D800, Discussion, Questions, and Answers

TaoTeJared

Has anyone seen if there is a change in how much VR helps? I am sure the image stabilization mechanism is better at stopping some vibration frequencies/amplitudes better than others. I wonder if that is more/less suited to the D800.

In general VR helps a lot with any system. A decade of use has shown that. If you are trying to get the least shake possible, VR is a bonus, unless you try using it above 1/500 - then it introduces noise. Nothing has changed with the D800 and VR is useful with every system.

I have always kept my shutter about 1/3 of a stop faster than the focal length. I have never had the steadiest of hands (thank good ole' inherited genes for that). I have noticed the Mirror slap a bit more on images. All of that is getting really picky though. Some macro stuff I play with - shows it though.

roombarobot

Thanks TaoTeJared, I appreciate the advice.

On that note, does anyone have recommendations for a wired shutter release? I realize that my Nikon infrared wireless will not work with the D800, so I wanted to get an inexpensive one. It looks like the wireless ones are expensive, but there are plenty of 3rd party wired ones for cheap. I don't need anything fancy, I've only used it for some experiments with fireworks and night photography. I saw a couple on Amazon for $8-$15, any of those work OK?

Msmoto

I have the MC-30, works fine. Also, Vello makes a wireless which works well and is about half the $60 for the MC-30/A

sevencrossing

I have a wired Neewer EZa- N1 which has a timer
I also have a wired Jueying, no timer
both bought new on Bay
both work fine

TaoTeJared

I have never ran across a shutter release that has not worked.

sevencrossing

I have never ran across a shutter release that has not worked.

just wait till you have a camera precariously balanced on top of a hand help 30 foot pole

over here it is called Murphy's law

Ironheart

A corded remote is nothing more than a switch and a wire. Pretty rugged and reliable, unless you dunk it in salt water. @sevencrossing I do that too! Except I use the remote to trigger the self timer before I haul it up there. The built in intervalometer is good for that technique too...

T3LF

I have currently sitting in front of me a brand new D800 with no FX lenses, has anyone used Sigmas 24-70mm 2.8 hsm if dg ex, on a d800 anyone heard anything good or bad about it?
Also iv seen a brand which are selling fairly cheap compact flash memory cards the brand is delkin devices is this brand any good?
Thanks

heartyfisher

With all the "issues" of a D800.. is it worth getting one "grey" for $2500.. Assuming I am happy to live with the oil issue if I do get a bad sample ..( and wait for the oil to clear up) how bad is that focus issue ?

(PS: yeah getting sick of waiting for a D400 ! )

Msmoto

@ heartyfisher

In view of the issues with the D800, I would think you would not want a gray market model as service would be a nightmare. There may be some used ones around or refurb which would be less expensive and still be warrantable.

TaoTeJared

+1 Msmoto - save money on grey lenses - less chance of having issues.

donaldejose

For those interested DxOMark is starting a series on the sharpest lenses on a D800. Should be interesting.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Which-lenses-for-your-Nikon-D800

roombarobot

This is very interesting, there is more info up today:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Which-lenses-for-your-Nikon-D800/Nikon-D800-and-standard-lens-choices

Particularly they review 50mm and 85mm primes and standard zooms so far. It looks like, by their measures, the Nikon 85mm 1.8G and 1.4G are the highest scoring of all lenses tested at this point.

donaldejose

From the graphics DxOMark previously posted it looks like nothing will beat the 85mm primes on a D800 because the zooms all ranked lower than the primes. However, some classic sharp Nikon lenses have not be included such as the 105mm f2 DC lens. By far the best "bang for the buck" in sharpness is the 85mm f1.8G.

Also, (dare I say it?) these tests prove that Zeiss glass is not worth the premium price they charge for it. Add these Leica lens rankings to the low sensor score DxOMark gave to the newest M9 series bodies (a lowly 69 for the $5,450 M-E released in 2012 and a lowly 68 for the $6950 M9 P announced in 2011 compared to a 95 for the 2012 $3,000 D800 and a 94 for the $2,100 2012 D600) and one must concluded Leica lenses and bodies are not worth the money. In fact, they are not even competitive with a $700 D3200 scoring 81! Nikon lenses and bodies are so much better than Leica lenses and bodies. Even a Nikon 40mm f2.8 micro DX lens on a D3200 body beats Leica M9 series in sharpness. How sad is that? Anyone want to argue a Leica M9 with normal lens is sharper than Nikon's 40mm micro on a D3200 body? Why pay upwards of $10,000 when you can get better IQ for less than $1,000?

roombarobot

I was psyched to see the 85mm 1.8G test results, as I have one backordered with the instant rebate.

That said, this is just one test. I don't put all my faith in just DXOMark. For instance, I know that the D3200 is not as good as the Canon 5D Mark III. I am guessing there is a lot more to the story for lenses as well.

heartyfisher

@donaldejose "Also, (dare I say it?) these tests prove that Zeiss glass is not worth the premium price they charge for it."

I think a lens performance is more than sharpness. for example the 50mm lenses.. I have done a personal review of 4 or 5 of them and although that 50mm D F1.8 scores high in DXO, I really did not like the bokeh. My fav in the 50mm range is not in that test and it is the old 50mm 1.4 ais and a very close second was the 50mm 1.4g followed by the 1.4D, I have not reviewed the 1.8G. from sample test images on the web for the Ziess lenses i would put them "up there".

donaldejose

Yes, Zeiss glass has always been highly regarded (as have their cameras) and build quality, bokeh, color, etc are all considerations. But still, even with all that, they are not performing up to their reputation in these tests with the D800 are they? One might disagree with or question some of DxOMark test scores or procedures but at least measured by this same yardstick the Zeiss lenses (and especially the bodies) fall short. Dare I say you aren't getting a noticeable difference for the much higher price you pay? Perhaps, Zeiss superiority is a thing of the past? It seems to me one should seriously question spending the extra money based upon image and reputation alone when Nikon glass consistently scores the same or better.

TaoTeJared

I've said it before and say it again, DXOMark does not test lenses, they test sensors. Their "final" scores are nothing more than a "get every lens as close to each other as they can to each other" and guise it as a "result."

I own or have owned many of the lenses and what they list as "same/similar" scores is just BS. I have good copies of the Nikon AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G & Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D - There is no way they are the same score - 105 is leagues better. I have both the 50mm 1.4 G & D - The "D" is noticeably lower in everything. They say their scores are the same - so that would lead you to believe you would have to look at these at 100% or more to see the difference - That is pure BS - I can see the difference in 4x6 prints and that is a size you should not be able to see the difference. And to say both of the 50mm are the same as the 105vr! That is a Joke!!! To say the Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED is only 4 steps above the Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED! The older 24-120mm f/3.5 tries it's hardest but it's nowhere that close.

Considering their testing of the Leica M9 and other Leica sensors - they are loosing a lot of respect for their scores.

donaldejose

TTJ: But you don't use lenses alone. They are always used in combination with a sensor so it is reasonable to test them with a senor as a combo. Now maybe there is a flaw in their procedures or math. But the are using the same numeric scales on all lenses, aren't they? I don't doubt your opinions but they have the weakness of being subjective. Your "eye" is not an objective scientific measurement we can apply to all lenses. It would be interesting to see of any other lens testers, such as Imaging Resource finds results similar to DxOMark.

Question: Is DxOMark's testing of Leica lenses and sensors causing a loss of respect for DxOMark or a loss of respect for Leica? Either one way or the other way could be the correct answer to that question.

Symphotic

I'm picking up a second D800 body today. I thought about the D800E, but couldn't justify the extra expense.

donaldejose

Newsflash. Today DxOMark published its test of the New $7000 Leica M Type 240 full frame sensor. And guess what, for your $7k you get the same sensor rating (84) as the $900 Nikon DX D5200 sensor! Another Legendary Leica or a legendary rip-off?

Symphotic

My D800 unit 2 arrived. Perfect focus on left, right, and center out of the box. No front or rear focusing either. Better than the first unit (prior to warranty service). Viewing the TFT-LCD in daylight shows no color cast to grays and whites. It's all good. I've got a job to go to....

KenHnnddre

I thought it might be helpful to post an image from my D800. I have not experienced any of the problems all of these people keep talking about. The camera needs to be very steady because of it's high resolution but that is usually true with a long lens. This shot is available on Flickr with all xif data and if you care to take the time to down load it at full resolution. It was shot at 500mm and noise reduction was done with NIKs define.

xj_rocks

Anyone have suggestions on dealing with Nikon & getting them to replace a defective camera.

I got my D800 back in April of 2012. I'm new to an FX camera, so some of the issues have taken me some time to find/get used to.

I've already had to send the camera in for:
-the left focus issue
-the auto-focus beep not functioning
-the AF assit light not working (learned that this was a setting problem, nikon requires you to be on the center auto-focus point)
-the green tint (I shoot in manual W/B, & noticed that this was for indoor shooting that I was getting off colors & couldn't seem to get it quite right just using the kelvin scale. I had to adjust the the green/magenta scale 1 or 2 up in the magenta)

Currently my camera is in So. Cal for repairs, it's been 6 weeks since I sent it in. I sent it in for the color calibration & Nikon said that there was not a problem but that they could adjust it for $36.95 without an explanation of what would be adjusted. I've since placed a call in request for full replacement.

I'm getting close to the 1 year mark of having this camera & I'm concerned that there are issues that they won't fix or I won't find before the warranty is up. $3k is a huge price tag for me (for anything), & I'm concerned that I'll end up with a lemon. Any suggestions on getting this unit replaced with one that is from latter in the production run that hopefully has all the bugs worked out?

SquamishPhoto

Also, (dare I say it?) these tests prove that Zeiss glass is not worth the premium price they charge for it. Add these Leica lens rankings to the low sensor score DxOMark gave to the newest M9 series bodies (a lowly 69 for the $5,450 M-E released in 2012 and a lowly 68 for the $6950 M9 P announced in 2011 compared to a 95 for the 2012 $3,000 D800 and a 94 for the $2,100 2012 D600) and one must concluded Leica lenses and bodies are not worth the money. In fact, they are not even competitive with a $700 D3200 scoring 81! Nikon lenses and bodies are so much better than Leica lenses and bodies. Even a Nikon 40mm f2.8 micro DX lens on a D3200 body beats Leica M9 series in sharpness. How sad is that? Anyone want to argue a Leica M9 with normal lens is sharper than Nikon's 40mm micro on a D3200 body? Why pay upwards of $10,000 when you can get better IQ for less than $1,000?

First you have to believe that DXO is using a genuinely reliable method to achieve a scientific result, but we all know thats not true. Second, you have to ignore every other component of lens design in order to believe that the premiums demanded are not worth it. And you're making the sophomoric comparison between image sharpness and image quality without understanding the differences between the two.

Go out and rent a Zeiss 100mm f2 and any of the 85mm or 105mm lenses that Nikon offers and you compare the colour rendition, image clarity, contrast, bokeh quality and character, etc. Do all that and tell me that the lens isn't worth the premium. People don't just wake up knowing they want to go buy and expensive piece of glass. They research it well and when comes time to purchase you run it through the ringer and make comparisons to what you were using before to achieve similar results. In all categories the Zeiss utterly destroys the Nikkors I compared it too - AI-S 85mm 1.4, AF-D 85mm 1.4 & 105vr.