http://petapixel.com/2016/04/21/d3100-vs-d800-can-actually-tell-difference/
Gearfags blow the fuck out
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Photographer Adomas Mockus Image-Specific Properties:
Ken Rockwell actually has an article on this and comes to the same conclusions.
For web and everyday photo I'm inclined to agree, but it's hard to dispute that pro control layouts, features and sensors can help in some situations.
>>2821577
>can help in some situations.
Yes, but the self awareness to realize that most of us will never ever be in those situations seems like the hardest part of buying gear. Getting things that would be better for you IF... is a trap with a big price tag, and no real world benefit.
negligible
>>2821572
those shots are so fucking compressed and blocky you couldn't tell if they were shot on a d40
>>2821593
>compressed and blocky
What do you mean?
I'm refusing to unleash my autism on this, but comparing the two in some generic snapshit is so fucking stupid I'm surprised this article wasn't deleted and the author fired within a minute of its publishing
>>2821601
It's petapixel, bro.
>>2821601
So instead of comparing it in a photo, in its usual style of presentation, we should do what? Maybe compare them on paper and with charts?
>>2821593
They would be much better quality if they were taken with a D40
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2009:12:20 21:45:38 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1280 Image Height 903
>>2821572
I have both a D800 and a D3200.
Guess which one I prefer to shoot with?
>>2821577
Kenny is pretty based desu
DESU in the last set (12+13) the difference in depth can actually be seen quite strong and in this case make a BIG difference.
The others though are nearly identical.
Would probably helped to use identical lenses (AFAIK There are a few Lenses that fit both APS-C and Full Frame)
I guessed most of them right, mostly because I paid attention to the depth-effects. But I could have been lucky.
The true question should be stuff like features and software and lens selection. Nothing is more frustrating than finding not a single proper lens in your pricerange while other cameras/systems get a gajillion first- and third-party lenses shat out every month.
terrible VSCO like processing
colors are complete dogshit
why would anyone take this post serious
>>2821633
Why would you use the same lens on both? Why not use equivalent lenses...
The point is to show that when you're going to take "Photo A", it doesn't matter whether you have a $5000 kit, or a $1000 kit in most cases.
i only compared the two sets of photos that were actually the same photo and could tell both times which was which. you can always tell the better dynamic range
>>2821641
When a photo has been processed that way, the presented dynamic range in the shot has nothing to do with the sensor or the camera.
>Can you see the difference between those two downsized photos?
Well, if you downsize enough, you can't even see any difference from an iphone photo and a D800 photo.
>>2821656
I imagine the test would still hold up just fine at 1750 pixels long side, but the 800 pixel thing is sort of cheating, yeah.
>>2821577
who is ken cuckwell
>>2821713
He is a Sony enthusiast videoblogger, he also likes to talk about family expansion theories.
>>2821653
then why could i tell the difference?
>>2821588
I shoot fire spinning a lot, and it's funny to see my borrowed d700 completely wreck my personal x-t1 in focusing in the changing lighting conditions
>>2821781
I own a d800, and it's fun to see my x100s keep up in low light or high contrast. Focus sucks, sure, but the images are great.
>>2821624
PhaseOne XF 100
>>2821784
>great images
>of subjects out of focus
>>2821787
nah, 97% of my photos are in focus. the 3% sure are infuriating, though.
guess which of these bikes can go 12.5 mph...
like posted here already, great gear doesnt make you a good photographer, but a good photographer will get an objectively better picture with better equipment.
>>2821842
No, not really.
>>2821842
You're gonna need some better bait, homie.
Here, try these.
Man, all the 100% crops in that article really convinced me.
>>2821855
not really what??
>>2821865
bait for what? how is my comment trolling? i said you can objectively get a better photo with a better camera. thats a fact not a troll baited opinion.
>>2821868
100% crops aren't photography. the point was, when you're taking photos, and sharing them with people, and being an actual photographer, the admittedly real differences don't actually matter.
>>2821871
Not really meaning that when "good photos" are the equivalent of 12.5mph, and both "bikes" can go 12.5mph, both are capable of doing the job. The ability of one to go way faster than will ever be necessary is great on paper, but when you don't need to go faster for any real life reason, it doesn't actually get you anywhere.
Most real photo situations aren't demanding enough that the jump from a good APS-C to a good full frame camera will make ANY difference. Could it be better in a supremely demanding made up situation? Absolutely. But those don't really happen in real life all that often, and for most people, at all.
>>2821868
>Man, all the 100% crops in that article really convinced me.
Man, how about all the 100% crops you see in newspapers, or magazines, or on every part of the internet that isn't reviewing cameras, or art galleries, or photo books?
Why doesn't THAT overwhelming, crushing, burden of evidence convince you that the specs of your camera don't define the real value of the work you do with it?
>>2821879
>convince you that the specs of your camera don't define the real value of the work you do with it?
Because if it's not the specs of my camera, then it's the content and effort that I put in... and that means that I go from being one of the top five best of all time, I end up somewhere near the bottom with the other guys in the basement talking about the great photos we COULD take with our great cameras if we were to actually see a fantastic opportunity over on the other side of the room. It's going to happen SOME DAY.
>>2821879
You're missing the point.
The D800 is a professional camera, intended to be large-print ad friendly. It also outperforms in low light.
The article is inherently dishonest. The D800 was not designed for 800px wide snapshits on a blog.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2013:04:05 08:43:29 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 600 Image Height 400
>>2821879
Also:
>CAPS
Please stop this. You just look like a nut. You are having a discussion about a camera... relax.
>>2821883
And yet 99.97% of photos end up 800 pixels wide on a blog/social media/forum. So where does the advantage help for what is essentially everyone?
>>2821885
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Width 679 Image Height 516
>>2821878
>But those don't really happen in real life all that often, and for most people, at all.
but this is a photographer thread, i assumed that most people here were photographers and try to put themselves in such situations...
pic related, i took this at pennhurst with a note 2 cellphone. i was not into photography at the time and was just trying to document my visit. However if i had the d800 at the time i could have (objectively) gotten a way better photo.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2821886
That is why you buy the D3100. What you don't do is write an article comparing two, because they serve different purposes.
One could just as easily produce two 20 foot prints and stand there showing everyone how "shitty" the D3100 is, because it is being used outside of its intended purpose.
>forgetting honesty
The article is clickbait for idiots.
>>2821888
Could you have? How so? Would it have magically put good light there?
Why would most photographers purposefully put themselves in situations with shit light? That sounds like the opposite of what most photographers do, actually. Many people actively look for good light, believe it or not!
>>2821886
>fake statistics
Forgive me for not bothering with your ass.
>>2821891
>put good light there
No... it would properly capture the lack of light.
>shit light
Oh, you're right... a photo of a dark room looks better when it's bright. Bright dark rooms are the best.
>fauxtographer detected
>>2821855
So you're saying a 1MP camera will be just as good as a 24MP camera?
That is what you're saying... unless you're drawing an arbitrary line in the sand. You aren't, are you? That would be hypocritical.
>>2821898
no lol the line is 33% of the MP lol everyone noes that lol
lol
>>2821784
yeah can't complain there
>>2821891
>he doesn't know the difference between "good light" and "intriguing light"
Lol get a load of this fanny-inflamed faggot that only appreciates pretty things.
>>2821902
He stopped arguing. Either he realizes he is in over his head, or his mom sent him to bed.
>>2821898
Yes, it will still take a picture no matter how many MEGPICKELS it has. You gearfags are the worst excuses for "photographers" ever.
>>2821891
>Why would most photographers purposefully put themselves in situations with shit light?
>Could you have? How so? Would it have magically put good light there?
have you ever been in the basement of an abandoned insane asylum with good lighting?? i sure havent. so since opinions on this board are completely null, objectively the d800 has some of the best low light performance available,
my wife took this picture with the d800 in the basement at pennhurst. regardless of opinion, objectively it is a better photo...
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D800 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.1 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 852 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 26 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:06:06 18:08:48 Exposure Time 1/60 sec F-Number f/4.5 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 2000 Lens Aperture f/4.5 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 26.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 7360 Image Height 4600 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2821905
>worst excuses for "photographers" ever.
you poorfag plebs are the worst excuse for a photographer ever...
see, anyone can say dumb shit.
>>2821909
You don't have to be so upset just because I proved you wrong, just take more pictures.
>>2821905
Exact same logic:
>1 pixel camera
>just as good as 1MP camera
Unless, that is, you do have this arbitrary line in the sand.
Which is it? Hypocrite or insane?
>>2821905
Evolved from
>just as good picture
To
>a picture
Your damage control is showing.
>>2821915
I think you broke your brain anon.
Do you realize that a 1 pixel digital image would be? That's like asking for a film print of a 1 grain film photo. You need to cool it on the energy drinks or meth or whatever you are on to make you this mad over the internet.
>>2821917
>Your damage control is showing.
Any picture can be a good picture, prove me wrong.
>>2821886
It might not help anyone, it certainly helps anyone who wants to be considered a good photographer though. D3100 couldn't get half the shots a D810 can, it just can't, it doesn't have the dynamic range, the resolution, the AF system is pure shit in comparison, etc etc And when you consider the extra controls and options on a D810, one is clearly a professional camera and the other takes almost as good photos in some perfect situations if you spend 3 times longer setting up for it. Unless you're a piece of garbage you would never use the D3100 for a wedding.
Fact is that the D3100 is made for tourists who take pictures of animals at the zoo and pictures of themselves in front of shit, or hipsters who want to try and get Instagram famous without spending too much money. It barely passes as a camera capable of professional portraiture.
For real photographers the benefits are massive.
>>2821910
you didnt prove anything. its a fact that a d800 can objectively take better pictures than a 1mp camera.
>>2821910
I don't take advice from poor children with no photography knowledge, sorry.
Your thread sucks, by the way... but don't be upset that not everyone here is a casual poorfag salivating over false justifications in a clickbait article.
>>2821920
>>2821920
>D3100 couldn't get half the shots a D810 can
I assume you mean sooc since you mention the dynamic range and resolution which can be faked with good editing and multiple photos stacking. Besides, only pixel peeping "real photographers" would ever notice the difference, and I doubt they hire random photographers to shoot their weddings. You sure sound ignorant and lazy for being a "real photographer".
>>2821927
Definitely, everywhere you go make sure to set up a tripod and bracket your shots, especially at weddings, oh wait, you can't bracket on the D3100, never mind, too bad because bracketing at a wedding or when doing a portrait, or with wildlife, etc, is actually really great....
lmao, stop trying to justify your shitty purchases with such retarded bullshit and stop to look around at reality, there are no big professional photographers using a D3100, do you think the benefits of cameras like a D810 just magically don't exist? Ye, all these people who have spent decades of their lives in the profession just don't know better. Fuck off back to instagram retard.
>>2821919
>Any picture can be a good picture, prove me wrong.
<objective: take a white picture
whoops. looks like a bad picture.
>>2821934
So where does the D7100 and other Nikons in that range fall in regard to 3100 and 810?
>>2821936
>in that range
its all relative, a better camera is simply objectively better... your opinions dont matter when it comes to facts.
if camera A has better xyz than camera B, then camera A is better.
>>2821935
>http://petapixel.com/2016/04/21/d3100-vs-d800-can-actually-tell-difference/
very rich blacks
amazing shadow detail
sir, this is a fine piece of art. Allow me to sell it in my gallery in NYC
email me at
[email protected]
>>2821936
The D7100 is supposed to be a professional camera, it's Nikons equivalent to Canons 7D, but they are meant for sports, wildlife, aviation, etc. But they aren't so good at those things that it's a no-brainer to use over the D810, they have a higher burst rate but the D810 has better image quality, everything else is very similar.
>>2821939
And ofcourse the D7100 has more range. But either way both are vastly superior to the D3100, they are both actually viable for professional use and objectively can get better shots.
>>2821842
the bike can go 100 km/h downhill on the touge and the bike can't keep up.
I got them all wrong meaning I can tell there is a difference. I just got them flipped.
>>2821939
You can always put the d810 in dx mode so burst rate isn't a problem
>>2821572
The reason people buy full frame "pro" bodies over entry level ones is because of the following
>larger, brighter viewfinder with 100% coverage
>more buttons for dedicated functions
>better build quality and water/dust resistance
>longer shutter life
>better auto focusing module that can acquire accurate focus in low or tricky lighting
>miscellaneous functions that a more advanced enthusiast or paid photographer would be able to take advantage of.
Image quality is just the icing on the cake. If you don't understand why you need a more expensive camera then you don't need it. Yes there are some idiots out there who might buy a really expensive piece of kit thinking it makes them better photographers. They're hardly the norm from what I've seen. Most people can hardly imagine spending over $500 on a camera. I'm getting really tired of all this strawmaning bullshit and articles like this about hurr durr ur camera doesn't matter it's da fotografur dat maeks pictures lols. Just shut up and take fucking pictures already.
>>2821939
The funny thing is that the 7100 has the same sensor as the other newer entry level Nikons since the 3200. But people will still make shitty articles about "you can't see the difference in the photos lol!!" without expounding on the fact that one camera can get shots that the other can't, or at least is considerably better at it. If they did that their little strawman would simply fall apart.
>>2821977
Everything you in your greentext is wrong.
>>2821989
0/10
>>2821925
The D5 would have been more appropriate, considering that it's a photography machine gun.
>>2821919
You think there are no differences between cameras.
You are the retard, here.
>>2821572
>gearfags blow the fuck out
More like professionals facepalm.
>>2822187
There are many differences between cameras. But most (if not all) of them don't show up in the final product on presentation.
>>2821781
if you shoot such a subject a lot and in such conditions then why buy the fuji?
that was retarded of you
>>2821888
>pennhurst
fuck that shit anon i looked at that pic and now my computer is haunted and crazy
thanks white obama
>>2821906
great
thanks faggot now the cray cray ghosts have definition
>>2821977
All of that is true but you didn't mention the main two reasons:
1. Bokeh whoring, especially at wider focal lengths. It's very useful for creating a shot with a foreground, middleground (subject) and a background, creating a sense of depth, without having the fg+bg being too distracting. It's photography easy mode.
2. High ISO performance. Even just getting an extra third stop better performance makes it possible to get an shot without perceivable motion blur in a lot of action-type situations. An extra FULL stop or even 1.5 stops is amazingly useful. For the person that actually takes shot of moving people (most people), this is huge. You can go from an unusable 1/60th shot of your child or pet playing outside during cloudy golden hours or indoors to a quite sharp 1/200th shot with almost the same noise level. Added bonus is more intense bokeh and wider FoV for a very unique shot compared to most modern digital photography.
>>2821882
that's like saying you could be a great birds in flight photographer if only you had those top tier tele lenses.
The gear doesn't make the shot, you do, you still have to find the fucking bird in the viewfinder
>>2822265
yeah but there are significant physical limitations that come with subpar gear. limited aperture ranges, autofocus speed, in body and optical image stabilization, viewfinder size and accuracy, burst rate, weather sealing, and a number of other parameters that go into the shot
>>2822275
Yes, we all know what camera features are. The point is not "The D800 is not a better camera than a D3100" the point is "it's better, but for most photos, it doesn't matter at ALL.
>weather sealing
Most people will NEVER shoot in the rain. Certainly not rain hard enough to destroy a regular DSLR
>Viewfinder accuracy
Most people use autofocus, and therefore, don't need the viewfinder to have perfect accuracy
>Burst rate
Most people will never shoot a burst of photos
>Autofocus speed
Most things that most people take photos of move slowly and consistently enough for even a rebel's focus system.
These are real advantages that make you SURE you can take better photos, but the truth of the matter is, those advantages hardly every do anyone any good.
The response is always "But what IF!! What happens WHEN" but those ifs and whens are very very very very rare. You'd be hard pressed to find a photo on this entire board that couldn't have been taken by cheaper lower level equipment in the hands of someone who knows how to use it.
>>2822275
for example in this shot, if i'd had a better AF system, i woudlnt have missed focus on the eyes, and the shot would be better.
>>2822277
>>weather sealing
>Most people will NEVER shoot in the rain. Certainly not rain hard enough to destroy a regular D
when you specifically mention birds in flight, shooting in adverse weather happens often, especially snow and rain.
>>Viewfinder accuracy
>Most people use autofocus, and therefore, don't need the viewfinder to have perfect accuracy
i like how you bring up the viewfinder in your previous post then assert that it's not a big deal
>>Burst rate
>Most people will never shoot a burst of photos
again, when you bring up birds in flight thats kinda a huge deal
>>Autofocus speed
>Most things that most people take photos of move slowly and consistently enough for even a rebel's focus system.
again.. birds in flight that you explicitly noted
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. Camera Model PENTAX K-3 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Windows) Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 450 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 600 dpi Vertical Resolution 600 dpi Image Created 2016:03:02 12:12:20 Exposure Time 1/1000 sec F-Number f/5.8 Exposure Program Not Defined ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/5.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Spot Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 300.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Distant View
>>2822191
They do when you are making large prints, which is kind of the purpose of the D800.
All this article did was confirm the ignorance of casual consumers... as if we needed that.
>>2822278
I don't think you understand how "anonymous" works. I'm not the birds guy.
>>2822277
>>Viewfinder accuracy
>Most people use autofocus, and therefore, don't need the viewfinder to have perfect accuracy
Viewfinder accuracy is about framing.
Focus has nothing to do with it.
>>Autofocus speed
>Most things that most people take photos of move slowly and consistently enough for even a rebel's focus system.
In poor light or with low contrast subjects my D3200's AF often fails completely.
it is a serious weakness with entry level cameras.
>>2822280
Please post a photo of some of the large prints you've made that are meant to be viewed from less than 30 inches.
>>2822282
even so, weak AF isnt just about focus speed. in bad light you may not even get AF to work. and viewfinder accuracy isnt about focusing like >>2822283 says, it's about composition. and burst rate isnt just about wildlife, its nice to be able to take fast burts for exposure bracketing a scene where maybe its windy and trees are moving, so the composition doesnt change between each bracketed shot.
>>2822283
>Viewfinder accuracy is about framing.
>Focus has nothing to do with it.
If you think that a 100% coverage finder has any real world advantages over a 96% coverage finder, then you have never used both and compared. The magnification can be nice, if you're doing an A/B comparison, but missing 4% of the frame on the very outside edges is not important. Even less so in the time of amazing content aware fill, and high resolution sensors for cropping.
>In poor light or with low contrast subjects my D3200's AF often fails completely.
In low light with a low contrast subject, every single AF sensor on the market will fail. No camera in the world will compensate for a poorly chosen scene.
>>2822288
>No camera in the world will compensate for a poorly chosen scene.
>what is long exposure
>>2822287
Like everyone with a foot in the real world keeps saying, you can come up with a million "what ifs" for why you might someday maybe need the features. But when it comes to the photos that are actually being taken, and shared, and presented, and their real life resolution and usage, the differences don't matter.
I MIGHT need a 1Dx if I ever go to the arctic circle to shoot foxes on motorcycles!
*Takes another photo of the grass in his front yard*
I MIGHT use a Nikonos for if I ever go to the ocean to take awesome underwater photos of exotic fish and beautiful models swimming!
*leaves it on a shelf for 10 years, other than when he dunks it in the bathtub to play with it when the cable company is fixing his internet for an afternoon*
>>2822284
You're a retard.
If you don't need professional equipment, don't buy it. Just stop being so butthurt over people who do.
The fact that you think 30 inches is the distance wall murals and kiosk ads display poorly speaks volumes.
There is a whole industry and market for its eqipment that proves you wrong.
>>2822290
Please post one of your long exposures with a low contrast subject to justify a more advanced AF system?
My 480i handycam from 2001 is all you need to shoot HD television shows on.
If everyone just had 12 inch televisions, you wouldn't even notice the difference.
>>2822291
you're assuming everyone wants a camera for some mundane shitty photos. not everyone does, so its important to note the differences between the models and understand that better cameras are capable of taking objectively better photos under the same conditions
>>2822292
>The fact that you think 30 inches is the distance wall murals and kiosk ads display poorly speaks volumes.
Who the fuck brought up wall murals and kiosk displays?
Straw men don't fight back.
>>2821572
I don't get this, how are you supposed to tell the difference when he crushes out the dynamic range in the photos?
>>2822295
my AF isnt that good so i dont have any. i tried taking a shot of my shed at night when the sky was a deep red orange color behind it, but i needed a flashlight to get the focus. just because you dont use something a certain way doesnt mean others dont have a need to use it that way.
>>2822297
>Like everyone with a foot in the real world keeps saying, you can come up with a million "what ifs" for why you might someday maybe need the features. But when it comes to the photos that are actually being taken, and shared, and presented, and their real life resolution and usage, the differences don't matter.
Please post your examples of photos that you couldn't have gotten with a lower end camera.
>>2822288
>If you think that a 100% coverage finder has any real world advantages
That's not what I said.
Was just correcting your wrong/misleading claim that it has something to do with focus accuracy.
>In low light with a low contrast subject, every single AF sensor on the market will fail.
My D800 doesn't fail in those situations.
>>2821572
ITT: Gear Fags Crumble And Lash Out
-Stay Tuned-
>>2822305
>My D800 doesn't fail in those situations.
Mine does.
How many of you have actually made real world comparisons, rather than just having shitty equipment and dreaming that good stuff work work better, or having good equipment and assuming that cheaper things would fail? Because I frequently use both a D800 and a D3200, and they aren't that different in their capabilities for anything but the most extreme stuff. When the D3200 struggles in low light, the D800 struggles too. When the D800 produces great files in good light, the D3200 does too.
>>2822278
>for example in this shot, if i'd had a better AF system, i woudlnt have missed focus on the eyes, and the shot would be better.
What makes you say that? Have you tried them? Or do you just assume it would be better? Because anything that can automatically find an eye only applies to human faces (and sometimes dogs and cats)
AF performance and accuracy usually has more to do with lens selection than body selection, as well.
>>2822314
its pretty well documented that pentax's AF system isnt as good as other top manufacturers. its just not fast enough to track as well as i'd like. and the lens was only 250 USD new, so a better lens and camera would offer better performance, which is why everything the same, gear matters
>>2822314
Performance, I get, but how do you figure lenses affect accuracy? They don't know if something is in focus or not. They just get a signal from the camera to focus in or out or stop.
>>2822319
not that guy but different lenses have different throw lengths which can affect the margin for error in terms of focus, and some are just slower based on their focusing mechanism
>>2822321
I guess I could see that. I have a macro lens with an extremely long throw length, but it's weighted towards the macro side which means it has difficulty nailing focus at 15 feet and past.
>>2822299
I did. Because they are commercial in nature, and what you need a D800 for... hence its existence. Nikon even markets it as professional. It is literally listed in a different part of the website.
Once again: this article is clickbait for retards. You should not compare two different things intended for different purposes.
>>2822310
>I frequently use both a D800 and a D3200
Are you me?
>When the D3200 struggles in low light, the D800 struggles too.
Liar
A7s ISO
>>2822277
>most people will never shoot in the rain
Who cares about "most people"? Are we appealing to the lowest common denominator now? And you can bet your sweet ass more people would shoot in the rain, if they weren't worried about it fucking up their camera.
>viewfinder accuracy
>most people use auto focus
I think he was referring to viewfinder coverage. On my old D5100 I would always end up with more in the frame on the edges than I did see in the camera. Never mind how small and dim it was.
>>2822412
Please post your best photo taken in heavy rain
>>2822422
no that guy, but i took this in fairly heavy snow. it's not a stunner, but i like it. its nice having the piece of mind knowing if it starts raining or snowing that you dont have to high tail it out of wherever youre shooting at or put away your gear
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. Camera Model PENTAX K-3 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Windows) Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 450 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 600 dpi Vertical Resolution 600 dpi Image Created 2016:02:14 15:43:59 Exposure Time 1/1000 sec F-Number f/6.3 Exposure Program Not Defined ISO Speed Rating 320 Lens Aperture f/6.3 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Spot Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 300.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Distant View
>>2822430
If you're getting that level of detail in the bird from that distance, the snow wasn't that bad. And snow isn't difficult to deal with for any camera, because it doesn't flow into the cracks, and as soon as the camera's temperature equalizes, it just brushes right off.
I spent about five years taking a 40D with a Tamron 28-75 out in every thunder storm I could get access to and it never once even hiccuped on me. It got drenched, regularly. Pouring rain that gets you soaking wet even under a waterproof coat. Never a single issue.
I've stopped chasing storms, but I still take all my cameras out in the rain. I've never had an issue, and I'll bet you'll hear the same thing from most everyone who's ever tried it.
>>2822430
also i forgot i took this a few weeks ago. again not a great shot but it was nice to be able to get without additional equipment or anything and not having to worry about any damage
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. Camera Model PENTAX K-3 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Windows) Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 82 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 600 dpi Vertical Resolution 600 dpi Image Created 2016:03:16 02:31:35 Exposure Time 79 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Spot Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 55.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Distant View
>>2822435
it wasnt really cold out, so it melted fairly quickly, especially around the viewfinder and buttons
>>2822445
40D in the pouring rain.
>comparing consumer and pro bodies in consumer application
>not also comparing both in professional application
And therein lies the problem with the article, and the source of this tardfest.
This is like saying a F1 car and minivan are the same, because both can drive to the store.
>>2822461
And doing a portrait session in the woods doesn't constitute a professional setting to you? I've got news for you, there's a lot more photographers making a living taking portraits in the woods then there are doing Pro Sports.
>>2822461
That article is not designed for the 30 Formula 1 drivers in the world, it's designed for the thousands of other people who are looking to drive to the store, and have decided to buy Formula 1 cars to do it, because they believe they're better at it.
>>2822472
So you are just like the other couple of idiots completely missing the point in this entire thread. The point is, people don't actually do that. So most people don't actually need the camera in the first place. The point is not that the D 3200 is just as good as the D800, the point is that while the D800 is better, almost anyone who would buy it will not see the benefit from the improvements.
As has been stated many times in this thread, it's very easy to come up with hypothetical situations where a better camera will perform better, but the fact of the matter is, most photographers don't ever find themselves in those situations.
>>2822476
it's a stupid fucking article in every way. only a complete idiot would buy a $1000+ camera when theres a competent camera for 4-6 times less. and an equally dumb fucking mongoloid would buy a $200-$400 camera when they need a much more capable one. it's a dumb fucking thing to say that most people would buy an expensive camera but dont need to
>>2822476
>most photographers don't ever find themselves in those situations.
Seems like you missed the point of the thread and the website too.
The point is, hey, shitty cameras can make great images too, so focus on photography and not the gear.
that's it. that's the moral. i don't know why the retards on this board have so much trouble with it.
OP, the D3100 is a great camera. It can't beat the D800, however.
If this was a fair, head-to-head challenge, in all categories, to the limits of each category, the D800 will win early on. It is up to the buyer what that is worth, though.
Own a successful business? Then the price difference is negligible, is deductible, and is a regular job expense. Have tough competition and clients with high expectations? Better use the best equipment you can. Rich hobbyist? Doesn't matter either. Get the D800. Single mom or college student taking pics for fun? Then the D3100 is your "winner".
This article comes with a mound of unspoken caveats, but it doesn't matter because it's clickbait aimed at retards like OP.
They are not "the same". There isn't "no difference". Different bodies for different purposes.
>>2822480
>the point in this entire thread
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:04:22 17:37:38 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 441 Image Height 55
>>2822477
You're the complete idiot if you think that's how photography enthusiasts actually think and make decisions.
>>2822491
that's how any rational person thinks and makes decisions..
>Gearfags
D3100 owners are gearfags.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:04:22 17:44:24 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 818 Image Height 606
>>2822494
>>2822477
You can pretend to not know what's being referenced all you want, but anyone who hangs out in the real world sees dozens of photographers starting out, using low end equipment (Like the D3100) and making poor photos, looking at shots from pros using a more advanced camera (like a D800) and seeing that they're better, and deciding "Damn, I need to start saving up for a D800 so my photos can be good like that guy's"
It happens every day on this very board.
The point of the article is not that a D3100 is as good as a D800 for all things. The point of the article is, be honest with yourself, and don't buy more gear than you need.
If you need to make enormous prints, get the D800. If you don't, the very real benefits of the camera will do you no good. The article is on Petapixel. It's not directed at D800 owners making good use of their cameras. It's directed at D800 owners who are taking photos of flowers and pets and sunsets, or the people who are looking to buy a D800 for the wrong reasons.
>>2821878
>This is a shit photo.
Not because of the noise. But because this photo lacks a well thought out vision, composition, and colour/tone.
>>2821906
This is still a shit photo and has no improvements over >>2821878. What really needs to happen is for you to stop trying to make yourself feel better about wasting money on a expensive body with shit kit lens.
Any good photographer would point out. When you want to buy a camera, you buy the lenses first, then the body.
>Inb4 this faggot calls me shit and does not post his pics.
I'm on mobile in the hospital because you just gave me cancer.
And if you want to improve, then start to learn the gear you got and work around it.
>full frame vs cropped
>like there's even a comparison
>>2822277
I've shot when it was sprinkling, light rain. Fogged my entire camera, rice did not help much and now it smells funny and some buttons do not work anymore. This was my trusty a350 which I upgraded to a second hand xt1 last year for half price.
>>2821572
d3100 with 1.8 35mm
and
d800 with 1.8 50mm
would be more interesting
Why are you conflating bodies with lenses?
There is no way to argue against the fact that buying a good lens type you don't have one (telephoto / wide angle / etc) opens up tons more options for photography
and some like telephoto are garbage under like 900$, so the entry level ones are gonna be short focal length and suffer like hell from low IQ, CA, etc.
>>2822317
wtf? i just spent 3k on a pentax body and some lenses because you guys here said they were the best for pros. are u fucking kidding me now?
>>2823796
if you've got a nice tele ill buy it off you
>>2821939
I'd say the 7100 is more like the 70D. The 7D equivalent is the D500.
The D7100 and its FF cousins, the D610 and D750, are kind of in a no-mans-land between consumer and pro cameras. They have much of the functionality of a pro camera, but not the durability or the outright performance. They also don't accept "pro" accessories like the D500, D800, and D5 do.
>>2822892
d800 with 35mm 1.8
>>2823879
Huh?
I was under the impression that the D750 was the same camera as the D8xx (not sure which version of the 800), just with a lower resolution sensor for people who didn't need those really high rez files, but did need the rest of the top tier setup...
>>2824119
nope.
>>2824121
What major difference is there aside from the resolution?
>>2824122
>fastest shutter speed is 1/4000 instead of 1/8000
>flash sync speed is slower, if I remember right
>slightly less rugged body with more plastic and less magnesium alloy
>IIRC it uses the 39 point AF from the D610 etc. instead of the 51 point AF from the D4's
>button layout is more like a D7200 instead of a D810
>it has an articulating screen, which Nikon typically avoids using on their higher end bodies
bonus:
>pleb tier square viewfinder cup over patrician round eyecup
>>2824122
Build quality
Scene mode dial
No af-on button for the D750
The D750 is definitely an upscale prosumer model, but it's not a sequel to the professional D700, nor is it a low-res version of the D810.
>>2824127
The D750 is pretty much a D610 with a flippy screen. It's actually a bit smaller and lighter than the D610, too. Neither is anywhere close to the D800's build quality or interface.
>>2824188
>It's actually a bit smaller and lighter than the D610, too.
Nah, they're both the same size and weight.
>>2824188
>The D750 is pretty much a D610 with a flippy screen.
this is true unless you shoot video.
>>2821577
>actually listening to ken memewell
dont
>>2824242
We've had threads of people saying they don't like Ken. No one has proven him wrong yet. You are free to try. Just remember that before you were born Ken had probably owned more cameras than you will ever touch in your whole life.
>>2824261
>mfw I actually emailed based god Kenneth and he replied in a matter of hours
>>2824269
Did you ask him how his children managed to gains so much weight in so little time? Because he responded to me pretty quickly about that too.
>>2824269
I don't think Ken is human. A lot of his reviews are copy pasted but he does a lot of shit that nobody else bothers with. He doesn't just post manufacturer's specs, he weighs every single thing.
It's easy to tell how long people have been on /p/ based on what they think of ken.
Day 1: Who is ken?
Day 2: Ken is a meme.
Day 30: Ken is wrong.
Day 120: I don't agree with Ken.
Day 365: Ken says jump, I say how high.
Day 1234: Praise Ken and may his family keep growing.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D3 Camera Software Ver.2.02 Photographer Ken Rockwell Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.4 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 968 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 85 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2010:09:28 11:21:36 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/1.4 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 200 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 85.00 mm Comment (C)KenRockwell.com (760) 931-9500 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 4256 Image Height 2832 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation High Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown ISO Speed Used 200 Image Quality BASIC White Balance AUTO Focus Mode AF-C Flash Setting NORMAL ISO Speed Requested 200 Flash Bracket Compensation 0.0 EV AE Bracket Compensation 0.0 EV Lens Type Nikon D Series Lens Range 85.0 mm; f/1.4 Shooting/Bracketing Mode Single Frame/Off Noise Reduction OFF Camera Actuations 58776
>>2824298
>Day 3294
>Ken Rockwell looks old as fuck
>so do you
>his fat little kid is becoming a fat little man
>ken still doesn't shoot raw
>you're still here
>why am i still here
>what am i doing with my life
>>2824298
Worth the weight, this should be copypasta.
>>2824316
That saturation ain't right
>>2824320
>Ken Hankhill
>can you tell the difference?
yes,i can. thats the reason i like gearfagging,be it audio or video.
>>2824126
The d750 has the 51 point system from the D4s iirc.
>>2821612
Thanks, Ken
>>2821612
>tfw I still use a D40
Not bad desu.
The last scene with the backlit woman I could see the difference, the rest of them it's impossible to tell really.
