Did Nikon screw up?

Started May 22, 2013 | Discussions
Chad Gladstone Senior Member • Posts: 2,608
Question for Subprime Canon or Nikon?

SubPrime wrote:

jtan163 wrote:

Here's what you said:

That's not being pedantic. That is responding to the info I had at the time you made your statement.

Of course it's being pedantic because we all know that the D800 has those features. I brought up those features in the context of a low res sensor.  That was the discussion we were having and you know it.

So if I wasn't clear about it before, you now know what I was trying to communicate. I trust you'll put down the stick now and step away from the dead horse.

No, but they do move up from fromt eh entry level cameras they have and buy higher end cameras.

Some do, and small percentage.  I know about half a dozen people who bought their first Nikon DSLRs when I did 5 or 6 years ago, and they still use those those D80s and D200s.

So you ahve no evidence, apart from th eofrums to suggest that Nikon;s user base is eroding.

The high end is, not the entry level.

But the same forums show that Nikons entry level user base upgrade, and users from other brands come over etc etc etc.

No they don't. The number of Canon shooters appearing on the Nikon forums is insignificant compared to the number of Nikon shooters appearing on the Canon forums.

I suspect you know this, but hate to admit it.

Subprime,

It appears that from the prevailing opinions you have advocated recently, you shoot both a D800 and a Canon 5DmkIII and either own or have access to various lenses from both brand and are beginning an exodus (as you claim many other photographers here are as well) from Nikon to the Canon brand or are dabbling with the idea and may yet continue the futile exercise to remain with Nikon, notwithstanding your belief that the latter will be eradicated by Canon and succeed in DSLR world domination imminently and with impunity.  Is this correct?

I further gather from your collective posts that are basing that decision because of your strong preference for some particularly outstanding Canon lenses including the 17 TSE, 50 1.2, 85 1.2, 135 f/2 (circa 2004), 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 (but it is not entirely clear whether you own or use any of the aforementioned optics).  Is that correct?  Without delving into the merits of the claimed superiority, nor attempted to explain why you feel so strongly that Nikon has no demonstrable roadmap for you, why are you so stubbornly clinging to the Nikon forums extolling these virtues and vastly superior Canon products at infinitum?

No one will think less of you if you just have the temerity to abandon the Nikon platform and switch to Canon.  Having to straddle the fence and bifurcate resources seems tantamount to subjecting yourself to the furthest recesses of hell.  It is even more consternating to a casual observer when perusing your posted gallery images (that appear to be a haphazard collection of challenging shots in less than ideal lighting, purely for some instructional purposes).  This is in no way an attempt to criticize the gallery for what it is, or even venture to guess why the images were uploaded at all.  However, I just don't have the slightest clue why a professional photographer (as you have shown with a firm grasp on the handling and performance capabilities of both systems and a technical understanding of how such technical limits would impair or restrict the utility in capturing whatever form of imagery conceivable), would tie up liquidity in such depreciating consumables?  Is it just to formulate some appearance of being an authoritative reference?  Do you have some sort of vested interest and receive some sort of compensation from accessing both systems that would be foregone by electing to concentrate your resources in a single brand?  Or are you just conflicted, well heeled and fancy sporting the latest gear without concern for appearance or sunk costs?

Again, this is not some sort of interrogation and whatever your intentions are for taking such a seemingly horizontal approach to photography is well beyond the scope of my questions.  My inquiry is intended only to realize why someone would want to straddle such an fence.  Having shot extensively with both systems, I will readily acknowledge the respective strengths and weakness of both/either, but to elect to do both simultaneously, for me, it tantamount to as Dante would say, “[T]he hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.”

While this is far from a moral imperative, the quote resonates with me for anyone who is intentionally subjecting themselves to remain neutral and deal with the idiosyncratic nature of both systems, that are poised, at every conceivable opportunity, to frustrate anyone who would attempt to effectively and simultaneously execute both systems with any level of competence.  I would be most pleased if you would indulge my inquiry.

If I was similarly situated as you appear to be, I would be invested in one or the other and used the additional disposable income to fill the remaining gaps in my lens line up.  $3500 or so goes a long way in funding one of the venerable 300 f/2.8's.

Of course there is a chance this post will get lost in the myriad of posts in this thread, perhaps it may be more effective to allow you the opportunity to start a new thread.  If I had the disposition, I suppose this information may have been apparent if I had some context from your previous posting history, but I neither have the wherewithal or the mentality to piece together the curious persona who has the capacity to channel the resources into a complementary system, but feels compelled to refrain to executing such a plan.  A casual observer may hazard to suggest that failing to do so lacks sense and defies rational explanation.  Of course, I such there is one and it is just not readily apparent from the series of posts that I have observed.

-- hide signature --

Chad Gladstone

 Chad Gladstone's gear list:Chad Gladstone's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon 1 V1 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G +7 more
Rick Knepper
Rick Knepper Forum Pro • Posts: 16,055
Re: Did Nikon screw up? --> No.

jacobwhite wrote:

Is it worth doing the switch and spending at least 10000 on camera and glass? Nikon seemed to be getting it right with the d700/d3 duo - but now I'm not so sure...

I'm thinking long term and it seems that Canon has been more reliable for professional needs over all...

Am I the only one feeling this way?

You would be in a very small group.

Am I wrong?

Yes. IMO. Though I see little or no difference between "professional" needs and the needs of anyone desiring the very best performance and IQ from  their cameras. In fact. so called "professional" cameras (let's call them top of the line cameras instead) still have a ways to go before being completely useful AND completely convenient to use.

As a D700 user requiring an update, I somehow feel screwed...

1. Switch to Canon and buy a 5DIII (too expensive to switch; what to do with all that glass)?

As a person who shoots both brands and knows a bit about re-arranging, it is not as expensive as folks think given the benefits of having the features that are right for you. In my case, having both brands allows me to use the best lenses from both brands and avoids those compromises when a lens in a given FL or FL range isn't up to par. You might want to consider this approach for this or other reasons. Regardless of what you do, keeping the D700 and the best of the best Nikkor lenses in your lineup has more value than selling the camera and lenses and getting a pittance for them. Every so often, you can do the leapfrog thing with your cameras to keep them up to date. By the way, there is not much of a loss in selling top of the line lenses if this is where you finally end up. Hopefully, you've invested wisely.

2. Buy a D800 - from what I can see it seems that compared to the 5D, the D800 seems comparable on paper - but unless I'm totally wrong it seems in reality its auto-focusing is slower, file sizes annoyingly huge at lesser image quality, in particular colours and noise, and slower.

Yes you are partially wrong.

The D800 should never be compared to a 5D3 if reasonable conclusions are to be expected. IMO. Nikon does not have a 5D3 competitor and Canon does not have a D800 competitor. I clearly see these cameras as being best used for different purposes. But, you can press any camera into service for any job, right? I mean, you can shoot sports, BIF, Portrait and Landsacape et al with a D700.

By the way, if you do the 5D3, and need a standard zoom, get the 24-70 II. That is a phenomenal lens.

3. Buy a D600, which is a step backwards in most things except the sensor, and size. It could almost work, if it wasn't for the ridiculous AF area - all crammed in the middle, whaaaat??? And its AF speed is sloooow!

I don't know much about the D600, but Dude, there should be little effective difference in AF point spread.

4. Buy a D4, which is heavier, bulkier, and too expensive.

Well, it is only a few mega-pixels more than the D700 but you seem to suggest that the D700 speed is satisfactory. Why are you requiring an update then?

I'd go for this option if it wasn't so bulky, if at least I could get it without the battery grip - I never got the use of the battery grip. Changing a battery isn't that much of a problem that it would mean that the grip absolutely needs to be built-in!

I totally agree. C&N strive tirelessly to find features that can be arbitrarily set apart as professional in order to charge ridiculously high prices to otherwise smart folks.

Somehow the D800 is a lesser camera than the D700 - as a D700 shooter I find myself stuck with unpleasing choices

The D800 is a different camera and is infinitely better suited than a D700 for certain types of photography. Apparently, the same holds true for the D700, IYO, which, of course, is the only opinion that will count when the plastic comes out.

Good luck to you.

-- hide signature --

Rick Knepper, photographer, non-professional, shooting for pleasure, check my profile for gear list and philosophy. TJ said, "Every generation needs a new revolution".

 Rick Knepper's gear list:Rick Knepper's gear list
Pentax 645Z Canon EOS 5DS R Fujifilm GFX 50S Fujifilm GF 23mm F4 Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 +8 more
joneil Regular Member • Posts: 179
Re: Did Nikon screw up? --> No.
2

Back to the original, yes, I think Nikon screwed up.   In my case, my needs, my situation, the D800 is too much and the D600 is too flimsy.  I ended up buying a refurbished D700 after holding and using both the D800 and D600 in person.  Even if I had won the lottery, I would of bought the D700.

I know everyone's needs are different, but there is no real replacement for the D700.   As for Canon, I have almost thirty years of Nikkor glass, so whatcha gonna do?

Silverstreaks Regular Member • Posts: 282
Re: Question for Subprime Canon or Nikon?

Chad Gladstone wrote:

SubPrime wrote:

jtan163 wrote:

Here's what you said:

That's not being pedantic. That is responding to the info I had at the time you made your statement.

Of course it's being pedantic because we all know that the D800 has those features. I brought up those features in the context of a low res sensor.  That was the discussion we were having and you know it.

So if I wasn't clear about it before, you now know what I was trying to communicate. I trust you'll put down the stick now and step away from the dead horse.

No, but they do move up from fromt eh entry level cameras they have and buy higher end cameras.

Some do, and small percentage.  I know about half a dozen people who bought their first Nikon DSLRs when I did 5 or 6 years ago, and they still use those those D80s and D200s.

So you ahve no evidence, apart from th eofrums to suggest that Nikon;s user base is eroding.

The high end is, not the entry level.

But the same forums show that Nikons entry level user base upgrade, and users from other brands come over etc etc etc.

No they don't. The number of Canon shooters appearing on the Nikon forums is insignificant compared to the number of Nikon shooters appearing on the Canon forums.

I suspect you know this, but hate to admit it.

Subprime,

It appears that from the prevailing opinions you have advocated recently, you shoot both a D800 and a Canon 5DmkIII and either own or have access to various lenses from both brand and are beginning an exodus (as you claim many other photographers here are as well) from Nikon to the Canon brand or are dabbling with the idea and may yet continue the futile exercise to remain with Nikon, notwithstanding your belief that the latter will be eradicated by Canon and succeed in DSLR world domination imminently and with impunity.  Is this correct?

I further gather from your collective posts that are basing that decision because of your strong preference for some particularly outstanding Canon lenses including the 17 TSE, 50 1.2, 85 1.2, 135 f/2 (circa 2004), 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 (but it is not entirely clear whether you own or use any of the aforementioned optics).  Is that correct?  Without delving into the merits of the claimed superiority, nor attempted to explain why you feel so strongly that Nikon has no demonstrable roadmap for you, why are you so stubbornly clinging to the Nikon forums extolling these virtues and vastly superior Canon products at infinitum?

No one will think less of you if you just have the temerity to abandon the Nikon platform and switch to Canon.  Having to straddle the fence and bifurcate resources seems tantamount to subjecting yourself to the furthest recesses of hell.  It is even more consternating to a casual observer when perusing your posted gallery images (that appear to be a haphazard collection of challenging shots in less than ideal lighting, purely for some instructional purposes).  This is in no way an attempt to criticize the gallery for what it is, or even venture to guess why the images were uploaded at all.  However, I just don't have the slightest clue why a professional photographer (as you have shown with a firm grasp on the handling and performance capabilities of both systems and a technical understanding of how such technical limits would impair or restrict the utility in capturing whatever form of imagery conceivable), would tie up liquidity in such depreciating consumables?  Is it just to formulate some appearance of being an authoritative reference?  Do you have some sort of vested interest and receive some sort of compensation from accessing both systems that would be foregone by electing to concentrate your resources in a single brand?  Or are you just conflicted, well heeled and fancy sporting the latest gear without concern for appearance or sunk costs?

Again, this is not some sort of interrogation and whatever your intentions are for taking such a seemingly horizontal approach to photography is well beyond the scope of my questions.  My inquiry is intended only to realize why someone would want to straddle such an fence.  Having shot extensively with both systems, I will readily acknowledge the respective strengths and weakness of both/either, but to elect to do both simultaneously, for me, it tantamount to as Dante would say, “[T]he hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.”

While this is far from a moral imperative, the quote resonates with me for anyone who is intentionally subjecting themselves to remain neutral and deal with the idiosyncratic nature of both systems, that are poised, at every conceivable opportunity, to frustrate anyone who would attempt to effectively and simultaneously execute both systems with any level of competence.  I would be most pleased if you would indulge my inquiry.

If I was similarly situated as you appear to be, I would be invested in one or the other and used the additional disposable income to fill the remaining gaps in my lens line up.  $3500 or so goes a long way in funding one of the venerable 300 f/2.8's.

Of course there is a chance this post will get lost in the myriad of posts in this thread, perhaps it may be more effective to allow you the opportunity to start a new thread.  If I had the disposition, I suppose this information may have been apparent if I had some context from your previous posting history, but I neither have the wherewithal or the mentality to piece together the curious persona who has the capacity to channel the resources into a complementary system, but feels compelled to refrain to executing such a plan.  A casual observer may hazard to suggest that failing to do so lacks sense and defies rational explanation.  Of course, I such there is one and it is just not readily apparent from the series of posts that I have observed.

Quite superbly put --- amen

knightmelodic
knightmelodic Senior Member • Posts: 1,647
Re: Buy the 5DIII because...

canon glass better than Nikon glass?
IDK about that one.

-- hide signature --

Just keep clicking, something will turn out fantastic.
Nikon D600, D7100, Canon (!) G15, Nikkor 35mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8, 50mm f1.4, 70-200 f/2.8 VR II, 24-70 2.8; Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, 16-28 f/2.8

 knightmelodic's gear list:knightmelodic's gear list
Nikon D750 Olympus E-M1 II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon 85mm F1.8G +15 more
fad
fad Forum Pro • Posts: 16,283
5D Mkiii AF limitations

I wanted to get a 5DmkIII to use with my Canon lenses.   Here's the problem:

1.  "The autofocus system used in the EOS 5D Mark III first appeared in the EOS 1D-X. The two systems are nearly identical but the 1D-X does have a slight edge when it comes to tracking moving subjects.

This is very clever – the camera uses the data gathered by its autoexposure sensor to calculate the colour of the moving subject that it supposed to track. It then uses this information to help differentiate the subject from the background. It works with faces as well as colour.

The EOS 5D Mark III has a different autoexposure sensor and doesn’t support this feature."

So it lacks what the 1DX and the D800 and the D4 have, using exposure information to track focus.

2.  The D4/800 have Auto-Area AF, which I use most of the time in street.   It uses AI and face recognition to select the focus point automatically.  In complex, fast-moving scenes, it gives me more keepers than selecting the AF point myself.   Canon does not have this, but does dumber things like select the nearest object, or something like that.

-- hide signature --

Frank
shot in downtown Manhattan.
http://sidewalkshadows.com/blog/ (street photos)
Always view all photos in Gallery or Original Size

 fad's gear list:fad's gear list
Nikon D3S Nikon D800 Nikon D810 Nikon D4S Nikon D750 +17 more
SubPrime Senior Member • Posts: 1,238
Attention Chad Re: Question for Subprime Canon or Nikon?

Chad Gladstone wrote:

It appears that from the prevailing opinions you have advocated recently, you shoot both a D800 and a Canon 5DmkIII and either own or have access to various lenses from both brand and are beginning an exodus (as you claim many other photographers here are as well) from Nikon to the Canon brand or are dabbling with the idea and may yet continue the futile exercise to remain with Nikon, notwithstanding your belief that the latter will be eradicated by Canon and succeed in DSLR world domination imminently and with impunity.  Is this correct?

I further gather from your collective posts that are basing that decision because of your strong preference for some particularly outstanding Canon lenses including the 17 TSE, 50 1.2, 85 1.2, 135 f/2 (circa 2004), 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 (but it is not entirely clear whether you own or use any of the aforementioned optics).  Is that correct?  Without delving into the merits of the claimed superiority, nor attempted to explain why you feel so strongly that Nikon has no demonstrable roadmap for you, why are you so stubbornly clinging to the Nikon forums extolling these virtues and vastly superior Canon products at infinitum?

No one will think less of you if you just have the temerity to abandon the Nikon platform and switch to Canon.  Having to straddle the fence and bifurcate resources seems tantamount to subjecting yourself to the furthest recesses of hell.  It is even more consternating to a casual observer when perusing your posted gallery images (that appear to be a haphazard collection of challenging shots in less than ideal lighting, purely for some instructional purposes).  This is in no way an attempt to criticize the gallery for what it is, or even venture to guess why the images were uploaded at all.  However, I just don't have the slightest clue why a professional photographer (as you have shown with a firm grasp on the handling and performance capabilities of both systems and a technical understanding of how such technical limits would impair or restrict the utility in capturing whatever form of imagery conceivable), would tie up liquidity in such depreciating consumables?  Is it just to formulate some appearance of being an authoritative reference?  Do you have some sort of vested interest and receive some sort of compensation from accessing both systems that would be foregone by electing to concentrate your resources in a single brand?  Or are you just conflicted, well heeled and fancy sporting the latest gear without concern for appearance or sunk costs?

Again, this is not some sort of interrogation and whatever your intentions are for taking such a seemingly horizontal approach to photography is well beyond the scope of my questions.  My inquiry is intended only to realize why someone would want to straddle such an fence.  Having shot extensively with both systems, I will readily acknowledge the respective strengths and weakness of both/either, but to elect to do both simultaneously, for me, it tantamount to as Dante would say, “[T]he hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.”

While this is far from a moral imperative, the quote resonates with me for anyone who is intentionally subjecting themselves to remain neutral and deal with the idiosyncratic nature of both systems, that are poised, at every conceivable opportunity, to frustrate anyone who would attempt to effectively and simultaneously execute both systems with any level of competence.  I would be most pleased if you would indulge my inquiry.

If I was similarly situated as you appear to be, I would be invested in one or the other and used the additional disposable income to fill the remaining gaps in my lens line up.  $3500 or so goes a long way in funding one of the venerable 300 f/2.8's.

Of course there is a chance this post will get lost in the myriad of posts in this thread, perhaps it may be more effective to allow you the opportunity to start a new thread.  If I had the disposition, I suppose this information may have been apparent if I had some context from your previous posting history, but I neither have the wherewithal or the mentality to piece together the curious persona who has the capacity to channel the resources into a complementary system, but feels compelled to refrain to executing such a plan.  A casual observer may hazard to suggest that failing to do so lacks sense and defies rational explanation.  Of course, I such there is one and it is just not readily apparent from the series of posts that I have observed.

Chad,

I am not thinking of abandoning Nikon.  I ended up with a 5D3 because I purchased a 5D2 a few  years ago, ironically because I was fed up with waiting for Nikon to release an affordable high res body.  A local photo store was moving and I got an amazing deal on a 5D2 and an 851.2. Admittedly, the need for more pixels was based on desire more than necessity.

I picked up a few more lenses along the way, so upgrading to the 5D3 was a no brainer, especially when it became apparent the D800 was not going to be a general purpose workhorse like the D700.

If anything, owning both cameras has given me a greater appreciation of what an amazing achievement the D800 is.  As I said to the OP, the exhilaration I get from the IQ offered by the D800 is unmatched by anything Canon has to offer.

I feel that I have a greater appreciation of the relative strengths and weaknesses of both than most people who post comparisons, so it seems logical to offer my opinion and it's hard to watch false statements going unchallenged.

why are you so stubbornly clinging to the Nikon forums extolling these virtues and vastly superior Canon products at infinitum?

There's no stubbornness involved, and I don't all consider Canon products to be superior.

I would direct you to this post, which was my first response to the OP, in which I refute the false claims he has made about his perceived shortcomings of the D800.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51514722

No one will think less of you if you just have the temerity to abandon the Nikon platform and switch to Canon.

Thank you for your reassurance, but I am not the least bit concerned with seeking anyone's approval. The images of my DP gallery were only ever intended to demonstrate a point I was trying to make in a particular discussion.

I don't make my living from photography, though I make enough money to justify my investment.  Sometimes it makes more sense to hold on to something that selling it, and if I were to be honest, I like to horde camera gear. I have a large investment in Nikon glass and I have no intention of selling it.

In any case, many working pros have money tied up in all manner of equipment.  It's not unusual for fashion photographer to have a MF system as well as a 35 mm DSLR system, not to mention the small fortune they invest in strobes.

Do you have some sort of vested interest and receive some sort of compensation from accessing both systems that would be foregone by electing to concentrate your resources in a single brand?

That's a very good question.  For the time being I don't incur any nett liability from having both systems, and given that their strengths are complimentary, the benefits outweigh the costs.

For example.  Until recently, the photographic assignments I've had involved working solo.   I was then approached by a local photographer to work under his company as a contracted photographer or a second photographer.  He's got more work than he can handle so he bought me on board. He's a Canon guy and under the terms of our working agreement, I provide him with the raw files.  He wants control of the PP and final look and it wouldn't be practical for me to hand him Nikon files.

So the question becomes, why hold on to the Nikon gear?  I prefer it and continue to use it for my own assignments. It's not entirely logical, but I have never been hard nosed about my gear.

Or are you just conflicted, well heeled and fancy sporting the latest gear without concern for appearance or sunk costs?

If  I were to be honest, there is some truth to that too, though as I said, the costs are accounted for.

My inquiry is intended only to realize why someone would want to straddle such an fence.

To be honest, I have a great regard for both systems and I would hate to chose between them.

I haven't had to many issues with switching between systems.  I tend to shoot in manual mode a lot of the time, which I think eliminates a lot of the complexity that comes with relying on aperture or shutter priority. That leaves the AF systems, which again, I tend to use in one mode most of the time.

If I was similarly situated as you appear to be, I would be invested in one or the other and used the additional disposable income to fill the remaining gaps in my lens line up.  $3500 or so goes a long way in funding one of the venerable 300 f/2.8's.

I have certainly given that consideration, but as lovely as the 300 2.8 is, I cannot justify it based on the little use I would get from it.  What I do has never required more than the reach a 70-200 gives me. A 200 f2 would be lovely, and I might well pull the trigger on it in the near future.

John Cerra2 Regular Member • Posts: 289
Re: Buy the 5DIII because...

jacobwhite wrote:

You can complain about the 5.5 fps burst rate...but I don't care.

I find that quite good my issue with the 600 is more connected to the distribution points of the AF - I find the to crammed in the middle. I'm "complaining" about 4 fps on the 800 - I'd rather have less resolution and 5.5 fps - which would have made me a happy camper.

I bought the D600 in the middle of December and started a volunteer shoot for the high school boys basketball team at my old school. There are six players on the team that are D1 locks,two probable NBA players, maybe three. The team was good enough to win the state tournament. They are big and fast, anin often playing in sub optimal lighting. My D300s might have a better focusing set up, but the iq was never close. In hindsight, the D300s is at a disadvantge in two ways: iso 1600 is marginal in the home gym, and the lesson depth of field with every fixed lens hurt it.

I started the season shooting with 50mm f1.8 D and an 85mm f1.8 D. I had not hoops in 30 years, but the feel for the game stayed withThe equipment today is much better:)

It was love at first sight...I was nailing shots I could never have imagined. The real question was how iso 3200 would hold up on my screen and computer.  My conclusion is that you can shoot iso 3200 with complete impunity.

My only problem was nailing the autofocus. I tried all the modes and now shoot in S or C-9.  The general problem is that if you don't control the focus spot, the C program will occasionally move to the fans in the background, and you get lovely shots of them with blurred players in the foreground. This happens when you are are shooting  from the baseline and are trying to get a point guard racing directly at you, and you have a shorter focal length that has includes more background. Sometimes I got a few shots in focus, and then lost some.

I experimented with 180mm 2.8 and 300 f4 lenses. The former wasbut a bit inflexible and the 300 was inflexible and slow.

One way I coped was to shoot with a 20mm  from the baseline. You give up shooting anything down court, but the dramatic effect on shots in the paint is worth it.

During the season I bought the 70-200 f4. The first game was at the Prudential Center in Newark, with superb lighting. The place was empty and I got an elevated seat five rows up at mid court. It was an ideal location, I could shoot both baskets and I lost few shots to out of focus because the focus distance didn't change much.

Into the post season, and games were always neutral sites, with bad hs gym lighting.  Sometimes I was given a floor pass, and when the lighting got better, I could shoot two cameras again. But the D300s shots were fill in. Generally I had the zoom on the D600 and it worked well.

My conclusion: I could buy one new camera and one new lens. I was not planning on shooting basketball when I bought the D600.  If I knew that I might have been susceptible to the charms of the D700.   There are better sports cameras than the D600 in terms of design, AF and fps/buffer. There are few cameras with a better sponsor and Iq. I lost some shots, no doubt, but in the end I got more great  shots than I ever thought possible, and a kick butt landscape camera to boot.

Because the players are under the age of 18, I don't like to put the shoots in the public domain. If you want to see the, send me a pm, and I will send you a link and Pw. In some cases, I have. full ooc jpeg card dump and some edieted shots in side by side directories.

-- hide signature --

You can complain about the top shutter speed of 1/4000 of a second, I can't remember the last time I needed 1/8000.

Can live with 1/4000

You can complain about the autofocus speed, and I acknowledge the d4faster. But once I figured it out, I was fine.

Please do let me know how you figured it out - because that may actually help me understand if this is he camera I can live with.

You can complain about the weather sealing, and I will acknowledge  it doesn't match the d300s.

Never complained about weather sealing

I can directly compare my shots vs pros that were shooting top of the line Canons, their state finals photos have been widely published around here.  The Canon color space seems cartoonish like in terms of over saturation.

Are you sure that they don't retouch their images? It really is the mags fault for picking people's images that are over-saturated...

Maybe this was easier for me, since I followed one team and knew the players and their tendacies. But over several games, in varying light conditions, after ceding them the prime spot on the baseline...I had no problem getting great shots and better iq.

How did you do a whole season with the D600? I thought it only came out a few months ago?

So while you search for the holy grail, I am getting pro caliber prints at a fraction of the camera cost. So I guess it's how you look at it....I am ecstatic and think that Nikon nailed it.

-- hide signature --

Currently shooting aD300s, a D200, D70 and N50. Have a 'F.'
Also shooting with Konica 35mm SLRS (T3 and FT-1) with numerous Hexanon Lenses. Printer: Canon i9900.

--
Currently shooting aD300s, a D200, D70 and N50. Have a 'F.'
Also shooting with Konica 35mm SLRS (T3 and FT-1) with numerous Hexanon Lenses. Printer: Canon i9900.

VictorTrasvina
VictorTrasvina Regular Member • Posts: 218
Re: Did Nikon screw up?

The OP is not interested in photography but something completely different. Do not waste your time.

I agree ...
I miss mine terribly, selling it was a mistake, one of the best body's Nikon ever made

olyflyer
olyflyer Forum Pro • Posts: 24,311
I am affraid...

John Cerra2 wrote:

As a D600 and D300s owner, I find this entire  discussion bemusing. The D600 is a truly amazing camera, from the experience of shooting  high speed sports at iso 3200 and then printing at 16x24. You can complain about the 5.5 fps burst rate...but I don't care. You can complain about the top shutter speed of 1/4000 of a second, I can't remember the last time I needed 1/8000. You can complain about the autofocus speed, and I acknowledge the d4faster. But once I figured it out, I was fine. You can complain about the weather sealing, and I will acknowledge  it doesn't match the d300s. But I bought this camera for net $1500 to $1700 in the December sale, and used the extra money to buy the new 70-200 zoom. It's a wonderful lens, good enough for a pro I know to ditch the also amazing bit heavy 70-200 f2.8.  After knocking the d600 and d800, she has added a d600 to her kit and now raves about it. She sold a d700 earlier this year because she wasn't using it.

I can directly compare my shots vs pros that were shooting top of the line Canons, their state finals photos have been widely published around here.  The Canon color space seems cartoonish like in terms of over saturation. Maybe this was easier for me, since I followed one team and knew the players and their tendacies. But over several games, in varying light conditions, after ceding them the prime spot on the baseline...I had no problem getting great shots and better iq.

So while you search for the holy grail, I am getting pro caliber prints at a fraction of the camera cost. So I guess it's how you look at it....I am ecstatic and think that Nikon nailed it.

...that you answered the wrong post. I am not the one complaining here.

olyflyer
olyflyer Forum Pro • Posts: 24,311
Re: No, you did :-)

SubPrime wrote:

Grevture wrote:

Yeah, 4/5 images/second as compared to 6 images/second. Huge, huge difference ...

It is, but more importantly, the buffer on the D800locks up completely when it's full, so your camera is out of action for quite a while while it empties.

After 17 lossless compressed, 14-bit images the buffer is full. Is it really a big deal? I mean, if yes then sure, the D800 is poor performer, but how deep is the 5D3 buffer? with 6fps it fills faster, so it must be much deeper.

SubPrime Senior Member • Posts: 1,238
Re: No, you did :-)

olyflyer wrote:

SubPrime wrote:

Grevture wrote:

Yeah, 4/5 images/second as compared to 6 images/second. Huge, huge difference ...

It is, but more importantly, the buffer on the D800locks up completely when it's full, so your camera is out of action for quite a while while it empties.

After 17 lossless compressed, 14-bit images the buffer is full. Is it really a big deal? I mean, if yes then sure, the D800 is poor performer, but how deep is the 5D3 buffer? with 6fps it fills faster, so it must be much deeper.

Isn't that 17 lossless compressed 14 bit frames on a 1000x Lexar CF card?

The point of course is not that there's anything wrong with the buffer, rather that the files are lossless compressed 14 bit  are big and there are no options for shooting at lower resolution. It's amazing that the D800 can even manage that throughput.

It's not that the 5D3 buffer is better, it's that the 5D3 files are smaller and that the buffer can cope more easily.  Add to that the Sraw option on the 5D3, and it simply offers more options.

ultimitsu
ultimitsu Veteran Member • Posts: 6,650
Re: As someone who owns both the 5D3 and D800, I'd say no

SubPrime wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

Actually, Canon does not have uncompressed RAW. all canon RAW are compressed by default.

Sorry, but if CR2 is not uncompressed RAW then the uncompressed would be extremely bloated.

They are not. D600 ISO100 RAW is about 30mb, while 5D3's is about 28mb.

As it is, the CR2 files I am getting are 34-36 mb, so they don't look compressed to me.

check DPR's studio test scene. at iso 6400, D600 34mb, 5d3 33mb, D800 51mb.

Lossless compressed D800 RAWs come it at around 45-50 mb.

That is in proportion to MP count.

in fact 20mp is all that you will extract from D800 with less than perfect lens or with perfect lens but at ISO 800 upwards (give or take).

Not really sure how you come to that conclusion.

Did you really think you got 36mp resolution at every iso and with any lens?

olyflyer
olyflyer Forum Pro • Posts: 24,311
Re: No, you did :-)

SubPrime wrote:

olyflyer wrote:

SubPrime wrote:

Grevture wrote:

Yeah, 4/5 images/second as compared to 6 images/second. Huge, huge difference ...

It is, but more importantly, the buffer on the D800locks up completely when it's full, so your camera is out of action for quite a while while it empties.

After 17 lossless compressed, 14-bit images the buffer is full. Is it really a big deal? I mean, if yes then sure, the D800 is poor performer, but how deep is the 5D3 buffer? with 6fps it fills faster, so it must be much deeper.

Isn't that 17 lossless compressed 14 bit frames on a 1000x Lexar CF card?

No, it's with 8 GB Toshiba R95 W80MB/s UHS-I SDHC card, but...

...the type of card and buffer size are not related. The buffer size is fixed. Card type matters only for how fast the buffer is transferred to the card, not changing the actual buffer size.

The point of course is not that there's anything wrong with the buffer, rather that the files are lossless compressed 14 bit  are big and there are no options for shooting at lower resolution. It's amazing that the D800 can even manage that throughput.

So what is it with lossless compression? It is called lossless because not a single bit of information is lost. Anyway, the buffer size is 16 raw for uncompressed images if you absolutely must shoot uncompressed, but that is pointless in my opinion because it adds nothing else than increased file size.

It's not that the 5D3 buffer is better, it's that the 5D3 files are smaller and that the buffer can cope more easily.  Add to that the Sraw option on the 5D3, and it simply offers more options.

In which way Canon raw "offers more options" than Nikon NEF? Of course the 5D3 files are smaller. Less MP = smaller files. How easily the camera can cope with the file size depends on much more than the file size, processor, transfer speed, memory speed and so on are all related to that, not just the file size.

olyflyer
olyflyer Forum Pro • Posts: 24,311
Don't confuse resolution and mega pixels...

ultimitsu wrote:

SubPrime wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

Actually, Canon does not have uncompressed RAW. all canon RAW are compressed by default.

Sorry, but if CR2 is not uncompressed RAW then the uncompressed would be extremely bloated.

They are not. D600 ISO100 RAW is about 30mb, while 5D3's is about 28mb.

As it is, the CR2 files I am getting are 34-36 mb, so they don't look compressed to me.

check DPR's studio test scene. at iso 6400, D600 34mb, 5d3 33mb, D800 51mb.

Lossless compressed D800 RAWs come it at around 45-50 mb.

That is in proportion to MP count.

in fact 20mp is all that you will extract from D800 with less than perfect lens or with perfect lens but at ISO 800 upwards (give or take).

How did you arrive to this conclusion? You don't need a perfect lens (which still does not exist) to take benefit of the higher resolution of the sensor. The improvement can be seen with ANY lens, as long as you have not reached the maximum resolution of the lens. It is really basic, isn't it? In any case, most lenses (at least my lenses) outresolve the D800. It is an Internet hoax that you need new lenses with the D800.

Not really sure how you come to that conclusion.

Did you really think you got 36mp resolution at every iso and with any lens?

Of course you get 36MP at EVERY ISO. Every single pixel is used at ANY ISO, so if your camera has 36MP then all of those are there even at ISO6400.

ultimitsu
ultimitsu Veteran Member • Posts: 6,650
Re: Don't confuse resolution and mega pixels...

olyflyer wrote:

in fact 20mp is all that you will extract from D800 with less than perfect lens or with perfect lens but at ISO 800 upwards (give or take).

How did you arrive to this conclusion?

What is interesting is how you failed to make any effective counter argument.

You don't need a perfect lens (which still does not exist) to take benefit of the higher resolution of the sensor.

Who said you will not get advantage from that sensor?

The improvement can be seen with ANY lens, as long as you have not reached the maximum resolution of the lens.

While that is correct, it does not defeat the quoted statement.

It is really basic, isn't it?

Basic it is, it does not prove the quoted statement wrong.

In any case, most lenses (at least my lenses) outresolve the D800. It is an Internet hoax that you need new lenses with the D800.

No one said anything about need for new lens. Chill.

Not really sure how you come to that conclusion.

Did you really think you got 36mp resolution at every iso and with any lens?

Of course you get 36MP at EVERY ISO. Every single pixel is used at ANY ISO, so if your camera has 36MP then all of those are there even at ISO6400.

You are either unable comprehend the meaning of that statement, or intentionally playing dumb.

John Cerra2 Regular Member • Posts: 289
Re: I am affraid...

While it isn't clear, I am agreeing and trying to add to your point.  What does he think he is getting from a shift?

-- hide signature --

Currently shooting aD300s, a D200, D70 and N50. Have a 'F.'
Also shooting with Konica 35mm SLRS (T3 and FT-1) with numerous Hexanon Lenses. Printer: Canon i9900.

olyflyer
olyflyer Forum Pro • Posts: 24,311
Re: Don't confuse resolution and mega pixels...

ultimitsu wrote:

olyflyer wrote:

in fact 20mp is all that you will extract from D800 with less than perfect lens or with perfect lens but at ISO 800 upwards (give or take).

How did you arrive to this conclusion?

What is interesting is how you failed to make any effective counter argument.

Why would I need to make a counter argument? You made a claim, proof your claim. Otherwise all you are saying is just nonsense.

You don't need a perfect lens (which still does not exist) to take benefit of the higher resolution of the sensor.

Who said you will not get advantage from that sensor?

The improvement can be seen with ANY lens, as long as you have not reached the maximum resolution of the lens.

While that is correct, it does not defeat the quoted statement.

It is really basic, isn't it?

Basic it is, it does not prove the quoted statement wrong.

In any case, most lenses (at least my lenses) outresolve the D800. It is an Internet hoax that you need new lenses with the D800.

No one said anything about need for new lens. Chill.

Chill? You are talking about the need for perfect lens for anything above 20MP. If that is your opinion (it must be an opinion since it is not facts) then you must also have the opinion that new lenses are needed for the D800 otherwise it is really pointless to buy that camera. The only problem is that I don't know any "perfect lens" yet, so perhaps you can enlighten us about which one you regard perfect.

Not really sure how you come to that conclusion.

Did you really think you got 36mp resolution at every iso and with any lens?

Of course you get 36MP at EVERY ISO. Every single pixel is used at ANY ISO, so if your camera has 36MP then all of those are there even at ISO6400.

You are either unable comprehend the meaning of that statement, or intentionally playing dumb.

The way I see it is that the one playing dumb here is you. You made an empty claim without any substance in that statement and expect everyone to believe you.

SubPrime Senior Member • Posts: 1,238
Re: No, you did :-)

olyflyer wrote:

...the type of card and buffer size are not related. The buffer size is fixed. Card type matters only for how fast the buffer is transferred to the card, not changing the actual buffer size.

Well, I have never been able to reel off 17 images before the camera has prevented me continuing to capture.

So what is it with lossless compression? It is called lossless because not a single bit of information is lost. Anyway, the buffer size is 16 raw for uncompressed images if you absolutely must shoot uncompressed, but that is pointless in my opinion because it adds nothing else than increased file size.

Again, I have had no luck squeezing out 16 or 17 raws.

In which way Canon raw "offers more options" than Nikon NEF?

They offer SRAW, which is very popular with wedding shooters because it's pretty small.

Of course the 5D3 files are smaller. Less MP = smaller files. How easily the camera can cope with the file size depends on much more than the file size, processor, transfer speed, memory speed and so on are all related to that, not just the file size.

I agree, but it's one important factor.  I read somewhere that the Digic 5 is faster than the Expseed 3,  that is the other factor.

SubPrime Senior Member • Posts: 1,238
Re: As someone who owns both the 5D3 and D800, I'd say no

ultimitsu wrote:

Sorry, but if CR2 is not uncompressed RAW then the uncompressed would be extremely bloated.

They are not. D600 ISO100 RAW is about 30mb, while 5D3's is about 28mb.

IS that a lossless compressed D600 raw?  And no, 5D3s are larger.  I am looking at one right now.

check DPR's studio test scene. at iso 6400, D600 34mb, 5d3 33mb, D800 51mb.

So what? File sizes vary from image to image.

in fact 20mp is all that you will extract from D800 with less than perfect lens or with perfect lens but at ISO 800 upwards (give or take).

Not really sure how you come to that conclusion.

Did you really think you got 36mp resolution at every iso and with any lens?

Of course not, but I still would like to know how you arrived at the 20mp figure at ISO800.

In any case, most lenses (at least my lenses) outresolve the D800.

No they don't.  In fact, it's doubtful that any lens outresolved the D800, so neither do yours.  I have most of  the pro glass between 14 and 200 mm.

It is an Internet hoax that you need new lenses with the D800.

It depends.  Some of the new Zeiss lenses clearly exploit the full potential of the D800. Some Nikkor lenses most certainly need to be improved to match the D800 - most actually

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads