The D800 has Landed!

I have to say that the high-ISO thing has become more than an obsession...it's an absurdity. Like every other GAS-infected person out there, I drooled over the ISO capabilities of the D700 (and subsequently got one; 3.5 years later it's never let me down) when it was released. But at some point it just gets absurd. I sometimes get sucked into the clamor for more and more ISO power, until I return to film.

It's when I go back to shooting 400-800 speed film that I realize that ISO 25k or whatever we have now is totally unnecessary. The 6400 files on my D700 are usable, but what would I ever need that for? I capped the Auto ISO on the D700 at 3200. We are spoiled by this ever-increasing ISO ceiling. Who has ever been out shooting film and thought "man, I really wish I had brought that roll of ISO 51,600 with me"?
 
Hey, don't knock it, we all need to be able to shoot in light that is sooo dark that we can't find the camera or see our subject.
 
literiter said:
I didn't by the D300 'cause I knew the D700 was going to come out. I'm glad I didn't buy the D700 because the new D800 is so great.

I think I'll wait on the D800 and see what the next one is like perhaps the D900E or even the D1000E. Then even Canon may get into the fray..................!
Click to expand...

Haha, sounds like you are not in need of a camera at all...
 
gavinlg said:
Haha what? :bang:

Like the af-d lenses that won't AF on the base model bodies?
Click to expand...

Are you still stuck in 2008? I have to admit, the day Nikon took screw drive out of their lower models, I was thinking the same, "Where are the in-lens focusing lenses?" but guess what? They followed up! Big time over the years! A little reminder (zooms, a given and not need to be mentioned):

10.5G DX (Fish)
35/1.8G DX
40/2.8G DX (Micro)
84/3.5G DX (Micro)
24/1.4G
35/1.4G
50/1.8G
50/1.4G
85/1.8G
85/1.4G

Granted, they need to throw a nice "consumer" oriented wide prime in there and they are good to go. Canon JUST started releasing updates for the wide primes at 2.8 with a hefty price ($849? $799? Really?), which I'm not happy about. They turned all Hollywood and became obsessed with video development since they changed marketing strategy with the Canon EOS 5D Mark II.
 
punkromance said:
Well, we're getting completely shafted in the UK. £2400 and £2700 respectively for the D800/E.

As an ex-D700 owner who wanted FF video but can't afford a D4, this release was such a disappointment. Not to mention the absurd focus on MP rather than ISO. I imagine there are more hobbyists shooting in the dark than there are ones needing to blow their photos of cats up to billboard size.

I guess the D700 ate into their D3 sales too much, stopping them from making the D800 a mini D4.
Click to expand...

Lol!

I'm not up to date on the specs, but what was the difference between the D700 and D3 to justify the huge price difference?
 
Looks to me like there is now definitely room in the line-up for a low-light, high range, moderate resolution, compact camera for journalists and, umm, people like most of us.

It would be nice if Nikon made it ;-p
 
Almost the same pixel's in a 24X36 frame as the Leica S2's 37.5 30X45. How many more pixel's are they gonna cram in there? I don't see Nikon or Canon ever going MF.
 
boomguy57 said:
It's when I go back to shooting 400-800 speed film that I realize that ISO 25k or whatever we have now is totally unnecessary. The 6400 files on my D700 are usable, but what would I ever need that for?
Click to expand...
Action-freezing shutter-speed in low-ish light? Depth of field in low-ish light? A combination of the two? It's nice to not have to shoot at f/1.4 @ 1/30 sometimes.

I capped the Auto ISO on the D700 at 3200. We are spoiled by this ever-increasing ISO ceiling. Who has ever been out shooting film and thought "man, I really wish I had brought that roll of ISO 51,600 with me"?
Click to expand...

When I shoot film, I find myself wishing for digital ISOs on a regular basis.
 
I'm a tweak

I'm a tweak

Well, I for one have found this compelling. I love megapixels, the more the merrier. I can deal with the occasional moire in order to get the detail I want. As such, I pre-ordered a D800E last night right after the pre-order showed up on my favorite website. Hopefully I'll get one of the first batch.

I mostly shoot macro with my DSLR, and had been all Canon since the disappointment of the D2x a number of years back. The D3 and D700 were appealing in the high-ISO department, but not enough MP for me vs. the 5D II. In the intervening years that I flirted with Canon Nikon has updated many of their old lenses, made big leaps in high-ISO performance, and now turned out some great megapixels. I'm going back to dark side. 😀


Jeff
 
More megapixels is better. As digital technology gets better, the more megapixels there are, the less the images have that 'smooth' digital looks everyone seems to hate.

Seriously - it's not a bad thing.
 
re: D800 @ 640 looking like a D700 @ 2500:

punkromance;1806634 Aye said:
http://chsv.nikon-image.com/products/camera/slr/digital/d800/img/sample01/img_02_l.jpg[/URL]
Click to expand...

Looks pretty much noiseless when you resize it to D700 resolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Article Article
BURNING FILM! The Nikon vs, Canon Motor Drive Wars, Part 2
Replies
12
Views
2K
Glenn2
G
J
  • Article Article
The Rise & Fall of the Kodak Empire:Part 2: How the Colossus of Film was broken by a disruptive technology
2
Replies
23
Views
3K
Muggins
Muggins
J
  • Article Article
BURNING FILM! The Nikon vs. Canon Motor Drive Wars, Part 1
2
Replies
26
Views
5K
1936ContaxII
1936ContaxII
J
  • Article Article
The Last New DSLR? Would you believe the Pentax KF?
3 4 5
Replies
87
Views
13K
Disappointed_Horse
Disappointed_Horse
J
  • Article Article
How Canon Reinvented Itself for Mirrorless and Now Leads the Market!
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
JeffS7444
JeffS7444
Back
Top Bottom