D800

moimoi said:

Mark VB said:

moimoi said:

This may very well be a good bye to my recent a900 + CZ 24 MP. At about 3000 K, it looks like the new D800 is rather a big winner.

Click to expand...

Why? What about the A900 and CZ 24/2 do you find unacceptable? For what purposes will the D800 better satisfy your needs than the A900? If it relates to video, fine. But if it relates to still image quality, are you really a member of the teeny, tiny minority for whom 36MP would make a practical difference compared to 24MP?

Click to expand...

Let's say that it is a mixture of excitement/curiosity for a new product. By the features, the new D800 is largely superior to the a900, but both camera are capable of delivering fantastic results.

I am not saying I will sell the a900 + CZ 24-70 lens right away, but depending on what the D800 is capable of, I might be inclined to switch from Sony > Nikon at that price. Time will tell, and it will take at least six months since I can make such a decision.

Click to expand...

I have no problem with your (or anyone) finding the D800 a highly desirable product, as I agree. Nor do I have a problem if you (or anyone) decides its a better camera to use than what you are now using as long as it actually relates to your photography - either the process used to take a photo or the end results. My only "complaint" is those who talk about buying something or switching brands siimply to get the latest/greatest product, thus my question about how it would better satisfy your photographic needs. Of course, if money is not a concern and you can get it if you want to, more power to you.

From my personal perspective, after shooting several months with an A77, I find that the EVF is too limiting at times for some of the photography I like or want to do. Assuming the A99 has basically the same EVF functionality as the A77 (and recognizing that Sony has indicated it will not make any future OVF cameras - though it is free to change that "decision"), I have serious doubts that it would be a "suitable" upgrade/replacement for my A900 and that Sony is the right system for me going forward. Thus, I find the D800 a very intriguing camera, along with everything else Nikon is doing (e.g., D4 and faster release of new lenses). But, money is an issue and I have no burning desire to switch systems (which will cost me thousands of dollars - e.g., replacing my well-used Minolta 600/4 and 300/2.8 lenses).

My own "guess" is that there are a number of other higher end Sony shooters who may be facing a similar issue.

--
Mark Van Bergh
http://www.markvanbergh.com

I don't really think anyone is saying that.

You hit the nail on the head though. Like you after a few months with the A77 find it's not for me. Sonys evf only now apparently, so what choice is there but to switch.

I was pretty much set on replacing the A77 with the A900 but for a little extra I can have a much more modern camera. So I am really re-thinking that. Soon that will not even be an option for as the A900 is discontinued.

Mark VB said:

My only "complaint" is those who talk about buying something or switching brands siimply to get the latest/greatest product, thus my question about how it would better satisfy your photographic needs.

From my personal perspective, after shooting several months with an A77, I find that the EVF is too limiting at times for some of the photography I like or want to do.

Click to expand...

sye46 said:

I don't get it, innovation is never perfect from inception. But the fact is that Sony is trying to do something innovative. You say all these features are crippled, but it works for it's purpose. Can it be improved, of course it can, but the fact is that 12 FPS does work, panoramic stitching does work, high speed shooting hasn't been much of an issue for me and others in this forum, EVF does work, face detection does work... etc.

It may not work for YOUR purpose, but to say it is crippled making it's usefulness in general is inaccurate. Everything can be improved, but I'd rather have some innovative features that have limited use than NO innovative features at all.

Click to expand...

When the innovations work against your photographic pursuits, are are limited in how they function so they are of no use to you, then I don't view such innovations, in that particular product, as a benefit. Not everyone has the same photographic interests or expectations, and for many such issues or limitations won't be an issue. The fact that a product could be improved, presumably through some future product, does not make the product with the issues or limited use features more useful or usable for a particular purpose. That an "innovation" may work as it is implemented in a particular camera does not mean that such an implementation is photographically useful, or it may mean that its usefulness is very limited.

Take the 12 fps feature. Given the problems the A77 has tracking focus of fast moving subjects, being restricted to f:3.5 or the maximum aperture of a lens means you have no control over depth of field (which might make up for slight focus inaccuracies). The relatively small buffer of the A77 means you can't shoot for more than 1 to 1 1/2 seconds, which may or may not be the duration of the sequence you want to photograph. The EVF makes it nearly impossible once you start shooting to track fast moving subjects (unless you can easily predict where they will be). For all these reasons, 12 fps is basically a useless feature for me as implemented in the A77. If a future camera has a better implementation that doesn't help with my use of the A77.

The innovations in the A77 may work for many, or may be of interest to many, but that doesn't mean they still are not limited in their implementation that either makes them useless for some, or harder to use. I've explained (albeit briefly) why the items I mentioned are either useless or poorly implemented from my photographic perspective. That some other photographer might not find them useless or limited does not make the so for me (and other photographers).

Sony seems to have a tendency, more than the other manufacturers, to have limitations on how various features work that limit the photographer's ability to choose how they are used. Why can I not select the ISO, aperture and shutter speed to my liking when shooting a panorama? I can understand limitations on the shutter speed in order to ensure a sharp image as you pan the camera, but why the ISO or aperture? I can understand why the picture height of a panorama shot may need to be limited, but why not indicate that in the EVF rather than giving no indication where the top and bottom borders of the image will be? This ruined some panoramic shots I attempted that could not be repeated (I was on a moving ship and by the time I saw that the framing was not right the scene as I wanted to photograph it was gone). The EVF takes several seconds to come to life, meaning you will miss any photo ops that might occur during that time compared to an OVF camera (which happened more than once on my recent Antarctica trip). That's just one of several limitations of the EVF.

Sure, there are good things about all these "innovations," and others. But when the negative aspects get in the way of my photography, as they have, that is not a good thing. Because of such limitations, some consumers may find them just as important for their type of photography, or potentially relevant and something to be aware of. Further, if these negatives are not discussed, how will Sony understand what future improvements are needed to perhaps make them more usable - assuming Sony is interested in doing that rather than simply having a feature for marketing purposes regardless of its usefulness in practice.

sye46 said:

Mark VB said:

The A77 has some innovative features but many are crippled limiting their usefulness to the photographer. 12 fps shooting but only at f:3.5 or maximum aperture? Not good when you want more depth of field. Panoramic shooting? Not good when it is "auto everything" and you can't set a desired aperture/shutter speed combination or ISO, and it cuts off image height with no indication in the viewfinder what is being cut off. EVF? Not so good when it prevents you from effectively shooting fast moving subjects in hi-speed continuous (8 fps) except for the first frame or two before you have no idea where the subject is in the viewfinder. 24/36 MP? How useful if the AF system misses focus too often? Face detection? How useful if it detects a face but there's no AF sensor where the face is? You get the idea.

Innovation is good, but innovation just for the sake of innovating or providing marketing hype won't get you very far if the product fails to deliver or gets in the way of the photographer being able to shoot what he or she wants to, or makes it harder for them to do so.

Mark Van Bergh
http://www.markvanbergh.com

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Mark Van Bergh
http://www.markvanbergh.com

Ralf Bliesener said:

moimoi said:

This may very well be a good bye to my recent a900 + CZ 24 MP. At about 3000 K, it looks like the new D800 is rather a big winner.

Click to expand...

Tempting price indeed. Now think

• about the missing image stabilization in Nikon super wide angle zoom, fast wide angle prime, fast prime and fast standard zoom land
• about the CZ prime glass as best of its kind, with AF and IS only in A-Mount

and then make your decision.
--

Click to expand...

I like the CZ lenses for Sony and have several. But, other than the 135/1.8, a really special lens, I don't see the CZ lenses as having a huge advantage, if any, over the similar latest lenses from Nikon. And how about that Nikon 14-24/2.8, 70-200/2.8 VR II, or the 200-400/4? It works both ways (of course if there was a similar CZ 14-24/2.8 A-mount it would be stabilized.

--
Mark Van Bergh
http://www.markvanbergh.com

Karl Scharf said:

PJR_68 said:

Yeah 36 mp is probably too much for most of us, and large file size will be a hassle more than anything.

But really, this is not an impressive cam for 3K?... OK

Click to expand...

Compare the D800 specs with the A77 (for 1/2 the cost) and you will know what I mean. Other than that the D800 is full frame, the specs are far from impressive!
--

• Happiness is: Sony SLT-A77 / Rokinon 8mm / Sigma 10-20, 18-250, 50-500mm - Karl

Click to expand...

Do you really go around the forums and see what people are taking with their cameras? Do that and see what others are getting with their cameras and you will be amazed
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39182144@N03/

Do the math, or check an earlier thread where the math was done.
tom

This was a mistake but DPR won't let you delete posts
--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

Corkcampbell said:

no text

Click to expand...

Almost proves it's not a Sony sensor.

And how often is SAR right more than wrong?

RichV said:

I'd only read the release from second-hand sources at the time. As for the price, for Sony's sake I hope they're not competing with this model - maybe they're going with an SLT with "obviously different" feature sets.

Click to expand...

Considering the feature set info that's coming out about the D800 it's going to be a very very long row to hoe to get anywhere even slightly close from Sony. The D800 has really impressive core photography functions.

I would like to see what a wildlife shooter could do with it. Mostly what I have seen is studio, weddings and such like.

Mark VB said:

Face detection? How useful if it detects a face but there's no AF sensor where the face is?

Click to expand...

In regard to that, D800 can not only detect a face, but follow a moving face and maintain both AF and changes of exposure of the face (with either ambient or flash). That was in some high end shooting blogs I read today. For all I know it might even do more there. And folks think simple face detection is innovative....

Then there is dynamic range to burn, also demo'd in blogs that are showing up. The D800 looks to be a pandora's box of improved photographic possibilities.

Mark VB said:

Innovation is good, but innovation just for the sake of innovating or providing marketing hype won't get you very far if the product fails to deliver or gets in the way of the photographer being able to shoot what he or she wants to, or makes it harder for them to do so.

Click to expand...

This is the characteristic that Sony seems to be following. Innovate in some corner and at the same time that downgrades some other part of photography, often very important parts of photography.

Mark VB said:

My point: Get the photography basics right and minimize the limitations placed on the photographer when using the camera (no camera is perfect and there will always be some kind of limitations, but the fewer the better).

Click to expand...

That is where the D800 appears to be going, improving basic photography functions and IQ. What counts in every shot, not just a few specialist shots.

Not everything about the D800 has me excited. There is a little undercurrent that it may be much more sensitive to damage to the image from motion blur due to the higher resolution. Have to see how that works out.

Mark VB said:

But, money is an issue and I have no burning desire to switch systems (which will cost me thousands of dollars - e.g., replacing my well-used Minolta 600/4 and 300/2.8 lenses).

My own "guess" is that there are a number of other higher end Sony shooters who may be facing a similar issue.

Click to expand...

Same here, step by Step Sony is going downward for my shooting, while the advancements that Nikon has been showing with each generation are more and more attractive and along the lines for my photography. But I'd have to win the lottery to do it even with Nikon down to $3000 on camera body. (and I'm not sure the D800 would be the one for me if I went Nikon)

It's interesting to drool, however.

Mark VB said:

I like the CZ lenses for Sony and have several. But, other than the 135/1.8, a really special lens, I don't see the CZ lenses as having a huge advantage, if any, over the similar latest lenses from Nikon. And how about that Nikon 14-24/2.8, 70-200/2.8 VR II, or the 200-400/4? It works both ways (of course if there was a similar CZ 14-24/2.8 A-mount it would be stabilized.

Click to expand...

For wide angle lenses which shrink down everything including unwanted motion to near nothing, stabilization is not a big deal. Certainly not against other advantages of Nikon.

The word of the day for landscape photographers is "Tripod", for which stabilization also has less use.

Now at the tele end stabilization is a big deal, and Nikon does have it there.

tesch said:

I think Sony needs to stop trying to low ball the comp and charge what the camera's worth. They will get much more respect for the A99 if it costs 6k

Click to expand...

Sony is not lowballing anybody. They are charging what it costs them, instead of profiteering. Remember the Nikon D2X? It was CMOS, noisy 12mp APS-C sensor and it cost $5,000, or $2k more than the Canon 5D with a 12mp FF sensor. The D3X continues that tradition. The X must stands for Xtra profit.

Missing image stabilization is probably the biggest thing that I'd give up by moving to Canon or Nikon. It's important enough that I was considering Pentax just because of their excellent IBIS implementation.

However, the only area where in-body stabilization is really useful to me is with fast primes (like the 50/1.7)....but I'll still have my a580 around for that if I buy into another brand.

And I guess I could live without stabilization - I used to shoot with an unstabilized Canon G1, but that just made me learn how to steady myself to keep the shots sharp.

Ralf B said:

• about the missing image stabilization in Nikon super wide angle zoom, fast wide angle prime, fast prime and fast standard zoom land

Click to expand...

Yes, but Nikon also has a lot of good lenses that Sony can't match. They have a 85/1.8, 14-24/2.8, 200-400/4, and 600/4. Nikon also has a lot more lenses with ultrasonic motors + full time manual override - and that extends down to cheap lenses like the 35/1.8.

While the 135/1.8 sounds good, it's probably the only CZ lens that makes me hesitate to move away. But weighing that against silent AF/FTM in cheap lenses and better third party support....

Ralf B said:

• about the CZ prime glass as best of its kind, with AF and IS only in A-Mount

Click to expand...

Other Canon/Nikon advantages include more traditional-photography oriented features, like more flexible auto ISO, release priority/back button AF-C even in entry level cameras, 39/45/51 point AF systems, better AF tracking, better bracketing, and now, optical viewfinders (in my view).

But I'm definitely sticking with my Sony for now. It's serving me very well, and I'm finding it hard to justify another purchase.

WaltKnapp said:

Mark VB said:

I like the CZ lenses for Sony and have several. But, other than the 135/1.8, a really special lens, I don't see the CZ lenses as having a huge advantage, if any, over the similar latest lenses from Nikon. And how about that Nikon 14-24/2.8, 70-200/2.8 VR II, or the 200-400/4? It works both ways (of course if there was a similar CZ 14-24/2.8 A-mount it would be stabilized.

Click to expand...

For wide angle lenses which shrink down everything including unwanted motion to near nothing, stabilization is not a big deal. Certainly not against other advantages of Nikon.

The word of the day for landscape photographers is "Tripod", for which stabilization also has less use.

Now at the tele end stabilization is a big deal, and Nikon does have it there.

Click to expand...

Think wedding photography in low light situations with a 24-70/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.4 (CZ or Sigma), or 135/1.8, to mention one type of scenario and several lenses. It's not all about landscapes and tripod shooting.

--
Mark Van Bergh
http://www.markvanbergh.com

Karl Scharf said:

pierre_x said:

Pierre> Well, a "new technology" that is robbing light may be "new" but not great. It is bad.
Photography is about light? Please Sony give me back the light.

I want the best IQ in low light and starting by robbing light is not the way to go.

Click to expand...

It is a tradeoff between 'robbing light' and distorting light as in mirror slap. Both can be overcome, one by using faster lenses and the other by locking up the mirror. It all depends on what is more important to you.

• Happiness is: Sony SLT-A77 / Rokinon 8mm / Sigma 10-20, 18-250, 50-500mm - Karl

Click to expand...

Poor analogy...what happens when you put the "faster" lens on both cameras?

WaltKnapp said:

Not everything about the D800 has me excited. There is a little undercurrent that it may be much more sensitive to damage to the image from motion blur due to the higher resolution. Have to see how that works out.

Click to expand...

Umm, that's the same issue anytime you have a pixel density increase. The D800 has the same pixel pitch as the 16mp APS-C models, so same handling as a NEX5N, D7000, etc...and easier than the A65/77. Not sure what there is to "work out".

WaltKnapp said:

For wide angle lenses which shrink down everything including unwanted motion to near nothing, stabilization is not a big deal.

Click to expand...

You may think so. Canon thinks differently:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02/07/Canon_24-70mm_F2p8_II_24mm_f2p8_IS_28mm_f2p8_IS

Note that these are not really fast, as building IS into a 2/24 would be a significantly bigger challenge?

And in the Nikon forums, IS in fast short lenses is a frequently mentioned gap. Also check ByThom.com...

Sony's a850/a900 and CZ 24/2 combo have a unique selling point including SSS. Some may need it, some not. The market decides and moves. Canon is following with a first cautious step. See link above.

--
Ralf
http://RalfRalph.smugmug.com/

Hello,

some other lenses price "comparisons" Sony/Minolta vs Nikon system:

Prime 200mm

Sony: Minolta 200mm F/2.8 APO HS G for 1000 - 1300$ (cons: 20+ years old, used lenses market)
Nikon: AF-S NIKKOR 200mm f/2.0 G ED VR II for 5199$ new

Prime 135mm

Sony: CZ 135 F1.8 (stabilized with Sony bodies) for 1600$ new/Minolta 135 F2.8 (stabilized with Alpha bodies) for 250 - 400$ at used lenses market
Nikon: Nikkor 135mm f/2.0D (without image stabilization!) for 1319$ new

Kind Regards.
Martin

chlamchowder said:

Missing image stabilization is probably the biggest thing that I'd give up by moving to Canon or Nikon. It's important enough that I was considering Pentax just because of their excellent IBIS implementation.

However, the only area where in-body stabilization is really useful to me is with fast primes (like the 50/1.7)....but I'll still have my a580 around for that if I buy into another brand.

And I guess I could live without stabilization - I used to shoot with an unstabilized Canon G1, but that just made me learn how to steady myself to keep the shots sharp.

chlamchowder said:

• about the missing image stabilization in Nikon super wide angle zoom, fast wide angle prime, fast prime and fast standard zoom land

Click to expand...

Yes, but Nikon also has a lot of good lenses that Sony can't match. They have a 85/1.8, 14-24/2.8, 200-400/4, and 600/4. Nikon also has a lot more lenses with ultrasonic motors + full time manual override - and that extends down to cheap lenses like the 35/1.8.

While the 135/1.8 sounds good, it's probably the only CZ lens that makes me hesitate to move away. But weighing that against silent AF/FTM in cheap lenses and better third party support....

chlamchowder said:

• about the CZ prime glass as best of its kind, with AF and IS only in A-Mount

Click to expand...

Other Canon/Nikon advantages include more traditional-photography oriented features, like more flexible auto ISO, release priority/back button AF-C even in entry level cameras, 39/45/51 point AF systems, better AF tracking, better bracketing, and now, optical viewfinders (in my view).

But I'm definitely sticking with my Sony for now. It's serving me very well, and I'm finding it hard to justify another purchase.

Click to expand...