Travel d800 or d610

[nigel fraustbyte]

<p>Get a Fuji X100S and let your legs do the Zoomin</p>

[dcstep]

<p>You legs can't change your perspective like the right lens can, zoom or prime.</p>

[a_tang1]

<p>I had exactly the same dilemma, still have my D7000 too. I tried both cameras with the 50mmF1.8 in the store and decided on the D800. I chose it for the better viewfinder, autofocus and general 'feel' though the D610 is still a fantastic camera. I knew if i'd bought the D610 after a while i'd be wishing I went for the D800....</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>You legs can't change your perspective like the right lens can, zoom or prime.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On the contrary, you need to walk to change the perspective -if you stand at the same spot you can change lenses all you want, it'll never change the perspective, just the framing.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>It's more than angle of view (I guess that's what you mean by framing). An example where only framing changes is using a crop-sensor camera to shoot from the same spot with the same lens as a full-frame camera. In that case, only the angle of view changes with no change in magnification and compression. OTOH, if I put my 15mm lens on my full-frame camera and shoot Mount Evans from my balcony and then shoot it with the same body using my 500mm lens with a 2.0x TC on it, the compression dramatically changes. Reach, or telephoto power, is more than changing angle of view, although that is one of the components that does change.</p>

<p>Here's another example, you can change your perspective by walking up to within three feet of a tree and shooting it with the horizon in the BG; however, if you shoot that tree first with a 15mm lens and then shoot it with a 40mm lens and then crop the 15mm lens' image to achieve the same angle of view as the 40mm, the perspective will look different, once again, due to differences in compression.</p>

<p>Shooting with a 28mm and then moving closer to get the angle of view as a 35mm will be hardly noticeable, but there will be small differences.</p>

<p>Also, don't forget that it's often hard to move far enough away to get a desired wide-angle. Zooms allow you to move both forward and back. Walking is good for the heart and sticking with a prime lens can save a few bucks, but there will be shots that you just can take. I find that I need and use various set ups from 15mm to 1000mm, with zooms covering a lot of ground in the middle. (Pun intended).</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>angle of view (I guess that's what you mean by framing).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>OTOH, if I put my 15mm lens on my full-frame camera and shoot Mount Evans from my balcony and then shoot it with the same body using my 500mm lens with a 2.0x TC on it, the compression dramatically changes. Reach, or telephoto power, is more than changing angle of view, although that is one of the components that does change.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No it doesn't - you can crop that 1000mm view right out of that 15mm image - not with the same quality of course. Perspective (or call it compression), i.e. the relation between foreground and background elements will not change when you stand on the same spot and simply change lenses or zoom. You can see a demonstration of this here: http://imaging.nikon.com/history/basics/19/01.htm</p>

<blockquote>

<p>if you shoot that tree first with a 15mm lens and then shoot it with a 40mm lens and then crop the 15mm lens' image to achieve the same angle of view as the 40mm, the perspective will look different, once again, due to differences in compression</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wrong for the same reason already stated.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Shooting with a 28mm and then moving closer to get the angle of view as a 35mm will be hardly noticeable, but there will be small differences.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed - keeping the main subject at the same magnification will change the perspective. See this demonstration: http://www.photozone.de/focal-length-and-perspective or here: http://imaging.nikon.com/history/basics/19/03.htm</p>

<p> </p>

[Mary Doo]

<p><< No it doesn't - you can crop that 1000mm view right out of that 15mm image -<strong> not with the same quality of course</strong>. >><br /> There you go, "not with the same quality".</p>

<p>I love good quality zooms. The flexibility and effectiveness are unmatched, because I like to compose an image just so, right out of the box, not anything more, or less, than what is seen through the lens.</p>

<p>A prime lens has its place. There is nothing wrong with it. Even I have a few of them. However, walking back and forth in order to get a precise composition with a prime lens (the trite cliché of "let your legs do the zooming" or "zooming with your feet") on precipitous landscape is doable but not advisable, as it can be hazardous to one's health when one's mind concentrates on the photography of the moment.</p>

<p>Hiking and exercises are good for the body. But let's not get confused.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Mary, I think that he was saying that taking an image taken with a 15mm lens and cropping it to the angle of view of a 1000mm lens, would result in a poor quality image (due to pixelation from cropping so heavily). He wasn't saying that zooms are no good, at least not in that particular sentence.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>There you go, "not with the same quality".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just my - apparently futile - attempt to preempt comments that the crop will have fewer megapixels than the image taken with the 1000mm lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"let your legs do the zooming" or "zooming with your feet"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>From what I wrote above, it should be obvious that "zooming", i.e standing at the same spot and changing focal length is not the same as "using once legs"; in one case, perspective will change, in the other, it doesn't. So it's not only a cliché, it's also wrong - the images obtained when using one's legs will be different.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>He wasn't saying that zooms are no good, at least not in that particular sentence.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wasn't making any statements regarding the quality of zooms. In any case, this thread has taken a life on its own and none of this helps the OP in his decision whether a D800 or D610 suits his needs better.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>The D800E is not a huge camera. The files are huge, the camera, no.</p>

<p>If you check the overall dimensions on both cameras, you will see little difference.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[dan_south]

<p>I recommend setting your D800 to capture NEF files using the Lossless compression option. It trims 70+ megabyte files down to about 45 Mb. An extra 25 to 30 Mb per shot adds up not matter how big your memory cards are.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>Oops, sorry, Dieter, for taking some of your statements out of context. Someone through this thread, though, did mention "let your leg do the zooming". I am so tired of hearing that. ;)</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I recommend setting your D800 to capture NEF files using the Lossless compression option.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I have seen this setting but never used it. Is there really no loss of data at all? If not, then why on earth is this not the default setting?</p>

<p>Has anyone taken a series of shots using both settings to see--side by side--if there is any difference in the final JPEG output?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[ShunCheung]

"Zooming with you feet" means using you feet to control the zoom ring on the camera. Perhaps it would be easier with a

push/pull type zoom lens. :-)

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The reason lossless compressed and uncompressed are both provided is simply that on some computers which have fast storage media but relatively slow CPU, the uncompressed file, although larger, may open faster. Lossless compressed is just that - lossless. Compressed is ever so slightly lossy but the loss of precision is in the highlights where no one can see them in normal use since those pixels do not rely on the low bits carrying information. In practice it is virtually impossible to see the difference between compressed and lossless compressed (without torturing the file), and no difference at all between lossless compressed and uncompressed with regards to the opened file in a bitmap on the screen or the stored file as a 16 bit TIFF. JPG of course is always lossy and it is not at all difficult to see that loss in many cases. With JPG there is not only loss in the least significant bits, i.e. shadow detail, but also the detail is stored in an approximate way and the highest frequencies are left out leading to a slightly less resolving image.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Lossless is funny. With Apple iTune it means that they didn't lose anything because the started with a crappy file to begin with. I have little doubt that is a such a thing as true Lossless file compression, but Apple ruined the name forever with their silly audio format.</p>

[jack flannery]

<p>David, that is not true. Apple lossless is very similar to FLAC. It is just supported by iTunes and apple players. </p>

[dcstep]

<p>Well, maybe I'm not up to date because I stopped using Apple audio products when they wouldn't accept my Hi Rez files as Hi Rez. Got sick of those arrogant people trying to tell me what I needed.</p>