The D800 has Landed!

[punkromance]

I don't need to pixel peep, I can look at my own eresults. As for Hipstamatic, did I offend you? Awwww. Don't be so agro dude. Take a chill pill.

You asked for samples, I gave you them.
The Hipstamatic was a joke man. I thought you were funny. I think you're the one getting too defensive.

If you are using a camera of this caliber, wouldn't you have storage and a decent computer already? Storage is dirt cheap.

This my point, this camera's priced in a weird place where it's bloody expensive, but if you're really into photography then it's not too expensive. If I were to buy it (which I probably will) that will be all my money gone and it'll leave me living solely on ramen noodles for many many months after. I don't have money to then spend on more harddrives (and backups!) which have recently got pretty expensive due to the floods in Thailand, and on top of that buy a new computer.

Nikon must be dumb to have used such a sensor? Do you really think Nikon would sabotage themselves with poor high ISO? I have a feeling it'll be fine.

People are misinterpreting me. The sensor looks incredible for what it is, but what it is is a highly specialised sensor (the highest MP sensor before this was an $8000 D3X with 2/3 the MP), aimed at a market who would probably benefit much more from a lower MP, higher ISO one. I imagine it'll sell fine regardless, as people don't really have a choice if they want cheap FF upgrade that shoots video, without jumping ship.

Can I see it? Is it only one photo? I don't care either way, but I think it's too early to dismiss this camera. I hate DSLRs so I won't be buying one.

Aye, it was on that link I posted earlier.
http://chsv.nikon-image.com/products/camera/slr/digital/d800/img/sample01/img_02_l.jpg

What would be the point.....at more Pro prices.

I don't understand how it would even be technically possible to make cheaper models as good as the top end models for less money. 😕

I think I just addressed your first bit earlier in this reply.
For the second bit - it would have actually been cheaper for Nikon to make it as good as the D4, as then they would have only needed to research and manufacture one sensor. The D3/D700 share exactly the same sensor. The only thing that differs is the housing, some of the technical features like more FPS etc. But the problem with this is that fewer people would buy the D4 as the D800 would have done 90% of what it did, for half the price.

Are you sure about that? They could just as likely be using pixel binning like the GH2.

I'm not too clued up about video so I'm not the best person to ask, but in as much as I know pixel binning isn't desireable, and a fair bit of work is done in post (be it in camera or not) to fix it.

Anyway, I'm off to school! I look forward to coming back to all your replies, haha.

 

[nobbylon]

How's it looking Zurab? regards j

 

[Highway 61]

You guys are already set against the sensor in this camera without seeing results? why?

RAW files weight and pointless resolution unless you have a **very** large monitor at home and usually print 70x90 cm photos daily.

 

[Viktor Sebastian]

I'm not too clued up about video so I'm not the best person to ask, but in as much as I know pixel binning isn't desireable, and a fair bit of work is done in post (be it in camera or not) to fix it.

Trust me. Pixel binning is the way to go.

 

[BobYIL]

They did not employ the same fiberglas shutter (400K) of the D4 in D800 too.

 

[Viktor Sebastian]

Yes, drop your worthless D700s like rocks into the sea

 

[kanzlr]

I hope Nikon releases a more "true" D700 successor. Otherwise it is a bit of a pain if your D700 dies and there is no FX enthusiast body with a bit lower price tag.

 

[Spicy]

Seems like perfect marketing (creating a niche, leveraging brand image, and then changing the game so that people who were thinking about it and where *just* about to buy one end up upgrading).

While it sounds like it'll be a great camera, I agree with most people saying that an 18mpx camera with usable ISO to 9837459837151930752345 would be more preferable.

I'd say that the D700 was just at the cusp of prosumer. The D800 is basically only "prosumer" because the D4 is going to cost almost twice as much. That's like saying a Lotus is a cheap car for poor people because Lamborghinis and Ferraris are 5x as much.

3k is a lot for an avid enthusiast, and my guess is the people who would buy a camera for work reasons (ie: basing significant income off it) are going to be investing in the D4 anyways. The D700 was basically the "scrape enough together to buy it because it's a 97% of a D3" camera. Aside from the size benefits, the number of people who were going to pony up for the D3 but went with the D700 instead is probably not all that significant, though I'm sure quite a few exist.

 

[Mudman]

It's overkill for the journalism work I do. It's awesome for my landscape work, where I've been wanting to make 20x30 inch prints with plenty of detail.

 

[mdarnton]

So many angry people! Is it really that awful? If you don't like the camera, buy something else. Or buy the company and make them do it your way. 🙂

 

[nobbylon]

and a lot of wedding photographers who carry 2. A lot lighter than carrying 2 D3's. I'll bet this 800 ends up doing a lot of weddings!

 

[Viktor Sebastian]

It´s probably the perfect body for Leica R glass...

 

[Harry Lime]

Where are my 14 stops of dynamic range?

Lost in a sea of pixels.

 

[rover]

You guys are already set against the sensor in this camera without seeing results? why?

secretly they all can't stand anything larger than m4/3 sensors?

 

[dallard]

Nikon's pretty clever. They don't install an AA filter then charge you more for not installing it. The profits on the E are going to be sweet.

 

[Tim Gray]

I'd say that the D700 was just at the cusp of prosumer. The D800 is basically only "prosumer" because the D4 is going to cost almost twice as much. That's like saying a Lotus is a cheap car for poor people because Lamborghinis and Ferraris are 5x as much.

3k is a lot for an avid enthusiast...

Wasn't the D700 $3k when introduced? I would imagine the D800 will drop down in price in the future just like the D700 did. Nikon (or Canon) isn't keep introducing camera successors at the final price point of the predecessor. They're trying to maintain that price point zone.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Ha. I'm with Michael on this. Deep breathing. They are just cameras. By way of a round-about comment: I have recently been trying to tweak a studio light setup -- lots of portraits with a Leica M9 at ISO 100. I have been very happy with the quality of the Leica files so far. I also have a D3 and have to say that my favorite photographs from the last three years consistently come from that camera (particularly portraits with the 105/2 DC – the color rendition out of the camera is perfect for what I do). However, the high-ISO capabilities of the D3 were what sold me on the beast. But I laugh at what I considered high ISO at the time. A usable, attractive ISO 1600? Luxury!

Rightly or wrongly, I think the collective gear-head mindset (of which I am as much afflicted as the next RFF'er) has come to expect miracles on a regular basis. I have to say, based on the specs, the D800 looks like a pretty impressive feat of engineering, particularly when compared to, say, the D200, just 6-7 years ago. Can anyone think of a comparable leap in absolute image quality (or capability) in a comparable 6 year period of film photography? I can’t. In 1985 I was shooting Tri-X in a Pentax K1000. In 1989, I was shooting Tri-X in a Pentax LX. In 1994 I was shooting Tri-X in a Nikon F4. Notice a trend? However in 2005, I was shooting with an Epson RD-1 and a Canon digi-Rebel. Now I am shooting with a D3 and an M9, and all the APS-C options for Leica glass (Ricoh, Sony NEX, Olympus Pens etc.), have better high ISO performance (by several stops) than my 2005 cameras. Just amazing.

BTW, for definitional purposes - I view "professional" prices as starting at $20K for digital medium format backs and/or the Leica S2. These are prices that only make sense for the very rich or working pros who can amortize the cost and write it off as a business expense. Most of the rest of us are balancing photography costs against other entertainment expenses in our lives. $3K? For a working adult with disposable income who is focused on photography rather than cars, stereos, musical instruments, or second homes it is not too much to contemplate spending on entertainment over a reasonable period of time. To make a spurious comparison: most folks in the US will spend more than that on their cell phone bills over the life of a durable piece of photo equipment. Or their cable bills. $3000 is $57.60 a week for a year. I bet most working grown-ups spend that much on gas or lunch in the course of a year. Hey, that Leica S2 is looking better and better . . . .


Edit: re: AA filter. The articles I have read say that the 800E will have "a weak" AA filter, rather than none. We'll see, I guess, when the thing actually hits the stores.

 

[dogberryjr]

I winced when I saw the announcement. There has been a lot of buzz about what the D800 would be (starting soon after the release of the D700, of course), but I'm pleased. The D800 will be the camera for many photographers out there, but it doesn't do anything that I want (need?), so my trusty D700 is in no danger of the dreaded upgrade. I'd love to have the D4's high ISO capabilities, but, damn, isn't 6400 pretty impressive already?

 

[BobYIL]

Concerning the filter on the 800E: (scroll down)


http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-11674-12304

 

[literiter]

I didn't by the D300 'cause I knew the D700 was going to come out. I'm glad I didn't buy the D700 because the new D800 is so great.

I think I'll wait on the D800 and see what the next one is like perhaps the D900E or even the D1000E. Then even Canon may get into the fray..................!