Thing is it is only some small percentage of the older cameras and there is probably no way to easily identify which serial numbers are affected. As indicated, the number of defects are no different to any other camera that has been released lately, just a lot of internet hysteria.
D800 vs D800E?
- Thread starter James J
- Start date
Yeah but its nikon who's saying that and they are hardly likely going to say anything but that are they lol.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
Nikon actually state that they are seeing more issues with the D800 than other camera releases, but that looking at the big picture the percentage of affected bodies is still insignificant.
Digitalrev aren't looking very attractive price wise on the D800 atm compared to UK stock, which is something I never thought I'd say. Theres like £30 difference, yet with the UK one that buys you another years warranty and far less aggro if you ever needed to use it.
Crazy stuff!
Crazy stuff!
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
^^^
DR will catch up.
DR will catch up.
The prices still appear to be coming down which is nice but now I have a new problem. I got my hands on a few D800 raw files and they seriously **** my MBA laptop. Just applying my own processing style takes around 40 seconds to complete. Due to that, trying to go through hundreds of photos from a day out would be a pure nightmare and I have no real intentions of upgrading my MBA any time soon as I only bought it around april this year and its absolutely fine with everything else, including D300s and 5d mk ii RAWs. Can't upgrade the RAM on it either which appears to be the limiting factor, so my plans for a D800 have been shelved until further notice.
Instead I'm considering a second hand D700 or D3. I quite like the file sizes when shooting at 12mp and the ISO performance on either of those bodies would be vastly better than what I currently own. If I pushed my budget, I could also afford a decent D3s body, which has better ISO performance than even the D4 lol.
The D600 is pretty damn nice on paper and the digitalrev review of it was surprisingly good, yet the AF system on it is a serious step backwards in my opinion and having to focus recompose to get third rule composed shots just isn't something worth considering, even though the sensor is better than a D700s.
I've bought a 50mm 1.8G lens to keep me amused whilst I consider my options and weigh up the pros and cons of keeping or selling my current body.
The thing to take away from what I've noticed though is if you have a laptop where you cannot physically upgrade the RAM (due to being soldered in my case) and you have less than 8gb, a D800 probably isn't for you unless you want to really splash out even more on a new laptop. The same goes for people with old or slow pcs! I didn't think it would be THAT slow but was disturbed by how poor the performance really was when doing even basic editing on the files. Sure shooting everything in 12 bit lossy RAW would improve it, but thats like buying an F1 race car and driving it down a school lane at 20mph only...
Instead I'm considering a second hand D700 or D3. I quite like the file sizes when shooting at 12mp and the ISO performance on either of those bodies would be vastly better than what I currently own. If I pushed my budget, I could also afford a decent D3s body, which has better ISO performance than even the D4 lol.
The D600 is pretty damn nice on paper and the digitalrev review of it was surprisingly good, yet the AF system on it is a serious step backwards in my opinion and having to focus recompose to get third rule composed shots just isn't something worth considering, even though the sensor is better than a D700s.
I've bought a 50mm 1.8G lens to keep me amused whilst I consider my options and weigh up the pros and cons of keeping or selling my current body.
The thing to take away from what I've noticed though is if you have a laptop where you cannot physically upgrade the RAM (due to being soldered in my case) and you have less than 8gb, a D800 probably isn't for you unless you want to really splash out even more on a new laptop. The same goes for people with old or slow pcs! I didn't think it would be THAT slow but was disturbed by how poor the performance really was when doing even basic editing on the files. Sure shooting everything in 12 bit lossy RAW would improve it, but thats like buying an F1 race car and driving it down a school lane at 20mph only...
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,999
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Lol, I had to buy a new iMac to go with my 5Dii.
I now have to buy a new iMac, not because of 5Diii, but because of LR4 as I have a similar problem with yours (8G of Ram doesn't help)
I see it as part and parcel of digital photography these days...it's the running cost of the film cost of yore.
I now have to buy a new iMac, not because of 5Diii, but because of LR4 as I have a similar problem with yours (8G of Ram doesn't help)
I see it as part and parcel of digital photography these days...it's the running cost of the film cost of yore.
Well the SSD in my MBA acts as a cache for the RAM (just as the mechanical HDDs work when "thrashing", just vastly quicker!), but even so, the 5d mk ii files only took around 2-3 seconds more to process, not tens of seconds more like the 14 bit D800 RAWs do. Hell, I only had the lossless compressed RAWs as well sent to me so can't imagine what the lossless ones would do to it :S
Sadly I think its more of a MAC thing mate as they are a pain in the backside to upgrade for photography purposes. I need the portability of a powerful laptop which the 13inch MBA I have fits into beautifully, yet I'm not going to drop £2000 on a rMBP just so I can process files from a body that also costs £2k.
I thought computing was expensive as a hobby, having the latest and greatest graphics cards, but photography really makes that look like pocket change in comparison.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,999
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Put it this way, I see the beachball just zooming...
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
My machine doesn't struggle with any of them really.
(i7 3.6ghz, 830SSD, 24gb Ram)
Why not build a dedicated processing machine?
(i7 3.6ghz, 830SSD, 24gb Ram)
Why not build a dedicated processing machine?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,999
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
I don't want to go back to Windows.
Plus, I don't see the point having 2 machines either and i don't have the room really.
This + budget really.
Is there no way to install iOS on a self built machine?
I've never really looked at Mac prices until just now and holy mother of god do Apple know how to 'apply' a premium to a product.
Its illegal to install the mac OS on any none mac device.
Personal taste I'm sure. Having a silent but quick laptop with excellent battery life is essential for me though and the mac
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
Whether it's true or not it's BS.
Apple isn't the only vendor of such devices. Be honest, you got it because it was sexy didn't you?
It simply isn't ideal for photography. These laptops are allot slower, and besides processing on a 13" screen just sucks.
You probably would have been better off with a netbook or even an ipad, and a high powered PC with big monitor for processing and viewing your pictures.
Maybe look at something like a Shuttle R5 with i7. Very powerful yet small and sleek designs that don't take up that much space. OS is practically irrelevant as photoshop and lightroom work the same anyway.
Don't presume to try and tell me why I bought a product as I have far more needs for what I have than just photography, which I outlined above. Netbooks are far too slow for the size of the projects I have on my MBA and an ipad just isn't practical seen as I type thousands of words daily. The intergration of cloud services directly into OSX gives me a level of redundancy for my work which can't be had with windows to anywhere near the same level of simplicity. Also time machine makes the windows backup look like a toy. The fact that cloud also automatically syncs these files with other apple devices makes my life far more simple and increases my redundancy even further.
Photography is a small part of what I use my MBA for, it wasn't bought with the sole intention of that. I don't have the space for a desktop PC as I move around too often between Hospitals to warrant owning one, nor do I have the budget for such a machine anyway. The point about lightroom and photoshop is fine, yet I use neither so that doesn't apply to me anyway.
Edit, in regards to the validity of my legality of installing the mac OS on any none apple devices, its true. You have to rewrite tonnes of code to get it to install on none apple devices due to the hardware being different. Thats why its called "Hackintosh" and even talking about how to install or modify it is banned even on this forum.
Last edited: