Apple tends to be slow supporting new cameras, even top pro cameras like the Nikon D800 and the D4. They are not yet supported:
Alternatives while we wait for Apple to add Nikon D4 and D800 support include:
• Adobe's RAW converter now or very soon will convert the Nikon NEF files into DNG files Aperture can use.
• Nikon NX2 usually does the best job of converting NEFs (but without Aperture's elegant workflow).
Nikon keeps each camera's RAW conversion algorithms proprietary, so firms like Apple and Adobe have to sort of reverse-engineer for each new camera.
When Apple finishes the work needed to support the new Nikons they will issue a Software Update.
Horepower is also an issue because the D800 files will be huge when shooting at the full 36 MP RAW setting. For sure you want to upgrade to 8 GB RAM, and use a Referenced-Masters workflow with Masters on external drives (or add a large hard drive in place of the MBP optical drive).
My personal Aperture Library consists of almost entirely 24 MP RAW files. I have no trouble on my 2009 MBP w. 8 GB of RAM.
Get the RAM -- well worth the cost. Check Crucial and Other World Computing for RAM. You can install it yourself, but watch the videos and make sure you have the tools needed (e.g.: small Torx screwdriver).
Also upgrade to the newest version of Aperture (currently 3.2.2).
How about a report regarding your initial experience with the D800? And did you get it w/ or w/o the aa filter?
I plan to upgrade from the D2x soon to one of the D800 models or to the D4. The D4 suits my photography and it or a D3s are the logical upgrades from the D2x, but the D800/D800e appeal of lower price and 2 form factors (w and w/o the extra battery pack on) are very appealing.
I don't think any D800e models have been delivered? Mine has the aa filter. One interest I had was video, and from what little I can read, not having the aa filter would not be good for video.
The professional I was referring to had gotten a D800, had not unboxed it, and asked to shoot mine to test whether he might be satisfied with the D800 -- he also shoots a Hasselblad 50 mp. After testing with mine, he elected to keep and start shooting with what had already been delivered. I think he will shoot less and less with the Hasselblad based upon his initial comments re the D800, and might even sell it. I think that says a lot about what he thinks of it.
He and other pros he has shared with are extremely impressed with the photos shot with mine, and its pairing with the Nikkor 14-24mm f2.8 lens I have to use on it. I am likewise very impressed with the photos shot (at this point only in full 2x3 format RAW) and also with video shot through that lens inside with available light. I need to test video outside in full daylight and other lenses, but even inside, the still frames extracted from the video is quite good.
The Pro discussion (I don't consider myself a pro) relative to comparison to medium format appears to center around diffraction at higher f stops, and it is not clear whether the "e" model would lessen this concern.
If you send me an email, I can share some test stuff with you. My email can be found by clicking on my name to the left, and looking in the bio line of the resulting Profile.
The file sizes are very large, and not evey configuration will love them.
Thanks Ernie! That was very useful info, especially about video.
As to handling large file sizes IMO one buys the computer hardware necessary for the job. After 20 years dealing with digital image files I feel strongly that folks in the images business need to stay near the top end with their computer hardware. It nakes no sense to spend a lifetime tolerating less-than-ideal hardware, and today spectacular computer value is available for the cost of just one very good lens like your 14-24mm f/2.8.
The "e" model will not change any diffraction. It has all to do with the aperture*.
*That is the aperture in the camera/lens, not Aperture, the program. 8^)
That is what I thought, and glad to have your confirmation. However, if detail could be enhanced at lower f stops by the "e" model, that might be a work around, might it not? In an accidental discovery on one of my test shots, I found pretty good depth of field at f/5.6 on the wide 14-24. But with my 70-200mm and extreme closeup and f/2.8, believe the D800 may have had an even shallower depth of field than my D300, but no direct comparison has been made.
If you are diffracting, the detail is lost before you get to the AA filter.
If the D300 is APS-C and the D800 Full Frame, that explains the depth of field.
It follows the same 1.6 multiplier as focal length. So if the D300 has a 16 mm depth of field, the D800 *with the same aperture and focal length* will have 10 mm.
Wide angle lenses have much deeper depth of field than telephotos. This gives rise to two related phenomenon:
1. Wide angle lenses rarely have IS.
2. The old hand holdable shutter speed rule of thumb: 1/focal length (50mm-equiv)
Good info, and no disagreement. But point was that stopping down to smaller apertures will not only provide more depth of field, but will also require slower shutter speeds -- that is one way to achieve more detail in a photo, I think. But point was, re the absence of the aa filter, was that more detail was available, and if aperture levels were not stopped down, then diffraction might be avoided, while at the same time having greater detail. I understand that diffraction will happen before the filter, but am thinking there may be less need of smaller apertures to capture the detail? Now if the depth of field totally defeats the unfiltered detail, then that is not a valid point.
Btw, both links are great to have.