D800e

[Ksanti]

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.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm

I know it's uncle Ken but I've seen the same sort of results in my shooting. I did a couple of tests with my dad's ancient and awful Sigma 70-210 on my 5D wide open vs a new Tamron 70-300 stopped down to f/8 on my dad's d5000 and the 5D + awful lens walked all over the d5000 for sharpness. Don't have those images on this laptop, mind.

Sure, the d7000 has some pretty phenomenal dynamic range, but I don't really need that much DR and I don't think that many people do, at least not in favour of the depth of field, noise and sharpness/cropability of full frame.

Also, the high ISO noise performance is nowhere near equivalent to the 5D2, let alone d700.

 

[xaldub]

I got an email yesterday from an online retailer saying my D800E was in stock. Unfortunately, 30 mins later I got sent another email from them saying to ignore the previous message as it was an error. Bazzas !! Nevermind, they did sound hopeful that my pre-order would still be fulfilled this month.

I'll be using the holy trinity of Nikon 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 with the D800E. Also have 50mm 1.4 prime and might look at getting the 85mm 1.4 at some stage.

 

[Ksanti]

I got an email yesterday from an online retailer saying my D800E was in stock. Unfortunately, 30 mins later I got sent another email from them saying to ignore the previous message as it was an error. Bazzas !! Nevermind, they did sound hopeful that my pre-order would still be fulfilled this month.

I'll be using the holy trinity of Nikon 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 with the D800E. Also have 50mm 1.4 prime and might look at getting the 85mm 1.4 at some stage.

I hate you. That is all.

 

[ShakenNstirred]

just read this on DPreview
hope its an easy fix for nikon..

Nikon has confirmed to PDN that it is investigating a problem that can cause the D800 and D4 to lock-up while shooting. The company says that the issue - identified while PDN was reviewing the camera - can be avoided by disabling Highlights and RGB Histogram on the display. At present the lock-ups require the battery to be removed to restart the camera but PDN thinks it likely that Nikon will be able to come up with a permanent fix.

 

[xaldub]

I hate you. That is all.

Lol. Thank you

 

[DJ_Switch]

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.

I completely agree with this. I've owned both and the D7000 is an amazing camera...so much so that I ended up taking my D700 back after about a month of use and ordered a D800 instead. The only thing that holds the D7000 back in my eyes was the fact that it's not full frame. The DR of the D7000 is something that makes the D700 feel old. I'm not saying that the D700 is in any way a worse camera but the image quality of the D7000 outdoes the D700 in many ways. I tried my best to convince myself that full frame was enough and that the DR didn't matter that much but in all honesty I yearned for the DR and image quality of a full frame equivalent of the D7000.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm

Sure, the d7000 has some pretty phenomenal dynamic range, but I don't really need that much DR and I don't think that many people do, at least not in favour of the depth of field, noise and sharpness/cropability of full frame.

Also, the high ISO noise performance is nowhere near equivalent to the 5D2, let alone d700.

You don't need that much DR and you don't think many people do? I fail to see what you base this theory upon. I personally think the advancement in DR from Nikon is something that leaves the competition lacking. I guess it's like high ISO performance to many people...it may not be essential to everyone but it's nice to have that performance and when you do have it it's something that you come to appreciate.

You're right about the high ISO of the D7000...it is nowhere near as good as the D700 however, it doesn't have the banding and shadow noise issues of the 5Dmk2 let alone the outdated autofocus. They are different cameras so in many ways it's unfair to compare the D7000 to a full frame camera, however compare the D7000 to other crop cameras and I can't really see any equal to it in terms of image quality.

 

[An Exception]

I completely agree with this. I've owned both and the D7000 is an amazing camera...so much so that I ended up taking my D700 back after about a month of use and ordered a D800 instead. The only thing that holds the D7000 back in my eyes was the fact that it's not full frame. The DR of the D7000 is something that makes the D700 feel old. I'm not saying that the D700 is in any way a worse camera but the image quality of the D7000 outdoes the D700 in many ways. I tried my best to convince myself that full frame was enough and that the DR didn't matter that much but in all honesty I yearned for the DR and image quality of a full frame equivalent of the D7000.

+1, although I don't regret moving to a D700 for the FF, but the D800 is all I want in a camera, and as it doesn't seem like moire is an issue, I think I will eventually end up with a E...

 

[Ksanti]

You don't need that much DR and you don't think many people do? I fail to see what you base this theory upon. I personally think the advancement in DR from Nikon is something that leaves the competition lacking. I guess it's like high ISO performance to many people...it may not be essential to everyone but it's nice to have that performance and when you do have it it's something that you come to appreciate.

You're right about the high ISO of the D7000...it is nowhere near as good as the D700 however, it doesn't have the banding and shadow noise issues of the 5Dmk2 let alone the outdated autofocus. They are different cameras so in many ways it's unfair to compare the D7000 to a full frame camera, however compare the D7000 to other crop cameras and I can't really see any equal to it in terms of image quality.

As in if you expose correctly, 99% of the time you don't need the DR the D7000 and D800 offer. It's nice to have it but other than weddings I can't thing of a situation where that level of dynamic range is necessary rather than convenient, and even then the majority of wedding toggers here have been getting on just fine with 5Ds.

Yes in many ways it's unfair to compare the cameras, however when it's a matter of "I have £x000 to spend, do I get a d7000 and expensive lenses or a d800 and cheaper lenses" you have to start looking at what the bodies offer over each other.

I'd certainly rather shoot a D800, 50 1.8 and Tamron 28-75 than a D7000, 35 1.4 and 17-55, though I may be in a minority. Yes I noticed how much less you can pull out of the shadows going from a d5000 to a 5d, but when you get an image right on full frame it can be so rewarding, and after a couple of hours shooting the 5D I didn't even notice it any more, I just learned the exposure system to keep the shadows lit.

 

[An Exception]

You're right about the high ISO of the D7000...it is nowhere near as good as the D700 however, it doesn't have the banding and shadow noise issues of the 5Dmk2 let alone the outdated autofocus. They are different cameras so in many ways it's unfair to compare the D7000 to a full frame camera, however compare the D7000 to other crop cameras and I can't really see any equal to it in terms of image quality.

Pentax K5?

I know what you mean though, I love the DR of the D7000, no need for ND filters or multiple exposures, or if your meter get's fooled and you underexposed, the shot was still easily recoverable.

 

[An Exception]

As in if you expose correctly, 99% of the time you don't need the DR the D7000 and D800 offer. It's nice to have it but other than weddings I can't thing of a situation where that level of dynamic range is necessary rather than convenient, and even then the majority of wedding toggers here have been getting on just fine with 5Ds.

Yes in many ways it's unfair to compare the cameras, however when it's a matter of "I have £x000 to spend, do I get a d7000 and expensive lenses or a d800 and cheaper lenses" you have to start looking at what the bodies offer over each other.

I'd certainly rather shoot a D800, 50 1.8 and Tamron 28-75 than a D7000, 35 1.4 and 17-55, though I may be in a minority. Yes I noticed how much less you can pull out of the shadows going from a d5000 to a 5d, but when you get an image right on full frame it can be so rewarding, and after a couple of hours shooting the 5D I didn't even notice it any more, I just learned the exposure system to keep the shadows lit.

This is the problem, you have to worry about exposure of the shadows. This is another process that occupies your brains resources, when that concentration could be put to better use. Also, keeping the shadows lit, you can often clip highlights by accident, and if your trying to capture a moment, you can't retake the shot.

 

[Ksanti]

This is the problem, you have to worry about exposure of the shadows. This is another process that occupies your brains resources, when that concentration could be put to better use. Also, keeping the shadows lit, you can often clip highlights by accident, and if your trying to capture a moment, you can't retake the shot.

It's a very small thing to concentrate on to just spot meter or ETTR, photography is hardly the most mentally taxing of pursuits that humans can go through. It's just instinctive now, even if I was shooting on a d800 or D7000 I would do the same nowadays.

The only time I've ever clipped highlights to any meaningful degree has been in studio-style shots with black backgrounds where I can go back and reshoot. Location stuff I've never had a problem with exposures being blown out, nor shadows being too noisy.

 

[xaldub]

I for one will be delighted to have the extra DR that the D800/E brings to the table at base ISO. In fact, DR is what I've been yearning for in DSLR's for ages ... much more than megapixels. Not in the slightest bit worried about moire on the D800E either - the risk is only marginally smaller on the D800 as it's AA filter is very weak. In fact, I've talked with a few people who own both versions, and in scenes where moire was visible on the D800E ... it was also on the D800.

 

[An Exception]

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm

I know it's uncle Ken but I've seen the same sort of results in my shooting. I did a couple of tests with my dad's ancient and awful Sigma 70-210 on my 5D wide open vs a new Tamron 70-300 stopped down to f/8 on my dad's d5000 and the 5D + awful lens walked all over the d5000 for sharpness. Don't have those images on this laptop, mind.

The same lens on a FF will be provide sharper images than when on a crop (some here disagree but they are incorrect), also your 5D is a pretty sharp camera anyway due to the comparably weak AA filter, the 5D does have lovely IQ, just shadows are not so good, but then some images look better when you don't light the shadows anyway.

 

[D.P.]

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm

I know it's uncle Ken but I've seen the same sort of results in my shooting. I did a couple of tests with my dad's ancient and awful Sigma 70-210 on my 5D wide open vs a new Tamron 70-300 stopped down to f/8 on my dad's d5000 and the 5D + awful lens walked all over the d5000 for sharpness. Don't have those images on this laptop, mind.

Sure, the d7000 has some pretty phenomenal dynamic range, but I don't really need that much DR and I don't think that many people do, at least not in favour of the depth of field, noise and sharpness/cropability of full frame.

Also, the high ISO noise performance is nowhere near equivalent to the 5D2, let alone d700.

The fact is DR is one of the most important sensor performance aspects and is an area of digital sensors that has been lacking behind film and in desperate need of improvements over the last decade. You may not find it useful but most people will, just about the only people who won't will be in a studi with controlled lighting.

The depth of field is only an advantage if you want a shallow depth of field, not everyone does, for most of my work I need to maximize the DoF wherever possible and it is the same for most people. Furthermore you only get that shallow DoF IF you invest in the right lenses. If you put. 24-105mm f/4.0 on a full frame camera then you can get the same DoF putting a 17-55mm f2.8 on a crop camera. if you use a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens on a full frame camera then you can get the same DoF with some cheap 1.8 primes.

This goes the same for the low light performance. There is about 1 stop advantage with a full frame camera, so having a lens 1 stop faster will give equal low light capabilities at equal DoF. A 24-70mm f2.8 on a full frame camera will be as good as a 50mm f1.8 prime on a crop camera.

The crop ability also has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Putting the same 300mm lens on a ff and crop body to photograph a distant bird then you will have to crop the Ff camera image more to get equal subject size. Cropping becomes more necessary and is a disadvantage here. What matters is pixel density. If the crop camera has equal or greater pixel density then you can put more pixels on the feather and gain more details. Before the d800 was released there was no FF camera with a pixel density equal to a good crop camera, so wildlife wnd sports photographers either had to use a crop camera ( which is why the D300 and 7d cameras exist) or Would have to invest in some very expensive glass. that prevented me ever moving FF, now the d800 is out I now have the option of the ultimate landscape nd wildlife camera all n one.

It is also a myth that FF sensors are more forgiving or give better sharpness. The key factor is the pixel density. If the FF sensor has the same. Pixel density as the crop, e.g. D800 and d7000 then they will put up the same sharpness with the same lens and show the same defects.

 

[D.P.]

The same lens on a FF will be provide sharper images than when on a crop, also your 5D is a pretty sharp camera anyway due to the comparably weak AA filter, the 5D does have lovely IQ, just shadows are not so good, but then some images look better when you don't light the shadows anyway.

Only if the pixel density is lower.

The lens doesn't physically change putting it on a different camera, it will always output the same resolution. Then it merely matters the pixel density of the sensor used to acquire that image. The low pixel density d700 d3 were very lenient of lenses because of this. Of course when you normalise result by printing to the same size then the larger sensor in FF comes into play.

You need to be careful taking about per pixel sharpness or sharpness of a normalise image, say printed out on A3. They are not the same. The d7000 will offer similar pixel level sharpness to the d800 since the pixel density is similar, but when printing te extra sensor surface area can improve detail ( the same scene will be 36mp vs 16mp)

 

[An Exception]

The fact is DR is one of the most important sensor performance aspects and is an area of digital sensors that has been lacking behind film and in desperate need of improvements over the last decade. You may not find it useful but most people will, just about the only people who won't will be in a studi with controlled lighting.

The depth of field is only an advantage if you want a shallow depth of field, not everyone does, for most of my work I need to maximize the DoF wherever possible and it is the same for most people. Furthermore you only get that shallow DoF IF you invest in the right lenses. If you put. 24-105mm f/4.0 on a full frame camera then you can get the same DoF putting a 17-55mm f2.8 on a crop camera. if you use a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens on a full frame camera then you can get the same DoF with some cheap 1.8 primes.

This goes the same for the low light performance. There is about 1 stop advantage with a full frame camera, so having a lens 1 stop faster will give equal low light capabilities at equal DoF. A 24-70mm f2.8 on a full frame camera will be as good as a 50mm f1.8 prime on a crop camera.

It is also a myth that FF sensors are more forgiving or give better sharpness. The key factor is the pixel density. If the FF sensor has the same. Pixel density as the crop, e.g. D800 and d7000 then they will put up the same sharpness with the same lens and show the same defects.

No, this is wrong. I'v compared a D300 (now sold it) to a D700, and the D700 produces sharper images with my 85 wide open at it's softest setting with the same MP count. This is due to FF images not being magnified as much as crop images, also like how diffraction affects crop camera's at lower F stops.

 

[D.P.]

No, this is wrong. I'v compared a D300 (now sold it) to a D700, and the D700 produces sharper images with my 85 wide open at it's softest setting with the same MP count. This is due to FF images not being magnified as much as crop images, also like how diffraction affects crop camera's at lower F stops.

Same Mp count but the pixel density is completely different, of course the same lens on a D700 is going to be much sharper, I agree 100% with this and that merely supports what I said.

Test that lens on d800 and you may well find that at the pixel level the lens is less sharp. But if you printed out to the same size image you should still find the d800 better.

 

[An Exception]

Only if the pixel density is lower.

Depends on which way around you want to think about it. D300 and D700 have the same MP count, yet the D700 has a lower pixel density. Each pixel on the d700 uses a larger area of the lens. As the pixel covers a larger area of the lens, the lens is able to deliver more LP/mm, this effectively increases the resolution that can be obrained from that lens.

Or a short way of putting it, is for any given output size, FF will provide more resolution from a lens than when on a crop camera.

Obviously there are caveats that can affect this, like corner softness etc. but the above is the general rule most of the time.

 

[An Exception]

Same Mp count but the pixel density is completely different, of course the same lens on a D700 is going to be much sharper, I agree 100% with this and that merely supports what I said.

Test that lens on d800 and you may well find that at the pixel level the lens is less sharp. But if you printed out to the same size image you should still find the d800 better.

I think we'r on the same page mate

 

[DJ_Switch]

+1, although I don't regret moving to a D700 for the FF, but the D800 is all I want in a camera, and as it doesn't seem like moire is an issue, I think I will eventually end up with a E...

I wouldn't regret it either. I thought the D700 was an amazing camera. It was a combination of factors that made me return it though...not simply the DR. I bought it brand new and paying full price for it had been eating at me for a few weeks as I'd seen it drop by around £100 that week as well as the second hand price drop as well. It might sound like a small thing but I also really missed the new focus mode selector on the D7000 next to the mount. More than anything else I just felt the D800 will last me longer without having to think about upgrading and I can also share the batteries with my D7000 as well. Had the shop not been willing to take it back after me using it for that long then I'd have been happy to keep it though.

As in if you expose correctly, 99% of the time you don't need the DR the D7000 and D800 offer. It's nice to have it but other than weddings I can't thing of a situation where that level of dynamic range is necessary rather than convenient, and even then the majority of wedding toggers here have been getting on just fine with 5Ds.

Yes in many ways it's unfair to compare the cameras, however when it's a matter of "I have £x000 to spend, do I get a d7000 and expensive lenses or a d800 and cheaper lenses" you have to start looking at what the bodies offer over each other.

I'd certainly rather shoot a D800, 50 1.8 and Tamron 28-75 than a D7000, 35 1.4 and 17-55, though I may be in a minority. Yes I noticed how much less you can pull out of the shadows going from a d5000 to a 5d, but when you get an image right on full frame it can be so rewarding, and after a couple of hours shooting the 5D I didn't even notice it any more, I just learned the exposure system to keep the shadows lit.

It's not simply a case of needing the dynamic range but it's certainly an advancement in imaging technology and it's more than welcome. I'd find it hard to argue against the need for something that is another step in improving cameras. I'm not sure that saying people have got on fine without it is much justification for arguing against it being a welcome addition. People also got on fine in the days before autofocus but that's not just cause for arguing against its benefits.

I think you're really just justifying the choice of going full frame or spending the money on a newer crop sensor. If you need or want full frame depth of field then it's simply not a choice one would even have to consider. I also would prefer a D800 with the mentioned glass than a D7000 but it's a different argument to comparing the benefits of the D7000 to other similar cameras like the 60D, 7D etc. I only bought the D7000 as a stop gap although ended up really liking it...other than its ergonomics. It's an amazing camera for the price.