D600 with full fat AF system!

[Rojin]

It is called a D800

But yeah, Canon need to sort something out with their Sensor tech, they have gone form world leaders to a generation behind . Panny + Oly seems to have realized that Sony sensors are the way forwards so their aging sensor tech is being pushed out the way.
I'm sure if Canon says please then Sony will sell them sensor tech

Nah, I don't want 36MP. 24MP is spot on for me

I'd imagine Nikon have some sort of deal in place "don't sell it to Canon!"

 

[Rojin]

Yeh but it's a major retailer, large enough to at least show a fairly obvious trend in the northern American market.
Sales positions of the D800 & 5Diii haven't changed much since their release.
By the looks of it Canon's high end market is losing market-share pretty severely.

I'd love to know the actual figures, the cynic in me has always seen sales charts from retailers as just advertising the products they want to.

The only figures I've seen for the first half of this year is for Japan, and there was no real change in market share. They've always been pretty different to western trends though.

I think I've just about got over my latest case of wanting to see if the grass is greener... If I sell the 1Ds2, 7D and X100 I can get a 5D3...

 

[D.P.]

Yeh but it's a major retailer, large enough to at least show a fairly obvious trend in the northern American market.
Sales positions of the D800 & 5Diii haven't changed much since their release.
By the looks of it Canon's high end market is losing market-share pretty severely.

That is why I kind of posted it, i believe Amazon US sales more DSLR than any other camera retailer. Sure lots of these sales will be for lower end DSLRs but when you see cameras like the D600 outselling many entry level camera it is a clear indicator of strong sales.

I would love to see true Sales figures for 5DMKII vs MK2 and D800. For many Canon shooter the mk3 is just not a value for money upgrade unless you need the AF. For landscape/architecture/macro/still life/wildlife/Studio the MKII is so similar. The landscapes togs are either waiting it out or have already purchased a D800. With the 6D many will realize they can buy a second hand 5DMKII somewhere for less money, while some will stump up for the 5DMKIII while some who only had crop lenses have already dumped Canon for a D600 setup.

While on the Nikon D700 side of things, most people have found interest in either a D800 or D600 with some finding that nether is quite what they wanted (D4/3s sensor in a D800) so will keep what they have up buy a D600/D800 and make do - going to Canon doesn't help them in anyway. And really the people disappointed with the D800 simply need to downsample the images on import.

 

[D.P.]

Nah, I don't want 36MP. 24MP is spot on for me

I'd imagine Nikon have some sort of deal in place "don't sell it to Canon!"

What is your objection to 36MP when it is clear that the added resolution has no negative effect on IQ? You gain all the ability to crop, the effective reach/pixel density, print size, details, etc. If you don't need any of that then it really doesn't matter but it doesn't cost you anything. Plus the difference between 24MP and 36MP is really not that huge in terms of storage given the price of storage these days. It is no where near the differences of the last gen when you could have 12MP or 24MP bodies and the relative cost of storage was higher.

36MP just sound crazy big because we are used to smaller number. back when camera wee 4MP the 8MP camera were ridiculed and seemingly unneeded (although back then the increased resolution came at a definite cost in reduced IQ).


I 100% agree that 24MP seems about right for a FF image. The real kicker though is I want a pixel density equal to the D7k, I want about 16-18MP minimum in the DX frame for wildlife. If I was to go for a D600 then I would be loosing resolution from my 12MP D90 to an effective 10.5MP, that will actually be a huge step backwards for much of my work.
So I must have the pixel density that gives 16Mp DX images, and this comes with the side effect of giving me 36mp FF images - I don't mind this extra resolution which is fine for landscapes and architecture, or can allow looser compositions. The 1.2x crop because an interesting setting give 24MP images avoiding the soft far corners of lenses but giving much more sensor area than standard DX cameras. You can also do interesting things like you the lossy compressed 12bit RAW in 36MP mode and get smaller files but actually more details than the 14 bit loss-less compressed you might normally shoot at to maximize IQ.




There may be complications with some of the Sony sensor because they share development teams for some stuff. Still I think Sony could offer some other technologies that are not entangled with nikon. E.g., Pentax uses Sony sensor, Panasonic and Olympus are now using Sony sensors. Sony's strategy seems to be that they are happy to sell sensors to other companies since that is easier direct profit that trying to sell more cameras. If Canon ask for 500K FF sensors and Sony makes $50-100 per sale then that a better proposition than Sony trying to steal hundreds of thousands of sales from Canon which is hard work and less likely to happen. Sony's sensor fab is very, very expensive and they need companies like Nikon to use their sensor fab facilities.

 

[An Exception]

I'd love to know the actual figures, the cynic in me has always seen sales charts from retailers as just advertising the products they want to.

The only figures I've seen for the first half of this year is for Japan, and there was no real change in market share. They've always been pretty different to western trends though.

I think I've just about got over my latest case of wanting to see if the grass is greener... If I sell the 1Ds2, 7D and X100 I can get a 5D3...

Overall market share isn't going to change much, not with Canon pumping out no end of 550D's 600D's 650D's 60D's etc.
I remember looking at the amazon list a long time ago when it was the D700 Vs 5Dii. The 5D's position was way higher, the D700 barely got a look in.

I think video helped sales, but mainly I think megapickles sells camera's

 

[Rojin]

What is your objection to 36MP when it is clear that the added resolution has no negative effect on IQ? You gain all the ability to crop, the effective reach/pixel density, print size, details, etc. If you don't need any of that then it really doesn't matter but it doesn't cost you anything. Plus the difference between 24MP and 36MP is really not that huge in terms of storage given the price of storage these days. It is no where near the differences of the last gen when you could have 12MP or 24MP bodies and the relative cost of storage was higher.

36MP just sound crazy big because we are used to smaller number. back when camera wee 4MP the 8MP camera were ridiculed and seemingly unneeded (although back then the increased resolution came at a definite cost in reduced IQ).


I 100% agree that 24MP seems about right for a FF image. The real kicker though is I want a pixel density equal to the D7k, I want about 16-18MP minimum in the DX frame for wildlife. If I was to go for a D600 then I would be loosing resolution from my 12MP D90 to an effective 10.5MP, that will actually be a huge step backwards for much of my work.
So I must have the pixel density that gives 16Mp DX images, and this comes with the side effect of giving me 36mp FF images - I don't mind this extra resolution which is fine for landscapes and architecture, or can allow looser compositions. The 1.2x crop because an interesting setting give 24MP images avoiding the soft far corners of lenses but giving much more sensor area than standard DX cameras. You can also do interesting things like you the lossy compressed 12bit RAW in 36MP mode and get smaller files but actually more details than the 14 bit loss-less compressed you might normally shoot at to maximize IQ.




There may be complications with some of the Sony sensor because they share development teams for some stuff. Still I think Sony could offer some other technologies that are not entangled with nikon. E.g., Pentax uses Sony sensor, Panasonic and Olympus are now using Sony sensors. Sony's strategy seems to be that they are happy to sell sensors to other companies since that is easier direct profit that trying to sell more cameras. If Canon ask for 500K FF sensors and Sony makes $50-100 per sale then that a better proposition than Sony trying to steal hundreds of thousands of sales from Canon which is hard work and less likely to happen. Sony's sensor fab is very, very expensive and they need companies like Nikon to use their sensor fab facilities.

I just don't want or need it, it gives me nothing that I need over 24MP so I don't want to deal with the files or the extra pixel density when hand holding at lower shutter speeds (ultimately I could easily lose the resolution advantage due motion blur at pixel level, it happens a lot on the 7D).

Storage doesn't bother me in the grand scheme of things, and it's not completely horrible working with the 36MP RAW files on my old laptop so I'd have no problem using it if that was the only option. If I had a choice though 24MP is spot on for what I want. If I did landscape I'd be happy as larry with a D800, but it's not really something that interests me.

The 1.2x crop is interesting, although I'd also love to see a really good mRAW\sRAW implementation. The D800 is a great camera, which covers a lot of uses. I'd love to get hold of one for a weekend to play around with (probably not a good idea!) as I also would a 5D3. The QC issues at the moment and the way they are being handled is disappointing but I expect that to all be resolved eventually. Whilst the D800 definitely has the edge in DR and resolution I'm not that a good a photographer to really see it make any appreciable difference to what I do. Shots where I could use the nice clean shadows after pushing them a few stops are few and far between to really make a D800 a must have for me.

 

[James J]

What is your objection to 36MP when it is clear that the added resolution has no negative effect on IQ? You gain all the ability to crop, the effective reach/pixel density, print size, details, etc. If you don't need any of that then it really doesn't matter but it doesn't cost you anything. Plus the difference between 24MP and 36MP is really not that huge in terms of storage given the price of storage these days. It is no where near the differences of the last gen when you could have 12MP or 24MP bodies and the relative cost of storage was higher.

36MP just sound crazy big because we are used to smaller number. back when camera wee 4MP the 8MP camera were ridiculed and seemingly unneeded (although back then the increased resolution came at a definite cost in reduced IQ).


I 100% agree that 24MP seems about right for a FF image. The real kicker though is I want a pixel density equal to the D7k, I want about 16-18MP minimum in the DX frame for wildlife. If I was to go for a D600 then I would be loosing resolution from my 12MP D90 to an effective 10.5MP, that will actually be a huge step backwards for much of my work.
So I must have the pixel density that gives 16Mp DX images, and this comes with the side effect of giving me 36mp FF images - I don't mind this extra resolution which is fine for landscapes and architecture, or can allow looser compositions. The 1.2x crop because an interesting setting give 24MP images avoiding the soft far corners of lenses but giving much more sensor area than standard DX cameras. You can also do interesting things like you the lossy compressed 12bit RAW in 36MP mode and get smaller files but actually more details than the 14 bit loss-less compressed you might normally shoot at to maximize IQ.




There may be complications with some of the Sony sensor because they share development teams for some stuff. Still I think Sony could offer some other technologies that are not entangled with nikon. E.g., Pentax uses Sony sensor, Panasonic and Olympus are now using Sony sensors. Sony's strategy seems to be that they are happy to sell sensors to other companies since that is easier direct profit that trying to sell more cameras. If Canon ask for 500K FF sensors and Sony makes $50-100 per sale then that a better proposition than Sony trying to steal hundreds of thousands of sales from Canon which is hard work and less likely to happen. Sony's sensor fab is very, very expensive and they need companies like Nikon to use their sensor fab facilities.

Sounds like you are in exactly the same situation as me when it comes to deciding on a new body. I've got a D300s at the moment and I really enjoy wildlife photography and general nature shots. The extra "reach" of the DX format is a life saver when it comes to bird photography in particular as it was a nightmare on the 5D mk ii, as any crop "mode" was all in post.

The D800 is pretty much two cameras in one due to having a 15mp DX mode but with vastly better DR and ISO performance than the D300s and a higher resolution to boot. The only downside to the D800 is that its reportedly quite an unforgiving camera to use unless you use VR/OS/IS lenses as the sensor ends up resolving any minute problem in the image.

******* can get me the D800E for £2210 so I'm SERIOUSLY considering buying one either next week or the first week in october as thats just too good a price to ignore, especially when UK stock is £350-500 more expensive :S Coupled with that, the saving can be put straight into a 50mm F1.4 lens and then some towards a 105mm VR macro!

 

[An Exception]

Whilst the D800 definitely has the edge in DR and resolution I'm not that a good a photographer to really see it make any appreciable difference to what I do. Shots where I could use the nice clean shadows after pushing them a few stops are few and far between to really make a D800 a must have for me.

If you was able to dial in some negative exposure bias without an IQ penalty, you wouldn't have blown out that brides dress.
To avoid the pictures looking a little under exposed on the LCD, just increase the brightness. I haven't tested it, but I think it may also help viewing the LCD in bright weather also.

When importing the files in LR, have it set automatically to give them a slight exposure boost.

 

[An Exception]

The D800 is pretty much two cameras in one due to having a 15mp DX mode but with vastly better DR and ISO performance than the D300s and a higher resolution to boot. The only downside to the D800 is that its reportedly quite an unforgiving camera to use unless you use VR/OS/IS lenses as the sensor ends up resolving any minute problem in the image.

If your getting the extra reach by cropping the D800 to match the D7000 (rather than using a longer lens to get the same FOV), then using a D800 will be no different/harder than using a D7000 in terms of getting IQ sharp at pixel level.

 

[Rojin]

If you was able to dial in some negative exposure bias without an IQ penalty, you wouldn't have blown out that brides dress.
To avoid the pictures looking a little under exposed on the LCD, just increase the brightness. I haven't tested it, but I think it may also help viewing the LCD in bright weather also.

When importing the files in LR, have it set automatically to give them a slight exposure boost.

Oh I know all the benefits, I just don't need them that often (also I just didn't pick up that the spot metering had failed to use the dress, I usually under expose when I remember to and don't have an issue doing that with the kit I have). After I do the wedding in December that's it I won't be doing anymore, so not really much of a concern.

 

[An Exception]

Your not going to be shooting weddings anymore?

 

[Rojin]

Your not going to be shooting weddings anymore?

I've only started them this year as I had agreed to do my brothers wifes sisters wedding in December, so I wanted to gain experience in that. I actually didn't confirm that I would do it until I had shot 3 weddings as a second. I enjoy shooting them, but I'm not good enough to really make a go of it.

 

[An Exception]

^^^
Let me know if you want a second shooter for December!

 

[James J]

If your getting the extra reach by cropping the D800 to match the D7000 (rather than using a longer lens to get the same FOV), then using a D800 will be no different/harder than using a D7000 in terms of getting IQ sharp at pixel level.

I wouldn't want to crop though for other types of shots I like to do though

 

[Rojin]

^^^
Let me know if you want a second shooter for December!

Will do

 

[An Exception]

I wouldn't want to crop though for other types of shots I like to do though

I did the maths a little while ago, basically to get the same 'pixel level' results as your 5Dii that you used to have, you would need to use 0.3 stops faster shutter speed.

 

[James J]

I did the maths a little while ago, basically to get the same 'pixel level' results as your 5Dii that you used to have, you would need to use 0.3 stops faster shutter speed.

Interesting food for thought! Thanks

 

[D.P.]

Sounds like you are in exactly the same situation as me when it comes to deciding on a new body. I've got a D300s at the moment and I really enjoy wildlife photography and general nature shots. The extra "reach" of the DX format is a life saver when it comes to bird photography in particular as it was a nightmare on the 5D mk ii, as any crop "mode" was all in post.

The D800 is pretty much two cameras in one due to having a 15mp DX mode but with vastly better DR and ISO performance than the D300s and a higher resolution to boot. The only downside to the D800 is that its reportedly quite an unforgiving camera to use unless you use VR/OS/IS lenses as the sensor ends up resolving any minute problem in the image.

******* can get me the D800E for £2210 so I'm SERIOUSLY considering buying one either next week or the first week in october as thats just too good a price to ignore, especially when UK stock is £350-500 more expensive :S Coupled with that, the saving can be put straight into a 50mm F1.4 lens and then some towards a 105mm VR macro!

The high res sensor definitely highlight defects in lenses or techniques, so motion blur becomes more obvious as Rojin pointed out. but it is important to note that if you down-sampled the 36MP file to 24Mp then the effective motion blur or lens softness will be no worse, it can only be equal or better sharpness at the same resolution file. In this is really highlighted when lenses like the 28-300mm lens is used on the D800, it is definitely a touch slightly soft on the D800 at 100%, but when viewed at the same size as 24MP D600/D3x image or printed to the same A3 sized photo it is actually sharper from the D800 than the lower-res body. 100% crops from a D800 will show technique errors but you can only possibly have equal or better sharpness compared to a native 24MP sensor.

 

[D.P.]

If your getting the extra reach by cropping the D800 to match the D7000 (rather than using a longer lens to get the same FOV), then using a D800 will be no different/harder than using a D7000 in terms of getting IQ sharp at pixel level.

Yep, and if you always use the DX frame t=from the D800 then you may have been better served by a D77K (which rosses my mind0.
The D800

kind of works as a 3 camera setup:
1)FF sensor with very high resolution, needs excellent technique and good glass will help you get the most but is not a requirement. landscape, studio, architecture.
2) FF high sensitivity lower resolution sensor when you down-sample (or print at smaller sizes). Get high ISO performance that matches or exceeds he 5DMKIII, D4 etc.
3) High pixel density wildlife + sports camera giving 15.5Mp high DR good high ISO images with the effective reach of crop cameras. Use it in the 1.2x crop mode and you a mode like the canon 1.3x crop pro sports cameras (1DMKIV etc.). You might find it too slow but in DX mode you can get 6FPS, 5FPS 1.2x mode. Real sports pros will look at the pro sports camera D4 as expected.


Yeah, you may not need 36MP at FF but these days it doesn't come with much if any cost, it gives flexibility and you can easily make smaller files from it.

 

[D.P.]

Nikon d600 down to 1600 quid on amazon. Seems like Nikon uk realized listened to the public and cut the prices drastically.

That puts it at a clean 200 pounds cheaper than the canon 6d currently on amazon. The 6d must surely shift to the 1300-1400 mark.