Nikon D800......

Timmy2wheels said:
I predict D700 prices will not drop for a good while as there will now be a scramble to get Nikon's only 'affordable' full frame body. Minor-league pros and serious enthusiasts with a bit of money could just about justify a D700 either new or second-hand (and there were some bargains to be had just before the disaster in Japan) but £2,400+ will be beyond the reach of many people, myself included. Also, if, like me, you have a D700 but can't afford Nikon's pro zooms and rely on cleverly-chosen older and third-party lenses, will they hold up on such a high resolution body?

I have to say that I think we are just leaving behind a really important generation of camera bodies - D700 & D300(s) - which were a perfect balance of spec and affordability.
Click to expand...

The £2,400 rrp of this isn't that far away from the d700's which is £2,249
 
I've just received an email from Grays Of Westminster, saying that the D800 and D800e has now been announced and that they are taking preorders.:D

D800..£2,399.99 inc vat
release date 22/03/12

D800e..£2689.99 inc vat

release dat 12/04/12

MB-D12 battery pack .. £379.99 inc vat.



Kev.
 
I think the D800 is a great product assuming that the high-ISO performance is manageable. Is it going to make me cancel my D4 order? No, however It's interesting that Nikon can produce the D800 which has a large overlap with the D4 for £2400 whereas the D4 is £4800. i.e. twice the price......
 
desantnik said:
Indeed, something like a red carpet (or a podium presentation) you have to machine gun it - that celeb aint going to pose for you and everyone else out there and the paper won't buy a shot of Angelina looking like a chimp sucking a golf ball (those shots you keep for yourself for posting on flickr :D).
Click to expand...

Yes, in that instance where you have such a demand, you would not even consider the entry level D700/800 FX.
 
The D800 will be very good for Landscape photography and also for using pictures on giant billboards..lol
How many pictures have we cropped in out lifetime and then zoomed in to find the quality pooo...Can you imagine the quality on this still even if we did crop and zoom.
I would like to know what the iso is like high up. Will it beat the D700?
I thought the higher the MP the poo the iso is..Like the canon 5D mk2.
Great mp but poo at high iso even in the shadows you can see noise..Thats what i was brought to imagine it was...So I cant see the iso being as good as the D700 and D3.

I want to see the reviews 1st..
 
Do people think this is it for new bodies ? Surely there is still room for a Pro Body DX camera ? The FPS of the D800 even in DX mode means it doesn't work for the people that would traditionally be in the market for a Pro DX camera.
 
15mp in DX mode.ffs.beats my D90 ..surely tho the quality wont be the same as the D90 12mp will it?
and USB3.0 super fast image transfer to my pc.will need it with a 36mp raw file. take forever on usb2.0
 
Last edited:
Are you better off using a camera in DX mode for reach and not cropping, or FX mode and all 36mp and cropping like mad?
 
cambsno said:
Are you better off using a camera in DX mode for reach and not cropping, or FX mode and all 36mp and cropping like mad?
Click to expand...

Yeah know what ya saying here pal. But theres been times ive been out and not had the correct lens on when ive had to take a picture because of things going on in distance...then getting home and cropping...
Ideal if you cant afford a huge massive 600mm lens...wildlife etc..that would bea benefit too at high 36mp..
sounds fun. Seems like you can take pictures and get away with keeping a few that you would normally throw away,if you know what i mean..:bonk:
 
sophos9 said:
Yes, in that instance where you have such a demand, you would not even consider the entry level D700/800 FX.
Click to expand...

Exactly hence the "mwwaaaaaah low fps" comments :bang:

However that is because Nikon don't make cameras for one speciality and there are more specialities in photography than most of you would imagine.
 
Sorry, late in here.

I saw this today on WEX. After 18 months of checking the internet, rumour sites every day I'm happy that is has now started. Nikon have served with the D800 and it looks great if spec hold no typo's. So what's happened? Has Nikon sacrificed the ISO range for the sake of pixel count? If so, then about time. As a landscape photographer, I see this as great news, I welcome max resolution and a (relatively) limited ISO range.

Saying this I wonder what the return from Canon will be. I'm still waiting for the day the camera mags are comparing and reviewing a head to head between the D800 & 5DX. Only then will I make my mind up and part with my money. After so long I feel quite relieved.

But um, what's this about a D800E?
 
Digifrog said:
Sorry, late in here.

I saw this today on WEX. After 18 months of checking the internet, rumour sites every day I'm happy that is has now started. Nikon have served with the D800 and it looks great if spec hold no typo's. So what's happened? Has Nikon sacrificed the ISO range for the sake of pixel count? If so, then about time. As a landscape photographer, I see this as great news, I welcome max resolution and a (relatively) limited ISO range.

Saying this I wonder what the return from Canon will be. I'm still waiting for the day the camera mags are comparing and reviewing a head to head between the D800 & 5DX. Only then will I make my mind up and part with my money. After so long I feel quite relieved.

But um, what's this about a D800E?
Click to expand...

I thought MP didn't matter for a time, and now Nikon fans are applauding the MP and not seemingly concerned about the ISO performance?

Odd.

I've thought about transferring to the D800, but shall wait to the 5DIII specs are out. Not only that but want to see real world performance results not from a Nikon or Canon brochure.
 
jpwild said:
I thought MP didn't matter for a time, and now Nikon fans are applauding the MP and not seemingly concerned about the ISO performance?

Odd.

I've thought about transferring to the D800, but shall wait to the 5DIII specs are out. Not only that but want to see real world performance results not from a Nikon or Canon brochure.
Click to expand...

Well I wouldn't know wbout fans of Nikon or Canon think. For me it's not about brand loyalty.

For me, I welcome hi res & I don't need super high ISO because I shoot landscape & not because I'm devoted to Nikon.

Like you, I too am waiting to see what the 5D3(X) brings, and then those reviews before I decide. But the 36mpx looks tempting. I'm just hoping that this isn't also at expense of decent weather sealing. For the last couple of weeks before all this was announced I was think "sod it. I'll just get the 5D2". I'm glad that this temptation is now gone.
 
Last edited:
The video taken by the D800 is smashing..love it..but its a bonus having it.
 
I think this looks like a fantastic camera. I don't really understand the comments regarding the ISO performance. On paper, its still a greater performer then the d700. Obviously its worth waiting for real world test to be sure, but do you actually need iso higher then 6,400?. How many people who shoot the d700 wish it had higher iso capabilities?
 
boyfalldown said:
I think this looks like a fantastic camera. I don't really understand the comments regarding the ISO performance. On paper, its still a greater performer then the d700. Obviously its worth waiting for real world test to be sure, but do you actually need iso higher then 6,400?. How many people who shoot the d700 wish it had higher iso capabilities?
Click to expand...

Shooting landscapes 99% of the time, I don't think I've ever gone over 200. I shot my friends daughters christening once where I had to shoot at 500. If I'm ever to shoot the northern lights I might need 1600 max.
 
jpwild said:
I thought MP didn't matter for a time, and now Nikon fans are applauding the MP and not seemingly concerned about the ISO performance?

Odd.
Click to expand...

No I'm seeing lots of Nikon lads n lasses divided. Just goes to prove you can't please all the people all the time.
 
The difference between the D800 and the D800E seems to be a modified filter? I'm unsure what this means, "anti aliasing properties"?

Surely a well processed RAW image and shot with a Zeiss lens should be enough no?
 
Digifrog said:
Shooting landscapes 99% of the time, I don't think I've ever gone over 200. I shot my friends daughters christening once where I had to shoot at 500. If I'm ever to shoot the northern lights I might need 1600 max.
Click to expand...

that it - even shooting weddings over the 3 years I owned a d700 I can only remember once I wished for more ISO capability,
 
boyfalldown said:
I think this looks like a fantastic camera. I don't really understand the comments regarding the ISO performance. On paper, its still a greater performer then the d700. Obviously its worth waiting for real world test to be sure, but do you actually need iso higher then 6,400?. How many people who shoot the d700 wish it had higher iso capabilities?
Click to expand...

Me
 
Digifrog said:
The difference between the D800 and the D800E seems to be a modified filter? I'm unsure what this means, "anti aliasing properties"?

Surely a well processed RAW image and shot with a Zeiss lens should be enough no?
Click to expand...

the AA filter prevents moire effect by softening the light falling on the sensors a little. There is no way to get rid of moire in photoshop, but depending on what you shot, it may never be a problem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moiré_pattern
 
Last edited:
What you are actually seeing is Nikon sucessfully placing their product so that they can maximise sales! I am sure they will be launching products in the market sectors that make them the most money. I suspect that won't include a new D700 a like as that basically cannibalised sales from the D3! ;)
 
kalibre said:
I think the D800 is a great product assuming that the high-ISO performance is manageable. Is it going to make me cancel my D4 order? No, however It's interesting that Nikon can produce the D800 which has a large overlap with the D4 for £2400 whereas the D4 is £4800. i.e. twice the price......
Click to expand...

1. Why are you showing your gear as D4 when you don't own one?
2. None of the links in the photography services section of your site work
 
boyfalldown said:
the AA filter prevents moire effect by softening the light falling on the sensors a little. There is no way to get rid of moire in photoshop, but depending on what you shot, it may never be a problem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moiré_pattern
Click to expand...

I have an action that lessens moire, it is better on some images than others but it doesn't take up much time to run.
 
Digifrog said:
Shooting landscapes 99% of the time, I don't think I've ever gone over 200. I shot my friends daughters christening once where I had to shoot at 500. If I'm ever to shoot the northern lights I might need 1600 max.
Click to expand...

You have the D3x?

Maybe Nikon could have launced a D800 which would have been a tweak on the D700 (think D3s lite) and a D800x which is to a degree what we have here (think D3x lite)? Keeps everyone happy!
 
boyfalldown said:
the AA filter prevents moire effect by softening the light falling on the sensors a little. There is no way to get rid of moire in photoshop, but depending on what you shot, it may never be a problem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moiré_pattern
Click to expand...


Cheers for the link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc87cSIsoaI

Going by what is explained here the AA filter may cause false colour & moire but can be easily corrected in PP. How does one correct moire & false colour then?
 
Last edited:
We will see what the D400 like then we can probably judge what nikon's vision on their new lineup of cameras.

I would imagine the D400 will be the top end of DX so its still a step better then D7000. I would imagine everything will be similar to a D300s but improve mega pixel, ISO etc.
 
cowasaki said:
All ISO settings on digital cameras are dealt with in this way but the ideal is 200, the settings either way create more noise. I have done full range comparisons in the studio and when blown up you can see the difference albeit subtle between 100 and 200 or 200 and 400 etc.
Click to expand...

Not all of them are, not at all. Cameras alternate between analogue gain (multiplying the signal at the sensor site or after cascade, but before the ADC), or digital gain (after the ADC). There can be very different characteristics between them (D3s is a good example - read noise falls significantly with increasing ISO on it, which is why the dynamic range does not significantly fall between ISO 200 and 800. If there were no difference between analogue and digital gain, there would be an almost log linear decrease.)



Woodsy said:
This isn't correct.

Shooting the D700 at ISO 100 such that the "metered" exposure is correct in actual fact means over exposing at the sensor by a stop and reducing it in software by a stop. This is NOT the same as shooting the sensor at ISO 200 for the correct metered exposure and reducing by a stop. Obviously the first method achieves the correct exposure but with processing applied, and the second gives an exposure which is 1 stop under exposed. A fair test can only be made for the comparison of two sensors when they are exposed correctly at their base ISO. That way there is no processing done on the information.

Sensors only have one "sensitivity" going outside this is ALWAYS a software or electronic amplification process. Hence making a comparison where one sensor is not as Base ISO (above OR below) is not a fair test.
Click to expand...

Where did I say anything about changing the exposure between them? If looking to get an effective 100, of course the exposure would be a stop overexposed according to the meter for 200.

They have one base sensitivity yes. For an ideal sensor, there would be no difference between analogue and digital gain. For real sensors, there is a significant difference at lower ISOs, though this is beginning to diminish. If there weren't a difference, camera dynamic range curves would look very different across the ISO range to what they do currently.
 
Last edited:
Not of interest to me. Aside from huge files I can live without the extra storage requirements (both capture and archiving), the extra PP time and most likely a new Mac to do it all on.

Looks a cracking buy for the money. Just not for me.

I'm still on D3/D700 bodies and used flash once in 40 weddings last year - for 5 minutes of a first dance. Those ran from January to 29th December so I'm confident they'll continue to do the job. That said, a pair of D3s bodies are looking likely with a D4 so costly and needing 2 of whatever I get.

I get the odd wedding where I'm really pushing my luck and only fast lenses get me by. I'd be happy for another stop of headroom.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top