Nikon D800/E $3000, cheaper than I thought

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:21:38 -0600, Doug McDonald
wrote:
: On 2/7/2012 9:42 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
:
: Here, I don't really need a 5D3. At 13x19, 5D2 images are gorgeous even with
: one's nose on the print. I find that I can't push either 5D or 5D2 ISO 100
: images 2 stops without things getting a bit funky, so if the 5D3 would allow
: a 3-stop push that looked better than a 5D or 5D2 2-stop push, I'd probably
: go for it. But in real life, correctly exposed 5D2 ISO 200 images are
: breathtaking.
:
: Also, 36MP is nearly twice as much data, for a 30% increase in resolution.
: I'd have to print at 16x24 to even begin to see that, and for the nonce, I
: don't need prints that big. And for the stuff I do, stitching is quite
: possible.
:
:
: All true ... my 30D makes nice pictures. But I'd really love the
: improved autofocus of the 7D. When the 5D Mk III comes out, I will
: decide whether to get a 7D or go full frame and get the 5D Mk III ..
: and buy a new ultrawide lens (16-35) to go with it.
:
: I've got the money, its burning a hole in my pocket ... BUT ...
: I'm a very cheap Scot.

Go for it! If you let the money burn that hole, you'll have to buy a new pair
of pants too!

Bob

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 09:43:10 +0000, Bruce wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
: While we Canonians continue to sit here and wonder whether there will
: ever even be a 5D3. And whether we can afford one if there is. :^|
:
: The Canon EOS 5D Mark III is imminent.
:
: It is just that Nikon got their (D800) retaliation in first. :-)

Canon's first retaliatory shot is an upgrade of their 24-70mm f/2.8
full-frame
walking around lens. If you believe B&H, the price of the new lens comes
in at
almost twice the price of the old one. And it doesn't even have the image
stabilization that rumors had predicted.

The list price in Japan is only slightly more (5%) for the new one than the
old one. As I've mentioned before, the dollar is only about 2/3 the value it
used to be, so an object that has seen no price inflation in Japan will be
50% more expensive in the US.

If the price point of the 5D3 is
comparably enriched (relative to the 5D2), there's probably no way I'm
going
to be able to afford one.

Canon has been insistent on manufacturing their non-entry-level bodies and
lenses in Japan up to now. That may bite them in the arse. Hard.

$2300 for an f/2.8 walker?! The mind reels. Maybe the very absence of IS
hints
that Canon considers it a specialty studio lens that will almost always be
used on a tripod-mounted camera. If so, maybe they'll keep the old 24-70
in
production for a while. Do you have any prediction on that score, Bruce?

Both are still listed on their web sites, but the price difference is so
small that no one will be interested.

Despite the monster front element size the new lens is almost 150 gm
lighter. If the IQ is closer to primes, it might be interesting here (where
my walk-around kit is currently all non-Canon: Zeiss 21, Voightlander
40/2.0, Stigma 70).

A month ago I probably wouldn't have cared; FF was the farthest thing from
my
mind. But now there's talk of blowing up some of my images to fit the side
of
a good-sized truck, and my 7D and 50D seem marginal for that purpose.

Yep. 5D2, prime at f/8 on a tripod, convert with no sharpening, upsample,
and sharpen to taste and you'll be way happier than with a 7D. Even more so
with a D800. ROFL.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...
A month ago I probably wouldn't have cared; FF was the farthest thing
from my mind. But now there's talk of blowing up some of my images to fit
the side of a good-sized truck, and my 7D and 50D seem marginal for that
purpose.

Yep. 5D2, prime at f/8 on a tripod, convert with no sharpening, upsample,
and sharpen to taste and you'll be way happier than with a 7D. Even more
so with a D800. ROFL.

Or there is medium and large format digital for that purpose. The first
question is how it is to be applied to the truck though, you need to
investigate the capabilities of the FULL process before investing in
something that may be wasted.
(Like contemplating a double page broadsheet size image without
understanding the limitations of newspaper printing for example)

Trevor.

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
The EOS 5D Mark III is imminent, but surely 18 MP is enough?

For what?
6x4" prints, *more* than enough :-)

What did
people do when 6 to 8 MP was all that was available? I suppose we
shot film and scanned it. ;-)

When you wanted truck size you shot medium or large format, even with film.

Trevor.

RichA wrote:
On Feb 9, 1:34*am, "Trevor" wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote in messagenews:LbidnaYrydEaoq7SnZ2dnVY3goudnZ2d@gigan ews.com...

A month ago I probably wouldn't have cared; FF was the farthest thing
from my mind. But now there's talk of blowing up some of my images to fit
the side of a good-sized truck, and my 7D and 50D seem marginal for that
purpose.

Yep. 5D2, prime at f/8 on a tripod, convert with no sharpening, upsample,
and sharpen to taste and you'll be way happier than with a 7D. Even more
so with a D800. ROFL.

Or there is medium and large format digital for that purpose. The first
question is how it is to be applied to the truck though, you need to
investigate the capabilities of the FULL process before investing in
something that may be wasted.

Well, if anyone honestly compares the D800 to a medium format camera
with the same or near the same pixel count, the Nikon will get killed.
But then there is no 40 megapixel medium format camera available for
under $9000.00.

Actually, the D800 level technology is in fact going to
kill off most of the current crop of MF cameras. Not
that they won't be replaced with more advanced cameras
that are more expensive than the D800. But the existing
models are, as of the D800, virtually obsolete in terms
of marketing. (That does not mean obsolete for use by
those who own them.)

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Savageduck writes:

On 2012-02-06 20:17:57 -0800, RichA said:

I figured they'd ask $3600 or so. Kiss the $8000 D3x goodbye...

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02...0_D800E_launch

Why is it I find "cheaper than I thought" a poor choice of words to
describe the cost of these cameras?

Perhaps "less expensive than anticipated" might have been
better. $3000 is certainly not "cheap".

However, only $300 more for a 3x resolution increase in an otherwise
nearly compoarable camera is quite startling, and could easily lead
people to think "cheaper than I thought". Also the nikonrumors.com site
was predicting $4000, not $3000, so anybody whose expectation was set by
that will be thinking "less expensive".
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Michael writes:

On 2012-02-07 16:30:04 -0500, Savageduck said:

On 2012-02-06 20:17:57 -0800, RichA said:

I figured they'd ask $3600 or so. Kiss the $8000 D3x goodbye...

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02...0_D800E_launch

Why is it I find "cheaper than I thought" a poor choice of words to
describe the cost of these cameras?

Perhaps "less expensive than anticipated" might have been
better. $3000 is certainly not "cheap".

in 1969 I got a Nikon F Photomic FTN with the f/1.4 50mm lens for
about $350 at a major photo store in NYC. American Market, not gray
market. For those who don't remember, the Photomic FTN version of the
F was considered to be the standard pro camera, and except for Leico
afficianados, was the best 36mm camera available. If you think about
it, cars are more than 10X the cost now as then, private colleges are
close to 20x their cost at that time. So $3000 for a "top of the line"
pro camera is not "uncheap."
assuming, of course, the D800 is the "top of the line" pro Nikon
DSLR. Which it may not be. How does it compare with the D3's?

Hmm; colleges are considerably less than 20x, but over 10x. Cars are
less than 10x for comparable models (my current Camry is not the same
level car as my 1977 Rabbit).

(One of my alternate life scenarios is if I got into Nikon right away,
instead of going from Miranda to Pentax and Leica to Nikon to Olympus to
Nikon.)

The d800 and d700 and d300 aren't top-of-the-line pro cameras. They're
the Nikkormat FTN to your Nikon F Photomic FTN; the D4 is the
top-of-the-line pro camera (and D3x, until replaced, but the D800 seems
to blow it out of the water).

Also, the D800 (and all digital cameras) come with a free lifetime
supply of film and processing, which used to be quite a big item on a
professional's balance sheet. My Fuji S2 paid for itself just in film
and lab charges even at my lower amateur use rates.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

RichA writes:

On Feb 7, 10:42*pm, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"Robert Coe" wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:10:45 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
:
: I figured they'd ask $3600 or so. *Kiss the $8000 D3x goodbye...
:
: http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02...0_D800E_launch
:
: Why is it I find "cheaper than I thought" a poor choice of words to
: describe the cost of these cameras?
:
: Perhaps "less expensive than anticipated" might have been better.
$3000
: is certainly not "cheap".
:
: It is considerably cheaper than any other option with 30 MP. *That
: doesn't make it "cheap", though.
:
: But what does make it cheap is that when the original 5D came out, the
: US$2995 or so would buy you 345,000 Japanese Yen. Today, US$3,000 only
gets
: you 228,000 Yen.
:
: So I call it as being an increadibly cheap increadibly good deal.

Says the man without a collection of Canon lenses.

You mean the 17-40, Zeiss 21/2.8, 24TSE II, Voightlander 40/2.0, 50/1.4,
Stigma 70/2.8, 100/2.0, and 70-200/4.0 IS don't collectively count as "a
collection of Canon lenses"? ROFL.

While we Canonians continue
to sit here and wonder whether there will ever even be a 5D3. And whether
we
can afford one if there is. *:^|

Well, my thought was that since Nikon held the price at US$3,000, we
Canonistas should be screaming "THANK YOU" at Nikon.

Here, I don't really need a 5D3. At 13x19, 5D2 images are gorgeous even with
one's nose on the print. I find that I can't push either 5D or 5D2 ISO 100
images 2 stops without things getting a bit funky, so if the 5D3 would allow
a 3-stop push that looked better than a 5D or 5D2 2-stop push, I'd probably
go for it. But in real life, correctly exposed 5D2 ISO 200 images are
breathtaking.

Also, 36MP is nearly twice as much data, for a 30% increase in resolution.
I'd have to print at 16x24 to even begin to see that, and for the nonce, I
don't need prints that big. And for the stuff I do, stitching is quite
possible.

Dead-static subjects are the only ones fit for stitching, even
landscapes are unsuitable subjects if any wind is involved. But it's
good you note the resolution increase is not determined by overall
pixel count but by linear pixel count.

Yeah, you'd think any little changes would make it not work, wouldn't
you?

Not my experience. Also not Ctein's experience (though the picture I
remembered, a stitched panorama of the Ford Dam here in Minneapolis,
with water coming over the full width of the dam, doesn't seem to be on
his web site; I saw something like a 40" inkjet print he had at Minicon
one year).

Here's one of mine:
http://dd-b.net/cgi-bin/picpage.pl/photography/gallery/minneopa-2010?pic=ddb%2020101010%20010-016-pano
It's not actually a terribly good picture, but it *IS* a stitched
panorama of moving stuff whose faults are not IMHO related to the
stitching at all.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

RichA writes:

On Feb 8, 8:52*pm, Robert Coe wrote:
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 09:43:10 +0000, Bruce wrote:

: Robert Coe wrote:
: While we Canonians continue to sit here and wonder whether there will
: ever even be a 5D3. And whether we can afford one if there is. *:^|
:
: The Canon EOS 5D Mark III is imminent.
:
: It is just that Nikon got their (D800) retaliation in first. *:-)

Canon's first retaliatory shot is an upgrade of their 24-70mm f/2.8 full-frame
walking around lens. If you believe B&H, the price of the new lens comes in at
almost twice the price of the old one. And it doesn't even have the image
stabilization that rumors had predicted. If the price point of the 5D3 is
comparably enriched (relative to the 5D2), there's probably no way I'm going
to be able to afford one.

$2300 for an f/2.8 walker?!

It's not needed! With ISO capabilities where they are now. An f4.0
would be just perfect. For about 1/3 the cost. But neither Canon nor
Nikon are willing to release one that matches the quality of their
f2.8 stuff.

I consider f/2.8 to be a slow lens as it is. However, it may be that
most people working at my lighting levels have given up on zooms
entirely, and for outdoors, f/4 might be tolerable.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:00:53 +0000, Bruce wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
: On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 09:43:10 +0000, Bruce wrote:
: : Robert Coe wrote:
: : While we Canonians continue to sit here and wonder whether there will
: : ever even be a 5D3. And whether we can afford one if there is. :^|
: :
: : The Canon EOS 5D Mark III is imminent.
: :
: : It is just that Nikon got their (D800) retaliation in first. :-)
:
: Canon's first retaliatory shot is an upgrade of their 24-70mm f/2.8 full-frame
: walking around lens. If you believe B&H, the price of the new lens comes in at
: almost twice the price of the old one. And it doesn't even have the image
: stabilization that rumors had predicted. If the price point of the 5D3 is
: comparably enriched (relative to the 5D2), there's probably no way I'm going
: to be able to afford one.
:
: $2300 for an f/2.8 walker?! The mind reels. Maybe the very absence of IS hints
: that Canon considers it a specialty studio lens that will almost always be
: used on a tripod-mounted camera. If so, maybe they'll keep the old 24-70 in
: production for a while. Do you have any prediction on that score, Bruce?
:
: A month ago I probably wouldn't have cared; FF was the farthest thing from my
: mind. But now there's talk of blowing up some of my images to fit the side of
: a good-sized truck, and my 7D and 50D seem marginal for that purpose.
:
:
: Canon's announcement of the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II has been somewhat
: overshadowed by the Nikon D800 and Olympus EM-5. I'm not surprised it
: has no IS. The Nikon equivalent doesn't. Pro users of these lenses
: know how to get sharp images without it.
:
: What did surprise me was that Canon also announced revised 24mm and
: 28mm f/2.8 lenses that *do* have IS.
:
: The old EF 24-70mm wasn't a great lens at the wide end. Prices were
: probably allowed to drift down to help sell the remaining production.
: The new one might have a list price of $2300 but in time it will
: stabilise at something more like the $1900 street price of the Nikon
: equivalent.

Well, the situation right now seems a bit bizarre. B&H (not known as a price
gouger) is selling the old lens for $1269 and taking pre-orders for the new
one at $2299. That's a huge differential, given that neither has IS.

: A month ago I probably wouldn't have cared; FF was the farthest thing from my
: mind. But now there's talk of blowing up some of my images to fit the side of
: a good-sized truck, and my 7D and 50D seem marginal for that purpose.
:
:
: The EOS 5D Mark III is imminent, but surely 18 MP is enough? What did
: people do when 6 to 8 MP was all that was available? I suppose we
: shot film and scanned it. ;-)

Our public information officer sent some of the Web-resolution shots in my
on-line gallery to the shop that does the enlargements, and they of course
pronounced them unacceptable. But when I followed up with hi-res JPEGs
straight from the RAW files, they said they'll probably be OK. But obviously,
the more pixels the better.

Bob