complaints came in.

[Marty]

I've no interest at all in owning the D800. I don't think it's the camera that 75% of Nikon users were really hoping for. What I can't quite figure out just now is if the D800 is to replace the D700 or if Nikon intends to run both side by side. I can't find any info or announcements on that.

I'm really hoping that in due course the D800's presence might drive down the price of the D700, either new or S/H so I can take advantage of that! - Will it happen?

[Colin Southern]

It seems that going beyond F8 means loosing detail.

Folks worry about diffraction far far far far far far far more than they should. It's only ever going to be a problem if someone is going to be printing a VERY large print (several feet) and then inspecting it VERY closely, or cropping a shot excessively.

If one is displaying their work at typical internet sizes (around 1000px) then all diffraction will have long since have been sampled out - and at typical print sizes the eye can't resolve that kind of detail (even if the printer could print it, which is unlikely)

Damage caused by diffraction is far far far far far far far far less than the "damage" caused by an insufficient depth-of-field or a sub-optimal shutterspeed necessitated by too wide an aperture.

Additionally, an optimal sharpening workflow will have a far greater impact on the sharpness of an image than diffraction.

So in terms of "diffraction and real-world photography", "just ignore it". Remember that IN THEORY the oceans of the world rise whenever you throw in a stone -- but in PRACTICE it's just not an issue. Same with diffraction.

[Marty]

I'd like to use this conversation to ask a question that's been rattling around in my head for a while. I'm hoping that some of the folks on the forum can help with it....

As we get more and more pixels cramming into the area of the sensor, whether it's full-frame or APS-C, the individual pixels are growing smaller and smaller. At some stage, we must reach a point where the lenses we have cannot resolve enough dots per millimetre to actually make use of all the available pixels. Put a different way, we would reach an "extinction frequency" where there is no point is having any more pixels until we get far better glass.

Does anyone know how far we are from that extinction point with 35mm format cameras now stretching up to 36Mp? Would I be right in thinking that most of the average quality "bundled" type zooms are already falling short of the mark?

Hope somebody can help!

marty

[Colin Southern]

I can't give a definitive answer Marty, but I can say that most folks don't use many of the pixels we already have. Case in point - my camera captures 21MP - and yet if I display an image online at a generous 1200 x 800 pixels then I'm using just 4.5% of the pixels captured. If I print a nice big 12 x 8" print - and I go for a top-shelf 300dpi then I'm using only 41% of my pixels.

I have 22 x 33" canvas prints taken with an 8MP 20D and my 21MP 1Ds3 (hanging side by side), and they really don't look any different. In my opinion, the MP war should have been called a draw when they flew past 8MP (perhaps 12 tops).

[lorenzobix]

I can't give a definitive answer Marty, but I can say that most folks don't use many of the pixels we already have. Case in point - my camera captures 21MP - and yet if I display an image online at a generous 1200 x 800 pixels then I'm using just 4.5% of the pixels captured. If I print a nice big 12 x 8" print - and I go for a top-shelf 300dpi then I'm using only 41% of my pixels.

I have 22 x 33" canvas prints taken with an 8MP 20D and my 21MP 1Ds3 (hanging side by side), and they really don't look any different. In my opinion, the MP war should have been called a draw when they flew past 8MP (perhaps 12 tops).

If we talk about output devices and their need of megapixels-ppi, you're totally right.
But there are a lot of advantages in shooting given by a huge number of megapixel even if it's not true in every situation(i'm a sport photographer, my D700 is perfect for me, i'd never upgrade me with the D800).
Still life photographers, landscapers, and in some way also fashion photographers have, in my opinion, a new possibility with the D800, expecially with the D800E, of capturing every single detail of an image.
I say that because i shoot stil-lifes and landscapes with the D700 and i see a luck of fine details in comparison with, for example my colleagues' Canon 5D (but shooting sport at high iso, there's no story).
What i mean is that even if the name could make us think that the D800 is an upgrade of the D700, they are built for totally differnt areas (that's why nikon says they're not gonna stop to produce the D700), that usually, at least for us (nikonists), were "canon place" (hig mpx cameras and appropriates areas of shooting)

[RonH]

Wouldn't heaps of pixels allow for some serious cropping eg effectively extending your zoom capabilities when taking photo's of dangerous wildlife

[lorenzobix]

Wouldn't heaps of pixels allow for some serious cropping eg effectively extending your zoom capabilities when taking photo's of dangerous wildlife

of course, also the cropping is easyer and much more acceptable. but i don't know if this camera is suitable for nature photographers because of the necessary high noise that the huge number of pixels will cause. The security times of shooting with telephoto lenses are very fast, in consequence of this the iso values have to be increased to don't underexpose the image.

[Hughmv]

The D700 will not come cheap, not a good one with low shutters actions. I have just sold mine on e-bay, for more then I paid for it 3 years ago. A few other items of a photographic nature also sold and to be sold, will pay very nicely for a D800, on order. Is the D800 “better” then the D700. “Better” meaning photos. Well we will have to see, I have the glass, now all I need is the camera. . I have heard that the D700 may come down in price and out of production in a year!

[lorenzobix]

The D700 will not come cheap, not a good one with low shutters actions. I have just sold mine on e-bay, for more then I paid for it 3 years ago. A few other items of a photographic nature also sold and to be sold, will pay very nicely for a D800, on order. Is the D800 “better” then the D700. “Better” meaning photos. Well we will have to see, I have the glass, now all I need is the camera. . I have heard that the D700 may come down in price and out of production in a year!

About the price i have a question: in Italy the D700's price didn't go down. In the Italian Nikon forum a lot of people is wondering if the reason is that the D800 didn' t arrive yet in the stores, or simply because, for direct admission of nikon japan, the D800 is not a replacement of D700. What happened in other countryes? expecially in those where the new D800 arrived in the shops? did the D700 become cheaper? and the prices of used models?

[lightdrunk]

I'm waiting on mine to arrive. I've done a lot of research including talking to professionals who have used the D800 and have learned that fears about the large pixel count are baseless because of the way the camera is engineered as a whole. I've also found a lot of D800 shots on Flickr and elsewhere and they are stunning. I hope mine arrives in time for the Coney Island Mermaid Parade June 23rd. Interested to hear from people who've actually worked with this camera. Not much interested in hearing from people who have bad opinions of this camera without actually working with it.