-JAY- wrote:
I chose the D600 over the D800 because it didn't give me anything "more" aside from megapixels, and 24 is plenty.

Give me a 16-bit 24 over a 14-bit 36.

Enmerkar Zedek wrote:
Hi,

I own a bit of gear for my D7000, but mostly it is MF lenses. I also own a pro 35mm film, Basset Rangerfinder and a medium format RZ67. I would like to add a digital full frame for my studio and event photography. I am considering the three above mentioned Nikon. I read all the pro's and con's of each as far as AF, construction, and shutter limitations. I can't rent or test them here, so I have to decide based on spec sheet reading and other photog comments.

My current goal is to get a D800, but part of me is still unsure. I am still debating what would be a better investment for the money spent. Sorry to sound indecisive, but 3k is a lot to spend on a D800 unless you are 100% it is what will serve you best. I am debating whether it would be better spent on a D700/D600 and then other studio equipment like additional strobes, etc. On the other hand, I see cameras as good investment for a few years to come. Getting a higher 36MP may add more 'quality' to my landscape and portrait work.

Ideas?

The D800 is my favorite digital camera ever. But..none of my existing FF lenses really were able to take advantage of the resolution so the $3K for the body was just the beginning. My Nikkor 85mm D F/1.8 seemed good but everything else was just not sharp enough. I tested several lenses, all of which were $1500 or more and all were wonderful. In fact I tested and bought the newer Nikkor F/1.8 85mm G and it too improved the sharpness of my images over the older model. So the REAL cost for me to upgrade was well over $6K by the time i replaces all my older lenses. And still it was the best decision I ever made, equipment wise.

Enmerkar Zedek wrote:

Well there is a local photographer here charging $100 for a day's workshop teaching HDR photography using cell phone camera.

Toy cameras ar all the rage now. They have a "look". But do you want to be limited to that for all your work? I have images done with the SX70 in several major museum collection but they didn't make my LF and MF cameras obsolete in any way.

R Michael Walker wrote:

Toy cameras ar all the rage now. They have a "look". But do you want to be limited to that for all your work? I have images done with the SX70 in several major museum collection but they didn't make my LF and MF cameras obsolete in any way.

I think it is a joke to offer HDR photography created using cell phone cameras to those who know nothing about HDR photography. Whether or not it can be done isn't the point, for me it is whether or not good pactice from educational or photographic perspective. It is more so when $100 is almost a month wage for some people here.

R Michael Walker wrote:
The D800 is my favorite digital camera ever. But..none of my existing FF lenses really were able to take advantage of the resolution so the $3K for the body was just the beginning. My Nikkor 85mm D F/1.8 seemed good but everything else was just not sharp enough. I tested several lenses, all of which were $1500 or more and all were wonderful. In fact I tested and bought the newer Nikkor F/1.8 85mm G and it too improved the sharpness of my images over the older model. So the REAL cost for me to upgrade was well over $6K by the time i replaces all my older lenses. And still it was the best decision I ever made, equipment wise.

I think this is only a problem if someone has no other camera except the D800 and a  kit lens. I have multiple Cameras and over 40+ lenses. If none of my current lenses give me what I want from the D800 then it is an impetus to invest in even better glass. I can still shoot in the mean time and the investment slow/fast will be worth it as you said.

rp_photo wrote:

Give me a 16-bit 24 over a 14-bit 36.

Is the difference really that star?

ArtistryImage wrote:

Really?  Glass maybe... but capture devices? 

Need an example?

My airbrush and compressor combo is still listing used for near the initial retail price...
And has paid for itself many, many fold...

all the best on your journey...

Well yes!? There are still people using D700 since it came out a few years ago.  I am not referring to monetary investmet as in buy now at 3k and sell in 10 years at 3k, I mean time investment as in get the tool you will see yourself using in for the next 4-5 years (optimistically) vs buying one that you will need to upgrade from in a year from now. This is will hold true unless Nikon is planning on releasing a 300MP camera in the next 2 years that does 3D holograms with every click of a shutter, in which case, it sucks for me I didn't get a cheaper camera in the mean time

Tulack wrote:

Doug Jantz wrote:
This used to be true but now is BS.  Cameras ARE a major factor now.  If it was true none of would be buying new cameras.  I can guarantee you I cannot get the some results with my D70 as my D700.  And I bet the Polaroid cameras from the 70s sitting on my shelf cannot get what my D700 can no matter how good I am.

This two pictures done with the same camera. Need to be really dumb to say that camera taking pictures, not person.

Lot's be fair are we talking about 'take' photographs or CREATE digital art?

Because I would wager your second photo would not be possible without Photoshop/Lightroom or other editing software using the same camera. This isn't an as 'is' capture from a camera like the first photo and there is NOTHING wrong with the first photo either. It is all good.

Zack Zoll wrote:
That seems like pretty sound logic for the D800.  Earlier you asked if the difference is small prints between the D800 and D600 was that big, and I would say that under 16x20, it's only a difference of slightly better colour and tonal range on the D800.  But that's my eyes, and the images that I was working with - your mileage may vary.

Also, I really don't believe most of the people that said you need better technique.  As an RZ shooter, you're already capable of operating a more demanding camera than the D800.  It has been my experience(again, from the people that I spoke to personally - not online posters) that most of the complainers were coming from other DSLRs, and had little or no experience with larger, tripod-based cameras.  None of the guys I knew who had been shooting Hassys, Mamiyas, or view cameras complained about 'how much technique the D800 requires.'  Even the guys I knew that dropped their Fuji and Mamiya rangefinders are pretty happy with the operation of the D800.

You may find that some lenses may not appear as sharp on your new D800 as they were on your previous cameras, especially wide open.  But with your background, the technique thing is unlikely to be a problem for you.

I may never need to print more than 16x20 for most clients, but should a need arise  or should I want to offer bigger printing then it is good to have the tool at hand.

I am of the opinion that my technique needs improving and when I stop believing that is the day my photography will suffer. However, I don't think they were referring to me personally when they made the comment. I've seen these points made on multiple online forums as to the need for better technique with D800 and how easy it is for blur to show in it.

I got a number of blurry photos from a Sigma 2.8 AF the moment I put it for the first time on my D7000 and using it to around the house. I also got razor sharp photos out of my 50 1.8 AIS while shooting from a super bumpy bus. You better believe I got super sharp pictures from my Sigma later.

I've learned you can't take the way you shoot with one Camera to every camera. Learn the Camera and adjust your technique to maximize your quality output accordingly.

The lens issue is a bit of concern short term, but then I am interested in acquiring high end pro glass next, so it is all good.