# D800 Mini Review



## Astro (Apr 20, 2012)

just saw this link posted at DPR:

http://photofocus.com/2012/04/16/nikon-d800-mini-mini-review/




> am not going to write much about this camera because as I originally expected, it just doesn’t make sense to me. I have a sort of “meh” reaction to it. I am particularly disappointed in its autofocus system compared to that found on the 5D MK III – but it is $500 cheaper than the Canon so if you’re deciding between the two that’s a big factor – UNTIL you also consider the cost of more computer memory, a faster computer and bigger camera memory cards. Then it’s a wash.


----------



## Chewy734 (Apr 20, 2012)

Nice review, but I would have to say he's in the minority. It all depends on what you are photographing, and your style of photography.


----------



## traveller (Apr 20, 2012)

What was the guy expecting, that the D800 would make him a better photographer? 

Not a great review, sounds more like he's rehashing statements that he's found on the internet rather than observing actual camera behaviour.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 20, 2012)

traveller said:


> sounds more like he's rehashing statements that he's found on the internet rather than observing actual camera behaviour.



 GASP! I've _never_ seen anyone do that before...


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 20, 2012)

See, the thing is, there really are damned few real-world scenarios where the image quality of the 5DIII is inadequate but the D800 is. If the 5DIII won't cut the mustard, the upgrade you need is to medium format, not a higher density 135 format.

I'm not saying that more image quality would be unwelcome -- far from it. But the only times you'll be able to tell the difference between the 5DIII and the D800 in studio or landscape photography is in stick-your-nose-to-the-paper side-by-side comparisons of 32" x 48" prints. Stand back at normal viewing distances, put the prints on opposite walls, or simply print at something a few inches smaller, and you're really not going to tell the difference. And an ill-timed sneeze during exposure could easily tip the scales the other way, as will any other cock-ups in technique.

The sorts of hardware-related things that _will_ make a difference? First of all, the glass, and Canon's got Nikon beat hands down. Nikon has no equivalent of the 17 and 24 TS-E lenses, they have no equivalent of the 65 MP-E, and their supertelephotos weigh half again as much as Canon's. Then, there's all the camera-type things, like framerate and autofocus and what-not, and the 5DIII again has the edge here, but not by as much.

So, yeah. If you're already shooting Nikon, you should be thrilled with the D800. It's a marvelous camera, by all accounts I've read. But all this wailing and gnashing of teeth over which body is best is quite silly, really...the body is really just an accessory, when it comes right down to it. It's like people fighting over Ford versus Toyota based on the shape of the cupholders in the latest midsized sedans. I mean, really, people?

Cheers,

b&


----------



## unruled (Apr 20, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> See, the thing is, there really are damned few real-world scenarios where the image quality of the 5DIII is inadequate but the D800 is. If the 5DIII won't cut the mustard, the upgrade you need is to medium format, not a higher density 135 format.
> 
> I'm not saying that more image quality would be unwelcome -- far from it. But the only times you'll be able to tell the difference between the 5DIII and the D800 in studio or landscape photography is in stick-your-nose-to-the-paper side-by-side comparisons of 32" x 48" prints. Stand back at normal viewing distances, put the prints on opposite walls, or simply print at something a few inches smaller, and you're really not going to tell the difference. And an ill-timed sneeze during exposure could easily tip the scales the other way, as will any other cock-ups in technique.
> 
> ...


thanks for speaking (your) and by extension (my) pragmatic real world thoughts.


----------



## psolberg (May 3, 2012)

> First of all, the glass, and Canon's got Nikon beat hands down. Nikon has no equivalent of the 17 and 24 TS-E lenses



I have seen plenty of Nikon 24ts lenses around and will soon order mine....their 17mm Ts lens is already leaked in a patent and just a matter if time. They also have the superb 14-24 which canon lacks and a 200-400 that actually exists and a stabilized 16-35 f4. So much for "hands down" if you ask me. I'm switching systems and have found little lacking in their lineup so far. Canon has gaps too and both have some unique glass. but system choice has never mattered so little.

As for Bourne's review, he shoots primarily wildlife with D3s cameras so it is no surprise he doesn't fit the d800 audience.

Personally, I'm switching after following a more complete review from Lloyd Chambers. But I'm the target audience of the d800


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 3, 2012)

psolberg said:


> ....their 17mm Ts lens is already leaked in a patent and just a matter if time....



So...patents always become products?  Canon has had well over 2000 patents issued per year for at least the last 5-6 years - how many products per year have they released?

Agree on the 14-24, though - a very nice lens. Not enough to make me switch, my MP-E 65mm is too much fun.



psolberg said:


> I have seen plenty of Nikon 24ts lenses around and will soon order mine...I'm the target audience of the d800



Just don't try rotating that PC-E 24mm on the D800 - the shift control knob hits the protrusion of the popup flash which prevents full rotation. Just one more little ergonomic 'bonus' from Nikon. :-X


----------



## psolberg (May 3, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > ....their 17mm Ts lens is already leaked in a patent and just a matter if time....
> ...



I think you have some bad information on the 24mm nikon. the control does NOT hit the top on during TS operation so you can still get the full TS range which is the primary thing. As you say during rotation it does in one direction which is annoying but you can rotate the other way I suppose. Yes Nikon's popup flash choice is strange on that camera.

Nikon D800 and Nikon PC-E 24mm.mov

As usual uninformed internet rumors are highly exaggerated  If the TS action was limited then I wouldn't get it fore sure.

The BIGGEST drawback with the lens is that Nikon hasn't yet adopted the independent axis canon slapped on the 17 and 24. That's more of an issue. It will be interesting to see if the 17mm Nikkor addresses the clearances and adopts the independent TS axis. Right now you can do it on the Nikon but I saw you have to remove screws and change the alignment yourself.

The 17mm TS from Nikon is just a matter of time as I said:
http://nikonrumors.com/2012/04/27/nikon-patents-for-17mm-f4-tilt-and-shift-10mm-f4-16-30mm-f4-5-5-6-and-28mm-f1-4-lenses.aspx/

You're correct not all patents become products, but all Nikon glass always traces itself to one patent. There is nothing stopping Nikon from making a 17mm TS lens and the patent just confirms it is just a matter of time. I have little interest in 17mm FL for UWA photography, but I'm sure many nikonians will love that thing. I like wider. That 10mm f/4 full frame lens will surely make it to my bag on day one. To the greater point, switching has never been easier. Long gone are the days where Nikon's glass was lacking. Leaving canon was no easy decision but it had more to do with time and hassle than with lens choices. At least for me, there isn't any one lens on canon's system that would make me stay, or in Nikon for that matter.


----------

