D800e

I'm a Canon shooter but am really looking forward to seeing what this beastie can do also !


Regards Simon
 
Yeah, I'm not sure that would be my choice either. DigitalRev had a review up of the D800E recently. It'll be interesting to see how many sell, and user reports on the moire. I wouldn't be surprised if it's not the big issue many think it is...
 
Moire I very rarelya problem, hence MF gear does away with it, and the Leica M9.

Just wn it does happen it can be a pain.. Normally easy to resolve in the filed by changing focus, moving a few cm, changing aperture but you need to have noticed the moire. In pp there are ow some good tools to remove it for critical shots.
 
Will be used with other lenses but as I only have it on loan the lens should be able to show how good the body can be , will do some testing with primes as well but the zoom is supposed to be sharp.
 
peter said:
Will be used with other lenses but as I only have it on loan the lens should be able to show how good the body can be , will do some testing with primes as well but the zoom is supposed to be sharp.
Click to expand...

The D3x (24MP) already outresolves the 28-300 by a fair bit, so don't expect too much.
 
peter said:
Will be used with other lenses but as I only have it on loan the lens should be able to show how good the body can be , will do some testing with primes as well but the zoom is supposed to be sharp.
Click to expand...

The only wide-normal zoom lens I would use in a D800 is the Nikon 24-70.

Not that the Nikon 28-300 is a bad lens in anyway, i much sharper than the Canon counter[art at a fraction of the cost, and the resolution is not bad for such a lens. But your D800E is wasted with such a lens. The 28-300 would make sense if you also carried the 24, 35,and 85mm f/1.4 primes has your main lenses.

I plan on using my 24-70 with should suffice. The Nikon 28mm f/1.8 would be my next addition and either the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 or the Nikon 85mm f/1.8, probably the Nikon. I can't afford the golden prime trio, and i really need to save to buy a Nikon 500mm f/4.0 so may stick with my 24-70 for
some time.

Hopefully I will end up with a D800, maybe E version, Nikon 14-24, 24-70,70-200 f/2.8, 28mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8 and a 500mm f/4.0+ TCs. after that I will be adding TS lenses hopefully by then Nikon will have released upgrades to their current TS lenses, or even their 17mm TS.
 
For the 'difference' in image quality I think many have decided that the non E version is good enough and its not worth the gamble on moire.

It deserves/needs the top end lenses though.
 
Ours will be used in time lapse over months to take pictures of grain creep in metals at high temperatures , so moire should not be an issue. Pictures next week :)
 
stuartw_b said:
For the 'difference' in image quality I think many have decided that the non E version is good enough and its not worth the gamble on moire.

It deserves/needs the top end lenses though.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where this idea that full frame cameras /need/ the best lenses comes from. Sure, to get the most out of them, you need great lenses, and these cameras can get the most out of great lenses, but then the former is true of pretty much any camera. The image quality jump you get just by going full frame is arguably more significant than most increases you get from lenses.

The only time I'd say it's true is the D800E as it is otherwise exactly the same as the D800, so unless you're using the top lenses, all you're doing is spending a few hundred pounds to add more moire than you want.
 
stuartw_b said:
There's no mystery, if you spend a fortune on a camera there's no point in having cheap lenses on the front and losing out on the potential of the sensor.
Click to expand...

But that could be said about absolutely any camera. A 17-55 f/2.8 VR will perform noticeably better on a Nikon d3000 than a standard 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 kit lens, but nobody jumps in on every beginner DSLR setup thread to say that there's no point getting a d3000 unless you have the absolute top of the line lenses.
 
An Exception said:
^^^
D3000 doesn't cost a fortune, so the user is obviously on a budget to begin with...
Click to expand...

Just because you buy a D800 doesn't mean your budget is unlimited. Yes the budget is smaller, but if the difference is between say a d7000 and a d700, let's say the difference is price is £600. There aren't any lenses that will have the same jump in IQ for £600 more as the jump in IQ you get from a d700. It would be like saying there's no point getting good full frame glass unless you're putting it on a full frame camera.

A 28-300 isn't the best example of this, perhaps, as superzooms really do have a lot of drawbacks, but for when you're shooting with a 28-300 it's clear that IQ isn't the absolute top priority even if you do shoot with a d800 (and you could argue that shooting full frame provides a significant enough boost to IQ to counteract the softness of superzooms etc.)
 
Ksanti said:
Just because you buy a D800 doesn't mean your budget is unlimited. Yes the budget is smaller, but if the difference is between say a d7000 and a d700, let's say the difference is price is £600. There aren't any lenses that will have the same jump in IQ for £600 more as the jump in IQ you get from a d700. It would be like saying there's no point getting good full frame glass unless you're putting it on a full frame camera.

A 28-300 isn't the best example of this, perhaps, as superzooms really do have a lot of drawbacks, but for when you're shooting with a 28-300 it's clear that IQ isn't the absolute top priority even if you do shoot with a d800 (and you could argue that shooting full frame provides a significant enough boost to IQ to counteract the softness of superzooms etc.)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure the difference in IQ between a D7000 and a D700 is really that much, in fact given that choice and knowing the output of the D7000 I would choose the D7000 for IQ reasons. I shoot mostly at low to moderate ISO and need a high DR and a decent pixel density. The lenses will make a bigger difference here, a good lens on the D7000 will give better IQ for most people than a poor lens on a D700. However, some lenses like the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 just have no equivalent on a crop camera so for landscape work you end up torn between a D700 with a 14-24mm and a D7k with a Nikon 10/12-24mm which is not as wide or sharp.


The difference between a FF and crop camera is about 1 stop of light gathering area, so equal to about 1-2 generation of sensor development. Hence The Nikon D7000 is roughly as good as a D700 or even the Canon 5DMKII and the mark III only better at high ISO noise performance, with a much worse DR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom