D200 Guy seeks input from D800 Owners...

Started Nov 10, 2012 | Discussions thread
Old Ed
Senior MemberPosts: 1,749
Like?
Re: Mid-Course Correction...
In reply to Old Ed, Nov 11, 2012

Hi,

I would first like to thank those that have responded for trying to help out. I appreciate it!

That said, I was not looking for advice on which body to buy, or reasons why people like their D800s. I was trying to get answers to specific questions that could influence my decision. So far, only the viewfinder questions have been answered.

I have inserted comments under my original questions (quoted below), in hopes of clarifying them.

Thanks, Ed

Old Ed wrote:

Hello,

I want to go FX soon. The question is: D600 or D800.

That's a question for me. I wasn't asking for suggestions.

The D600 price advantage matters to me. So does the D600 weight advantage. And I am scared spitless of those 36mp file sizes. So the D600 would seem a no-brainer.

But wait, not so fast. DX lenses look ugly through the D600 finder. I heard somewhere that the D800 finder masks down to DX when using those lenses. True or False?

The answer here is that the D800 turns on viewfinder lines to indicate the FOV in use, but does not mask out-of-frame areas.

Also, I know that the D800 can shoot lower mp images. But I don't know whether the D800 is just throwing away pixels in those modes, or making good use of all pixels through some kind of averaging or binning. Could someone please tell me? I wouldn't feel at all bad shooting lower-mp-but-lower-noise images while saving up for my 100 TB supercomputer.

I am surprised that no one (so far) seems to understand this question. I am not referring to pixels cropped out in the 5:4, "1.2," or DX modes. I think everyone understands they get dumped. Neither was I referring to the amount of JPEG compression.

I was asking what happens to the "extra" pixels in the "M" and "S" modes. For example, the FX "M" mode is 5520 X 3680 pixels, or about 20 mp. The FOV is the same as the full resolution ("L") FX mode, so it is not a "crop" in the ordinary sense.

My question is, are those "extra" 16 mp used for something, or just dumped? They could be binned or averaged, for example. That would reduce per-pixel noise.

I also see the 4:5 aspect ratio choices as a huge advantage. (3:2 is nasty to my eye, and losing the 3:2 "shoulders" would be a perfect way to lose some unwanted mp.) Can anyone comment on whether 4:5 works well? And does it mask the finder in some way?

Finder question is answered above.

Lastly, I wasn't too happy with the recently published D600 "teardown." It's construction seems more unserviceable/disposable than I'd like. I'd like to believe that the D800 is more serviceable, not just heavier. Does anyone know? Has anyone seen a D800 "teardown?"

Nothing yet...

Other D800 pluses include more/better controls, USB3, and maybe a few more. So the D800 is definitely in the hunt.

Yes, I'm aware of the whole left-AF issue, and Nikon's poor response. But I don't know whether there is any hard evidence that this problem is resolved in current production. Do any of you know? (Guessing won't help me.)

Nothing yet... (Having read a lot of credible sources on this, I'm convinced this problem is real. That's not the same thing as saying every camera produced exhibits the problem.)

Many thanks for any tips you can provide, and happy shooting,

Ed

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