Thoughts of Gizmodo today - pretty balanced

[Daniel Flather]

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...

AKA, 1tb every two weeks, approximately.

 

[SandyP]

The thing that most people don't really talk much about when writing these things, is... a lot of us already have cameras that were like the 5D2, D700, 1D series or D3 series, etc. Higher end cameras. And also a ton of amazing lenses for either Nikon or Canon. Switching isn't cheap, it's not easy for most of us. If I really wanted to switch to Nikon (I don't want to), it wouldn't be so easy. My 35L, 50L and 135L won't sell for as much as brand new, and the Nikon equivalents are more expensive. Also, my TS-E and 100mm macro, same thing there. So I'd be losing money on lenses, big time. And same goes for Nikon users.

Is the resolution bump, something the vast majority of people have no need for, or practical application for, worth switching everything over? Is the snappier AF and better clean ISOs and better video of the 5D3, or "sexier" lenses of the Canon line up worth switching over for? It's totally not. And I suspect most people who boast they're gonna swtich, aren't. And most of those people most likely have absolutely no need.

After all, almost all of these things will not make our photos better, our creativity and vision have very little, or nothing to do with it all!

 

[briansquibb]

The thing that most people don't really talk much about when writing these things, is... a lot of us already have cameras that were like the 5D2, D700, 1D series or D3 series, etc. Higher end cameras. And also a ton of amazing lenses for either Nikon or Canon. Switching isn't cheap, it's not easy for most of us. If I really wanted to switch to Nikon (I don't want to), it wouldn't be so easy. My 35L, 50L and 135L won't sell for as much as brand new, and the Nikon equivalents are more expensive. Also, my TS-E and 100mm macro, same thing there. So I'd be losing money on lenses, big time. And same goes for Nikon users.

Is the resolution bump, something the vast majority of people have no need for, or practical application for, worth switching everything over? Is the snappier AF and better clean ISOs and better video of the 5D3, or "sexier" lenses of the Canon line up worth switching over for? It's totally not. And I suspect most people who boast they're gonna swtich, aren't. And most of those people most likely have absolutely no need.

After all, almost all of these things will not make our photos better, our creativity and vision have very little, or nothing to do with it all!

Nicely put

 

[JR]

The thing that most people don't really talk much about when writing these things, is... a lot of us already have cameras that were like the 5D2, D700, 1D series or D3 series, etc. Higher end cameras. And also a ton of amazing lenses for either Nikon or Canon. Switching isn't cheap, it's not easy for most of us. If I really wanted to switch to Nikon (I don't want to), it wouldn't be so easy. My 35L, 50L and 135L won't sell for as much as brand new, and the Nikon equivalents are more expensive. Also, my TS-E and 100mm macro, same thing there. So I'd be losing money on lenses, big time. And same goes for Nikon users.

Is the resolution bump, something the vast majority of people have no need for, or practical application for, worth switching everything over? Is the snappier AF and better clean ISOs and better video of the 5D3, or "sexier" lenses of the Canon line up worth switching over for? It's totally not. And I suspect most people who boast they're gonna swtich, aren't. And most of those people most likely have absolutely no need.

After all, almost all of these things will not make our photos better, our creativity and vision have very little, or nothing to do with it all!

Nicely put

+1

 

[Wrathwilde]

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.

Actually, with the rotation of the earth, El Capitan is traveling somewhere between 820 to 850 mph. It's amazing how still it looks though.

Cheers,
Wrathwilde

 

[Loswr]

Actually, with the rotation of the earth, El Capitan is traveling somewhere between 820 to 850 mph. It's amazing how still it looks though.

Clearly a vast underestimate, as you've failed to include revolution about the sun, galactic rotation, and the expansion of the universe into account.

 

[mcintoshi]

Regarding the 250k photos statistic: I'd probably be quick to jump on the "he must be exaggerating OR he must be way too trigger-happy" bandwagon, if it weren't for the fact that Brenizer's work is just so consistently amazing. The most brilliant wedding photographer I've come across on the web, certainly.

 

[Wrathwilde]

Actually, with the rotation of the earth, El Capitan is traveling somewhere between 820 to 850 mph. It's amazing how still it looks though.

Clearly a vast underestimate, as you've failed to include revolution about the sun, galactic rotation, and the expansion of the universe into account.

But relative to the person taking the photo?

I did, but since I don't have the math to work that out... I left as compared to the poles.

 

[Bosman]

He said it like i thought it. Its a good studio and landscape camera but not good for on the go pj work like weddings. Think of how the memory card companies are salivating at customers snatching up the 64 & 128 gig CF cards!
One 64 gig card will take 914 raws @ 70mb each file
One 128 gig 1828 raws approx
64 gig $220 - $460
128 gig $376 -$799
No thanks!

 

[Stephen Melvin]

SD cards are much cheaper, and also much slower.

Any word on whether the D800 supports the UHS standard?

 

[BillyBean]

Regarding the 250k photos statistic: I'd probably be quick to jump on the "he must be exaggerating OR he must be way too trigger-happy" bandwagon, if it weren't for the fact that Brenizer's work is just so consistently amazing. The most brilliant wedding photographer I've come across on the web, certainly.

I certainly had no intention of criticising the guy - his work is great, and however he produces it is certainly none of my business. I was simply highlighting that 250,000 images a year is a heck of a lot to be archiving, which is what he implies by his 'non-starter' comment, and that if each of these images is valued enough to archive, he should not be whining about the 20 terabytes that it takes for 250k 36MP images vs the 10-15 terabytes it would take for 250k @ 22mp. That's just silly, frankly, given that you can get a terabyte for less than £100 these days.

 

[grahamsz]

I certainly had no intention of criticising the guy - his work is great, and however he produces it is certainly none of my business. I was simply highlighting that 250,000 images a year is a heck of a lot to be archiving, which is what he implies by his 'non-starter' comment, and that if each of these images is valued enough to archive, he should not be whining about the 20 terabytes that it takes for 250k 36MP images vs the 10-15 terabytes it would take for 250k @ 22mp. That's just silly, frankly, given that you can get a terabyte for less than £100 these days.

I suppose I find it hard to believe that 12TB is doable but 20TB is not. Granted by the time you have redundant hard disks and offsite backups it becomes more expensive than just buying the drive, but at the point that you can do 12, you can do 20 for less than double the price.