D800: what's the point?

why should one buy it instead of D800E or D600? looking at the samples, even the non-FF Pentax K5IIs trumps it. so what's the point of this camera? why one who is in the market for FF consider it? please enlighten me...

Comparing per-pixel is idiotic. Dunning–Kruger say hi.

Why do you care?

--
badui bourizk
www.studio102.net/wp
www.studio102.net/gallery

Just like a Medium Format camera, if you have to ask (and you do) then it is not for you.

For those of us for whom it makes sense, there is not, nor has there ever been a better DSLR.

You should put a MF Raw 100% crop at even 800 ISO next to these, then you'd be really confused as to why anyone would spend $30,000 on such a camera.

I have had my D800 for about seven months now and I'm soooooo not interested in how it performs at 12800 and I doubt if many D800 owners on here feel any differently. Even if the other three cameras had been available at the time of the D800 release I would have still gone with the D800. I even switched from Canon to do so

What I care about is how it performs between 200-800 where it absolutely excels. Your post is pretty pointless. Have you considered taking up a different pastime rather than wasting bandwidth

idiotic troll post.  I suggest to learn how to use a camera.

You compared pixel-by-pixel noise and successfully proved that a smaller pixel produces more noise than a larger one. Come back when you have something new to say

Leo

P.S. Proper way to compare noise is per common area. Downsample D800 to the same pixel pitch in Photoshop, then compare.

To use a popular car analogy, what you just did with your comparisons was to drive a Bugatti Veyron at 400 km/h (its top speed) down a highway and then a VW Golf at 200 km/h (its top speed) down the same highway and make the complaint the Bugatti is shaking a lot more, is noiser, and is generally less comfortable to drive.

Or, to use a more photo related analogy: What you did in your comparsion was to look at one film (A) with a 4x lopue and at another film (B) with a 8x lopue and complain that film B has larger grain and appear less sharp.

Making 100% comparisons is bascically like saying that for any increase in sensor resolution users will immideately start making bigger prints or - when looking at images on computer screens - cropping a lot harder.

Comparing cameras with different resolution at 100% is for the most part a complete waste of time and does not tell you much, if anything, about the practical usefulness of cameras.

You need to start comparing at similar output sizes.

If you don't belive me, look back in the history of this and many of the other forums - this issue has been debated ad naseum in literally hundereds of threads, and I think it is fair to say it is today a pretty accepted idea that 100% comparisons of sensors with different resolutions are pointless.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!
By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

36M gives you plenty room for,

• Downsampling. Resize image from, say, 6000x4000 to 3000x2000, will improve its overall look, i.e. hide its fault.
• High Quality Cropping. At DX 1.5x or 4/3 2x crop, you'll get a 10-15M image without any quality loss.

And many others.

The main problem with the OPs post is the way he expressed himself. Other than that he has a point. I made a similar statement some time ago.

RESIZING ... there is a common opinion that one has to resize images to properly compare them. Nonsense. As a D800 and D300 owner I can say ... reduced to screen size at ISO 100 the images of both cams are hard to tell apart. Does this make both cams equally good ?

That said the OP is right ... if it's not for all the additional features of the D800 the D600 is definitely the more cost effective choice for many amateurs.

Seems to me that the overreaction of some members here is their injured pride. OMG ... a lesser body gives equal images compared to Nikons 36mpx dream machine. C'mon on guys ... a bit childish, isn't it ?

First, I don't own a D800, but what is your point? Why do people buy Ferrari vs Porsche? The point is, we all have different taste and luckily many choices.

--
Peter
Ontario, Canada

A downsampled low-ISO D800 12MP image is noticeably sharper than a native 12MP image. A 36MP D800 low-ISO native image is noticeably sharper than a native 12MP image upsampled to 36MP. A downsampled ISO 6400 D800 12MP image is equal in noise to a native 12MP image.

Conclusion: Higher resolution yields sharper images at low ISO with no penalty for Higher ISOs. For me I don't understand the point of a lower resolution sensor since it yields fewer choices, except maybe for high-volume shooters whose workflow would be slowed too much.

It's not nonsense at all. You don't print different to sizes to compare them so why view them on screen at different sizes?

Would you compare a 20x16 print from a 5x4 camera with a 6x4 from a 35mm camera? It's exactly the same degree of enlargement as each other, just as you advocate.

He came here to start an argument & nothing more. Look at the response he has generated... Dont feed the trolls....

Jim

Consider where this camera performs best, ISO 100 and you will realise why your stupid post makes little sense. It's only very very very slightly worse at high ISO than the D600 if that, infact if you look at the pictures it's hard to tell a difference between any of the cameras, so much so only idiots like yourself will notice it. This likely isn't the best camera for a douche who want's to cut about taking pictures with candle light and moving subjects. Many don't shoot at stupid ISOs, they light scenes. If indeed you know how to do that?

No, it means that at that low of resolution (2MP, about enough for a 4" x 6" print at 240 dpi), both cams are equally good. At some point in the enlargement process, one camera will likely pull ahead. Care to guess which one?

I don't know the op, maybe some or all of you do. My first reaction was to consider writing a response which basically stated that if all you are interested in is high iso results then maybe you have a point, but that there is much more to these cameras then just that.

Then I read the replies and all I want to say is that if you guys DO know this guy and you do know he is a troll ok, but I hope you are right as I feel sorry for him if he is just a newbie and got caught up in a lot of arrogant responses from people. There's an old saying that no question is a stupid question and again, I hope he is just not someone who is trying to learn photography and came here for some honest answers.

I could give OP 36.3 million reasons why one would buy d800, but I'd rather not feed the trolls.

that BS! ferrari has no equivalent counterpart like D800 where there's a D800E. what's the D800 could give you that the D800E couldn't? soft images?

almost all who responded just gave a childish response rather than a valid point.

again, why should i buy the D800 instead of D800E or D600 or even the K5IIs? what can the D800 give me that the D800E can't? soft images across the iso range and noisy ones in hi-ISO?