Cancelled my D800 pre-order... !!!

[Mt Spokane Photography]

...

Unfortunately, the Nikon picture is vy different now with Sony backing them up with Exmor backlit sensors!

The D800 does not have a  exmore backlit sensor, why confuse people by bring them up?

[roumin]

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." ... Scott Fitzgerald

jpeg are mostly fine, but there are times when RAWs are just better. Either way, I believe you are better off with 80% of your focus on composition, good lighting, good story, etc..   RAW vs jpeg, Nikon vs Canon, crop vs FF, 5d2 vs 5d3, etc.. is mostly irrelevant.  my $.02 

[friedmud]

As long as we're hijacking this thread to talk about RAW vs jpeg I thought I would throw my 2 cents in.

Personally, I love RAW.  It gives me the flexibility I'm looking for to design my vision in Post.  For me there is almost no difference in post time because I edit every picture I keep... Raw or jpeg.  Note that "keep" word.  Using Lightroom I can blow through a shoot of 300 photos in no time... Whittling it down to the 10-20 keepers that matter.  Then I post process those.

Honestly, using a good piece photo library software makes all the difference.  Once you get used to rejecting 90% of your photos (do you really need 40 shots of your nephew's face with ice cream on it or 20 shots of that same waterfall?) your post time goes down dramatically.  Not only will you thank yourself for not spending so much time in front of the computer... But everyone else will thank you as well ( hint!  Your coworkers don't care to see 300 photos of your dog from last weekend!)

With all of that said, I do shoot both raw and jpeg but it has to do with speed and size.  C3 on my 7D is my "holy S___ look at that!" mode that's set up for high speed shutter with servo AF.  It also is set to save jpegs.  When you're shooting 9fps raw your card can fill up in a hurry... but with jpeg I can shoot forever.  Every single other thing I do with my camera is shot in RAW.  And if storage was no issue I would shoot the high speed stuff in raw as well...

[awinphoto]

I know plenty of pros who use RAW and don't (can't afford to) outsource their work. The main difference is in what they shoot and how much PP they're willing to do. Nature photographers mostly shoot RAW (there are some exceptions), but they don't tend to have the large number of shots per shoot that PJs may have, also, because they are (usually) looking for more reality than fine art, they do just enough PP to make the image look good and don't bother with the lesser quality images that they may have taken while exploring the subject, trying to get the final product. I know of one pro, who will spend 2-3 hours on a single subject, taking images every few minutes until he finds the composition he was looking for. In those few hours, he probably has less than 20 images, compare that to a PJ in a few minutes when something newsworthy happens and there is a complete disparity in the number of images.

As i said there are a few pro's who do their own, and a lot more who have assistants or outsource raws.  Many wedding photogs that does their own, there are a few that can spend days going through 1 wedding just processing, editing, etc...  Some others do it a lot quicker whether it is that they use expodiscs to nail color and exposure, or other means...  It is what it is... those who can afford assistants go that route, those who can afford outsourcing go that route... others who cant do their own...  In the end, whatever works for the individual photog that brings him success and consistency, more power to them.  As for me, some clients need every drop of IQ possible, others are just going to be posted on their website or small catalog size in which most of the IQ goes away when resized.  Anyways this is as much of a personal preference as the nikon/canon debate but lets try not to get off topic  =)

[psolberg]

well, I'm in the process of switching away from the mkII and I'm one of the few people here that actually owns a D800 and has shot with it long enough to form an informed opinion. After 3 days of using it, RAW is the way to go with this bad boy. The level of detail, color, DR, simply blew my socks off. There is just nothing in the canon side that comes close, and it would be a waste to use jpg only unless you have some really good reason to.





 

[Marsu42]

well, I'm in the process of switching away from the mkII and I'm one of the few people here that actually owns a D800 and has shot with it long enough to form an informed opinion. The level of detail, color, DR, simply blew my socks off.

It's a real pity there is no real competition between Nikon and Canon because people are fixed to a system with their lenses. Given the d800, I'd really like to see Canon prices drop accordingly - but looking at the 5d3 demand, this is not likely to happen.

[psolberg]

well, I'm in the process of switching away from the mkII and I'm one of the few people here that actually owns a D800 and has shot with it long enough to form an informed opinion. The level of detail, color, DR, simply blew my socks off.

It's a real pity there is no real competition between Nikon and Canon because people are fixed to a system with their lenses. Given the d800, I'd really like to see Canon prices drop accordingly - but looking at the 5d3 demand, this is not likely to happen.

You are correct. And it is a pitty canon simply charges that because they know they can get away with it.

[Orion]

well, I'm in the process of switching away from the mkII and I'm one of the few people here that actually owns a D800 and has shot with it long enough to form an informed opinion. The level of detail, color, DR, simply blew my socks off.

It's a real pity there is no real competition between Nikon and Canon because people are fixed to a system with their lenses. Given the d800, I'd really like to see Canon prices drop accordingly - but looking at the 5d3 demand, this is not likely to happen.

You are correct. And it is a pitty canon simply charges that because they know they can get away with it.

. . . . which is jsut another reason why I HATE "fanboys" and their B.S.

but I would also veture to say thqat Canonis not getting away with anything . . . . the 5DmkIII IS WORTH $3500. My 30D cost me a pretty penny when it was released . . and the 5DmkIII is MORE than fair. I AM IN HEAVEN. But yes . . I know . . . . it is still $500 more than the D800 . . . . "OMG"

[briansquibb]

well, I'm in the process of switching away from the mkII and I'm one of the few people here that actually owns a D800 and has shot with it long enough to form an informed opinion. After 3 days of using it, RAW is the way to go with this bad boy. The level of detail, color, DR, simply blew my socks off. There is just nothing in the canon side that comes close, and it would be a waste to use jpg only unless you have some really good reason to.

Have you used a 1DS3 then?