This week Nikon is bringing their newest DSLR to the market, the Nikon D800 being a major update over their previous installment to this series, the Nikon 700. This D800 camera is one made for professionals needing only the highest resolution, it having its manufacturer’s own largest full-frame sensor at 32 Megapixels strong. This camera does not have the same speed or low-light capabilities as the Nikon D4, that camera also just having a 16.2 MP sensor, it positioned instead to compete with the Canon 5D Mark II as well as the older Nikon D3x instead.
This monster is set to cost $3,999 MSRP and will be worth every single penny with a 35.9 x 24mm sensor at 36.3 MP FX, 4.8µ pixel size, this therefor capable of 7360 x 4912 pixel resolution photos. This device has a native ISO sensitivity of 100-6,400, a Boost Low ISO sensitivity of down to 50 and a Boost High ISO sensitivity of a massive 12,800-25,600. The entire body of this device is made of magnesium alloy, it’s got weather sealing and protection all around, and it stores data on either of its card slots, one each of a CF card slot and an SD card slot.
The Nikon D800 has camera lag of 0.012 seconds and its shutter will essentially never fail on you, it having 200,000 cycles and the ability to self-diagnose. You can rock at 4 FPS or 6 FPS in DX mode with your optional MB-D12 battery pack. You’ll see it all on your 3.2 inch LCD display on the back with 921,000 dots across its entirety, and the unit does indeed have a built-in flash. This flash exists with Commander Mode and full CLS compatibility. You’ll be able to record movies at Full 1080p HD at 30 FPS, and you’ve got a 30 minute recording limit at 30 FPS or 20 minutes at 24 FPS.
There’s no built-in GPS, but you can get a GP-1 GPS unit to work out what you need worked out, and the battery is a EN-EL15 and will work for you through 850 shots. You’ll be able to connect to the camera with USB 3.0 if you wish, and the whole thing without a lens on it weighs in at 895 g. This camera is set to officially be unveiled tomorrow and Nikon will then have full details on where you can order one up – but we’re guessing you’ve already got your favorite outlet in mind.
The 36 mpixels worries me. I'm looking for better ISO performance than my D7000. It's just not good enough.
I do like the smaller size and SD options though! And of course the built in flash (which I use to control speedlights wirelessly)
But it's tempting to rob the piggy bank and go for the D4 instead. 16 MPixels is fine. Especially if it has as good or better low light performance than the D3S.
Of course, the thought of rock hopping across streams carrying a $6000 camera worries me too.
The 36 mpixels worries me. I'm looking for better ISO performance than my D7000. It's just not good enough.
I do like the smaller size and SD options though! And of course the built in flash (which I use to control speedlights wirelessly)
But it's tempting to rob the piggy bank and go for the D4 instead. 16 MPixels is fine. Especially if it has as good or better low light performance than the D3S.
Of course, the thought of rock hopping across streams carrying a $6000 camera worries me too.
I'm not too thrilled they jumped to that many MP either. But this camera isn't marketed to me. The difference between 12 and 16MP isn't that big in real life. The iso performance on the D3s is amazingly good. I remember not many years ago that you couldn't shoot 800ISO and not deal with noise. Even shadow noise at 6400 on a properly exposed shot is unbelievable. And I can and regularly do shoot at 12,800 for newprint and even prints up to 8x10.
And rock hopping with a $6000 camera? That is what insurance is for.
Very exciting. Been watching the rumours for months. The 36Mp is a surprise.
Nikon's D800/D800E product page can't cope atm :)
Oddly their Press and Digitutor pages are.
The D800E has the anti-aliasing filter removed, which drastically improves sharpness but at the risk of adding moire under certain conditions, like photographing the fly screen on your back door.
Very exciting. Been watching the rumours for months. The 36Mp is a surprise.
Nikon's D800/D800E product page can't cope atm :)
Oddly their Press and Digitutor pages are.
The D800E has the anti-aliasing filter removed, which drastically improves sharpness but at the risk of adding moire under certain conditions, like photographing the fly screen on your back door.
And I just blindly and perhaps stupidly ordered one, figuring I better get in line. Though maybe I should have waited for the one with the AA filter? I'm sure I have a few days/weeks to figure it out before BH charges me...so I can always cancel.
Very exciting. Been watching the rumours for months. The 36Mp is a surprise.
Nikon's D800/D800E product page can't cope atm :)
Oddly their Press and Digitutor pages are.
The D800E has the anti-aliasing filter removed, which drastically improves sharpness but at the risk of adding moire under certain conditions, like photographing the fly screen on your back door.
And I just blindly and perhaps stupidly ordered one, figuring I better get in line. Though maybe I should have waited for the one with the AA filter? I'm sure I have a few days/weeks to figure it out before BH charges me...so I can always cancel.
Congratulations! If I were a Nikon man I would have done this too. It is a real WOW! Love the time lapse facility and the fact that you can shoot in different formats. Canon, you are in trouble!!!!!
On Nikon's site they mention that the new Version of Capture NX2 will treat moiré if you get it in your images. So my guess for sharpness freaks the D800E's the way to go :)
I've never been a pixel peeper but in THIS case it's a significant leap especially when printing A1 or cropping. MF comparable?
Compare the previous models pixel density to the D800. To all appearances it’s not at the cost of IQ, sharpness or noise either, keeping in line with the high ISO, low noise tradition of all Nikon full frame DSLR’s from the D700 on up.
D700- 14,063 pixels/mm² (12.1 Mp FX 36.0 x 23.9mm)
D3 -– 14,063 pixels/mm² (12.1 Mp FX 36.0 x 23.9mm)
D3s – 14,063 pixels/mm² (12.1 Mp FX 36.0 x 23.9mm)
D3x – 30,113 pixels/mm² (24.5 Mp FX 35.9 x 24.0mm)
D4 -– 18,850 pixels/mm² (16.2 Mp FX 36.0 x 23.9mm)
D800– 42,131 pixels/mm² (36.3 Mp FX 35.9 x 24.0mm)
Granted, overkill for me, but for studio and landscape togs printing their work? Macro? Each to his own :)
Indeed. Especially relevant, since this camera has a (theoretical) sensor resolution of 100 line pairs per millimeter, exactly the example used in the linked discussion.
FWIW, I think that most really good modern lenses can meet the need, but we'll notice more degradation of performance off center, and some lenses will not look so good anymore.
ETA: I'm kind of excited to see what the performance of this sensor is like. It's a Nikon-built sensor, not an outsourced unit. I can't see any reliable reference as to whether it is a backlit design, but if it is, that could well offset some of the negative effects of the high density (higher fill factor on backlit designs allows larger active pixel area)
It will be *really* interesting to see what Canon does in response. The scuttle but is they are not planning on a significant pixel count boost on the 5DIII, and we should find out the details in a month or so.
I just saw this on the Nikon Facebook page. From my phone it looks good.... Anyone want to confirm this being that I don't have access to a computer til late tonight...?
It seems to me that the release of the D800 for $3000 will kill the sales of the D4. I have read in this thread that low light performance will be better in the D4, but that's only one slight advantage.
Can someone explain way they would pay twice as much for a D4 as they would for a D800? What are the significant differences that would justify the difference in price?
It seems to me that the release of the D800 for $3000 will kill the sales of the D4. I have read in this thread that low light performance will be better in the D4, but that's only one slight advantage.
Can someone explain way they would pay twice as much for a D4 as they would for a D800? What are the significant differences that would justify the difference in price?
I'm not really arguing with you.... but the same could have been argued for the D700 vs D3... yet D3 sales were fine.
They're sorta designed for different venues. D800 is not a sports camera, D4 is. D800 would presumably be better for landscapes, and is also more fragile than the D4 build.
It'll mean slower processing in the camera... which probably accounts for the relatively slow 4-6 fps rate. That right there would be a deal breaker for me. This doesn't sound like a camera that would be particularly good for sports.
