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 ;D

 

[Loswr]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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)

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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...

70mb is the compressed size, 200mb when it opens up or is saved to tiff.

 

[briansquibb]

I cant see sport photographers using the D800 at 4fps

 

[Stephen Melvin]

I cant see sport photographers using the D800 at 4fps

Definitely not a sports camera. Neither is the Mk III, really, though it would clearly be a better choice than the D800.

A few things I've noticed from various sources:
1. The D800's buffer/card-writing speed is something that seems to bother a lot of users.

2. The D800's AF may not be up to snuff for the 36mp sensor. The entire sensor, which is apparently the same unit used in the D700, is entirely f/5.6 and f/8 precision, as opposed to the Mk III's sensor which has a mix of f/4 and f/2.8 precision sensors, along with f/5.6 precision sensors. This can make a huge difference with large aperture lenses.

3. There's a bit of complaining about the grip.

4. There's quite a bit of complaining about the screen having bad color.

5. The comparison reviews I've seen so far from independent sites seem to be leaning (so far) toward the 5D Mk III as a more versatile, usable, camera.

I don't state these as a put down of the D800; it's clearly a formidable camera with the highest image quality of any digital camera yet produced. It's just that for all of the complaining I've seen about the Mk III (mostly asking why it's not a D800), it looks like Canon actually did a very good job making a well-rounded camera. In day-to-day use, I think it's really hit the sweet spot.

 

[KeithR]

it looks like Canon actually did a very good job making a well-rounded camera. In day-to-day use, I think it's really hit the sweet spot.

Precisely, Stephen - it's a "do everything very well..." camera.

Who really cares if there's the odd edge use-case where the D800 might do a bit better?

 

[Loswr]

2. The D800's AF may not be up to snuff for the 36mp sensor. The entire sensor, which is apparently the same unit used in the D700, is entirely f/5.6 and f/8 precision, as opposed to the Mk III's sensor which has a mix of f/4 and f/2.8 precision sensors, along with f/5.6 precision sensors. This can make a huge difference with large aperture lenses.

I don't recall Nikon (or anyone else) stating that the D700 had f/8-sensitive AF points...does it?

I still wonder how Nikon is achieving accuracy with their f/8 sensors - is it like Canon's 1-series center AF points, where the sensor lines have twice the pixel density of the other lines, for improved accuracy with the smaller baseline?

 

[awinphoto]

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.

You're assuming he, personally is shooting 1000 a day... if he has 1-2 or more second/third shooters and assistants, which someone of his volume may be, it is very reasonable. Also dont forget, most wedding photogs are so afraid of missing the moment, they overshoot... It's all about numbers and odds... They shoot 1000-1200 shots for one wedding for instance, raw/jpeg whatever, they have more keepers on average to fill up a wedding album/sell to the client than one shooting 500-600 pictures... A good chunk will be repetitive, a good chunk may be slightly off focus, may slightly be off topic, may be scrappers, but the more shot and by more photographers/assistants from different angles, the more chance he has to nail the shot that may be his "money" shot. Plus everything that he keeps during his initial cut, generally is saved long term in case the client wants more. Storage is cheap, yes, but it's still a factor to include... I shoot professionally... all my keepers are saved either on a network of portable TB HD, but in the end I dont want to keep going out every few months to buy more HD's if I can help it...

 

[Kernuak]

Also, a significant proportion of professionals aren't that tech savvy, so beyond not wanting to get more storage than they need to, they may not have the knowledge to get the best options. They will buy what they need for the job and nothing more. Storage may be cheap, but it is still an added expense on top of the photography gear and they have to be able to justify that expense in terms of being able to make a return on the investment. If they don't, then they have wasted potential profit.

 

[K-amps]

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.

Assuming he saves the jpegs for quick proofing; thats 25 TB of disk space per year...