d800 flame wars

On 24/02/2012 2:36 p.m., David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
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have been clearly superseded remain in production.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 But the superseded models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.

What feature(s)?
(excluding the fact that you can't actually buy a D800 yet)

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
Not everyone needs 36 MP. In fact, very few shooters need 36 MP

And very few need an ISO of 320,000. Fortunately there are plenty of
camera's to suit most peoples percieved needs.

Trevor.

On 24/02/2012 11:46 p.m., Bruce wrote:
wrote:

I'd tend to agree with Thom Hogan.


Thom no longer has any special insight here, because Nikon cut him
(and a lot of other commentators) out of the loop. Nikon's PR has
become much more controlled over the last two or three years.

Yes that's right - Thom's guess is therefore no worse than anybody else.
But possibly better for prediction than "inside information".


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.


No-one knows how well the D800 sensor will perform because there are
no published tests of final production versions.

That's grasping for straws. The raw data analysis correlates very
closely with real world results in every other camera. If Nikon "final
version" was worse than beta samples, then to but it bluntly, they'd be
dog tucker.


The D700 is still an
exceptional performer...
....for a 5 year old design it might be. But in terms of quantum
efficiency on an area basis, it's not even close to state of the art.

and may still be the best choice for buyers
seeking the lowest possible noise at higher ISOs.

No, it's been superseded twice (now three times including the D800) by
Nikon in FX cameras alone.
It (the D700) is in the same "position" as the Canon 5d Mk I was when
the Mk II was introduced, and the fallacious arguments are much the same.


Not everyone needs 36 MP. In fact, very few shooters need 36 MP
because their lenses and technique are not up to that standard.

That argument has no more merit now than it had in the past.

On 2012-02-27 11:16:28 -0800, Me said:

One major distraction with this thread which you started, is the fact
that your computer needs to have its clock reset. You are waaaay out of
sync, considering I show your post to which I am responding, as
arriving on my computer at 11:16 on 02-27-2012.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012-02-27 12:53:24 -0800, Me said:

On 26/02/2012 3:26 p.m., Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-02-27 11:16:28 -0800, Me said:

One major distraction with this thread which you started, is the fact
that your computer needs to have its clock reset. You are waaaay out of
sync, considering I show your post to which I am responding, as arriving
on my computer at 11:16 on 02-27-2012.

But it is now 12:53 on 02/27/2012 !
Golly I wish the rest of the world could catch up with me g
Not sure how to fix that or even if it should be fixed.

Well at least create the illusion that you might be in cyber sync with
the rest of the World from a chronological stand point. As to whether
or not we need to catch with you, let's just leave that as your special
secret.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 26/02/2012 5:11 p.m., Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-02-27 12:53:24 -0800, Me said:

On 26/02/2012 3:26 p.m., Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-02-27 11:16:28 -0800, Me said:

One major distraction with this thread which you started, is the fact
that your computer needs to have its clock reset. You are waaaay out of
sync, considering I show your post to which I am responding, as arriving
on my computer at 11:16 on 02-27-2012.

But it is now 12:53 on 02/27/2012 !
Golly I wish the rest of the world could catch up with me g
Not sure how to fix that or even if it should be fixed.

Well at least create the illusion that you might be in cyber sync with
the rest of the World from a chronological stand point. As to whether or
not we need to catch with you, let's just leave that as your special
secret.


Sorted (I hope). My headers were were showing posting date and time
correctly, but with -0800 correction. Now set to +1200. I'm damned
glad you noticed that and pointed it out to me.
Have a nice yesterday.

On 2012-02-26 19:00:57 -0800, Me said:

On 26/02/2012 5:11 p.m., Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-02-27 12:53:24 -0800, Me said:

On 26/02/2012 3:26 p.m., Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-02-27 11:16:28 -0800, Me said:

One major distraction with this thread which you started, is the fact
that your computer needs to have its clock reset. You are waaaay out of
sync, considering I show your post to which I am responding, as arriving
on my computer at 11:16 on 02-27-2012.

But it is now 12:53 on 02/27/2012 !
Golly I wish the rest of the world could catch up with me g
Not sure how to fix that or even if it should be fixed.

Well at least create the illusion that you might be in cyber sync with
the rest of the World from a chronological stand point. As to whether or
not we need to catch up with you, let's just leave that as your special
secret.


Sorted (I hope). My headers were were showing posting date and time
correctly, but with -0800 correction. Now set to +1200. I'm damned
glad you noticed that and pointed it out to me.
Have a nice yesterday.

There you go! All is well in the World again.

BTW: If you live in the Pacific Time Zone -0800 is correct.
Thanks for taking care of that.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Me writes:

On 24/02/2012 2:36 p.m., David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
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.

What feature(s)?
(excluding the fact that you can't actually buy a D800 yet)

And, also, excluding the fact that I still *can* buy a D700, and hence
there most certainly is something that will do the job the D700 does! I
got carried away there.

What I should have said was that there wasn't something that was the
kind of evolutionary advance on the D700 that you'd expect in a
successor; right now, there's the old D700 (still wonderful and all
that), and the D4 (even more wonderful, very expensive). Nothing
filling the role of "successor" to the D700 yet; evolutionary
improvements in all the important features. Nothing with the
relationship to the D4 that the D700 has to the D3. Now, given that the
D4 is brand new, that could very well just mean that they're not
releasing it YET, waiting to sell a bunch of D4s first.

Based on my reading of the D800 reviews, and limiting it to features I
have much opinion about:

D800 modestly improves high-ISO performance over D700 (not to D4
levels).

D800 improves AF performance over D700 (not clear if it matches D4
levels) especially in low light (and the D700 is already remarkably
good).

D800 doesn't support nearly the high-speed shooting rate the D700 does,
let alone the D4.

D800 supports much higher resolution than D700. (If I didn't mention
it, somebody would point it out, right?)

I use the D700 to shoot sports sometimes, and I've used it to shoot
cannon projectiles in flight. Both benefit from high-speed shooting.
In fact I own the battery grip entirely to add that last
frame-per-second to the top shooting rate.
--
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 26/02/2012 12:58 p.m., Bruce wrote:
wrote:

On 24/02/2012 11:46 p.m., Bruce wrote:
wrote:

I'd tend to agree with Thom Hogan.


Thom no longer has any special insight here, because Nikon cut him
(and a lot of other commentators) out of the loop. Nikon's PR has
become much more controlled over the last two or three years.

Yes that's right - Thom's guess is therefore no worse than anybody else.
But possibly better for prediction than "inside information".


There is no inside information from Nikon any more.


No-one knows how well the D800 sensor will perform because there are
no published tests of final production versions.

That's grasping for straws. The raw data analysis correlates very
closely with real world results in every other camera. If Nikon "final
version" was worse than beta samples, then to but it bluntly, they'd be
dog tucker.


It is *very often* the case that production samples perform less well
than meticulously hand-assembled prototypes and pre-production
samples.
And you'll be giving an example of where that's been the case with a
Nikon dslr?

Sigma lenses are a classic example. No matter how many you
test of a particular model, you will never find one that performs as
well as those supplied to magazines for review.

If this isn't urban myth, then I suggest you change review sites/magazines.

The D700 is still an
exceptional performer...
...for a 5 year old design it might be. But in terms of quantum
efficiency on an area basis, it's not even close to state of the art.


and may still be the best choice for buyers
seeking the lowest possible noise at higher ISOs.

No, it's been superseded twice (now three times including the D800) by
Nikon in FX cameras alone.
It (the D700) is in the same "position" as the Canon 5d Mk I was when
the Mk II was introduced, and the fallacious arguments are much the same.


But it hasn't been "superseded". Not three times, not twice, not even
once. The D3X did not supersede the D700, nor did the D3s, nor will
the D800.

It has been superseded in Fx sensor performance, D3s, D4, and now D800.
I wasn't including the D3x, but certainly in base ISO dynamic range, the
D3x also beats the D3/700, not to mention resolution.
There will be many satisfied D700 users who will find the
D800(E) a grave disappointment.

Yes, and they're (mainly) being irrational. The thing that they're
clinging to - that the D700 sensor is "superior" in some way - is a
myth. Everything (except burst frame rate) has been improved with the
D800 - and the sensor has been too.
I understand that Nikon USA has already dropped the D700 price by about
US$400. They are clearing the shelves. It might now be exceptional
value, if a 12mp dslr is enough.
Perhaps in time there will be a D800 body with a "D4 sensor" which gives
faster burst frame rate. But it would be crazy for them to release it
or even acknowledge that they might make it - until the d4 is well
established and the remaining D700 inventory is gone.


Not everyone needs 36 MP. In fact, very few shooters need 36 MP
because their lenses and technique are not up to that standard.

That argument has no more merit now than it had in the past.


There are many photographers, amateur and professional, who greatly
value the outstanding performance of their D700 bodies. The
introduction of the D800(E) does not suddenly make the D700 obsolete,
nor even obsolescent.

It will be "out of production" soon, if not already so. If you don't
want to call that "obsolete", then that's up to you.


Except to an obsessive neophyte like you, obviously. ;-)

To the contrary, I'm using a 5YO dslr. But I know the limitations of
that camera and try to "work around" those limitations. It would be
nice to be less limited by equipment.

On 28/02/2012 4:54 a.m., David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
writes:

On 24/02/2012 2:36 p.m., David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
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.

What feature(s)?
(excluding the fact that you can't actually buy a D800 yet)

And, also, excluding the fact that I still *can* buy a D700, and hence
there most certainly is something that will do the job the D700 does! I
got carried away there.

What I should have said was that there wasn't something that was the
kind of evolutionary advance on the D700 that you'd expect in a
successor; right now, there's the old D700 (still wonderful and all
that), and the D4 (even more wonderful, very expensive). Nothing
filling the role of "successor" to the D700 yet; evolutionary
improvements in all the important features. Nothing with the
relationship to the D4 that the D700 has to the D3. Now, given that the
D4 is brand new, that could very well just mean that they're not
releasing it YET, waiting to sell a bunch of D4s first.

Based on my reading of the D800 reviews, and limiting it to features I
have much opinion about:

D800 modestly improves high-ISO performance over D700 (not to D4
levels).
There's a hint he
http://www.sensorgen.info/
QE for the D700 is nominally 38%
QE for the D7000 is 47%
For the J1 and D3s, it's 57%
Then this chart:
http://home.comcast.net/~nikond70/Charts/PDR_65.htm
Shows that a Dx sized crop from a d800 frame at about ISO 2100 is
equivalent (noise at the same print size) to a full frame crop from the
D700 at the same ISO.
Assumed increase in QE from 38% to probably around 60% doesn't
substantiate the apparent (slightly over) one full stop of improvement
plotted in the latter chart, as QE doesn't allow for reduction in read
noise also achieved.
I think it's more than a modest improvement.


D800 improves AF performance over D700 (not clear if it matches D4
levels) especially in low light (and the D700 is already remarkably
good).
Yes. Probably in low light it should be as good as the d4. Focus
tracking may not be, and/or it might be a little slower. We'll have to
wait and see on this.

D800 doesn't support nearly the high-speed shooting rate the D700 does,
let alone the D4.
That is a problem - I agree.

D800 supports much higher resolution than D700. (If I didn't mention
it, somebody would point it out, right?)

I use the D700 to shoot sports sometimes, and I've used it to shoot
cannon projectiles in flight. Both benefit from high-speed shooting.
In fact I own the battery grip entirely to add that last
frame-per-second to the top shooting rate.

Sure - and that's why the low burst speed is a problem. Worse when you
see the price of the grip needed to facilitate 6fps in DX crop mode. By
the time you've put Li Ion batteries in it, the package price is only
about 25% below the current price of a d3s. I'm not surprised Nikon has
done this though - they really don't have any competition pushing them
hard in the "enthusiast" FX market (for a fast handling camera anyway).
Perhaps if Canon were to speed up the frame rate in the "new" 5D and
put a decent auto-focus system in it, Nikon might feel a need to put a
d4 sensor in a D800 body - and until then, please feel encouraged to
spend more on a body.