Jump to content

Upgrading to FX body


oksanaandersen

Recommended Posts

<p>36mp for wedding shots? Who needs that? Lots of Canon wedding shooters with the 5dII and 5dII which are around 22mp shoot what Canon calls m-raw which gives an 11 or 12 mb file. Unfortunately Nikon thinks you need all 36 all the time, no matter what.<br>

The time you spend moving those 36mp files about, editing them and then the space for storing them - for years is crazy for a wedding shooter. <br>

If you insist on FF get a 610 at least the files aren't insanely large for the job. A pair of D7000s with 16mp is an even better choice.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>Unfortunately Nikon thinks you need all 36 all the time, no matter what.</em></p>

<p>No, they don't; they just make one 36MP camera (the D800E I'm not counting as a separate camera). It has advantages that are partly a by-product of the high resolution, in particular the high dynamic range at base ISO, so you don't have to work as hard (with lighting or other means) in bright daylight to solve the contrast problem (shadows). Also for formals and for groups the pixels can't hurt. In many situations one might just not have quite the right framing, the extra resolution helps achieve a high quality result if you have to crop a bit. For the more fast paced situations, Nikon makes faster cameras that make smaller files, e.g., the D4. While I have nothing against the D610, I did not find the Multi-CAM 4800 in the D7000 to work all that well with fast primes; there was much more variability in the results than with the Multi-CAM 3500 cameras such as D800, D3X etc. If Nikon has improved that AF module, fine, but it would not be my first choice for the many low light action situations that take place at weddings. If you use small apertures, perhaps it doesn't matter as much, but I prefer to keep ISO fairly low and apertures large so I can get a feeling of three-dimensionality to the images and to point the attention on specific subjects rather than background clutter. Keeping ISO as low as possible will help maintain the best colour rendition and largest dynamic range if I need to do any corrections in post-processing. Other FX options that have Multi-CAM 3500 and still fewer pixels include the D3s, D3 and D700 available second hand. All of these would work fine for weddings, but to be frank 12MP is a little low; you can really see the difference even if the print is not that large, but the customer might not care especially if they just view small prints or online presentation.</p>

<p>While I completely agree that the post-processing of lots of D800 files is a burden, the D800 is not the only camera that Nikon makes that you could use. The fact that the D610 and Df have 24MP and 16MP sensors suggests that Nikon is perfectly aware that 36MP is not for everyone or every application. The only issue with the Df and D610 in my view is the autofocus module (perhaps the Multi-CAM 4800 is smaller and a bit lower cost). However, as we can see in the transition from D7000 to D7100, Nikon can plug in the more advanced autofocus module without causing much increase in either the size, weight, or cost of the camera. Thus perhaps the next generation versions (D620 or Df II) will have Multi-CAM 3500 or another, more advanced module. It is a little difficult to understand what Multi-CAM 4800 does in an FX camera where the focus points of that module only cover a small area in the center. However, I'm aware that some photographers prefer to always use the center focus point; for these people it may make perfect sense. I always prefer to get the focus point as close to the main subject's face as possible to minimize the need to crop to restore the original, intended composition in situations where the subject is moving. At f/5.6 it may not matter much, but at f/2 or f/1.4 it does.</p>

<p>And with some organization of the storage on the computer used to edit the images and optimization of the hardware it is possible to speed up the editing process. For example if the operating system and all the files edited are on a fast SSD, and backups on external RAID NAS units, the process is faster. And the images can then be moved to external storage for longer term storage. Problem is if there are many jobs being worked on at one time, there might not be enough space on the SSD. But this is a question of how well organized one is. Personally I take my time with editing as I cannot immediately decide which images make the best set to document an event, and I do editing in the course of some time, refining it gradually. This is why I do have a problem with the 36MP files at times. However, it is possible solve the problem by using another camera for situations where the D800 is not helpful. A wedding photographer does need at least two or three camera bodies as once a camera needs repair, with only two cameras the photographer would not have a backup for the event, which is not acceptable. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>36mp for wedding shots? Who needs that?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While I agree that 36MP is too much for most wedding photography situations, when you have large family group images with 20, 30 and more people, having more pixels helps.</p>

<p>I have been using the D800/D800E for almost two years now, and my PC at home is a $1000 one from Costco from 2011, before I bought my D800E. There is more than sufficient processing power to edit those images. In these days computers and storage are both cheap. To me, all those complaints about image files being too big are merely silly excuses.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>No, I was saying that with the d800, you only have the choice of a 36mp raw file. Canon gives you three sizes of raw so you can pick an appropriate size for what you are doing. Choice is usually preferable to no choice and usually a 36mp file is the wrong choice for a wedding. A large group shot might be an exception. We don't need 36mp of ring though.<br>

Time is money and an spending it on larger files than you need just cuts into your profit margin. I'd take a D3 or D700 over any Nikon FF body at the moment save the D4 for weddings. D800, great for in the studio and landscapes. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hi Oksana. The listed lenses just perfect, you don't need anything else, and do not spend money just to get a Nikon brand. The Sigma macro would do the same thing for you, and the close-up images quality and beauty depend on you, not the lens. If your photography style involve architecture or wide landscape, you may need a wider lens then the 35mm. 24mm would do it.<br>

It is very simple, it dosen't need a whole page of explanation.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Just wanted to give you guys update, if you are interested. I go ahead and bought Nikon 24-70 and Nikon 70-200 VR for a start. LOVE LOVE LOVE my new long lens, it is awesome!!! But the wide zoom goes back to the seller today. I am sure it is defective for it is not sharp at any focal length nor apeture, tripod or not. Beware of the danger of buying a used lens :o) Though I am sure a new lens could have been defective as well.</p>

<p>I am still deciding on an FX body...</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...