Nikon Help - Whats in an "E"?

Oh - also to mention ... without the AA layer ... you would see moire pattern on fabrics or recurring patterns that are shot straight on.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with all these Canon togs eyeing the D800. There is a waiting list, and as soon as I finalize my plans to win the Lotto, I'm hoping to go stand in that line.

[quote=]If I didnt have so much Canon L glass - Id get the D800e in a heartbeat!!!![/quote]

...and then when Canon bring out their D800e killer you would have to swap back.....

I think the D600 is gonna be very interesting and I have been told that we will see at least 3 more bodies from Canon in 2012, probably a entry level ff, a mega pixel unit like the D800 but in a pro body and a mirror-less.

So hang onto all that glass Justin.

Matt

Sheesh - I hope so Matt!!!

I went with Canon originally as all my mates had that, & Nikon didnt even occur to me (tbh)

Nikon (from what Ive read) seem to really have their focussing & flash metering sorted, there seem to be alot of gripes on Canon's outdated systems. But, that may be totally subjective.

Nikon & Canon's lens technology & structure is also so completely different - Canon using even (6 or 8) bladed lens diaphragms, while Nikon opting for a superior odd (7 or 9) - making tiny differences to the overall image rendering & bokeh.

It was only when I started looking at buying decent lenses, that I wish I went Nikon.

From looking online, Nikon lenses seem to be 30% cheaper than their canon counterparts... now the D800e without the AA layer, from podcasts & forums Ive read/seen REALLY seem to tip the scale in Nikons favor.

Usually Im not phased with slight variations in gear - but, to my mind, If I was starting over - Id be shooting Nikon.

Unfortunately, Canon big leaps in ISO, fast frame rate (a million* frames a second) & mega pixels dont really interest me at all.

Justin, Justin, Justin... you speak the truth. Its the first time I've read that a GOOD tog on here, (as opposed to the wannabies) actually admit that the "Leaps in ISO" and "fast frame rate" is not of interest.

I man, really, who wants to shoot at ISO 204,800? Twwo hundred fucking thousand? really? I want to shoot at ISO 25, or even 16 like you could do on that incredibly expensive Kodachromes. now THAT is ISO worth writing home about.

Part of the attraction of the D800 is that it can go down to ISO 50.

I Just have to laught when people buy these equisitely sharp and incredibly expensive lenses and then goes out and shoots at ISO Bajillion - the grain one gets totally negates any sharpness you got from the lens.

Sharp lens, low ISO, great light will give you mind-numblingly beautiful shots.

All this si for studio, of course, if you do sports and upload halftone images in JPG for newsprint, high ISO falls out the window. But this is "modelbase", not "spotsphotographybase" or "grammabirthdaybase".

[quote=]"grammabirthdaybase"[/quote]
LOL

@Justin, in SA Nikon costs more, they taking the piss! In most markets Canon is more expensive.

I think that Nikon SA should conform to international pricing and stop ripping the public.

Any case strong competition is good.

I for one need high ISO, fast frame rates and for the occasional model shoot even an old 5D classic is more than good enough.

Also service is a big factor, I for one get exceptional service from Cameratek and I refuse to drive to Midrand.

I for one get exceptional service from Cameratek

For one, yes! :-D see how many other people bitch about Canon / Cameratak servicing on here.

[quote=]For one, yes! :-D see how many other people bitch about Canon / Cameratak servicing on here.[/quote]

I know, I am aware of it, I can only speak of my personal experience.

From what I understand Nikon has generally much better service in SA.

I'm chairman of a camera club, and many people ask me "Canon or Nikon" – and I always say: Camera-for-camera, lens for lens, its much of a muchness. Its swings and roundabouts. And it's a game of leap-frog, today Nikon has the jeezphuckwow camera, tomorrow Canon will bring out a Nikon-killer, the day afterwards, Nikon will bring out a Canon-killer, etc, etc. BUT servicing is a big deal – Nikon, undeniably, has the servicing aspect nailed, Canon has not.

And, as I've mentioned before, about 4, 5 odd years ago, Canon Camera SA was offered to me by the Canon head-boys, and their words were to the effect "we do not care about cameras, our prime game in Sa is office equipment" – they simply do not care about the Camera owner in SA, as was evident by their stand at the expo – a tiny portion of their stand was aimed at cameras and lenses, the vast majority of it was printers and fax machines. Roger Machin is about the only guy in the whole organisation that takes cameras and camera-clients seriously (Roger is the last of a dying bred, even Dutchy left!) . A Really stand-up bloke, of everyone at Canon was as passionate and dedicated as he is, it would be a vastly different company.

Specifically in SA, Canon is just not interested in their camera-clients. And for that reason, and that reason alone, I'd recommend Nikon over Canon. If Canon had the same servicing and commitment to customer care as Nikon, my answer to Nikon vs Canon would be "flip a coin".

Hi Gerry
I haven't read this whole thread, so pardon me if this has been mentioned. On DPReview there is a comparison of the 800 vs the 800E. For my money, I would go for the 800 as it appears that the difference is minute. If I were in the market for a FX camera, I would hang on until a few bugs have been sorted out, before buying the 800 — there is apparently a slight focus problem (left right and centre, not the same).

I will however stick with DX as my glass is mainly DX and a retiree cannot afford to buy the latest and greatest :-( I wonder if a D400 will ever appear?

I wonder if a D400 will ever appear?

I do not think so, Pieter, The D300 was the last of the "prosumer" DX bodies. its just as cheap to make a full frame now as a DX, as the new D600 will attest to. Your DX glass will still work on FX, just be a bit wider.

I read this forum with some interest.
I've seen the work of a number of tog's that have upgraded to the D800's.
My question to myself is/was/will always be - Did the camera improve their work.
My answer was simply - Not that I can see!
Take Matt Raven for instance - I follow Matt's work a lot - (simply because I just enjoy his work.)
Matt's stuff was brilliant (IMO) before he gripped the D800 and the D4 - and it is brilliant now.
Is there Rxxxxxxxx worth of improvement in what I can see? Hmmm Sorry Matt - but no. It's not something I can notice. (I must admit though - I am not looking at the large format he might need for banners etc)
Did it take any photographer from earning R60k a month and jump him/her to earning R80k a month?
I don't see that either.
So - quite honestly - unless you have some specific printing/etc needs that cannot be addressed in your current format - I don't see a 'need' to change.
Do I want the upgrade - DAMN - YES YES YES.
I don't know if my opinion helps in anyone's decision making process.

but what you don't see is that the new tool is a more efficient one, Matt can now spend less time doing a shoot, his keeper rate is now 80% where by previously it may have been 70%.

New tools are necessary, just like the nail gun can do the same job as a hammer it does it faster and neater.

Sure the improvements are negligible on each new upgrade but if you look back just a few years the improvements are vast and if you can afford it you should try stay current.

A tiny upgrade is ahrdly worth it.
Upgrading from 12.5 mp to 18 MP is "yeah, maybe, we'll see".

An upgrade from 12MP to 36PM is "Jeezphuckwow how did they do that hell yes!"

just the sheer "cropability" factor of this has my wheels spinning. A couple of weeks ago I did my one (and only) foray into underwater photography with a D3x - 25MP. you only need 8.5 MP to get an A4 print@ 300DPI. This emant I could shoot with a 10.5mm wide-angle, as you can't REALLY see WTF you are doing under water, and as such, you have top hope for a bit of luck. with the extra pixels and the wide angle, I could get a much wider field in, correct my barrel-distortion in post, and still have plenty of pixels left for a quality print.

admittedly, thats one use for it, but I just love the fact that I have so many pixels to play with. in small-format printing it allows me to crop to hell-and-gone, find the picture-within-the-picture. for large-format printing, more is better.

And anyone who tells me I'm full of shit, please answer the following question: who does medium-format cameras exist then if 8MP is enough for anyone?

And anyone who tells me I'm full of shit, please answer the following question: who does medium-format cameras exist then if 8MP is enough for anyone?

Because nothing can beat the awesome sight of a Hasselblad mounted on it's upside-down I-beam crucifix? ;-)

For me the large croppable-image would be cool, but more of a nice bonus. The tech advances other than the 36 Mpix sensor are enough to make the D800 infinitely desirable.