Angry Canon Shooters

Started May 2, 2012 | Discussions thread
Lance B
Forum ProPosts: 26,783Gear list
His negative attitude does shine through
In reply to Robin Casady, May 2, 2012

Robin Casady wrote:

benjaminblack wrote:

Ok, let me re-phrase, why would a major photographer in the industry, who is known for using both systems, hate the D800?

You guys still won't care, but it confounds me and I would love to hear any conceivable explanations.

I think his review of the D800 answers your question.

He says exactly what he doesn't like about it. If you look at his web site, you can sort of get a clue that what the D800 does is not what he wants.

He seems to be what I call a trophy shooter. Most of his shots consist of a single bird. He needs fast AF, and high fps. He wouldn't like a Hasselblad, nor a 4x5 camera. They would be useless to him.

BTW, I didn't sense any anger in his review. He just has many of the same complaints that were heard here when the D800 was announced. People who wanted a D3s version of the D700 didn't like the D800 because the files were too big, the fps rate was too low, it wasn't a huge improvement over the D700 at high ISO... These are the same complaints that are in his review.

Hmmm. Having read his review that you linked to just above, I must say I find his whole attitude to the D800 a bit strange, as if only what he does and requires is what is important and not anyone elses. It also seems to fly in the face of all other respected reviews, see Luminous Landscapes reviews by Michael Reichman and Mark Dubovoy, and also the first impressions preview here by Barney Britton just to name a few.

His attitude does come through as being all critical and critical because he can be, only because it doesn't suit him and not may not be an issue to most people, like the memory requirements. Yes, it takes a little more time to transfer the files to my computer, but big deal, the results more than make up for it. Also, memory is cheap these days, but you can't draw resolution if it isn't there, so give me the advantage of high res and I'll sort out the memory shortcomings on my computer, which there isn't any anyway.

And the battery lasts less than the D700? I mean, come on, buy a spare or two as the cost is minimal in thew grand scheme of things. And how much less does it do than the D700? A couple of hundred shots? Talk about niggly little issues to gripe about because he wants to to becuase it will make an iota of difference to most users .

He states, " But the low-light performance at high ISO suffers " What??? High ISO is leaps and bounds better than my D700. At ISO1600 and using correct exposure you can basically forget using noise reduction in all but the most trying of instances when viewing at the same image size as the D700. ISO6400 is way more useable and requies much less work than the D700, IMO.

What surprises me also is his thoughts on the AF, which I find super fast and accurate and I am able to achieve results with it for birding that I couldn't with my D700. It's not just the AF response and accuracy, but also the VR seems to work better as well, something that is often overlooked. Why that is I have no idea, better algorithms?

Much better AF with the 5D MkII? Hmm, this really flies in the face of reviewers, too.

As an off handed last comment he concedes that " Nevertheless, at $3000 for a camera that offers very nice images full of detail, it is still recommended. " It really smells of a case of sour grapes.

-- hide signature --
 Lance B's gear list:Lance B's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 500mm f/4G ED VR +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow