The Perfect "Nikon" Wedding Camera

[jon_menezes]

<p>The d7000 as a backup would be a great starting point, especially when i have a d700. if that was a typo then I dont have any issue with what you said. I didnt have an issue with everyones posts, not even those who had a different point of view, just those that come accross very ignorant.</p>

[cyrus_procter]

<p>Arguments against the D4? I've 6000 of them. Maybe the better question is what are you getting with the D4 that aren't getting with the D800? Built in joystick for quick focus point? Built in battery pack, 10FPS, and 12,800 ISO? QXD card, although this will probably be a hindrance, a 32GB QXD card currently sells for $230, and there are very few options right now. I think 36MP can be trouble for a wedding, I wish Nikon had implemented a full, medium and small RAW like Canon cameras, but alas, if you want to shoot raw you are pretty much stuck with 36MP. None the less at lower ISOs, you are getting more than just the ability to zoom in, you will capture far more colors than the D4 is capable of, or for that matter any other 35mm DSLR camera on the planet. You will also get more dynamic range. When you shoot that summer wedding and you have to worry about keeping the sky and your subject exposed properly you'll have over a stop of extra range over the D4 and even more than the D3s\D700. I don't know about you, but that's pretty big, that might be the difference between me have a white blown out sky, or a nice blue sky (with post processing of course, but only if there is enough dynamic range to bring it back). These are things that D800 does better than any other DSLR on the planet.</p>

<p>Jon, you ever shoot in a dark environment at a wedding? Ever had trouble locking focus in dark areas? The camera hunts and tries to catch its focus point? That's because the AF is only so sensitive in low light scenarios. The D4\D800 have AF systems that are twice as sensitive in low light. This to me is huge, because I know when I was shooting a pair of D3s's even with 50mm and 24mm F/1.4G lenses, the cameras do struggle to capture the image. This is a solid argument against the D3s in my book because when you are in low light, its really irrelevant if your camera goes to 1,000,000 ISO if it can only focus in lighting equivalent to ISO 1600.</p>

<p>A solid point is the D800 has the ability to zoom into DX mode and still produce a 15.4MP image. I don't know about you but there is always that scenario at an event where I would like to be closer, the ability to quickly switch to DX mode and be 50% closer without changing lenses is a real bonus in my book. The D4 does have this ability but with much, much less resolution.<br>

Eric, my issues with Nikon's current line up of cameras is a direct result of using them, and has been present since I started using their professional lineup over 2 years ago. A good example was after using the D3s extensively and since I often shoot in portrait mode, I was annoyed at how I had to change the focus point. I used a D7000 with the battery pack and a lovely joystick and it made my job much easier, I spent more time making good photos and less time fiddling with buttons. The fact that its on the D4 and not the D3s is a big deal to me because I shoot in portrait mode often and in a wedding environment I don't have time to fiddle with the D3s's inability to efficiently select the AF point while in portrait orientation. It has nothing to do with Nikon's marketing campaign poo-pooing old models. I've been in more than one scenario where I missed a series of shots because the D3s could not focus, the light was too low. Would the D4\D800 focus there? I don't know, maybe, maybe not, but I know it will be more likely to do so. While I'm sure people can still make amazing photos using the D200, or D100 or D1 or whatever, I know that they will be limited in making photos compared someone using a modern camera in a high stress, fast paced, and extreme lighting scenarios that is most wedding photography. Now this is different as time goes on, because technology makes such huge strides that at some point it doesn't get terribly lots better. None the less as a photographer going in to shoot a wedding I know will have low light scenarios, I would feel much, much more comfortable with a D4\D800 than a D3s\D700. Does that mean its a necessity? Won't know till the D3s can't focus and I miss the shot, that's why I would prefer to have the better. Of course the D4\D800 may have difficulties too, but if they are having difficulties the D3s\D700 will be much worse.</p>

<p> </p>

[jon_menezes]

<p>Skyler your dynamic range arguement is the first solid argument for the D800 in my opinion. The 36mp is my biggest issue against it. From what i have seen its low light ability is only surpassed by the d4. This has finally given me a reason to consider the d800. Oh and the autofocus point is a good one. My d700 does a good job, but there are those times that it can be better. Thanks for the solid advice. I am just really having a hard time with the large file issues, my 1tb hard drive is already pretty full. I have it backed up but i like to keep current work on it for the time the clients like to get prints. And making a jump to the D800 will make this a bigger issue.<br>

Jon M Photography</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>According to the DXOMark site, all sensor tests "measurements are performed on the RAW image file BEFORE demosaicing or other processing prior to final image delivery." "<strong>Sensor Overall Score</strong><strong> is normalized for a defined printing scenario</strong>—8Mpix printed on 8"x12"". - this is the only test that they claim they re-sample.</em></p>

<p>All the data presented in the sensor rankings in the "print" tab are normalized while the "screen" tabs show pixel level results. And all the sub scores of the sensor over all score are based on the "print" (i.e. normalized) measurements. But the key is that nowhere in the sensor rankings do they evaluate <em>detail</em>. So the fact that e.g. the D800 has 36MP and renders more detail is not considered at all in their sensor evaluations. Neither is the difference in detail at ISO 6400 between the D4 and D3s considered. DXO present a very limited evaluation of image quality in their sensor performance testing, but a useful one nonetheless since it's the only site that provide normalized SNR data which is useful for understanding how the quality looks in small to medium prints.</p>

<p><em>For typical shooting, I still maintain that it will likely be hard to see significant AF differences between the cameras. I shoot a lot of sports with my D3, mainly with the 70-200mm, and my in-focus rate is in the high 90% range.</em></p>

<p>Wedding photography and sports photography place quite different demands on AF. At weddings, the action is usually slow but the lighting can be very difficult. The ceremony is often indoors in a venue where ISO 6400 may be required to get to use such a small aperture as f/2.8 instead of being forced to use f/2 or f/1.4 (which I usually prefer, but I've run into having to use f/1.4 and 6400 together). In these kinds of conditions, at dark churches, or reception halls, the peripheral AF points of the D3/D3X/D700 hunt very easily. Sure, you can use the assist light if you don't mind shining obvious red light on the subjects, but it generally helps only with focusing using the center point. The sensitivity in low light is what Nikon claims to have improved, and others have confirmed that the new system works significantly better in low light. I will have some opportunity to test this tonight at a figure skating gala, but no rigorous testing obviously.</p>

<p><em>I wish Nikon had implemented a full, medium and small RAW like Canon cameras</em><br>

<em></em> <br>

Those Canon files are actually JPGs inside, at least that's what people who have deciphered the format say. And Nikon does have JPG options in the camera, and compressed RAW formats.</p>

<p><em>When you shoot that summer wedding and you have to worry about keeping the sky and your subject exposed properly you'll have over a stop of extra range over the D4 and even more than the D3s\D700.</em></p>

<p>At base ISO, the D800 leads the DR contest, with the D4 and D3X next, but at least I prefer the look of subdued lighting i.e. sunlight through clouds or trees instead of harsh direct sunlight. It simply looks much better irrespective of which camera you use. And there is absolutely no problem in getting very high quality results in subdued daylight with even the D700, certainly not from the point of view of dynamic range. You have to remember that the camera dynamic range is much greater than any display / presentation medium's dynamic range, and to present the enhanced dynamic range to the eye you have to map the tones in the image into new tones with local contrast separated from global contrast using some post-processing technique. Wedding photographers predominantly do this with lighting instead of post-processing and I can pretty much guarantee that this continues to give better results even with the D800 than using post-processing to recover the shadows. Now, for landscape photographers the situation is different as they can not in general use flash due to the long distances involved. These photographers will benefit from the D800's increased dynamic range. As for the colours, I'll take your word for it, I find the D700 and D3X colours just fine; certainly the D3X at ISO 100-200 is better but the question again becomes that of how good the reproducing medium is and how discerning the clients are.</p>

<p>Of course by ISO 400 the D4 will have caught up with the D800's dynamic range and at higher ISO takes the lead (which may be subtle but the shadows at 6400 and 12800 ISO seems to be much more noisy in D800 than D4 captures). And for me at least, the quality of any Nikon FX camera at ISO 100-400 is more than sufficient (in people photography in general), while at ISO 6400 and above any improvement here is a big help.</p>

<p>Personally even when I use lighting I often am at ISO 400-800 because I want to include existing light and may need some depth of field for formals. At these ISOs, the D800 without doubt gives more detailed images, useful for large prints and group shots, but from an SNR point of view there isn't so much of an advantage left (assuming DXOMark got their figures correctly). This is the ISO range of the majority of my people photography during the daytime, with evening shots at 800-3200 and possibly higher than that if the quality of the sensor allows. The D800 DR and colour advantages are mainly there at the lowest of ISO which I would not be able to use without large portable studio lights anyway, something that I'm not willing to lug around the fields.</p>

<p><em>A solid point is the D800 has the ability to zoom into DX mode and still produce a 15.4MP image. I don't know about you but there is always that scenario at an event where I would like to be closer, the ability to quickly switch to DX mode and be 50% closer without changing lenses is a real bonus in my book.</em></p>

<p>This is nice when you need it and helps compensate for the limited AF point coverage that is available on FX cameras. I often crop 25% of the image to reframe it if I want the main subject nearer the edge of the frame, and with the D3X I can do this with higher quality end result than 12MP cameras. The D800 is better still and works out better in low light than the D3X obviously, but there isn't all that much extra croppability there in images (I haven't used the D800 but I have used the D7000 quite a bit and it has ca. the same pixel density) if the focus isn't perfect. And of course those SNR, DR, and colour advantages diminish as you throw away image area. So it's better to frame as closely as possible in camera, crop a bit when needed, but it's not like there will be infinite zooming options while retaining high quality. I personally enjoy this option and take advantage of it but I recognize the drawbacks as well. Usually I only crop from one side or slightly from two sides to get the aspect ratio and composition I want.</p>

<p>Still, I prefer the D4 over the D800 purely from an ergonomics point of view and I can wait for future models with high resolution <em>and</em> better ergonomics than the D800; I'm not stuck on the model that I <em>have to</em> have high resolution images; 16-24MP are fine for me and with my lenses the image quality is very high. I even continue to enjoy the D700, though it is a bit worn by now and I find the mirror slap loudness to sometimes prohibit me from using it. The easier setting of focus points and other AF advantages as well as moderately increased resolution will be what look forward to in the D4. With slight tweaks into the D800 viewfinder and the shape of the camera that would have been my preferred choice but alas, it wasn't to be.</p>

[cyrus_procter]

<p>Ilkka,<br>

You have an interesting take. Personally I find myself in scenarios beyond my control, and yes, I know that it requires post processing to get all the dynamic range from a camera, and under most scenarios a D700 is fine, but there have been plenty of times that I couldn't recover a sky from my D3s where I could from my D7000....<br>

<br />Sure I try to get the people I'm photographing in the best place visually, but in the kind of wedding environments I'm in, I find sometimes I do sometimes I don't, which is the reason I would prefer to have as much information to play with in the times I don't get a say over lighting and\or location. Of course this is a double edged sword because during the day the higher DR of the D800 will be better and during the night the better DR\SNR of the D4 will be better. Optimally one would have one of each models so that one can put their strengths to good use when the time is right.</p>

<p>Don't take my word for it, check out DxO optics report, the color bit depth is much higher. Bit depth is measure exponentially, so 1 bit is a huge increase.</p>

<p>Where do you get the whole idea that by ISO 400 the D4 will have caught up? I'm not saying your wrong, personally in my observations between the D3s and D7000 (which have similar pixels counts to the D4\D800) its more like ISO 800 before I start seeing them to be equal, ISO 1600 the D3s is clearly better edge by ISO 3200 the difference is big. Remember the D4 looses detail too as its ISOs go up, its just a slower decrease.</p>

<p>I never ever implied there would be infinite zooming options. I just know that in the wedding scenario I frequently find that it helps to be a little closer to the action. While I could do it in post if I go to DX mode and snap the shot I don't have to worry about re framing it later. Also as the OP and you have pointed out without ceasing, the 36MP is a little much, so by shooting DX when its applicable you are saving your self 20MPs worth of space every shot. There is no hope with you, you complain 36mp is too much, then you complain that the DX crop looses SNR, DR, & color advantages because you have less pixels. I thought you would be thrilled that you were still above the SNR, DR, & Color of most Nikon DSLRs while having less pixels to deal with.</p>

<p>While I have heard the theories that Canon's small and medium RAWs are weak, I know they are stronger than there small and medium JPEG counterparts. Regardless of what Canon is doing it, it would still be nice if you could rework the camera's debayer to give you 20MPs or 16MPs in RAW in FX if you wished.</p>

<p>I agree, but that's why I'll buy a battery pack, and get the ergonomics a lot closer. Still I wish Nikon had put the focus joystick on the D800.</p>

<p>Personally I do a lot of video editing professionally, this makes me very bias because I've got video projects that take up 1.5TBs and programs that frequently suck my 12GB RAM dry (I've been threatening to upgrade to 24GB forever). I've even created some Gigapixel images (1,000megapixels). So for me the 36MP file size is not a terribly big deal except for archival, it does eat up hard drives fast. So I think I'll process everything in 36MP, render out JPEGs at that res and then once the clients are happy and the job is all wrapped up I'll store the JPEGS along with rendered out DNGs from Lightroom, probably re-size them to 20MPs.</p>

<p>Also I do archival by purchasing a blank bare internal drive, using a docking station to store the photos and then putting the drive on a shelf when finished. Right now looking at Newegg's website, a 3TB drive is $170, and calculating that a 36MP RAW file averages 75MB, that's 38,000+ photos. Figure I'll rack up no more than 2000 photos per wedding that averages out to about $9 per wedding it costs me to archive the photos. $9 per wedding is not a deal breaker for me. Its just a cost of doing business. If that's still too much I'll resize them to 20MPs which will almost double the space.</p>

[vincedistefano]

<blockquote>

 

 

<p>"Crop properly at time of capture at 12/16mp or crop really sloppy and correct in post at 36mp?"</p>

 

 

 

</blockquote>

 

 

<p>I see this a lot and I don't understand this thinking that it has to be one or the other. Haven't you ever been in a situation where a scene has just unfolded, you don't have time to compose, so you just shoot wide so that you have a shot? Something is better than nothing. This is why I'm ramped-up to get my D800. I don't mind cropping in post at 36 mp when the alternative might have been to not get the photo in the first place. Cropping a shot taken that way with my D300, I might be limited to a 4x6 print. With the D800, I can make prints from mistakes as large as prints done from properly-cropped photos.<br>

And I'm also curious - those who insist you frame a shot properly so that you don't have to crop in post: are you not doing ANY post, then, on those images? Because, once an image is opened up for post-processing - maybe a little noise reduction, a little sharpness or saturation or whatever - it's not like it takes more than a few seconds to adjust the crop anyways.</p>

 

 

 

[elliot1]

<p><em>W</em>hen using the proper equipment (other than cameras), focusing in the dark is not an issue. A fast lens and infrared focus assist easily handle such situations. </p>

<p>I don't think anyone is truly disputing the advantages of the new bodies. I just find it odd that all of a sudden cameras that have worked fine under difficult circumstances now no longer can get the job done.</p>

[cyrus_procter]

<p>That depends Elliot, there are times when fast glass helps, there are times when infrared can help and there are times when both don't help. I've been in more scenarios than I can shake a stick at where both where no help.</p>

<p>I'm not suggesting that the old cameras can't get the job, that's cold hard fact, its been proven millions of times the world over by photographers near and far that making great pictures, even in low light is totally possible the D3\s\D700 series of cameras (and many others as well). What I am saying is these new cameras will allow us to go to places previously not possible with older cameras. Isn't that true of the D3\D700 series? We could shoot in low light levels that previously was not possible. Does that mean that D2x is crap? Nope, it just means the D3 could go places the D2x couldn't ISO wise. And likewise the D4 can go places the D3s can't in terms of low light focus. I don't see how that is up for debate. What we are debating is, will we be in those extreme scenarios often enough to justify the cost of the upgrade? And even if we are, are we ok with being limited in those extreme environments? That's something each photographer must answer for him\herself.</p>

 

[cyrus_procter]

<blockquote>

<p>And I'm also curious - those who insist you frame a shot properly so that you don't have to crop in post: are you not doing ANY post, then, on those images? Because, once an image is opened up for post-processing - maybe a little noise reduction, a little sharpness or saturation or whatever - it's not like it takes more than a few seconds to adjust the crop anyways.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When I shoot a wedding, I would say I average between 1500-2000 images, every few seconds saved makes a big difference :). Besides I'll frequently take a series of images shot under the same conditions and add a universal touch up, maybe tweaking one or two images, but you can't add universal cropped :)</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

[dan_south]

>> Jon Menezes , Apr 18, 2012; 11:35 p.m.

The d7000 as a backup would be a great starting point, especially when i have a d700. if that was a typo then I dont have

any issue with what you said. I didnt have an issue with everyones posts, not even those who had a different point of

view, just those that come accross very ignorant.

<<

 

It was a serious and well considered suggestion. You use a combination of DX and FX today, so my assumption was that

you would continue to do so. By selling the D700 and D300s you'd have a good bit of cash to invest toward your D4 or

D3s. The D4 and the D7000 both have dual card slots, very attractive for event photography.

 

Over and out

[jon_menezes]

<p>Not to jump all over you, but I dont even use the D7000 now, I use my D300s. The quality just isnt there. I am definitely aiming to go all full frame. I am interested in the newer models cause of the great image quality, so why would I upgrade on that end in comparison to the D700, and then downgrade from the D700, even the D300s for the D7000. It just doesnt make sense to me.<br>

Jon<br /><a href="http://www.jonmphotography.com/lake-tahoe-wedding-photographer-ashly-geno">Lake Tahoe Wedding Photographer </a></p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p> I dont even use the D7000 now, I use my D300s. The quality just isnt there. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's fine, just accept that it's only a perception. Plenty of pros use the D300/s for weddings. The quality IS there. You may perceive the D7000 to be a downgrade. Tests would indicate otherwise, plus it has dual card slots, a valuable asset for event photography.</p>

<p>That said, perhaps I should have read the OP's posts more carefully before trying to offer advice.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Im shocked by the responses I have received. Seems like a lot of hot air going on. I dont know if its jealousy</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>im getting a lot of hot air with little convincing facts.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I believe your argument is worthless</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>you should get off your high horse and realize you dont know nearly what im assuming you think you do. </p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>So everyone that is being naive you should ... realize youre wrong.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I didnt have an issue with everyones posts, just those that come accross very ignorant.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm at a loss for words at this point.</p>

 

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Where do you get the whole idea that by ISO 400 the D4 will have caught up?</em></p>

<p>If you look at the dynamic range and color sensitivity curves of the D800 and D4 at:</p>

<p>http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Nikon-D800-Review/Sensor-performance</p>

<p>you can see that the two curves (DR and CS) cross at somewhere between ISO 200 and 400 (measured ISO). 18% gray SNR curve is actually very close between the two.</p>

<p><em>Also as the OP and you have pointed out without ceasing, the 36MP is a little much, so by shooting DX when its applicable you are saving your self 20MPs worth of space every shot.</em></p>

<p>One problem with that approach is that the DX area occupies only a small part of the D800 viewfinder, so it's very difficult to judge human expressions using that tiny image (cameras that have DX sensors have greater viewfinder magnification which helps a bit). It's also extremely difficult to judge critical focus using the cropped optical VF image sufficiently accurately to be of value. Thus you don't know what the camera has focused on, and you don't know what the subject expressions are. How can then one decide when to take a shot if one is shooting almost blindly? I worked with the D7000 for six months or so, then I decided to sell it as I couldn't get it to focus well enough for me to be of value (outside of macro photography for which live view solves the problem). I think it's ok to do a lesser crop, such as 30% of the image area, but DX? That's a bit too much at least for me. And no way would I crop for the purposes of saving disk space or processing time. It would be like buying a truck of raw material and then pouring half of it into a ditch to save on gas.</p>

<p><em>There is no hope with you, </em></p>

<p>Why would you say that? I don't have any problem with the file sizes or the image quality of my current cameras nor the D4 which I will probably get within the next year or so. Also, the same is probably true of the Fuji X-Pro1 which I'm also considering. There are plenty of cameras which work great for me. </p>

<p><em>you complain that the DX crop looses SNR, DR, & color advantages because you have less pixels.</em></p>

<p>It does, and don't forget the reduced lens MTF when working in the DX crop mode (to get equal image quality you'd need to have a lens that can take a 1.5x increase in spatial frequency (per image dimension) without dropping at all. <br>

<em> </em></p>

<p><em>I thought you would be thrilled that you were still above the SNR, DR, & Color of most Nikon DSLRs while having less pixels to deal with.</em></p>

<p>The problem of a too large file is very small compared to the problems of cropping >50% of the image away, IMO. And since there are plenty of FX cameras with smaller files (as well as DX cameras with the whole system including lenses, focusing system, and viewfinder designed for that format, greatly alleviating the problems I've had with Nikon DX) it isn't even necessary to make such a choice.</p>

<p>I don't even have any issue with the D800's file size - as one option. But once they discontinue the D700 (which they eventually will) the D800 may be the only affordable FX camera that they make, and I question whether 36MP is rational for this (entry-level FX) market. The market certainly seems to <em>want</em> it, but we'll see what they think 12 - 24 months from now.</p>

<p>Wedding photography is mostly about story-telling, not about minuscule details of the dress (well, formal wedding photography may be about those details for some people, I would hope it's about the people but what do I know). </p>

[cyrus_procter]

<p>Ilkka,<br>

I think you made some solid points, thanks for the link to DxO optics, I didn't know they did that.</p>

<p>As I read over your post, I realize that a lot of our arguments are really personal based, on the way we shoot and what we want to get out of photography. A good example would be shooting in DX mode, I've shot a D3s, with the 400m F/2. 8 & 200mm F/2 shooting wildlife and sports, and I shot extensively in DX mode. I had absolutely no issues gauging focus, subject expression or anything else. I do admit I would have rather of had a dedicated DX view finder, but the want of a dedicated viewfinder was trumped by the need of one camera with versatility. The issue I did have was resolution, a 5somethingMP shot from the D3s simply isn't enough for my needs. That's why I'm thrilled with the D800, for those times that I do need that extra reach, I see myself going into DX mode frequently.</p>

<p>I do apologize about calling you hopeless, I was frustrated that you complain about the D800 having too many pixels and complain the crop mode loosing all the benefits.</p>

<p>We're all worried about details, your worried about too many megapixels, how is that not a minuscule detail? And even more, how is that not a detail that is not entirely selfish? After all your clients will benefit from higher resolution images (remember what you said about 12-24months down the road? Well what about in 25 years down the road when we have 40MP monitors?), the greater color depth, the greater DR. These things will all benefit your clients, but all the work is on your side, buying bigger cards, bigger hard drives, maybe improving your computer, all your issues are selfish ones. I want to capture the best image for my client. First and foremost its doing it from my heart, but my clients are not just paying for my art, they are paying for a quality level, and within reason I want to provide the best possible quality, and yes, that might mean I have to invest in bigger cards and bigger hard drives. As I sit here and type and think about it, I ask myself, what do my clients hire me for? Do they hire me to make sure my camera's RAW files don't take up too much space on my hard drives at home and that my computer can process them without too much trouble or do they hire me to capture details?</p>

<p> </p>