D800

Downsides?

 

Any comparable option that I should consider as a headshot photographer? I do occasional weddings.

A D2X with 12.4MP, 8 FPS, is an alternative. In fact I believe it is BETTER for this purpose and it's just a few hundred dollars on used market. D800 is 4 FPS with a cumbersome 36MP that is not needed for headshots.

I agree that 36MP is not needed for headshots, but using a d2 for jobs that might need to be shot in low light is inadvisable. The sensor is disastrous in low light/high ISO compared to even the very next cameras issued by Nikon, the D3 and D700...both of which would make way better choices for the stated purpose.

While I'm not going to dispute that a D2x can be used to take decent head shots, I'm afraid I really struggle to claim it's "better" than a D800 at the task. I'm not sure whether Mary is joking.

 

On resolution: I would argue it's always better to have more resolution captured that you can then throw away. You can always downsize in software - or in the camera if you're shooting JPEG. You might be asked to do a poster print of a headshot. You certainly might find, at a wedding, that clients like to scroll around a digital image and look for relatives in the background (it's not just about print size, these days). 36MP is an incremental improvement over, say, 24MP from a D750 (or even D7200), but it's an improvement. Storage is relatively inexpensive these days (yes, not free), and any moderately recent computer shouldn't struggle - now we're in days where 4GB of RAM isn't enough to get Windows to run cleanly without actually doing anything, an extra few MB for an image doesn't make much difference. I'm still using an early-2013 vintage Macbook Pro, and my only problem is the need to use external hard disks because I'm bad at throwing away unwanted images. If I didn't keep every photo ever, I'd be fine with the internal drive.

 

On age: The D800 still uses the current EN-EL15 battery used by the D810 and D850 (and D500, and D750); they're easily available. Admittedly, third-party clones of the D2x's EN-EL4a are available, but the originals are a few years out of date. The D800 can use current and cheap SD cards alongside still-current CF cards, and it uses them quickly; it'll also work with an Eye-Fi if you want to transfer your images to a computer or cloud cheaply and wirelessly (and slowly). I strongly suspect you'll have better luck with repairs on a D800 than a D2x because of part availability, and things that fail over time are more likely to fail on an older camera.

 

On features: The D800 can shoot video. It has live view, if you want precise focus (although the D800's live view is a bit annoying) - and the screen is much better than the D2x's. It's much lighter than the D2x (with batteries) so you'll be a little more nimble. It has an integrated flash that you can use to trigger remote flashes. It has a wider AF area with eye tracking (your subject can move! you can focus off centre!) and more complex metering than the D2x. (The D810's autofocus is, in my experience, slightly more reliable, but less good in low light; the D750's is better in low light but a little more clustered in the centre of the frame.) It's an FX camera, so if you have full-frame lenses you can make full use of them; this means you can get equivalent depth of field control at a smaller relative aperture (although with a longer lens), which tends to mean fewer lens aberrations for the same look (insert contentious argument about equivalence here). The 14-24/24-70/70-200 set of f/2.8 lenses is very high quality and somewhat more flexible than the nearest DX equivalents, although they're bigger and not cheap. You have more depth of field control with fast prime lenses. Most importantly, for me, the dynamic range of the D8x0 series is exceptional - at low ISO in raw there's a lot of recovery you can do it editing, and having shot a friend's wedding on a beach where the groomsmen wore beige and stood in direct sun and the bridesmaids wore dark purple and stood in the shade (so they didn't cook), that can make a big difference - especially if you don't like intrusive flashes (and getting them colour balanced). At high ISO for low light, the D800 is not quite up to D3s levels, but blows even the D700 out of the water, let alone a D2x. The D800 can go up to 5fps if you drop it to a 1.2x crop; 6fps if you go to DX crop (which is the same area and more resolution than the D2x at 5fps; the D2x's 8fps is even more cropped and only 6.8MP) if you add a grip - not that what you've suggested obviously needs high frame rates. You've got an FX viewfinder, which means more light so you can see what you're doing better in a wedding.

 

YMMV, but I'd not really pick up a D2x for anything other than historical interest these days. Even if you want a fast DX camera, the D7500 will do 8fps at full resolution.

 

As for alternatives: I'd take the dynamic range and low light performance of a D800 over a D3 or D700. I'd not drop to the D600 or D610 because of the autofocus limitations (although they're not bad, per se.). I suspect the alternatives (in Nikon land) are a D810 (better in many subtle ways, but obviously more expensive, although expect the market to flood fairly soon as people upgrade to the D850) or a D750 (lower resolution, lighter body, slightly faster, better low-light AF, a few minor limitations compared with the "pro" D800). There's also the D800 vs D800e question - I went "e" and, with a little software fixing moire, never regretted it, but the AA filter on the D800 is so mild anyway that you won't lose much resolution, but you'll also still get some moire. All else being equal I'd get the "E", but I wouldn't sweat it if the plain D800 was a better bargain.

 

Unless you need the full frame rate, I'd say the D3 and D700 (+ grip) are significantly worse options than the D800. The D3x is pretty universally worse than a D800 unless you really like the body design. The D3s is better on image quality in very low light, but much worse in good light, and obviously you don't have the resolution. The D4 and D4s split the difference, and are likely still to cost more. Technically the Df is also an option, but it's really a D4 in a relatively expensive body with F3-style controls, and if you don't know you want one, you probably don't.

 

Or, if you don't already have a load of FX lenses, you could consider something like a D7100, D7200 or D7500.

 

In Canon land, if you don't have Nikon lenses, there's the 5D3 (less resolution, less dynamic range, a bit quicker - kind of like a heavier D750), the 5D4 (current and expensive - still less resolution, and less dynamic range but not so much so as the 5D3) and the 5Ds® (current, higher resolution than the D800, but slow and with bad dynamic range). Pentax will sell you a K-1, which has some nice features but is otherwise a D800 with worse autofocus. Sony will sell you an A7r or A7rII (or, at lower resolution, the plain A7) - but there have been less than glowing reviews about the handling of those cameras.

 

I hope that run-down helps. I wouldn't regret buying a D800 for what you suggest, although there are certainly alternatives that win in some areas and lose in others.

Downsides?

 

Any comparable option that I should consider as a headshot photographer? I do occasional weddings.

I'm not sure you can beat it for the price. It has a great sensor for portraits. If you buy one, check out the AF thoroughly, including the accuracy of the side points, as there were some issues early on (my secondhand D800 had already been back to Nikon to fix this before I bought it). It isn't the quietest or lightest camera around and the framerate is fairly low, but I doubt that will bother you. The files shouldn't be a problem for any reasonably modern computer.

I personally let go a big sigh of relief when I upgraded from the DX D2X to the FX D3 in 2008 (was an early adapter of the latter)

 

Don't get me wrong, the D2X had excellent AF (for its time), excellent IQ at low ISO, and the HSC crop saved me when using it to shoot surf (turning my 4/200-400VR1 into a virtual 4/400-800, be it at the cost of the 12 MP DX crop, in HSC reduced to a crop of a mere 6 MP)

 

But the D3 had better AF, much better IQ, much better high ISO (the D2X basically maxes out at ISO 800, while the D3 files still are much better even at ISO 6400), a wider (faster) range of shutter speeds usable with Auto ISO, and much better IQ and DR when using higher ISO.

The better high ISO maybe is not much of an issue if you only use the D2X in the studio in combination with flash, but a real world deal breaker when you are forced to shoot with available / low level natural light (eg open shadow under some trees or in the shade of a building)

 

I upgraded to a D800 shortly after its introduction in 2012 (actually, got one after I traded in my back up D3, never needed it as my nr 1 D3 kept working flawlessly as it still does five years on, nearly ten years after its introduction) although I must hasten to add I'm not always a first buyer, only buy a new body if I see a real upgrade compared to a previous older model.

I a.o. shoot a fair bit of fashion and catwalk, and the D3 12MP sometimes were too little to really allow showing details, while it left liitle room for cropping in post when processing the catwalk shots

 

IMO the high ISO is on par with the D3, the AF is not as snappy, but is fast and reliable enough for shooting under less then ideal conditions (unlike the D810, which is superior under good light, but is flawed under low light conditions), and the IQ is much, much better

 

Some early serie D800's had issues with the left AF point when used with wide angle lenses at full (open) aperture, and as usual that gave fuel for a lot of ill informed (not based on personal experience but rather on 'I read it somewhere') hysteria on the internet

I have 2 D800's I have been using for years now shooting surf, hasion catwalk and beauty (the latter with eg 1.4/85 AFD and 1.4/58 AFS wide open) for years now and never ran into the above issue. Never even have applied AF fine tuning with any of my AF D and AFS lenses as far as that is concerned

 

'Problems' with the D800 are from a technical point of view the higher demands on lenses and shooting technique due to the 36MP, and for an 'esthetical' point of view when taking headshots the amount of detail (pores, creases, 'below the eye' shadow) due to those 36MP

As far as storage and processing is concerned, cards and external harddisks are (relatively) cheap nowadays, while most modern computers/laptops have no problems with the approx. 45-55 MB lossless compressed NEF files of the D800

I personally don't see any advantage of 8 fps over 4 fps when doing headshots in a studio, only very few (and expensive) studio flashes can follow that speed rate,

anyway, and sorry, 8 fps (or 4 fps for that matter) for doing a headshot ?!!

 

From a practical point of view, yes 36MP is a lot, but for most newer model DSLR's 24 MP already is kind of standard, so shouldn't really be a biggy.

And of course the D800 lack the built in power grip, making it a lot lighter (and thus easier) to schlep around all day

Don't shoot vieo, so can't say anything on that ...

 

I didn't upgrade to a D810 after that was introduced, despite the improvements and refinements in many areas', for the things important to me (AF, IQ nd high ISO) those improvements were too little (the low light AF had even worsened) to justify (for me) the extra expense for getting one

 

So if you can find a relatively low click one at a low price (plenty of those around after the introduction of the D850) I don't see any real objections against maybe getting on

 

(Nikon D800 1.4/58mm AFS /2000s f/2.2 at iso 400)

 

Edited September 8, 2017 by paul_k

A D750 would work nicely for you in my opinion.

While my D800 is off for repair(hopefully will be back in the next week) I've used a D2X as my main DSLR.

 

There is nothing WRONG with the D2X per se-it's still a great camera. I also can't get around the fact that I love how the single-digit D bodies handle. Still, the D2X has its issues, and IMO its biggest achilles heel is its high ISO performance. I rarely use mine above ISO 400, and don't really even like to go that high.

 

I don't hesitate to use mine and it is a capable camera. Still, it was Nikon's first CMOS camera, and it shows that there were some teething pains in its inferior noise performance relative to CCDs of the same age(my D70 is a better high ISO camera, even though it's not great).

 

With that said, the D800 runs circles around it in image quality in pretty much every conceivable way. ISO 1600 images from it are perfectly usable, and the dynamic range is MUCH better than the D2X.

Having used the D2 series quite a bit for news work I can say it's a good camera and quite capable. It's quick and doesn't get in the way of what you are doing. It has its limitations but is also priced very nicely. I still use a pair of D200's for a lot of things. I recently bought a D800 as my first FX camera and it is substantially better if not quite as fast. I'm giving serious thought to a used D4 I saw the other day locally. Unless cost is a major factor I'd go with the 800. If it is possible though I would get the D2X as a very capable backup.

 

Rick H.

One feature that limits all cameras prior to the D3/D300 (I think this is correct) is the lack of AF fine tune. AF fine tune can be very important if the headshot photography is done with longer lenses at wide apertures.

 

On a whim, I bought a D2x about 6 months ago, wondered why the ebay seller was so anxious to accept my lowish offer. Although the camera looked nice and had a low count, the shutter locked up on occasion. The seller of course claimed that was the first time, but wound up sending me a substantial refund. I see a lot of inop D2x cameras around, it seems.

 

Although I can see the appeal of a pro body D2x, I can't see spending as much on one as for a D300 or later camera.

 

Oh, Back to the OP's question, I had a D800 before going to a D810. I see some good bargains on D800s, and have thought of getting one again as a 2nd body. A lot of camera for the money, now. Although I never directly compared the D800 (sold to finance D810) to my D810, I somehow have a small impression that I liked the JPG portrait rendition of the D800 slightly better than the D810, at least before I tweaked the D810 picture control slightly, but the D810 is a better all purpose camera for my uses that include sports.

 

Other choices might include a D750 (have not tried) or D3s (my current 2nd body).

I'm afraid I really struggle to claim it's "better" than D800 at the task. I'm not sure whether Mary is joking.

No not joking. OK maybe it is not better, just pros and cons - limiting the comments to the usage OP mentioned. I wasn't saying that it is better than D800 on everything and for every usage under every different condition. I am sure many other cameras can do head shots adequately as well. But D2X is fast and it's inexpensive these days. D800 costs a lot more.

 

D2X pros: 8fps and lesser MP=less cumbersome and faster darkroom processing. Professional headshots are usually conducted in the studio with sufficient lighting requirement. I have not handled a D2X a lot but from experience I had using it with an f/2.8 lens in a studio, it worked wonders and fast turnaround with quick loading for enhancement on the computer. It's an inexpensive pro camera and it gets the job done. :)

 

Many other cameras can do well as well. D2X is a good deal for proficient results. That said, please get one that's in good-excellent condition.

Edited September 9, 2017 by Mary Doo

On second thought, forget my recommendation of D2X. D800 is good. I had used it for weddings and it performed very well. D800 is a very good camera in many aspects.

 

I suggested D2X only because I was thinking OP was looking for a cost-effective alternative for studio headshots. But this may not be the case.

Edited September 9, 2017 by Mary Doo

Quite fail to understand why the D2X was even suggested - if I indeed was to go back in time and pick a camera with a non-current battery and outdated technology, then a D300 (possible with MB-D10) would be my pick over a D2X. Either as an alternative to a D800 - no.

 

Any comparable option that I should consider

D800E or D810, naturally. And now, naturally, the D850. Budget-permitting, of course; with the D800 the lowest price entry into the 36+MP club. D7200 or D7500 are possibilities if DX is an option.

Bit depth and dynamic range are both important to me with portraits or full body shots. The D800 does quite good on these (among other things) and is only bested by the D810 and D850 but even here only slightly in most instances. My D800 is still my body of choice for all portrait, fashion, and similar. Only if I really need speed (animals, sports) or high ISO do I go for my D5.

 

I thought about upgrading to a D800e and D810 and while both were better I just didn't see enough improvement to be worth the money. I will probably upgrade to the D850 but I'm not at all in a rush to do so.

I've been using a pair of d800E (ALWAYS have a back up camera) for weddings for the past two years. No issues at all. I really like the ability to make big enlargements or crop down the 36mp gives. Used prices are already low and will now likely go below $1,000. A D750 would do what you want as well. I would not buy any camera older than D800/E for wedding use as they are beginning to get a bit old. A D2/D3 type camera is much larger and heavier, something I avoid for all day weddings for sure.

 

 

Kent in SD

Quite fail to understand why the D2X was even suggested

It's a valid suggestion for head shots and portraits in a studio environment. You may not be aware of it but that's what a lot of studios still use for professional work.

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with buying and using a D800 today, I bought one when it first came out and it has been a great camera. I can't say that I have used it as much during the last few years but when I do use it I am always impressed at the image quality and the incredible amount you can crop from an image and still get a good final image/ print. I have a D7200 as a walk around camera and it has pretty good image quality too, just not on the same level as the D800.

What! My D800 is out of date and there are replacements for it?!

When did this happen?

 

I'd never have known it from the image quality it delivers.

Mary wrote:

 

> No not joking. OK maybe it is not better, just pros and cons

 

Ah, thanks for explaining, Mary. True that the file sizes are smaller, if that's a concern; all else being equal I can't argue that a D2x (or even a D70) aren't "good enough" in good conditions. I hope I didn't cause offence, I was just trying to understand.

 

The image quality of the D800 is still very much competitive. The D810 and, apparently, D850 have a slight boost at ISO64. The D810 is actually a little worse in testing at ISO 100 than the D800 is, although not so as you'd notice. The advances in the later cameras are in handling - speed, better live view behaviour, more reliable autofocus, quieter, a bit more flexible, etc. Such is progress, but Nikon (and most other people) have been making very usable cameras for many years now, so all changes are incremental. And I believe I still have a few requests for the D850 successor (or bios update, whichever happens first).