ekaton: Nice, but 24MP would have been it.
Having owned a D700 and a D800, I can tell you that more pixels is definately an advantage. Coming from the original X100, a move from 12MP to 24MP would have been a lot more compelling than from 12MP to 16MP.
Boss of Sony: Half-hearted upgrade. The 35mm equivalent lens is what kills this camera. 28mm would be more useful. Ricoh GR wins. Thinner and cheaper too.
Depends what you want. I use mine mostly for portraits and small group shots. For that, 35mm eq. is perfect.
bigdaddave: Emperor's new clothes, retro is always best.
A fixed lens, utterly limiting, a pointless exercise in posing
There speaks someone who's obviously never shot with one. The main reason people love this camera is because it's so compact for the image quality, and it has a built in viewfinder. Absolutely nothing compares to it. Add interchangeable lens ability and the camera would need to be much bigger (the lens is inset into the body and the sensor is specially configured to allow for this). I didn't even like the look of the camera when i first bought it. Retro's not my thing. Since then it's grown on me. I also love the fact that it goes by unnoticed in a way you can never manage with a full sized DSLR.
@Satchel - Image stabilisation? How many DSLRs do you shoot with that use IS for wide angle primes. What's that you say? None? The only thing missing here is a built in EVF.
The price could perhaps be justified if all the accessories were bundled, but Sony are clearly taking a huge gouge here. The price of the lens hood is a clear indication of that.
This kind of money is excessive for what is effectively a disposable camera. At least in the days of film, your high quality camera body wouldn't be rendered redundant every 5 years, and retained a reasonable resale value.
If they shaved off 30% of the price and included an EVF I might be interested, but I can't see enough benefit over my X100 to justify an upgrade.
pca7070: The orange "35mm FULL FRAME CMOS IMAGE SENSOR" collar looks cheap!!
God yeah, I would hate anyone to think I was stupid enough to throw money away on a clueless poseurs camera body like a Leica. Fujis are strictly for people who want maximum image quality and don't need an expensive badge to boost their ego.
SLRist: It is funny though how Canon has finally rocked up to the high ISO party only to realise that all the cool people have already left and gone to the high resolution party. Gotta feel a bit sorry for them.
Sorry, I can't help it. Just think of me waving a big Nikon scarf right now as I celebrate the new lease of life Nikon have breathed into my lens collection.
I'm hoping to become one of the cool people sometime in April with any luck...
Well, it looks like the D800 is the new King of the DxO Mark hill,coming in as #1 with a whopping score of 95.
Let's see if the 5D MKIII can get Canon into the top 10 for the first time. I can't wait!
Stanley zheng: I would be very pleased if dpreview could offer me some information in regards to the dynamic range of this camera compared with others. And also the focusing accuracy and consistency.
Well, I was right about the DxO mark score, so feeling smug about that.
I disagree that it means nothing. Any scientific and repeatable test has merit. I have consistently agreed wth DxO Mark's rankings of the cameras (both Nikon, Canon and Fuji) I own in relation to each other, so in my estimation, they are generally a trustworthy resource.
They test more than just resolution, as I'm sure you know.
I think we can be confident that both will be excellent.
It has the same AF as the D4, which is better than the D3S - which already had the best AF around.
It was designed for high DR. When you consider that the D7000 which has a very similar pixel density to the D800 had better DR than both the D3X and the Fuji S5 Pro, and both of those had amazingly good DR...
My estimation is that the D800 is going to take (or be very close to taking) the top spot on the DxO Mark sensor ranking chart - beating even the D4.
It is funny though how Canon has finally rocked up to the high ISO party only to realise that all the cool people have already left and gone to the high resolution party. Gotta feel a bit sorry for them.
Canon have a habit of choosing default settings to appeal to the consumer. In their camcorders, it's all saturation and sharpness to the maxxx. On their high ISO shots, NR is cranked right up to smooth out the luminosity speckling at the expense of obscuring any fine detail.
rhlpetrus: DPR: ISO 100 settings for D800: 1/15s, f/11. For D4: 1/8s, f/11. That's one full EV difference, how come?
How about the likelihood that it's just a typo?
Any comparison here is pointless. You can't compare these samples directly. you need to downscale images shot to the same pixel density.
Suffice to say, everything I've seen here and elsewhere suggests that the D800 is as good as the D3S, at least up to ISO6400.
paultherope: I'm not a professional photographer and I suspect these cameras will be used more in RAW and probably lower ISO settings, but is there a problem with the JPG on the D800:
From 6400 onwards there appears to be bleed from the red heart into the upper left quadrant of the black and white cross. It gets progressively worse at higher ISOs.
Is this a dpreview processing issue or is this directly from the camera?
PS Still looks like a fantastic camera
Nobody is going to be shooting the D800 at ISO 6400 for anything where IQ is critcal. I mean really.
bradleyg5: " file size - 36.3MP .NEF files will take up approximately 76.5MB on a memory card"
Am I the only one that sees that as a bad thing? Regardless of how large they make the buffer, that buffer is going to clear pictures twice as slowly as the 5dIII.
I'd rather shoot in raw on the 5dIII than be forced to shoot JPEG on the D800. I hit my buffer all the time on the 5dII and I'm not really interested in a camera twice as slow.
If they're lossless compressed, they take up about 40MB. Anyhow, if you're always filling your buffer, you probably have the wrong style of camera anyway. You should be looking at the D4 or a 1DS MK4. All that mirror slap induced blur is going to totally invalidate any resolution advantage you get from shooting at 36MP (or 22MP for that matter).
johnnymac43: I am having focusing issues as well, this camera doesn't focus as good as my Canon S90. For the most part it is great but not as good as the Canon. Anyone else with a focusing problems?
Much ado about nothing. This kind of rubbish accompanies every release of every new camera. I've seen photos showing this blooming, and it's only visible when pixel peeping. You'll never see it in a printed photo. This is yet another case of complete over-reaction. Those people who are about to return their cameras be honest - did you actually notice the problem before you read about it in the Internet? I guarantee you did not.