d800 flame wars

In article , Bruce
wrote:

I haven't looked at DPReview's forums for years, but thought the D800
might generate some interesting discussion there, mainly on the D800"E".
How wrong I was.

If you want informed debate avoid DPReview's forums which, almost by
definition, are solidly stuffed with the ignorant and ill-informed.

however, if you want entertaining reading, the forums are quite good
and often hilarious.

Bruce wrote in
:

Me wrote:
On 23/02/2012 5:27 a.m., RichA wrote:
They did
have an article from a couple of pros discussing the D800 and the
D4, unfortunately, the market being what it is, their major plaudits
for the new cameras concern their superior video capabilities...

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/289...00-what-do-the
-professionals-think

Yes - I read a bit of that. There's always going to be a need for
speed.
But I don't believe that Nikon and Canon's latest pro cameras are
using 15-20mp simply because "that's enough pixels".


The article Rich referred to was based on interviews with four pro
shooters, none of whom had used either camera (D4 or D800). Even by
the low standards of DPReview, that was particularly pathetic.

We need to wait for comprehensive reviews by people who have actually
used the cameras before any conclusions can be drawn.



As far as ultimate performance analysis goes, but I'm sure they have an
idea of how say 36mp will impact their work, along with improved noise
control and DR and can offer opinions on what it might mean for them.

I haven't looked at DPReview's forums for years, but thought the D800
might generate some interesting discussion there, mainly on the D800"E".
How wrong I was. There has been a bit of debate about the AA filter,
but largely overshadowed by flame wars the likes of which I haven't seen
for years (perhaps since the D3 upset a few D2Hs and D2x owners):
Many D700 owners are clearly furious - "betrayed" by the fact that Nikon
perhaps didn't limit the D3/700 to 12mp because that was the perfect
number of pixels for a 35mm sensor size camera, but perhaps because that
was the best that they could do, for the price, at the time. 12mp is
enough - right?

Despite these pointless flame wars, there's some good preliminary data
from Bill Claff, Marianne Oelund etc on raw performance. This shows
that the D800 sensor looks like it will easily exceed even the D3x in
base ISO dynamic range, and better the D3/700 in high ISO performance by
almost one stop (despite not having in-camera settings for extreme ISO),
as well as introducing to Nikon users a massive increase in resolution
(less so for D3x owners).
http://home.comcast.net/~nikond70/In...ange_65ISO.jpg
(The first impression of Bill's chart here exaggerates the
improvements made, as it uses a linear ISO scale)

On 23/02/2012 5:27 a.m., RichA wrote:
On Feb 24, 1:48 am, wrote:
I haven't looked at DPReview's forums for years, but thought the D800
might generate some interesting discussion there, mainly on the D800"E".
How wrong I was. There has been a bit of debate about the AA filter,
but largely overshadowed by flame wars the likes of which I haven't seen
for years (perhaps since the D3 upset a few D2Hs and D2x owners):
Many D700 owners are clearly furious - "betrayed" by the fact that Nikon
perhaps didn't limit the D3/700 to 12mp because that was the perfect
number of pixels for a 35mm sensor size camera, but perhaps because that
was the best that they could do, for the price, at the time. 12mp is
enough - right?

Despite these pointless flame wars, there's some good preliminary data
from Bill Claff, Marianne Oelund etc on raw performance. This shows
that the D800 sensor looks like it will easily exceed even the D3x in
base ISO dynamic range, and better the D3/700 in high ISO performance by
almost one stop (despite not having in-camera settings for extreme ISO),
as well as introducing to Nikon users a massive increase in resolution
(less so for D3x owners).http://home.comcast.net/~nikond70/In...raphic_Dynamic...
(The first impression of Bill's chart here exaggerates the
improvements made, as it uses a linear ISO scale)

I don't usually side with the "all you have to do is downsize" crowd
when talking about one camera's performance relative to another, but
really, with three times the pixel count, even if the sensor isn't
quite as good as the D700 for DR or noise, you could simply drop the
size down to 12mp and achieve a better result. Probably.
Based on a standard image size, it looks like the D800 is easily better
for dynamic range than the D700/D3, as well as having better high ISO
performance.
If Bill Claff's analysis is correct, then the D800 improves on the D7000
(and presumably the sensor used in the NEX-7) in performance on a
surface area basis. So "Dx crop" on the D800 is actually a bit better
than what the best current Dx cameras can achieve.
Another point has also been passed - these latest 35mm sized sensors
exceed the theoretical ceiling for noise and dynamic range for a
"perfect" Dx sized sensor with 100% QE (presumably assuming Bayer RGB type).

They did
have an article from a couple of pros discussing the D800 and the D4,
unfortunately, the market being what it is, their major plaudits for
the new cameras concern their superior video capabilities...

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/289...ssionals-think

Yes - I read a bit of that. There's always going to be a need for speed.
But I don't believe that Nikon and Canon's latest pro cameras are
using 15-20mp simply because "that's enough pixels".

On 23/02/2012 6:20 a.m., nospam wrote:
In , Bruce
wrote:

I haven't looked at DPReview's forums for years, but thought the D800
might generate some interesting discussion there, mainly on the D800"E".
How wrong I was.

If you want informed debate avoid DPReview's forums which, almost by
definition, are solidly stuffed with the ignorant and ill-informed.

however, if you want entertaining reading, the forums are quite good
and often hilarious.

There are still a few clued up people posting there, but they're really
farting against thunder. Usenet forums like this are relatively sane by
comparison (note - I said "relatively")

On 24/02/2012 8:33 a.m., Me wrote:
On 23/02/2012 5:27 a.m., RichA wrote:
On Feb 24, 1:48 am, wrote:
I haven't looked at DPReview's forums for years, but thought the D800
might generate some interesting discussion there, mainly on the D800"E".
How wrong I was. There has been a bit of debate about the AA filter,
but largely overshadowed by flame wars the likes of which I haven't seen
for years (perhaps since the D3 upset a few D2Hs and D2x owners):
Many D700 owners are clearly furious - "betrayed" by the fact that Nikon
perhaps didn't limit the D3/700 to 12mp because that was the perfect
number of pixels for a 35mm sensor size camera, but perhaps because that
was the best that they could do, for the price, at the time. 12mp is
enough - right?

Despite these pointless flame wars, there's some good preliminary data
from Bill Claff, Marianne Oelund etc on raw performance. This shows
that the D800 sensor looks like it will easily exceed even the D3x in
base ISO dynamic range, and better the D3/700 in high ISO performance by
almost one stop (despite not having in-camera settings for extreme ISO),
as well as introducing to Nikon users a massive increase in resolution
(less so for D3x
owners).http://home.comcast.net/~nikond70/In...raphic_Dynamic...

(The first impression of Bill's chart here exaggerates the
improvements made, as it uses a linear ISO scale)

I don't usually side with the "all you have to do is downsize" crowd
when talking about one camera's performance relative to another, but
really, with three times the pixel count, even if the sensor isn't
quite as good as the D700 for DR or noise, you could simply drop the
size down to 12mp and achieve a better result. Probably.
Based on a standard image size, it looks like the D800 is easily better
for dynamic range than the D700/D3, as well as having better high ISO
performance.
If Bill Claff's analysis is correct, then the D800 improves on the D7000
(and presumably the sensor used in the NEX-7) in performance on a
surface area basis. So "Dx crop" on the D800 is actually a bit better
than what the best current Dx cameras can achieve.
Another point has also been passed - these latest 35mm sized sensors
exceed the theoretical ceiling for noise and dynamic range for a
"perfect" Dx sized sensor with 100% QE (presumably assuming Bayer RGB
type).
Oops - that's not quite correct re "dynamic range" ceiling, without
further definition of how DR would be measured. The Dx noise ceiling is
however exceeded by these latest FX sensors.

They did
have an article from a couple of pros discussing the D800 and the D4,
unfortunately, the market being what it is, their major plaudits for
the new cameras concern their superior video capabilities...

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/289...ssionals-think


Yes - I read a bit of that. There's always going to be a need for speed.
But I don't believe that Nikon and Canon's latest pro cameras are using
15-20mp simply because "that's enough pixels".

Me writes:

I haven't looked at DPReview's forums for years, but thought the D800
might generate some interesting discussion there, mainly on the
D800"E".
How wrong I was. There has been a bit of debate about the AA filter,
but largely overshadowed by flame wars the likes of which I haven't
seen for years (perhaps since the D3 upset a few D2Hs and D2x owners):
Many D700 owners are clearly furious - "betrayed" by the fact that
Nikon perhaps didn't limit the D3/700 to 12mp because that was the
perfect number of pixels for a 35mm sensor size camera, but perhaps
because that was the best that they could do, for the price, at the
time. 12mp is enough - right?

You've got the wrong end of the stick.

The D800 isn't a successor, a replacement, for the D700 because *it
isn't better* for people who actually wanted a D700 (or a D3, or a D4).
It has only equivalent, or possibly slightly better, high ISO -- no
signficant advance, not up to D4 standards. It has *slower* sequence
shooting, and that's important (see D3 and D4 sequence shooting specs).

Of course, for people who really wanted a D3x, the D800 is brilliant.

The D800 blows away the D3x, and I guess tells us there won't be a D4x.

Unfortuntately it also tells us that there won't be a camera with the
same relationship to the D4 that the D700 had to the D3.
--
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

Me writes:

On 24/02/2012 1:41 p.m., Bruce wrote:
David wrote:
writes:
I haven't looked at DPReview's forums for years, but thought the D800
might generate some interesting discussion there, mainly on the
D800"E".
How wrong I was. There has been a bit of debate about the AA filter,
but largely overshadowed by flame wars the likes of which I haven't
seen for years (perhaps since the D3 upset a few D2Hs and D2x owners):
Many D700 owners are clearly furious - "betrayed" by the fact that
Nikon perhaps didn't limit the D3/700 to 12mp because that was the
perfect number of pixels for a 35mm sensor size camera, but perhaps
because that was the best that they could do, for the price, at the
time. 12mp is enough - right?

You've got the wrong end of the stick.

The D800 isn't a successor, a replacement, for the D700 because *it
isn't better* for people who actually wanted a D700 (or a D3, or a D4).
It has only equivalent, or possibly slightly better, high ISO -- no
signficant advance, not up to D4 standards. It has *slower* sequence
shooting, and that's important (see D3 and D4 sequence shooting specs).

Of course, for people who really wanted a D3x, the D800 is brilliant.

The D800 blows away the D3x, and I guess tells us there won't be a D4x.

Unfortuntately it also tells us that there won't be a camera with the
same relationship to the D4 that the D700 had to the D3.


True. I should add that Nikon Europe has confirmed to dealers that
the D700 will remain in production. I think similar confirmation has
gone out in north America because Thom Hogan has referred to it on his
site.

Thom thinks that this is a final production run to use up parts
pre-ordered for 2011 D700 production that didn't happen because of the
stoppage in production at Sendai due to the tsunami.

I disagree. I think Nikon will assess the demand and carry on making
the D700 as long as people still want to buy it. Despite all the hype
around the D800(E), the D700 has a lot to offer.


I'd tend to agree with Thom Hogan.
Nikon have been consistent with the story that existing models which
have been clearly superseded remain in production.
They said that the D100 remained in production after the D70, the D2Hs
after the D2x, the d2xs after the d3. But the superseded models
eventually just faded away...
The only "position" for the D700 is as a cheap FX camera which can
shoot at over 4 fps. A small niche that Nikon fills with the D4 at the
pro level - or if the D300 replacement dx sensor performs on surface
area basis as well as the D800, then it will meet or exceed the IQ of
the D3/D700 sensor.
The D800 raw file analysis is showing very clearly that the image
quality exceeds the D700 at base ISO and at high ISO. As a "low
light" camera, AF has been improved by a nominal 1 EV. DR doesn't
"tail off" at lower ISO settings (like the D3/300/700/90 generation)
but remains near linear (like the D3x, D7000 etc.). But QE has been
improved - Even in "Dx crop" mode, it is over 1/2 stop better than the
D7000 sensor.
The D700 is obsolete - just like the Canon 5D Mk 1. But still a
perfectly good camera, despite the limitations being made obvious.

There's nothing I can buy for anything like the price that takes Nikon
lenses and does the job the D700 does. And I'm talking about features I
use fairly frequently, not the once-in-a-lifetime special cases.
--
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 2012-02-24 14:36:23 -0800, David Dyer-Bennet said:

Me writes:

Le Snip

......The D700 is obsolete - just like the Canon 5D Mk 1. But still a
perfectly good camera, despite the limitations being made obvious.

There's nothing I can buy for anything like the price that takes Nikon
lenses and does the job the D700 does. And I'm talking about features I
use fairly frequently, not the once-in-a-lifetime special cases.

Now that the D800(E) has been revealed and the D700 lives on, perhaps
the time has come to make similar tweaks as were made to the D300 to
get to the D300s.
Add dedicated video buttons for those who long for them, add an SDHC
slot to give the same CF/SDHC combo the D300s has.
Upgrade the viewfinder from 95% to 100%.
Bring the continuous frame rate to the same as the D300s; 7fps to 9fps
with the MB-D10 attached.
Add one or two firmware bits and pieces, and we might have the camera
it should have been two years ago.
....and if they feel really adventurous, update the sensor to the
16-18MP range, but leaving the current 12.9MP would not be problematic.

Label it the D700s. I think there would be more than enough DSLR
shooters who could be tempted.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 24/02/2012 1:41 p.m., Bruce wrote:
David wrote:
writes:
I haven't looked at DPReview's forums for years, but thought the D800
might generate some interesting discussion there, mainly on the
D800"E".
How wrong I was. There has been a bit of debate about the AA filter,
but largely overshadowed by flame wars the likes of which I haven't
seen for years (perhaps since the D3 upset a few D2Hs and D2x owners):
Many D700 owners are clearly furious - "betrayed" by the fact that
Nikon perhaps didn't limit the D3/700 to 12mp because that was the
perfect number of pixels for a 35mm sensor size camera, but perhaps
because that was the best that they could do, for the price, at the
time. 12mp is enough - right?

You've got the wrong end of the stick.

The D800 isn't a successor, a replacement, for the D700 because *it
isn't better* for people who actually wanted a D700 (or a D3, or a D4).
It has only equivalent, or possibly slightly better, high ISO -- no
signficant advance, not up to D4 standards. It has *slower* sequence
shooting, and that's important (see D3 and D4 sequence shooting specs).

Of course, for people who really wanted a D3x, the D800 is brilliant.

The D800 blows away the D3x, and I guess tells us there won't be a D4x.

Unfortuntately it also tells us that there won't be a camera with the
same relationship to the D4 that the D700 had to the D3.


True. I should add that Nikon Europe has confirmed to dealers that
the D700 will remain in production. I think similar confirmation has
gone out in north America because Thom Hogan has referred to it on his
site.

Thom thinks that this is a final production run to use up parts
pre-ordered for 2011 D700 production that didn't happen because of the
stoppage in production at Sendai due to the tsunami.

I disagree. I think Nikon will assess the demand and carry on making
the D700 as long as people still want to buy it. Despite all the hype
around the D800(E), the D700 has a lot to offer.


I'd tend to agree with Thom Hogan.
Nikon have been consistent with the story that existing models which
have been clearly superseded remain in production.
They said that the D100 remained in production after the D70, the D2Hs
after the D2x, the d2xs after the d3. But the superseded models
eventually just faded away...
The only "position" for the D700 is as a cheap FX camera which can shoot
at over 4 fps. A small niche that Nikon fills with the D4 at the pro
level - or if the D300 replacement dx sensor performs on surface area
basis as well as the D800, then it will meet or exceed the IQ of the
D3/D700 sensor.
The D800 raw file analysis is showing very clearly that the image
quality exceeds the D700 at base ISO and at high ISO. As a "low light"
camera, AF has been improved by a nominal 1 EV. DR doesn't "tail off"
at lower ISO settings (like the D3/300/700/90 generation) but remains
near linear (like the D3x, D7000 etc.). But QE has been improved - Even
in "Dx crop" mode, it is over 1/2 stop better than the D7000 sensor.
The D700 is obsolete - just like the Canon 5D Mk 1. But still a
perfectly good camera, despite the limitations being made obvious.