# Cancelled my D800 pre-order... !!!



## Noink Fanb0i (Mar 31, 2012)

...First of all, I hope no one interprets my post as a flame-bait troll post, I write this as a current owner of both Nikon and Canon SLRs (film & digital). Let me explain how I arrived at my decision, after carefully considering and evaluating all the initial reviews and sample pictures I've seen from the D800 on the various websites. I have a feeling that the D800 would be like what I felt when I saw the pictures from a D200 and D2x, sure, both "tested" well if you read the reviews at that time for both cams, some even claimed then that the D200 noise & overall IQ was as good as that from a 30D, the crop IQ king at that time IIRC, while the D2x, according to those same reviewers, compared favorably with the 1DIIn & 5D even though it had a 1.5x crop sensor. I'm also one of those who thought that the Nikon D50 6MP CCD had better IQ than the D80, D40, D40x while others were pointing to charts & graphs to say otherwise. Anyway, I'm not saying the D800 sucks or what, nor am I saying that I'm getting the 5D3, since if money was no problem I'd only be choosing between the D4 & 1DX to be honest. But I'm also not one of those +2000 fill-lighters, +10EV digital exposure compensators, +20 luma/+20 chroma noise reduction slider-movers, or 800% pixel-peepers nor is my hobby cropping & resizing every damned picture that comes out of my camera , nor do I even shoot RAW all the time since I don't have the time to develop every single frame or tweak every setting just so to "maximize" the digital negative. Really, how many shots in a week do those "I only shoot RAW" guys make and do they have time for anything else? Most real pros I know don't even do that, and these are the guys that are so busy they don't even participate in online forums like this! 

I hope no one bashes me for what I just said, I think I need to buy another lens or two instead of getting some other body. I'm still withholding judgement on the AA-cancelled D800E though. I'm currently shooting with a 5D2 & a pre-owned D300s I won on eBay. Cheers to everyone, since I know this site is for Canon owners and not for Nikon trolls to cross-post like they do on other forums where many brands are discussed.


----------



## Fishnose (Mar 31, 2012)

I can't imagine what an endless string of comparisons between old camera models has to do with anything. Which camera you choose to buy and use depends on a couple of factors. How you like the camera to feel and function, and what you use it for/need it to do.
I need maximum pixel power because it often happens that a shot I take for a customer (building sites and the like) has a cool detail in it that my customer absolutely wants to use for something. So the ability to crop heavily and still have usable resolution is KING for me. I'm not a sports photographer, the fastes thing in my frame is a machine rolling by or people working and walking around.
So I'll choose a high res camera over a really fast one. Simple.
If you need speed above all else, you don't get a super-high pixel camera.
If you need a balance between the two - good speed and good resolution - you pick the middle path.
Nikon and Canon are two mighty fine makes of camera, both make exceptional bodies and amazing glass. So pick make by how you like the camera to feel and function, choose model by what you need it for... and you're done.


----------



## se7en (Mar 31, 2012)

OPs post defines 'irrelevancy' to a T.


----------



## agierke (Mar 31, 2012)

i'm not sure of the point of your post. i'm also not really sure you have a good understanding of what a professional photographer does and why they do it.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 31, 2012)

And I thought I was bored already today... Sorry, but this is pointless.


----------



## Noink Fanb0i (Mar 31, 2012)

Uh, no, PJs and sports photogs would disagree with you there. And I shoot with those real pros on a fairly regular basis.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 31, 2012)

Viggo said:


> And I thought I was bored already today... Sorry, but this is pointless.



+1 .. but it's not even pointless, it's wrong - for me, shooting raw does *reduce* workload because it increases the percentage of usable shots and decreases the post-processing workload because it's easier to correct pictures (dynamic range, color temperature, ...)



Noink Fanb0i said:


> Uh, no, PJs and sports photogs would disagree with you there. And I shoot with those real pros on a fairly regular basis.



If you're talking about shooting raw or jpeg - why's that? Of course raw fills the buffer faster and thousands of raw pictures don't fit on a memory card that easily and due to larger data size might be slower to copy - but other than that? I was talking about workload, not the ability to shoot as many pictures as possible.


----------



## AnselA (Mar 31, 2012)

You can always reconsider.


----------



## yunusoglu (Mar 31, 2012)

Noink Fanb0i said:


> Let me explain how I arrived at my decision, after carefully considering and evaluating all the initial reviews and sample pictures I've seen from the D800 on the various websites.



And you cancelled your D800 pre-order? Are you sure you were checking out the right reviews and samples?


----------



## PhotoCat (Mar 31, 2012)

At the D200 time there was no DXOmark nor there was Exmor sensor from Sony.
What do u expect a Nikon marketing guy would do? Bluff... of course...

Unfortunately, the Nikon picture is vy different now with Sony backing them up with Exmor backlit sensors!

Don't get me wrong, I am a Canon fans but really wish 5d3 had a D800 sensor!


----------



## SomeGuyInNewJersey (Mar 31, 2012)

PhotoCat said:


> Don't get me wrong, I am a Canon fans but really wish 5d3 had a D800 sensor!


Now that would be a great camera for me!


----------



## rafaelsynths (Apr 25, 2012)

Reading the replies saved me from wasting my time reading a chuck of characters.


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 25, 2012)

Thanks for your post Noink... Dont let others bother you... I've been "digital" and a shooting pro since the D60 day and the D1x days... I understand what you mean in your comparisons and the raw/jpeg thing... I know people on both sides of the isle... the raw only guys and the jpeg are enough guys... Personally I think the raws take too much time in processing and avoid it except when I know it's a high end client who is using it for print, or when I know at the time of shooting this could be good enough to go into my professional portfolio, but otherwise if I dont need raw, screw it... jpegs are faster shooting and post production workflow, for me. Other "pros" who shoot raw, either have no life because they are constantly processing and tweaking and such, or simply they outsource... whether it be they hire an "assistant" who does nothing to assists and processes raws all day long and catalogs them or they send files to a 3rd party guy who does it and all the photoshop work and send them the corrected files. Other pro's like me who shoot a mix do their own when need it but dont sweat the small stuff. I agree the D800, while it has an incredible sensor, will undoubtedly lead to more PS work, which for pro's, means more assistants or more outsourcing which means more cost to them which means lower profit margin... Sometimes it matters, sometimes not... as for me I never had issue with the 5d2 IQ so why would I be bothered if the 5d3 is ONLY a margin better? Plus undertaking more PS work just to get the punch of the 5d3, to me and my business, is unacceptable. The d800 is a great camera and I applaud Nikon, but in the end, it is what it is.


----------



## Kernuak (Apr 25, 2012)

I know plenty of pros who use RAW and don't (can't afford to) outsource their work. The main difference is in what they shoot and how much PP they're willing to do. Nature photographers mostly shoot RAW (there are some exceptions), but they don't tend to have the large number of shots per shoot that PJs may have, also, because they are (usually) looking for more reality than fine art, they do just enough PP to make the image look good and don't bother with the lesser quality images that they may have taken while exploring the subject, trying to get the final product. I know of one pro, who will spend 2-3 hours on a single subject, taking images every few minutes until he finds the composition he was looking for. In those few hours, he probably has less than 20 images, compare that to a PJ in a few minutes when something newsworthy happens and there is a complete disparity in the number of images.


----------



## psolberg (Apr 25, 2012)

THANK YOU!

maybe I'll get yours now that one less person is in line waiting
;D


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 25, 2012)

PhotoCat said:


> ...
> 
> Unfortunately, the Nikon picture is vy different now with Sony backing them up with Exmor backlit sensors!


 
The D800 does not have a exmore backlit sensor, why confuse people by bring them up?


----------



## roumin (Apr 25, 2012)

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." ... Scott Fitzgerald

jpeg are mostly fine, but there are times when RAWs are just better. Either way, I believe you are better off with 80% of your focus on composition, good lighting, good story, etc.. RAW vs jpeg, Nikon vs Canon, crop vs FF, 5d2 vs 5d3, etc.. is mostly irrelevant. my $.02 8)


----------



## friedmud (Apr 25, 2012)

As long as we're hijacking this thread to talk about RAW vs jpeg I thought I would throw my 2 cents in.

Personally, I love RAW. It gives me the flexibility I'm looking for to design my vision in Post. For me there is almost no difference in post time because I edit every picture I keep... Raw or jpeg. Note that "keep" word. Using Lightroom I can blow through a shoot of 300 photos in no time... Whittling it down to the 10-20 keepers that matter. Then I post process those.

Honestly, using a good piece photo library software makes all the difference. Once you get used to rejecting 90% of your photos (do you really need 40 shots of your nephew's face with ice cream on it or 20 shots of that same waterfall?) your post time goes down dramatically. Not only will you thank yourself for not spending so much time in front of the computer... But everyone else will thank you as well ( hint! Your coworkers don't care to see 300 photos of your dog from last weekend!)

With all of that said, I do shoot both raw and jpeg but it has to do with speed and size. C3 on my 7D is my "holy shit look at that!" mode that's set up for high speed shutter with servo AF. It also is set to save jpegs. When you're shooting 9fps raw your card can fill up in a hurry... but with jpeg I can shoot forever. Every single other thing I do with my camera is shot in RAW. And if storage was no issue I would shoot the high speed stuff in raw as well...


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 25, 2012)

Kernuak said:


> I know plenty of pros who use RAW and don't (can't afford to) outsource their work. The main difference is in what they shoot and how much PP they're willing to do. Nature photographers mostly shoot RAW (there are some exceptions), but they don't tend to have the large number of shots per shoot that PJs may have, also, because they are (usually) looking for more reality than fine art, they do just enough PP to make the image look good and don't bother with the lesser quality images that they may have taken while exploring the subject, trying to get the final product. I know of one pro, who will spend 2-3 hours on a single subject, taking images every few minutes until he finds the composition he was looking for. In those few hours, he probably has less than 20 images, compare that to a PJ in a few minutes when something newsworthy happens and there is a complete disparity in the number of images.



As i said there are a few pro's who do their own, and a lot more who have assistants or outsource raws. Many wedding photogs that does their own, there are a few that can spend days going through 1 wedding just processing, editing, etc... Some others do it a lot quicker whether it is that they use expodiscs to nail color and exposure, or other means... It is what it is... those who can afford assistants go that route, those who can afford outsourcing go that route... others who cant do their own... In the end, whatever works for the individual photog that brings him success and consistency, more power to them. As for me, some clients need every drop of IQ possible, others are just going to be posted on their website or small catalog size in which most of the IQ goes away when resized. Anyways this is as much of a personal preference as the nikon/canon debate but lets try not to get off topic =)


----------



## psolberg (May 4, 2012)

well, I'm in the process of switching away from the mkII and I'm one of the few people here that actually owns a D800 and has shot with it long enough to form an informed opinion. After 3 days of using it, RAW is the way to go with this bad boy. The level of detail, color, DR, simply blew my socks off. There is just nothing in the canon side that comes close, and it would be a waste to use jpg only unless you have some really good reason to.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 4, 2012)

psolberg said:


> well, I'm in the process of switching away from the mkII and I'm one of the few people here that actually owns a D800 and has shot with it long enough to form an informed opinion. The level of detail, color, DR, simply blew my socks off.



It's a real pity there is no real competition between Nikon and Canon because people are fixed to a system with their lenses. Given the d800, I'd really like to see Canon prices drop accordingly - but looking at the 5d3 demand, this is not likely to happen.


----------



## psolberg (May 13, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > well, I'm in the process of switching away from the mkII and I'm one of the few people here that actually owns a D800 and has shot with it long enough to form an informed opinion. The level of detail, color, DR, simply blew my socks off.
> ...



You are correct. And it is a pitty canon simply charges that because they know they can get away with it.


----------



## Orion (May 13, 2012)

psolberg said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > psolberg said:
> ...



. . . . which is jsut another reason why I HATE "fanboys" and their B.S.

but I would also veture to say thqat Canonis not getting away with anything . . . . the 5DmkIII IS WORTH $3500. My 30D cost me a pretty penny when it was released . . and the 5DmkIII is MORE than fair. I AM IN HEAVEN. But yes . . I know . . . . it is still $500 more than the D800 . . . . "OMG"


----------



## briansquibb (May 13, 2012)

psolberg said:


> well, I'm in the process of switching away from the mkII and I'm one of the few people here that actually owns a D800 and has shot with it long enough to form an informed opinion. After 3 days of using it, RAW is the way to go with this bad boy. The level of detail, color, DR, simply blew my socks off. There is just nothing in the canon side that comes close, and it would be a waste to use jpg only unless you have some really good reason to.



Have you used a 1DS3 then?


----------

