I know that the D800 is not really the replacement model over the D700. Nevertheless, it did replace my old D700 and the D800 is, I believe, better suited for my photographic needs than the D700, i.e., studio, portraits, and landscape.The D700 was and still is an outstanding DSLR. The D800 is of course better, but in a very perceptible way, which was quite a surprise to me.
I have done over 5000 shots since my purchase on 24 March. So far, no issues to report: no green cast from the LCD and no problems with the CLS system.
Nikon has really outperformed with this new DSLR and the clear improvements are:
Much improved Dynamic Range, which was my main problem since my first DSLR
Better colors straight off the camera: deeper and richer
Better AF in low light ***UPDATE*** After comparing with older Nikon DSLRs, this improvement is minor and only perceptible on cross-type AF points.
Highly detailed photographs at full res, 100% magnification and also when down-scaling the photos.
Let's not forget a proper and useable HD video feature at broadcasting quality. ***UPDATE*** Perhaps not broadcasting quality, but close enough.
On the negative side (there has to be some):
The zoom in and zoom out buttons are reversed from the old models, which is now more logical, but I am used to the old wrong way! it's a minor problem of course.
D4 has backlit buttons, why not on the D800? This can't be that expensive to include.
Very expensive Battery pack, this is a major drawback for me. But yes, the D800 is well priced at $3000. I just hate ridiculously priced accessories.
still wonder the point of having 1 CF slot and 1 SD slot. 2 CF slots would have been superb. But I guess if you come from a SD card DSLR, that would be practical for you.
Left AF points can suffer from front/back focusing issues on wide angle lenses, but this can be fixed at a Nikon repair center under warranty ***UPDATE***
One crucial point that has to be considered when acquiring a 36MP DSLR: storage will be an issue. I just purchased a 4TB ext hard drive. A 14-bit RAW file (uncompressed) coming from the D800 will average 75MB.
I just shot a wedding, and I consider the D800 to be an excellent choice for the job. All the complains about shots being more blurry at 100% magnification are irrelevant. One has to be precise with his/her settings, at the right exposure and optimal shutter speed, results can be absolutely mind-blowing. And since most won't need 36MP for wedding photographs, down-scaling images will certainly eliminate slight camera-shake or noise.
One particular aspect that I appreciate is that my Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G is now tack-sharp at f/1.4. I had a front focusing issue with my old D700 even with the fine-tune option set to max. Since I'm no techie geek, I still don't understand why the D700 gave me problems with the 85mm.
Anyway, I used to be one of those people saying that digital photography will never replace film photography. The D800 has changed all that.
My update is geared toward event shooters, for still-life and landscape shooters, my original review stands.
After a year of ownership with two bodies, here are my final thoughts:
This is the best landscape or studio DSLR in the market. Other than not having Custom User Settings (U1, U2) like the D600, D7000, and top-tier Canon DSLRs, this camera has great ergonomics with tons of highly customizable buttons to control the most used functions.
For wedding, amateur sports, or anything that requires accurate, consistent autofocus (AF) look elsewhere. I have had both bodies and a replacement body (serial 3041XXX) "fixed" by Nikon and they feel the latest fixes are good enough. Good enough, I did not invest $18,000 in to a system for good enough!
Without getting into the whole Left Side AF saga, which is readily available on other reviews and websites, the AF is horribly inconsistent even with the latest firmware (A: 1.01/B:1.02) using the center AF sensor with AF-S. Worse even is the AF-C, if shooting a person walking towards the camera at a slow to medium pace in the F/1.4-2.0 range, expect 1 out of 10 perfectly focused, 2 acceptable, and 7 throwaways. I took a huge financial hit switching to Canon (selling used, buying new), however, my two Canon 5DMK3s get 5 perfectly focused, 4 acceptable, and about 1 throwaway running the same test of a person walking towards the camera.
Ergonomically speaking, Nikon did many things better than Canon. Spot metering is based on AF point, AF points viewable in dark scenes, more direct buttons, intelligent Auto ISO, non-finicky AF selector, Flash options (HSS, Rear Curtain Sync, etc.) are quickly accessible with button on camera, able to select full stop exposure increments, and many more. Overall less menu digging, and obviously Nikon's megapixel advantage is nice for cropping, although 12 MP is more than enough for 99.5% of printing, it is nice being able to crop heavily in post. I really wanted this camera to work, in fact my cameras made over ten trips to Nikon service centers in CA and NY, and they never got them to work, their CS is beyond atrocious and their technicians are incompetent.
The Canon's sensor seems like 2008 tech, but as I mentioned the AF performance is superior. I would rather have a focused image taken by an average sensor, than a blurred image taken by a sensor with all the dynamic range and megapixels in the world. Average in today's terms is still amazing, I just have to be more careful and ensure accurate exposure.
BOTTOM LINE:
If you are a photographer that uses Zeiss lenses for landscape, or only use the center AF in the aperture range of F/5.6-11 and then recompose while in a controlled setting, this camera will amaze you. However, if you shoot wide open with fast primes and not getting the "shot" puts yourself or company at risk, look into another camera (i.e. D4, D3s, Canon 1 Series, 5D MK3).
I am a full-time wedding photographer, if my livelihood did not depend on camera equipment, I would have stayed with Nikon because of its superior user interface. However, in my line of work there are no do-overs, thus the Nikon advantages gave way to its faults, and after struggling with Nikon's abysmal QC and CS, I could not reward them by buying two D4's.
********* ********* ********* *********
...
See that my purchase is verified by Amazon. Below are my observations after one month of ownership.
Pros:
+ Resolution: With the right lenses and on the right settings the detail is astonishing.
+ Dynamic Range: Incredible, when shooting in lower ISO's it is near impossible to ruin a photo. Search the internet "fred miranda d800 review Yosemite" to see real life comparisons.
+ Color: Adobe profiles in LR and ACR are horrible, create custom profiles using a X-Rite ColorChecker Passport Software and then tweak it with Adobe DNG profiler for better colors.
+ AutoWB: Works well in about 70% of lighting scenarios, somewhat better than the D3/D700. *** See Tip Below ***
+ Low ISO: Having a true 100 ISO is godsend for on-location lighting setups.
+ High ISO: The D800 and LR4 do an excellent job in controlling noise. Using PS plugins a properly exposed image can print acceptable 6x9's at 12800 ISO (max for D3/D700's is 6400).
+ Tonality: With a good camera profile in LR4, the tonal range rivals Fujifilm 400H Film. This is incredibly useful on portraits with 4-1 or greater lighting ratios. Posterization in the shadows (DSLRs Achilles' heel) is only noticeable on highly manipulated images.
+ Handling: The auto ISO is easy to engage and the new position of the ISO button is more intuitive when looking through the viewfinder than on the D700. Like the D700, the D800 is extremely customizable.
Neutral:
~ Handling: I prefer the AF switches of the D700. The magnification + are opposite from the D700, a small irritation.
~ Exposure: Better than D3/D700, but far from perfect. Contrary to Nikon's literature, it struggles with backlit scenes.
~ Frames per second: I rarely shoot in continuous, and when I do, I have my D3/D700 set to CL (continuous low-speed) of 2 FPS.
~ Battery Performance: It can get me through a full day's shoot if I avoid extensive LiveView or WiFi use, otherwise I need to use a backup battery.
~ Autofocus: The AF is very similar to the D3/D700, good but could have been better.
Cons:
Software: Nikon software can produce excellent results, but it is clunky and slow.
Handling: The mode selector button is awkwardly placed. I prefer the D7000 U1/U2 style custom banks.
JPEG: Lacking when compared to Olympus, Panasonic, and Canon. ALWAYS SHOOT RAW!
Autofocus: 1.) All 51 points are still too centrally located 2.) No increase in cross-type sensors over the D3/D700 3.) All the cross-type AF sensors are in the middle. 4.) Like the D3/700, the outer sensors are near useless in low lit, low contrast situations.
LiveView: There is a well reported bug when using LiveView at 100% viewing, although I am still able to focus, I heard that is a deal-breaker for many landscape shooters. I have no idea how people survived 100 years of film or shoot $20k+ Hasselblad's.
*** TIP *** Remove the dreaded Nikon green cast by shifting the WB Fine-Tune (pg. 149) 1 or 2 points toward Magenta on each (AutoWB, Custom, Shade, Daylight, etc..) WB setting and get much better results short of using a QP Card 202/203 or X-Rite Passport for every scene change.
Summary:
Using proper technique, the images this camera produces are superior to any camera I ever shot. Would I jump systems for this camera? If I owned a large collection of top-tier gear, NO! Otherwise, I would consider it if I was not too invested. Does it equal or better Medium Format? There are differences in perspective, defraction limits, DOF, FOV, and CANNOT BE COMPARED.
Having shot Canon (AE-1, 630, A2, Elan II, 20D, 40D, 5D mkI & mkII, 1D's), Nikon (FM, F4, F100, D200, D300s, D7000, D700, D800, D3), Fuji (S3, S5), Mamiya (645, RB67), and Hasselblad (H4D-40), I know that they are excellent tools that are capable of creating amazing images. Pick the one that best fits your needs and go out and shoot.
Buy Nikon D800 36.3 MP CMOS FX-Format Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) Now
I'm a Sony shooter with only a few lenses. I use to shoot Canon during the film days. I tested both the Canon 5D mkIII and the Nikon D800 and here are my results. I tested a 5DmkIII with a 24-70 f2.8 lens and a Nikon D800 (not D800e) with a 24-70 f2.8 lens.High ISO:
About the same, except D800 has a lot more detail to work with. In Lightroom, I can save a higher percentage of ISO 6400 shots because the D800 has more detail. Canon seems cleaner initially in Lightroom but when the picture fits into a 24" 1920x1080 monitor or a 64" Samsung plasma TV, the Nikon looks a tad cleaner, noise less noticeable. I think the Canon looks cleaner in Lightroom because it is just a smaller picture. But displaying ISO 6400 shots on a monitor or TV, Nikon looks nicer in general. Both cameras at ISO 12,800 look awful and not recoverable in Lightroom. It might look acceptable as a really small pic but why the heck would you buy an expensive camera to display crappy looking pictures?
Frames per second:
Easy winner. Canon can shoot 6 FPS, Nikon 4 FPS. However, in practice I think 4 FPS is pretty good. None of these cameras are really Olympic style sports cameras.
Resolution:
Easy winner. Nikon's RAW files are more detailed, almost 3D like. I can't really explain it other than the pictures look more real. I can crop a photo to 1/3 it's size (12 megapixels) and it still looks stunning. I wonder how much better the D800e version is. I'll have to wait until my friend receives his to find out.
JPEG:
Easy winner. Out of the camera, the Canon JPEGs are phenomenal. The processing done is quite remarkable.
RAW:
Easy winner. If you shoot RAW, Nikon is it. Also there is an issue with the Canon with the color red. I think the color is overblown at times because all the details are loss and not recoverable in Lightroom. Not always but it has happened at least twice. The same photo on the Nikon kept all the details.
Autofocus:
About the same. Canon and Nikon have awesomely quick autofocus and I couldn't determine a difference. The only caveat is that Nikon focuses better in lowlight (without the autofocus assist lamp) and also the Nikon focuses when there is almost no light (with the autofocus assist lamp). Why the heck doesn't Canon include an autofocus assist lamp is beyond me. Also, Nikon's face detection is extremely useful because it focuses right on the eyeballs.
Flash:
Easy winner. Canon doesn't have built in flash. Nikon flash worked surprisingly well.
Dynamic Range:
Easy winner. Nikon knocked it out of the park. I got a lot less blown highlights with shots with white clothing and more realistic blue skys. Also, there is a lot more headroom on both the highlights and shadows on the Nikon when editing in Lightroom. How did Nikon have better shadows and highlights! They have to share some of that technology!
Video:
Suprisingly about the same. I would have thought that Canon's lead in video would maintain. Surprisingly, the Nikon's video was just as awesome as the Canon. Nikon's video has a bit more detail and is definitely a little sharper than the Canon. I didn't test Nikon's uncompressed HDMI out, although it seems to be a useful feature (this is like RAW HDMI output for video). Canon should adopt uncompressed HDMI out also.
Price:
Easy winner. Why anyone (who doesn't already have Nikon or Canon lenses) would buy this Canon for $500 more than the Nikon would need to think twice. I can see why the Nikon is selling so much better than the Canon, at least on Amazon.
Comfort:
Both about the same weight. Both feel nice in the hand. Canon possibly slightly more comfortable if you have bigger hands. Nikon maybe more comfortable with smaller hands. Both are fine though.
USB transfer:
Nikon wins with USB 3.0. Skipping the card reader altogether by just plugging in the camera to the computer is convenient. Also the transfer speed is much much faster than Canon's older USB 2.0. This saves a lot of time.
LCD Screen:
Canon has slightly better screen in direct sunlight (LCD facing up towards the sun). Nikon is better when the LCD is not directly facing the sun. Nikon's screen is crisper and more 3D like.
Weatherproofing:
My last day of shooting was in a light mist/drizzle. I was shooting both cameras again for about 20 minutes when the Canon 5D mkIII developed some fogging inside the viewfinder screen. I could not wipe it away as it seemed to be inside the camera. I could no longer take pictures normally without live view. Nikon didn't have this problem and I continued to shoot the rest of the day with the Nikon in the same wet conditions without issue. I had planned to shoot at least 2 weeks with both cameras so this was definitely a bummer.
Lenses:
Both Canon and Nikon's 24-70 2.8 lenses are great. I would say the Canon 24-70 2.8 is just a tad faster on focus. Nikon is slightly sharper in the corners. Both Nikon and Canon seem to have a very comparable lens assortment (although my wallet won't be happy buying so many new lenses!)
Well, after using both cameras for about a week, I kept the Nikon D800 and returned my (possibly water damaged) Canon 5D mkIII. Both are phenomenal cameras but D800 has definitely outclassed the 5D mkIII in this round. Maybe Canon will come back strong with its next version. It definitely has some catching up to do.
Thanks for reading my review and I'll also post this on the Nikon D800 and Canon 5D mkIII review page. Best of luck to all you photogs and enjoy these phenomenal cameras!
Read Best Reviews of Nikon D800 36.3 MP CMOS FX-Format Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) Here
I have used the D700 bodies extensively over the past two years and I've grown accustomed to them like my own hands. The D700 has been hands down the best DSLR I've used during its time. I shoot weddings professionally and I almost always carry two D700 bodies on me and thus weight quickly adds up when you carry the 2 bodies along with lenses and flashes, which makes it nearly impossible for me to use the D3/D4 series. The D700 has been a blessing with the right balance of nearly everything.How quickly has time gone by and now the D700 is giving way to the D800. Some say that the D800 isn't exactly the successor to the D700 and after the initial tests of my own, I tend to agree.
By now I'm sure you have seen countless reviews of this camera so I'm not going to bother telling you what's so good about it.
Instead, I'll focus on the main differences comparing to the D700.
My initial reactions holding the camera:
The body feels lighter, not by much, but definitely lighter
The grip feels different. Initially I think I still prefer the D700 grip better since the D800 grip feels fatter where your right index finger lies, not exactly a good thing for people with small/medium hands.
There is now an additional video record button near the shutter release button up top which is awesome,
but then that also moved the Mode Button which I often use, and they made the button smaller to make way for the video record button. This will take a little to get used to.
My initial reactions looking through the viewfinder:
The +/indicators are inverted by default (inverted by the usual Nikon standard: + / 0 / )
After a little digging it can be reversed in the Menu
There is now TWO virtual horizon indicators helping you level the camera rotating left/right, and tilting up/down this is absolutely awesome and extremely useful.
My initial handing the camera:
The 8-direction cursor button is more recessed, making it harder to accidentally hit the center button but I feel like the directional arrows are a tad harder to press
They reversed the positions of the (+) and (-) buttons on the left side making it more like the newer DSLRs. I'll be pressing the wrong button for a couple months before I adapt to this.
The focus mode button on the back is now gone, I accidentally pressed that old button on the D700 many times,
In place of it there's now a dedicated Live View button and there's an ambient light sensor next to it,
that sensor allows the camera to control the LCD monitor brightness automatically. It's an excellent implementation and seemingly work very well during my initial testings.
The D700 mode dial on the left had ISO, Qual, and WB; while the D800 now has an addition of BKT (bracketing) button there also. However they put BKT in place of ISO, and now ISO moved towards the back of the camera where there was nothing on the D700. This again, is something that will take time to get used to.
The AF mode toggle is changed to more like the D7000. The D700 has S (static), C (continuous), and M (manual), and this new one is either AF or M. There's a small button on top of the toggle that you hold down to change focus mode you use the command dial and sub command dial to change between AF-S and AF-C; 3D tracking, 9-point, 21-point, 51-point, single point. I'll just have to say it's different. The good: you can see what you're changing through the viewfinder I like especially the "3D" indication when you change into AF-C 3D tracking they used the 51 on the focusing screen to draw out "3D" which makes it very easy to see without having to look at the top LCD panel or digging into the Menu. This is a huge thing 'cause now you can easily change focus mode without taking your eye off the viewfinder and actually see what you're doing as you change focus modes.
I feel like my eye has to aim a little lower as I look through the viewfinder, again something to get used to.
The lock button when not reviewing picture is now dedicated to Picture Control making it much easier to access
The autofocus assist light is very very bright!
My initial findings using the camera:
image quality is amazing
the RAW files are huge... I find myself handing 40-50MB RAW images and my 16GB CF cards are no longer sufficient
LiveView is very easy to use and going into LiveView mode is very responsive.
For some reasons shooting pictures in LiveView keeps the shutter open for 3 seconds even when I'm shooting even 1/50 sec, making it hard to recognize when exactly the camera is shooting. I'm rather confused about whether this is by design or is it actually a bug.
Dual card slot is a nice addition, but I'm not sure if I'll be heavily relying on this or not given the file size is already so big. I may end up getting huge SD cards to have it capture JPG as a form of backup instead of having the SD also store RAW.
16GB cards store roughly 200 RAW pictures from what the camera estimates, ouch. This is based on 14-bit RAW files and lossless compression.
If you're wondering, there isn't a smaller file size for RAW images.
Battery is new, same as the D7000's. Say goodbye to your old EN-EL3e and say hello to EN-EL15.
There's now a Quiet shutter mode, but I find it only slowing down the shutter open/close motion a bit but not exactly very quiet.
Quick notes after using it on the field:
focus speed is on par with D700. I think the AF-C 3D tracking works even more accurately.
viewfinder 100% coverage is very nice, but I noticed the 51 points are closer to the center comparing to the D700. It's a minor annoyance.
The camera estimates 400 shots left on a 32GB card shooting 14-bit compressed RAW, but in reality after shooting 392 and it still estimates another 170 left. My RAW files range from 38MB to 50MB average around 43 to 44 range. I have a feeling they'll tweak the estimation a lil better on the next firmware update.
ISO800 images are very clean, I shot a few at ISO1600 where I normally would have busted out my flash. This is definitely a big step up from the D700.
The dedicated LiveView button is very very nice using LiveView video mode is quick and easy too and it saves a different set of iso/aperture/shutter speed so if you're switching from photo to video and back you wouldn't have to readjust all your settings.
The EN-EL15 batteries lasted me the whole event without a problem just like the EN-EL3e did on my D700 bodies.
LiveView shooting does lag in an annoying as shown in the initial testings. It takes a while for the camera to respond after shooting a LiveView picture.
Final Thoughts:
36MP is HUGE. It may not be for everyone, but then again the D800 along with that kind of resolution at $3,000 definitely has its impact on the DSLR market. Despite the difficulty handling large RAW files, it is generally a welcome additional along with its amazing image quality. Image quality is absolutely stunning DxO Mark rates it at 95 and calls it "A full-frame sensor with no weak points" for a good reason.
if you're wondering if there's different size for RAW, the answer is NO. There is no small medium large RAW RAW is RAW and it's always 36MP.
I hear some complaints about the placement for the video record button. It's a little off from the shutter button so it's not the easiest to reach, but you can also set up the shutter button to record video in LiveView video mode. Nikon definitely have it very well thought out implementing the video feature in the D800.
D700 users will have to take some time to get used to the changes in button placements, but nothing too drastic that might make it a deal killer.
The D800 takes a giant leap into the cinematography world with features that will bring tears to enthusiasts holding out for Nikon. It is overall an amazing camera to use and simply another legendary Nikon in the making. It has taken giant leaps from the D700 but in my opinion a lot of it seems to be towards a slightly different approach. It does feel a little different from what I would call a natural progression from the D700, and thus it does make sense to call it a whole new different product. Until Nikon decides to release a whole new full frame DSLR below the D3/D4 line in direct succession to the D700, the D800 will be the choice of many working professionals including myself for years to come.
Want Nikon D800 36.3 MP CMOS FX-Format Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) Discount?
(There are already many reviews on how this camera compare to the older Nikon D700, it's competitor: Canon 5D Mark III, so I won't reiterate)About me: Been using SLR for over 20 years... first 10 on film, recent 10 on digital SLR's. I've used Leica, Nikon, Canon SLR's... and I've longed to get the next full-frame (FX) camera after Nikon D700 (without referring it to "D700 replacement"). When the camera was finally announced, it came out like a pair of twins were born. The D800 and D800E are almost identical, and I wasn't sure which baby to choose. If you have the same dilemma, read on...
Many people (myself included) doesn't seemed overly concerned that D800 is $300 cheaper, because many photographers are perfectionists and the hope that D800E offers sharper images makes it really tempting. But after after much research and comparisons, I finally chose D800 (no E). Why??? Here's my rationale:
Eventually, the choice to get D800E instead of D800 hinges on trade-off between
* benefits of greater sharpness, against
* cost or risk of Moire (or unexpected patterns in the pics/video)
Depending on what you shoot:
* portraits, fashion, weddings, architectures, wide range of stuff => Go for D800
* macro, landscape, tripod-mounted shots or those with time to position light/camera/subject => Go for D800E
Moire MAY occur when you shoot repeated patterns, such as:
* fabrics (on clothes)
* glass or windows of buildings
* straight hair of people
Once it happens, it's not easy to remove in photos (despite claims that a few clicks on Adobe Lightroom 4, or Photoshop). It's also more problematic in video, which I'm not sure how it can be corrected.
As such, one camp of people would say they rather have sharper images ALL the time, and risk a small x% of time that they get Moire. That seems fine reason except that to get the sharper images distinguishable between the 800E and the 800, it's ALMOST ALWAYS due to other factors such as:
1. lens (do you have the high quality glass)
2. filter (high quality filter in front of lens?)
3. ISO (if you shoot at high ISO, the noise will eliminate such clarity)
4. f/stop or aperture (depth of field)
5. camera shake (tripod?)
6. how close you examine the photo
To detect the clarity difference between D800 and D800E, according to Nikon, you need to be shooting at 3 stops above max aperture of a great lens (usually f8-f11). Above this range, it negates the benefits of D800E. Furthermore, in order to see the difference, you need to pixel peep, and at the plane of focus.
I typically shoot with wide aperture for the bokeh and rarely are my subjects in the same flat plane
I usually don't look so closely at my photos, so that clarity is good to have but not critical
To detect Moire, you can likely see it with your naked eye if the area is large. It can occur on a person's cloths, or a building or just railing beside your subject.
You can prevent this before you shoot by repositioning the lights, subject or camera. But it's a chore!
You can fix it after you shoot with software. But it requires the shot be on RAW format to be more effective! Also a chore!.
If like me, you don't want to deal with these pre-production and post-production work and just want to enjoy taking great shots of what you see, then I believe D800 is yours to buy. Precious moments are limited and I'd rather spend extra time capturing them than figuring out how to avoid or fix Moire. There are people with patience and care to fix all these, but I'm not one of them... and perhaps by then, another new camera would have been born hopefully not a triplet this time. :)
I've been toying with this new camera and will post additional comments soon...
If this helps you better decide which camera is better for you, let me (and others know) by clicking the "Is this review helpful" below. I'm sure there are other reviewers out there who would give various viewpoint and hopefully this will add a valuable perspective as well.
Save 7% Off
No comments:
Post a Comment