Thoughts of Gizmodo today - pretty balanced

[BillyBean]

Some words from Gizmodo today...

"for the camera consumer with a budget over £2,500 and no brand loyalty, it’s a tough call between the D800 and the 5D Mark III. They’re both excellent cameras, and they’re good at different things. After testing each for a week apiece, we’re still asking whether the benefits of the Nikon’s high-resolution sensor outweigh the Canon’s versatility. The best way to tell could be to consider how you’ll use the tool—for a pro photographer shooting portraits in a studio, or a Nat Geo correspondent capturing the landscapes of Yosemite, the Nikon could be the clear choice. For a photojournalist on an unpredictable news beat, or even a young professional taking on a wide range of work, the Canon could be a better option. Answering the question for yourself could be a matter of just picking each one up and seeing which feels right in your hands."

I thought that seemed a pretty fair and balanced assessment, from what I've read over the last month. Read the review at:

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/04/nikon-d800-review-a-major-hd-upgrade-but-is-it-the-best-dslr-for-the-money/

[JR]

Make sense.  I do think the D800 will be more for low ISO application even if it is capable of decent high iso performance, where the mkiii will shine more for sure...

[BillyBean]

Yep. And of course, another implication you could read into this, which I guess is applicable to most readers here, is that if you DO have 'brand loyalty' - i.e. a bag full of expensive as L glass (as the esteemed Mr Rockwell calls it), then the 5D3 is a perfectly fine choice, even for Yosemite. After all, El Capitan doesn't move very fast, so who cares if the AF is all messed up! (I'm joking... don't flame me!)

[shizam1]

After all, El Capitan doesn't move very fast, so who cares if the AF is all messed up! (I'm joking... don't flame me!)

That was funny

[neuroanatomist]

After all, El Capitan doesn't move very fast, so who cares if the AF is all messed up!

It's probably moving at a rate of 3-4 cm per year.  The 5DIII will have absolutely no problem there.  The 5DII is a different story, though - that camera's AI Servo mode might have a hard time keeping up.

[scrappydog]

I thought Kai's DigitalRev review of the D800 seemed to implicitly state this, namely that the D800 files are so large that it is not entirely practical as a walk around camera.  The Ryan Brenizer review effectively stated the same thing because he takes 250K pictures per year, which is not feasible with 70MB file sizes.

[EvilTed]

"Like the D700, the D800 uses two-handed adjustments for many camera settings. That’s ideal for photographers who want to quickly tweak shots. Hold down a button for white balance, ISO, or auto-focus on the left side of the camera, and adjust each with a click of the wheels on the right side. "

Thumbs eh?

ET

[BillyBean]

I thought Kai's DigitalRev review of the D800 seemed to implicitly state this, namely that the D800 files are so large that it is not entirely practical as a walk around camera.  The Ryan Brenizer review effectively stated the same thing because he takes 250K pictures per year, which is not feasible with 70MB file sizes.

I have to say, I don't really buy this at all. I've been handling 70Mb files out of my Nikon (sorry) negative scanner for years, and I don't exactly have the latest gear, IT wise. Just a pretty regular laptop running Windows XP until a year ago, and more recently Windows 7 (32 bit). I use Lightroom 2,3 and most recently 4 on these files, with no issues whatsoever. I've digitised my entire back-catalogue of negatives, which amount to around 10,000 images. This fits just fine alongside the circa 10,000 RAWs from more recent times, onto a 1 terabyte USB drive, no issues.

250,000 snaps a year is obviously a very high total, but two points: 1. if each of these files is professional, which it must be at this volume, then clearly a professional level of storage network array is called for. 2. Not that I know beans about being professional, but doesn't 250,000 images a year sound a bit snap happy? That's over 1,000 each and every working day, and around 140 an hour, every single working hour of the day. Call me naive or old fashioned, but I'd have thought slowing down and thinking about what you are doing more carefully might be a useful strategy...

[BillyBean]

After all, El Capitan doesn't move very fast, so who cares if the AF is all messed up!

It's probably moving at a rate of 3-4 cm per year.  The 5DIII will have absolutely no problem there.  The 5DII is a different story, though - that camera's AI Servo mode might have a hard time keeping up.

Love it... thanks neuro... 

[Maui5150]

The funny part of Kai's review was him waiting for the Nikon to write from buffer after a burst. 

As for the file size, it is what it is.  The D800 will fill up hard drives a lot quicker, as well, depending on your back up solution, those will get pressed a lot quicker too, especially if you prefer to have 3 points of failure

For folks doing landscape and large images, I am sure it is a dream.  For someone shooting fashion and models , and doing a few hundred shots over a couple of hours, maybe not so much.

[h4ldol]

I avoid Gizmodo at all cost, it's the worst tech blog out there. 

[BillyBean]

For folks doing landscape and large images, I am sure it is a dream.  For someone shooting fashion and models , and doing a few hundred shots over a couple of hours, maybe not so much.

OK: showing my age, but when I got my first PC (at work) it came with 512k of RAM, and a 5Mbyte hard drive. Yes, 5 MEGABYTE. And don't even get me started on loading the operating system from paper tape... (no this isn't a joke...) 

Things change. You can bet that by the time the D800 is replaced, no one will think twice about 70Mb files, or 5-10 terabyte drives. Even now, the cost per gb is ridiculously cheap. I think a bigger issue is post-processing - this isn't just about drive space, it's also processor and RAM overheads.

But anyhow, D800 isn't a practical option for me - too much Canon glass to think of, and I'm not replacing that for a debatable value improvement in megapixels.

[dilbert]

I thought Kai's DigitalRev review of the D800 seemed to implicitly state this, namely that the D800 files are so large that it is not entirely practical as a walk around camera.  The Ryan Brenizer review effectively stated the same thing because he takes 250K pictures per year, which is not feasible with 70MB file sizes.

I have to say, I don't really buy this at all. I've been handling 70Mb files out of my Nikon (sorry) negative scanner for years, and I don't exactly have the latest gear, IT wise. Just a pretty regular laptop running Windows XP until a year ago, and more recently Windows 7 (32 bit). I use Lightroom 2,3 and most recently 4 on these files, with no issues whatsoever. I've digitised my entire back-catalogue of negatives, which amount to around 10,000 images. This fits just fine alongside the circa 10,000 RAWs from more recent times, onto a 1 terabyte USB drive, no issues.

250,000 snaps a year is obviously a very high total, but two points: 1. if each of these files is professional, which it must be at this volume, then clearly a professional level of storage network array is called for. 2. Not that I know beans about being professional, but doesn't 250,000 images a year sound a bit snap happy? That's over 1,000 each and every working day, and around 140 an hour, every single working hour of the day. Call me naive or old fashioned, but I'd have thought slowing down and thinking about what you are doing more carefully might be a useful strategy...

Sports photographers can easily do 250k per year. There are some sports where I can imagine doing 10k-20k per day. But those folks are shooting JPEG and throw away anything that won't be front page.

... they take so many photographs because they press the button before something happens so that if it does, they've recorded it.

The 400k shutter lifetime is for people in this bracket.

But otherwise, if you're shooting 250,000/day, 1000/day as a professional, there is no way you have enough time to get through it all and you should also know pretty quickly which ones are keepers and which are not.

So I'm almost ready to call this argument a hoax.

[FunPhotons]

I thought Kai's DigitalRev review of the D800 seemed to implicitly state this, namely that the D800 files are so large that it is not entirely practical as a walk around camera.  The Ryan Brenizer review effectively stated the same thing because he takes 250K pictures per year, which is not feasible with 70MB file sizes.

I have to say, I don't really buy this at all. I've been handling 70Mb files out of my Nikon (sorry) negative scanner for years, and I don't exactly have the latest gear, IT wise. Just a pretty regular laptop running Windows XP until a year ago, and more recently Windows 7 (32 bit). I use Lightroom 2,3 and most recently 4 on these files, with no issues whatsoever. I've digitised my entire back-catalogue of negatives, which amount to around 10,000 images. This fits just fine alongside the circa 10,000 RAWs from more recent times, onto a 1 terabyte USB drive, no issues.

250,000 snaps a year is obviously a very high total, but two points: 1. if each of these files is professional, which it must be at this volume, then clearly a professional level of storage network array is called for. 2. Not that I know beans about being professional, but doesn't 250,000 images a year sound a bit snap happy? That's over 1,000 each and every working day, and around 140 an hour, every single working hour of the day. Call me naive or old fashioned, but I'd have thought slowing down and thinking about what you are doing more carefully might be a useful strategy...

Agree on all of this. In this day and age worrying about storage is the last thing we should have on our minds in photography. Storage has followed an exponential curve like all other technology. Seems to me that people are looking for a reason - some reason, ANY reason - to not like a (circa 2012) high megapixel camera.

And thanks for the analysis on number of shots, when I first heard that number I thought thats got to be a little padded (me, he-man, me take lots of pictures)   

[scrappydog]

I have to say, I don't really buy this at all. I've been handling 70Mb files out of my Nikon (sorry) negative scanner for years, and I don't exactly have the latest gear, IT wise. Just a pretty regular laptop running Windows XP until a year ago, and more recently Windows 7 (32 bit). I use Lightroom 2,3 and most recently 4 on these files, with no issues whatsoever. I've digitised my entire back-catalogue of negatives, which amount to around 10,000 images. This fits just fine alongside the circa 10,000 RAWs from more recent times, onto a 1 terabyte USB drive, no issues.

250,000 snaps a year is obviously a very high total, but two points: 1. if each of these files is professional, which it must be at this volume, then clearly a professional level of storage network array is called for. 2. Not that I know beans about being professional, but doesn't 250,000 images a year sound a bit snap happy? That's over 1,000 each and every working day, and around 140 an hour, every single working hour of the day. Call me naive or old fashioned, but I'd have thought slowing down and thinking about what you are doing more carefully might be a useful strategy...

The simple response is that with 70MB files, ~28 will fit on a 2GB card, plus as noted by another poster, the Nikon buffer has to process these monster files.  When Kai tested the camera, he commented on how long it took the Nikon to clear the buffer.  So, if one is snap happy, it is tough to get shots when you card fills up quickly and/or when half the time you are waiting for the buffer to clear.

The 250K pictures a year count was provided by a very successful wedding photographer who works with at least one assistant who also takes photos.