Df/D800E quandary or blessing

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>While I am much, much to young to join this thread (at slightly under 40 still), I think you do the right thing in keeping the D800; if there is no reason to recoup the money, better to keep such an excellent and useful tool at hand.<br>

As for the 200 f/4 - stop tempting me! :-) I already have too much lenses and this is one lens that keeps popping up in my head. 52mm filters, small, very portable. Would go excellently with the other primes I usually carry around anywhere. I have the 180 f/2.8 (AF) and it's really an excellent lens, but comparably heavy, large and a filtersize that none of my other lenses has. The 200 f/4 would probably not replace it, but complement it well.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Wouter - thank you for ensuring that I'm not the youngest one on the thread (I <i>am</i> 40).<br />

<br />

I'd say keep both. They do different things, and you're clearly happy with using both of them. If you don't need to get rid of them, use them while you can.<br />

<br />

I do admit that the D800 autofocus gives me some issues, though, as Dan reports - but part of that's user error, I'm sure. (Still, every report I've read except for a well-known writer who dismissed it as "too complex" suggests that the 5D3's autofocus is superior. Nikon fixed the pixel count inferiority between the D700 and 5D2 when they launched the D800; Canon fixed the autofocus disadvantage when they launched the 5D3.)<br />

<br />

And I'm not even going to say anything disparaging about the Df. :-)</p>

[bob_bill]

<p>Roy, sorry to hear about your health issue. Had one a number of years ago that had me needing crutches for a year. Easily solvable taking a pill daily, but after looking for other solutions and refusing to take a pill a day(it was an admission of aging) I can't induce the problem now with the pill-gout. But it also took me out of the field and caused me to concentrate on portraiture, particularly in studio. After becoming 100%, I never stopped the portraiture having discovered a real passion for it. Now, to quote McNally, I haven't seen a landscape I can't improve by putting a person in it. Reagan used to tell his staff the story of a father with 2 sons, one a pessimist, the other an optimist. He locked the pessimist in a room full of toys, the optimist in a room full of manure. He came back the next day and found the pessimist crying and complaining he had broken all his toys. The father then found the optimist to be tossing manure in the air and laughing. When the father asked why, the optimist son responded that with all that manure, there had to be a pony under there somewhere. When something went wrong, Reagan would tell his staff to look for the pony. Same as the silver lining to every cloud. First and foremost for you, it beats a dirt nap. Be well. </p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>Not sure if this adds anything new, but I was at a wedding last weekend and the main photographer was using three Nikon cameras and lenses. I was using D 800E and did not want to interfere with his work. In talking with him, he told me that he rarely if ever uses his D 800 for weddings; it is pretty much just used for his corporate work. He did not think its sensor resolution was needed for wedding work. He was using a D 700, a Df and another Nikon body. His glass was all top notch Nikon lenses including the 200 mm f 2.0. <br>

Joe Smith</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Joseph: I wouldn't be worried about the resolution, but the (low ISO) dynamic range of the D800 has saved me in a number of (amateur) wedding shots in direct sunlight. I have a shot taken with my D700 when the happy couple stood the groomsmen (wearing white and pale gold) in direct sunlight, and the bridesmaids (wearing deep purple) in the shade, during the wedding proceedings on a beach. I'm sure this worked nicely for their comfort, but not so well for my ability to recover detail. More recently, I've been at another beach-front wedding (my wife's family are Australian - it's a Thing) with the D800, and the ability to recover shadows helped hugely. If it had been a staged shot, I'd have been using fill flash or reflectors, but as a guest capturing candids of the event, I was grateful for the sensor.<br />

<br />

The Df isn't quite as good as the D800 at base ISO, but it's pretty respectable (I wouldn't be scared of it). The D700 lags quite a bit, although I still occasionally use mine. And yes, I can vouch for using a 200 f/2 at weddings, although as a guest you do tend to get funny looks. :-)<br />

<br />

And since I didn't say so sooner, Roy, I wanted to add my sympathies and best wishes about your health scare. And I really hope you find a way to keep your joy from photography going!</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>I shot my niece's full-sun wedding on June 8 using the Df and 28-70-f3.5-4.5D-AF Nikkor. The only way to take decent shots in this environment is fill flash. No way I'd want to dicker around with shadow details in post. And I agree with Joseph's pro. photographer, there is no need for D800 resolution at a wedding. If fact, you'd wind up with a large number of huge files to deal with. 12 or 16 M-pixels is more than enough.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Dan - I won't argue that balancing the lighting in the scene wouldn't be <i>better</i> than doing it in post, but I wouldn't say it's "the only way". The 14 stops of dynamic range that DxO reports from a D800 translates into a <i>lot</i> of shadow recovery - DxO says slightly more than a stop more than the Df, which is already a decent camera. I believe two stops over the D700, at least, which is what DxO reports.<br />

<br />

Nothing will recover the absolute darkest shadows and brightest highlights at the same time, but base ISO does seem to be enough to have made some images in this situation look satisfactory, at least to my mind. And of course, I'm an amateur, and don't claim a great sense of aesthetics, so it's always possible that others will have a different opinion. It was certainly less intrusive to the event than repeated pops of flash, which would have had to be very bright to handle the range and direct sunlight (reflectors would have been worse), and colour balancing wasn't an issue. And the recovery of shadows doesn't take that long in software, these days - the raw converter sliders did most of it.<br />

<br />

So, do you need 36MP when shooting a wedding? As a pro, it would certainly get in the way of the number of shots, although it probably doesn't hurt for an amateur if there's a shot or two at the best quality possible - maybe they'll want to make a posted for their fortieth anniversary. I handed over a couple of hundred shots on a USB stick before I left a couple of days after the wedding, out of perhaps a thousand total exposures, although I did spend the day following the bride around shops (with my wife), dragging out the MacBook every time they tried on shoes. I've taken three times that at a wedding in the past, but I trusted the official photographer on this occasion and was making a point of staying out of the way. The couple made some albums out of my images. I'd certainly have shot some of the low light images at a lower resolution if the D800 had a decent small raw mode (which the D4s's appears not to be).<br />

<br />

If I was a pro, and the photo editing time was billable (rather than doing it because I like my relatives), I'd certainly prefer a lower resolution. Although, costs permitting, I'd also sooner have a camera with two card slots than either a D700 or a Df, for back-up... Of course, the D610 is about as good as the D800 for dynamic range, without as many extra pixels. But I guess it depends what body features are needed.<br />

<br />

Anyway, as a D700 owner, I didn't mean to turn into a snob about it. D800, great camera. (D700, great camera, just a bit behind cutting edge.) And I have a grudging respect for what the Df can do, too!</p>

[nikofile]

<p>I shot a wedding under a very bright Arizona sun, and I can tell you first hand that the camera you want is a D800/E. I had remote SB900 flashes on stands for fill during the ceremony, but afterwards it was pretty much all dynamic range and shadow recovery. The D600 is very good, probably better than any other camera going, except the D800. A D800E with a 24-70 lens would be my choice, no matter what the wedding circumstances. My second choice would be a D610. I would not use a Df for weddings, except for indoor low-light or backup.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>The worst thing about having a D800 is that the family (widest possible interpretation of the word) all automatically assume that you'll be on hand to make any event look special for posterity - even if they insist on getting married on a wind swept sand dune overlooking the ocean at 3:00 pm on a blazing Australian summer's day. Of course no one in the family sees this as a ludicrous location which will make them look like shipwreck survivors.</p>

<p>Families require counselling sometimes, I'm preparing to advise my daughters that 18% grey clothing for both bride and groom + quietly photogenic and gently lit location - I'm sure they won't listen.</p>

[Two23]

<p>If I really have no use for something, and am not using it, I sell it. Especially digital stuff. Otherwise it just sits in the closet losing value. As for buy/sell, I've bought and sold stuff to places all over the world. Right now I'm negotiating to get a vintage 1870s lens from a collector in Thailand. Geography is not an issue.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Albins images]

"Geography is not an issue" :-) That is just as enlightening

an observation in this thread as "age is not an issue". And

when you really don't use it.. Like Kent wrote: if it is

'current' gear (say: newer than 1870, probably digital), it

seems wise to let it go.

[elliot1]

<p><em>"Nothing will recover the absolute darkest shadows and brightest highlights at the same time"</em><br>

DXO software does.</p>

<p>Photo editing time for D800 is not really that much different than with lower resolution files IF you have a fast computer (processor), sufficient memory (16gb minimum) and a SSD drive and/or USB 3, all things a 'Pro' would have. So file size is a non-issue.<br>

<br>

<em>"So, do you need 36MP when shooting a wedding? As a pro, it would certainly get in the way of the number of shots" </em><br>

<br>

When using fast, last capacity memory cards, this is not an issue. </p>

<p>And for the OP, if you are not using it, sell it. I bought a camera that I preferred over my D800 and sold it a few months ago. No regrets.<br>

</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Elliot: in absolute extreme conditions, even the D800 can run out of dynamic range. But it certainly copes with a wider range than most cameras. I make a point of keeping my ISO low with it to take advantage of this. DxO is very good at managing noise, which helps even more with the D800 when you're pushing the shadows, but everything has limits eventually.</p>

<p>I'm arguing both sides, here. I've recovered pretty extreme lighting just relying on the dynamic range of the D800 sensor (yes, with DxO, when needed). But at some point, there's noise, so there are still benefits to having more even lighting in the first place.</p>

<p>And yes, a D800's images aren't so massively huge that modern computers can't cope (although you could start making that claim about 4K video). A D800 is a very responsive camera with fast cards, although the pause when writing during live view is still a bit painful. A D800 image takes three times the processing of a D700 (in computer time), or half as much again as a 24MP camera (even a D3200). Given the decreasing cost of storage media, I've never thought the D800 resolution should be a big issue (no worse than the D700 was at launch, certainly). But twice the cost and twice the processing time (especially with DxO's noise reduction!) may matter in a commercial situation, so I can't deny the logic of wanting to stay away from one if you're making money from your image processing time. One could argue about how much a "true successor to the D700" (essentially a D800-class body with a 16-24MP sensor) would have helped this market - although I'm very happy with my D800, thanks.</p>

<p>But myself, if I had a chance to use the camera again, I'd hold on to it. But then I'm a hoarder, and still have my Eos 300D (more for sentimental reasons than anything).</p>

<p>Clive: Very commendable parenting. My wife decided that we were going to get married in an aquarium, directly in front of a large glass window (with fish behind). Sadly, applying a nano-crystal coat to several square metres of glass wasn't an option, so I had a lot of sympathy for the photographer. Cool venue, but I'm glad I didn't have to shoot it myself.</p>

 

[clive_murray_white]

<p>Sadly Andrew, the family takes absolutely no notice of my well intentioned advice........... but still insist that I take a few snaps, my technique for this is outrageously simple, just pop the 85G on, open it up and take as many nice moment portraits as I can, thus pleasing just about everybody. Though I'm sure every family has at least one relative who wants you delete every picture ever taken of them.</p>

[nikofile]

<blockquote>

<p>Though I'm sure every family has at least one relative who wants you delete every picture ever taken of them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Sounds familiar.</p>