Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Nikon D800 hands-on preview

By dpreview staff on Feb 7, 2012 at 04:18 GMT

We've had some time with a pre-production D800 and have prepared a detailed in-depth preview. Nikon's latest DSLR boasts core technology borrowed from the top-end D4, married with a 36.3MP CMOS sensor that comfortably eclipses the rest of the DSLR market in resolution terms. As well as first impressions of handling and operation, and an in-depth look at the D800's specifications we've also dived a little deeper into the D800E, the D800's sister model, which cancels-out the effect of its anti-aliasing filter. 

Comments

Total comments: 287
123
Redirector
By Redirector (Feb 7, 2012)

Great write-up. Was wondering about the AF settings and performance while shooting video -- are AF options are available for both stills and video, and how well does it work in practice? Coming from D90 I am used to MF and selecting proper apertures, but on occasion an AF option would come in handy.

I think D90 vs D800 video would be like upgrading from Circus Circus to the Bellagio.

0 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (Feb 7, 2012)

A film by Sandro shot with the Nikon D800
Joy Ride - Behind the Scenes :
http://vimeo.com/36306101

http://vimeo.com/36305675

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Jez EMIN
By Jez EMIN (Feb 7, 2012)

Yes,

And did you notice how much kit and personel they threw at that 5 minute reel ??

I mean, was that close to a $1m production ? Or more ??

0 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (Feb 7, 2012)

After they shot the season finale of the popular TV show House in 2010 with the Canon 5D MKII they said production costs were the same as with their normal gear.

0 upvotes
Marvboater
By Marvboater (Feb 7, 2012)

just ordered my D800E this morning ..

1 upvote
ecm
By ecm (Feb 7, 2012)

Wouldn't want it, even if I COULD have it. They've gone too far. After a certain point it's not the quantity but the QUALITY of the pixels. 36 MP? I can print 20x30 and larger with 18MP.... so what's the point in more? I've printed 5 and 8 MP at 16X20 with excellent results. The same rules as always apply - good composition, appropriate lighting and capturing the moment....

OTOH, sans anti-aliasing fliter - now THAT"S interesting!

5 upvotes
Joseph S Wisniewski
By Joseph S Wisniewski (Feb 7, 2012)

18mp at 20x30 is only 173dpi. That's a poster.

If you haven't seen the depth possible in a well done 360dpi print, you have no idea what "excellent results" are. That's 77mp on a 20x30. D800 is half-way there. ;)

4 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Feb 7, 2012)

I guess that's the purpose for their "other" FF cameras.
Additionally, it's because they can. The pixel density on this one is comparable to recent APS-C sensors. I think, you could get the maximum res with a good prime lens.

0 upvotes
Ratatosk
By Ratatosk (Feb 7, 2012)

You have to learn about the types of photography there is. YOUR type may be simple and not demand more. There are others of us out there that really need these MP.

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Feb 7, 2012)

noise looks ugly at ISO320.... you can have that 36 MP... i stick with a cleaner image i can upsample.

0 upvotes
ecm
By ecm (Feb 8, 2012)

@ joseph s w - 175 ppi is fine, as long as you have the right up-rez program. When it's going to be viewed at 3+ feet, each blade of grass isn't important. I know, this has been debated on the forums ad nauseum.... and I'm not trying to raise that spectre....

Some of the best modern photography I've seen in the last few years has not required umpty-'leven megapuxels. It's subject, lighting, composition that make a great photo. And yea, I'm not anywhere close to "there" yet.

@zodiacfml - "Additionally, it's because they can." - spot on.

@Ratatosk - Actually, I agree - horses for courses, absolutely. But I didn't say that "No-one would want it" I said "I wouldn't want it".....

@Henry M. - the noise is a bit disconcerting, but it's a pre-production sample. I can't remember which camera right now, but IIRC we got fooled by a pre-production model in the not-so-distant past, too.

0 upvotes
birdbrain
By birdbrain (Feb 7, 2012)

OK so Nikon have released a camera which is at least 80-90% of its top model for half the price.

So are Mercedes going to release a car that is 80-90% of their top model and sell it for half the price? But it would be worse than that as the D800 offers more resolution than the D4. So Mercedes would have to give the cheaper car a better top speed but not so good acceleration?

Well-done Nikon but I just can't get my head around the thinking.

Why would you buy a D4 when you could have a couple of D800's? OK the D4 can bash out a few more frames a second, but the D800 is no slouch and you only need the D4 speed for certain shooting situations.

Oh to be a fly on the wall at Canon! They will either be very cool and collected as the 5D3 will easily rival the D800. Or they will be tearing their hair out wondering what to do!

I await Canon's announcement.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Feb 7, 2012)

Some ways that the D4 is very very likely to best the D800:

Auto-focus speed, auto-focus accuracy, colour quality, low light, weather sealing, building quality, file processing speed, and even long exposures.

0 upvotes
Jmmg
By Jmmg (Feb 7, 2012)

Mercedes SLS cost from $210,000. and their AMG Black C63 start from $100,000. Half the price but it will gives you probably better performance and diving dynamic. Just a thought.

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Fullframer
By Fullframer (Feb 7, 2012)

You would want the D4 over the D800 if you shoot sports, shooting at high ISO, indoor no flash, dim lighting situations, where the D4 is better than the D800.

1 upvote
birdbrain
By birdbrain (Feb 8, 2012)

The D800 has the same AF as the D4 so don't see it being any slower in that department.

Agreed about sport shooting hence "needing the D4 for certain shooting situations."

It's still a lot of camera for the price.

It's also two cameras in one as you can use it FF for those situations where FF excels. Then you can switch it to the lower res setting to get the reach but still walk away with a 16 MP image, all in one camera.

I know of some photographers that have two bodies, FF and crop, for just that reason. Now you can have just the one which will do it all.

Still waiting with interest as to Canon's offering.

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (Feb 7, 2012)

Video shot with D800

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3doNm4bH7U

0 upvotes
K_Photo_Teach
By K_Photo_Teach (Feb 7, 2012)

How do people think 36 megapixels would do for astrophotography?!
I`m thinking it would be insane

0 upvotes
MarkByland
By MarkByland (Feb 7, 2012)

You'd be better off purchasing a Peltier-cooled FLI 39Mp dedicated CCD and the results would be miles better in comparison. Unfortunately, the FLI will dwarf the cost of the D800 by thousands, but the results would speak for themselves.

More MP = more heat = more noise = more hot/dead pixels. Good AP requires cooled sensors past a certain exposure time. The noise would be out of control!

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
liquidsquid
By liquidsquid (Feb 7, 2012)

Don't forget you do not have to take images at the full resolution of the sensor, you can always take them at say 18mpx instead of 36, and only go full-rez when you really need it. Keep your processing time to a minimum that way, and you really don't loose much at 1/2 of rated resolution anyway due to AA filters and interpolation on a Bayer array. Without an AA filter in this camera this may not be true anymore, but software in the camera simply adds that function back in so it is yet to be seen in the RAW output where that AA filtering is performed.

(Can this be controlled on RAW files on Nikon, or are they always full-res?)

You shouldn't have to process the monsters unless you really need to. The advantage here is you can jump up to such a monstrous resolution when needed, then back down when not or your lens is not up to snuff and memory space would simply be wasted.

This looks to be a helluva tool. If it wasn't so large and expensive for casual use I would be all over it.

0 upvotes
John De Bord Photography
By John De Bord Photography (Feb 7, 2012)

Why would anyone spend several grand on a camera body only to use 1/2 it's resolution? I also don't understand how that would cut down on ones processing time either.Then again I have 16 gigs of ram in my desktop.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (Feb 7, 2012)

because they do need it, but not all the time. That's called flexibility.

2 upvotes
jadot
By jadot (Feb 7, 2012)

That's called paying for perhaps redundant technology, (to any given particular user) when the tool you already have works just fine.

0 upvotes
Redirector
By Redirector (Feb 7, 2012)

I agree on the flexibility, as I'm upgrading from D90 and have legacy DX lenses and FX glass... so the ability to have 15.4mp DX is an improvement, and 36mp for FX lenses is a fine option. And all the video improvements will make a big difference in quality & service for clients already pleased with current output via D90.

0 upvotes
Ethom
By Ethom (Feb 7, 2012)

that's inposible in raw, and if you want control over wb, and a little bit over exposure it's raw!

0 upvotes
Jmmg
By Jmmg (Feb 7, 2012)

You mean like most People whos buy a Ferrari or Lamborghini but only drive them at 55mph all the time on busy bar stripe but never ever fully maximize the potential of what their car can do and that the explanation of having a 36MP camera but only shot at 8MP, thats call "My Cock is so small, but look at me look at my car and my camera!"

0 upvotes
sixby06
By sixby06 (Feb 7, 2012)

Phenomenal. This may have just about swayed me from putting myself into several years of debt to afford a 645D!

1 upvote
Robert P Miller
By Robert P Miller (Feb 7, 2012)

Been thinking the same thing. Though Since I'm in the Canon camp, I'll await their salvo.

0 upvotes
Silvarum
By Silvarum (Feb 7, 2012)

I'd prefer 645D anyday just for their MF lenses (old ones, if you can call them old). Wonder if there'll be a replacement anytime soon.

0 upvotes
jquagga
By jquagga (Feb 7, 2012)

Somewhat disappointing. I understand not wanting the D800 to be the D4 in a smaller, more reasonable body but that leaves me without a FX model to lust after. The D4 is too big and unwieldy and the D800 just isn't as interesting. I don't need the massive MP files but I would have liked the ISO performance of the D4.

So my wallet thanks you!

1 upvote
001FJ
By 001FJ (Feb 7, 2012)

I don't know how much of an ISO performance you need, but the D700 is still a very amazing camera. I predicted it will be sought after even more after the announcement of the D800, because it has the best compromise of image quality and size/weight for any full-frame camera seeker--it's an all around amazing camera.

If you can afford the D3s then go for it because I don't think the D4 will offer you much more, and even if the D800 wasn't all about MP it still wouldn't touch the D3s ISO performance. I know it is "too" big, but hey you can't have it all in life. ;)

2 upvotes
Nismo350Z
By Nismo350Z (Feb 7, 2012)

For those who want to see more hi-res photos of the D800 and other previously released Nikon gear then follow the link below. Just make sure your keyboard is waterproof for when you drool ;)

http://press.nikonusa.com/photogallery/?c=Digital_SLR

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (Feb 7, 2012)

Great, can't wait to see the studio shots. Especially from de D800e. This is no camera for people who bitch about too many megapixels. I like it. It has about the same pixel density as a d7000. 16 megapixel is proving to be the sweetspot for resolution vs iso on aps-c so 36mp should be on full frame (unless technology improves drastically).
I'm wondering, is there no way to settle this low pass anti-aliassing issue, yes or no, through a software setting? Does it have to be a seperate model? Would make for a more flexible camera.

0 upvotes
Gabor Kiss
By Gabor Kiss (Feb 7, 2012)

Sounds good all the specs except why so difficult to understand than photographers don't really want video mode. Maybe just personal experience even I use canon 5d mk2 but not for a second never turned on the video.
Much more waiting for results of noise handling with this resolution instead movie mode. I hope canon won't do the same as nikon and will focus for still picture, anyway we have to live with this combination either canon or nikon.
Let see the test first...what will you get for your money:D

0 upvotes
AlastairMoore
By AlastairMoore (Feb 7, 2012)

Don't want video mode? Don't use it. Actually, a lot of photographers and their clients want video. Do you know how much of a premium it would cost for them to release a specific camera without video for whingers such as yourself?

A lot.

2 upvotes
Gabor Kiss
By Gabor Kiss (Feb 7, 2012)

Yeh true Good to know there is I just didn't use till this time. Maybe 'll try once

1 upvote
stevenstreet483
By stevenstreet483 (Feb 7, 2012)

There are a ton of budding cinematographers who shoot movies with these things. In fact the new movie "Act of Valor" was shot on the 5D MKII. That means these movie people are doing more with that camera then you ever will as a photographer.

0 upvotes
mekanik
By mekanik (Feb 7, 2012)

My problem is that the engineering power in all camera companies is heavily shifted nowadays to provide video capabilities that apparently 'everyone' desires. And when you look at the specs of a modern camera movie modes take more space there than still modes. Maybe I'm in minority, I've never ever made even a second of video footage but what really worries me that it seems camera companies stopped improving photographic capabilities of our cameras. Or in other words who knows how much better quality of the stills would be if 80% of engineers weren't busy working on video.

0 upvotes
liquidsquid
By liquidsquid (Feb 7, 2012)

The problem is video is the new frontier on stills. There simply wouldn't be as many engineers if video wasn't being added to cameras these days. What would we gain by putting more engineers on stills? Faster frame rates? More pixels? More DR? How much is needed to make money when using the camera as a tool.

0 upvotes
tr6me
By tr6me (Feb 7, 2012)

Shooting movies is a very different art/profession/occupation as shooting photo's. Cinematographers use DSLRS with a purpose and they know exactly what they do and what limitations they have to work around. DSLR's are very inconvenient 'handycams'. Prosumer grade HD camcorders from Panasonic and Canon outperform DSLR's on every aspect but 'shallow depth of field'. Occasionally I use the video option of my DSLR's to shoot additional HD footage from different angles (fixed on tripods and with external microphones). Main camcorder being a versatile 2 year old Panasonic SD750 3MOS Full HD 50P unit. All good enough for HD Youtube and Blu Ray reportages of classic motor sport events. But no match for dedicated 4K pro movie gear.

0 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Feb 7, 2012)

Adding these video capabilities is cheap, it is mostly in the software, only a few extra connectors and a cheap AD converter & headphone amp is needed. I do not think they make more than 5% of the total cost, even the software engineering included. If you do not like it, do not use the video...

0 upvotes
larrytusaz
By larrytusaz (Feb 7, 2012)

I agree completely, especially with what (mekanik) said.

I myself don't do video, and I'm not a paid pro so it's easy for me to say this, but I would refuse a gig offered to me if video was part of the requirements. Why do clients all of a sudden expect photographers to be videographers? I don't expect my plumber to be my car mechanic.

My main problem, though, as (mekanik) said, is I want my tool to be photographer-centric, and it's not as simple as "if you don't like it don't use it." The buttons clutter up the interface & get in your way, the "red dot" button especially. This especially applies on the excellent D5100, because that button SCREAMS to be used for setting ISO, but you can't customize it. (I think you can on the D800, however.)

I have always loved PHOTOGRAPHY, I don't like VIDEOGRAPHY, and I don't do it, period. Just like John Mellencamp said about "No Better Than This," to paraphrase: he does what HE likes, if you don't like it there's always Justin Bieber.

0 upvotes
mekanik
By mekanik (Feb 7, 2012)

One of the reasons I love Fuji XPro1. Yes it does video... if you insist and really have to but no stupid red dot button that you 'always' press when you in a hurry to take a photo (and it usually takes quite a few steps to leave movie mode, horror!). I want my still camera to take still images.

0 upvotes
tr6me
By tr6me (Feb 7, 2012)

First working with 16 MP RAW files my workflow was extremely fast in Lightroom... Switching to 24 MP RAW slowed down everything considerably.

Shortly I wil invest in the fastest workstation and HD's to speed up my work process again. 24 MP picture quality is soo darn high and in most cases sheer overkill...and you need superb glasswork. I really wonder who needs 36 MP or more. Most (Nikon FF) lenses won't cope with this resolution. You'll have the same lens limitations... only enlarged.

I know now that 16-18 MP is more than enough for 99% of all photo work. 24 MP or more only for VERY large format HQ PRINTS. I would stick to 16-18 MP and buy the best lenses money can buy!

1 upvote
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Feb 7, 2012)

Except for possibly soft corners in the cheaper lenses, all FF Nikkors will shine with this camera. They do with my D7000's similar density sensor. Don't spread myths.

2 upvotes
tr6me
By tr6me (Feb 7, 2012)

D7000's 16,2 MP and D800's 36 MP is a HUGE difference. DX format camera's like the D7000 use the sweet spot of lenses, FF camera's like the D800 show every aspect of a lens. No myth.

1 upvote
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Feb 7, 2012)

excatly!
noobs often think that a lens has optimum performance over the whole image circle... they don´t.

1 upvote
AmaturFotografer
By AmaturFotografer (Feb 8, 2012)

If the corner performance of one lens is bad, it is bad at any resolution. No myth.

0 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Feb 7, 2012)

Nikon is careful not to remind potential buyers that there are extremely few lenses which resolve well enough to give real 36 MPix resolution. Also no f-stops smaller than f6.3 should be used, as diffraction will start to soften the image if stopped more.

Here can be found the real life maximum resolutions at different f-stops, sensor sizes and light wavelengths: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml

Scroll to the end of the page. With f8 maximum is 29 MPix, with F22 only 4MPix, something that is very easy to see with macro lenses with present day cameras already.

So landscape photographers can get real 36 MPix out of this new camera by using only the best primes at larger apertures. At small apertures and with big DOF it is no better than D700.

I am not saying that it is not an impressive camera, it is! Just that some facts of life and physics start to get in the way, and people should be aware of that.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Feb 7, 2012)

False, all my lenses DX or FX, outresolve the D7000's sensor, with same density as this one. This is one of the hard-dying myths still surviving in digital photography.

3 upvotes
liquidsquid
By liquidsquid (Feb 7, 2012)

It DOES allow one to pixel-peep and see lens flaws much more effectively though. Cheaper lenses will really appear cheap. However I think the target audience of this camera knows this, and knows what lens will go well with the system (most at least).

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Feb 7, 2012)

rhlpetrus get a clue what you are tallking about.

0 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Feb 7, 2012)

rhlpetrus: Some lenses can resolve good enough, but not all, especially zooms. Diffraction, on the other hand, is not a myth, it is a law of physics which no lens can circumvent. That link is worth looking at for a reality check.

0 upvotes
jadot
By jadot (Feb 7, 2012)

rhlpetrus : DX utilises the Sweet Spot of any lens, which is why often crappy lenses can look relatively good on DX sensors. FX pushes the circle and really only the best lenses can give the desired results. Don't believe me? Go and check the 70-200 2.8 VR on both systems and you'll see slightly sharper results in the corners on the DX camera. The true advantages of FX are, amongst other things, the opportunity to shoot truly wide lenses, and the potential for a high resolution but less dense sensor (See d300 vs d700) therefor producing a lower gain image. The physics states that the pixel density of the d7000 is fine when capturing the sweet spot of good lenses, but double the size of the circle and you're potentially starting to out resolve even the best glass. Throw a bit of diffraction into the mix and you're not really going to see far better results than your 12MP D700 that you're used to. Good Light, right Aperture, BEst lens? Sure, why not. But you can't beat the physics.

0 upvotes
Dennis
By Dennis (Feb 7, 2012)

Wouldn't it be better to have a sensor that exploits your lenses than one that doesn't ? And why avoid stopping down just because your sensor is so good that it's potential resolution is limited by diffraction ? It's not like you're going to get worse results stopped down with a high res camera than a low res one. I think it's all down to everyone's preoccupation with pixel peeping. It might produce an amazing 24x36" print or a 2-page spread at ISO 6400, but if iit's not "pixel sharp" at 100% it's garbage !

1 upvote
tresise
By tresise (Feb 7, 2012)

Regarding diffraction and the link supplied.
Yes diffraction is a limiting factor however the rest of the lens has to be 'perfect' for it to apply and no lens is that or ever can be.
The description of diffraction in the link is about the worst I have ever seen and is such a load of rubbish it should be ridiculed as misleading and shows the writer does not understand the science. It also brings into question much of the other information on the site which is extrapolated from different sources.

OK so you then say how do you know - well a BSc Photo Sciences
The more you learn about the subject the more you realise the complexity - taking some basic science facts and a applying it with out considering the rest ends up as bad and misleading science.

Comment edited 58 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Petka
By Petka (Feb 8, 2012)

Diffraction sets the absolute limit on the picture resolution, the lens can only make it worse (usually does) but never better. So those figures in the Luminous Landscape article are the ideal ones. There are some lenses which are not diffraction limited at large apertures (new field & technical camera designs), but I do not know if any Nikon FX lenses are. We will soon enough find out.

0 upvotes
jadot
By jadot (Feb 7, 2012)

This is great! Nikon has set me free!
I don't need anything more than my D700/D3s Combination, which means no upgrade expense for me this year.
I can't tell you how significant that is, and it's not just the body you'll spend on.
You're gonna need lenses. More memory/HDD. More RAM, probably. More time to process this lot.
Workflow and time spent in front of the computer is make or break for me, along with low light capability, and the 700/3s strike just the right balance. The D4 deserves a look, but it's not a real game changer for the way I shoot, and definitely not £3500 (After selling) better than what my clients are already happy with.
Nikon have targeted some pretty niche clients here and it seems to be a clever balance between what pros and videographers especially might need and what enthusiasts/amateurs want (High MP) and they should be applauded for producing a killer line up. It's just not for me. I don't think either the D4 or D800 are going to make me a better photographer

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Powerout
By Powerout (Feb 7, 2012)

well.....
but how many of available lens will satisfy 36MP by optical resolution?

0 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Feb 7, 2012)

Oh my, every other poster here comes with that. All Nikkors, all of the present one, will do well with this camera. D7000's has simiar density, even my cheap 35 f/2 shines on it.

2 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Feb 7, 2012)

rhlpetrus you are a noob are you?

photosite density is not the only limiting factor as you would know if you had spend some time learning the basics of lens design.

0 upvotes
photoway
By photoway (Feb 7, 2012)

From hundreds tests that I have Made
I can say that those are going to match 36 Mpix :
-AFS 16-35 F4 (only between 16 to 28 mm ..35mm ais Poor)
-AFS 14-24 F2.8
-AFS 17-35 F2.8 (only between 17 to 24 mm ..28 and 35mm are Poor)
- AFS 24-70 2.8 (everywhere except maybe à 24mm due to field curvature)
-AFS 70-200mm VR II (everywhere... the best)

and Most Long primes (200 F2., 300mm, 400mm ...)

--

On the other hand, some old primes like 24mm & 28mm 2.8 wont' mach in the borders

Same for many "plastic" old lenses (24-120 3,5-5.6) etc...

Richard from http://www.photoway.com/

0 upvotes
attomole
By attomole (Feb 7, 2012)

Just wonder if the 36MP will turn some people away, I have a D300, The camera I really would have liked was the D700 or a 5D, as an Amateur you have to compromise unless you are very rich. not sure i feel same about the D800, seems to less of a general purpose tool. May make second hand D700 more affordable, thats not a bad thing. If it had the D4 sensor i would be really envious.
To be fair to Nikon, I am not who they had in mind to sell this Camera too, and they have to build the best camera they can for there Market, if you have to upgrade your PC, i guess that is justifiable collateral damage if you need what this camera will do

0 upvotes
Picturenaut
By Picturenaut (Feb 7, 2012)

36 MP was no surprise at least after all those rumors. It'll be interesting to see Canon's reply. For landscape shooters such a high pixel count is good news in terms of resolution but not so good in terms of optimum depth-of-field. The much smaller pixels will certainly show earlier visible diffraction limit. So if you want to work with a small aperture to create an extended DOF for a nice landscape pic you may have to trade in the maximum resolution of this pixel giant much earlier as with a 12 MP full frame. I know this effect well from my 18 MP crop sensor Canon 7D with its quite small pixels: optimum is only f=7.1, f >= 10 degrades sharpness visibly on pixel level.

On the other hand: with that huge 36 MP resolution you surely can live with some losses, and those who cannot really have to upgrade to mid format.

0 upvotes
The Man With a Mask
By The Man With a Mask (Feb 7, 2012)

This is just to compete with the hidh mp Cameras of Canon. Hope it can fill in color responses.. More than anything I value DOF and it require good color responses, not in the papers i need em .. but on th o/p... lets wait and see..

0 upvotes
Carl Sanders
By Carl Sanders (Feb 7, 2012)

For a few hundred pounds the D5100 bridged the wait for the D800, 16MP swivel back came in use, the AF settings on the D5100 are problematic though. D800; Surprised at 36MP on this size of sensor, the workflow on 75MB files may be a setback, though it will be of interest to see how it compares to the CFV digital backs. Not convinced that we would now need to purchase the D800 now but look forward to the images it produces.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HetFotoAtelier
By HetFotoAtelier (Feb 7, 2012)

Sodeknetters ! dit gaat m'n nieuwe studiocamera worden :-)
Working 30 years with Nikon (from the F2)
I'm Happy ;-)

2 upvotes
Bare
By Bare (Feb 7, 2012)

They say we can choose resolution
6144 x 4912, 6144 x 4080, 5520 x 3680, 4800 x 3200, 4608 x 3680, 4608 x 3056, 3680 x 2456, 3600 x 2400, 3072 x 2456, 3072 x 2040, 2400 x 1600
Is that for RAW or only for JPEG?

0 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Feb 7, 2012)

For RAW you have 4 possibilities:

FF, 4x5 (30x24mm, 30.5 MP), 1.2x crop (30x20mm, 25MP) and DX (24x16, 16MP).

1 upvote
dgc4rter
By dgc4rter (Feb 7, 2012)

Well, I've been pretty happy with all of my Nikon DSLRs to date so I've just gone ahead and pre-ordered the D800E. All I've got to do now is wait until April... it's going to be a looooooonnnnnnng wait!

1 upvote
Peter KT Lim
By Peter KT Lim (Feb 7, 2012)

Ha...ha.. 37MP ? Check your computer can eat all the MP !

0 upvotes
mariuss
By mariuss (Feb 7, 2012)

I took a closer look at the samples from Nikon (http://www.nikon-image.com/products/camera/slr/digital/d800/sample.htm).
The amount of noise is low, even in JPEG, but the sharpness is not overhelming.
I wonder why, there is almost no sample above F8?! (interesting, there is a portrait one, but no landscape).

1 upvote
Petka
By Petka (Feb 7, 2012)

Full frame sensor resolution drops below 29 MPix at f8 already, even worse when you stop down more. At f22 the maximum resolution is only 4 MPix no matter what the sensor resolution is nominally! Diffraction at work...

0 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Feb 7, 2012)

@Petka

Most lenses are past their best after f/8 anyway.

0 upvotes
photoway
By photoway (Feb 7, 2012)

I've checke those samples..
from what I can see at ISO 320 the D800 looks a bit more noisy than my D700.
I will have to push the D700 to ISO 800 to get the comparable noise.

So, for my landscape work, the D800 will be marvelous !

...but (to be confirmed) for my "events" in low light work the D700 could be better (and for such things my clients never need ultra hi-res pics)

best reagards

Richard - from http://www.photoway.com/

0 upvotes
CNY_AP
By CNY_AP (Feb 7, 2012)

I wonder how fast the shutter speed has to be for a hand held shot to not have hand movement equal to a few pixels (I'm unsure how steady an average person's hands are in terms of degrees of angular movement in say 1/500ths of a second). Even just a one pixel movement (up/down and left right) means the resolution is cut to 1/2 height * 1/2 width = 1/4th.

0 upvotes
luchs
By luchs (Feb 7, 2012)

This is the landscape photographers dream - but why is there no PANORAMA crop mode, i.e. 18mm*36mm. That would reduce file size a lot.

0 upvotes
draschan
By draschan (Feb 7, 2012)

I'd stitch some of them for panorama :-) file size is not a problem with current i7 computers. I can even do this on my laptop now...

2 upvotes
Dabbler
By Dabbler (Feb 7, 2012)

What? No flip out LCD? Pfffft! Hehe... Hope I can get my hands on one for the summer season!

0 upvotes
photoway
By photoway (Feb 7, 2012)

Great !

After a long wait, at last, here it is !

For last couple of years people are complaining that Nikon has not enough "pixel count"
(12mpix vs 16 for Canon etc...) ..with the exeption for the D3X, right.

But 36 Mpix, it's crazy !

As a processional photographer, for me, the focused resolution, and also the resolution requested by by clients, is : A3 @ 300 dpi
Means 18Mpix (With 16 Mpix, the D4 is close to perfection.. But still some pixels are missing)
With 36 Mpix of the D800, Is quite too much (heavy sized files, longer processing)

I was only hopping for a D800 between 18 and 24 Mpix, with a better hi ISO capabilities than the D3X

Anyway, it looks like I'm going to get a D800 soon !

regards

Richard from http://www.photoway.com/

2 upvotes
oysso
By oysso (Feb 7, 2012)

But much easier to have something to crop from and still print large.

1 upvote
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Feb 7, 2012)

It's high ISO will be much better than D3x at same printing sizes.

2 upvotes
mariuss
By mariuss (Feb 7, 2012)

Very confindent from Nikon to match itself not even with Canon and the rest, but also with the high-end medium format.
I wonder if Canon 5D (III)(X) will match at least the high ISO Performance and the DR from Nikon D800.

1 upvote
Taikonaut
By Taikonaut (Feb 7, 2012)

Medium format cameras are 16 bit which something a 14 bit dSLR cant comepete with.

0 upvotes
lifeispixels
By lifeispixels (Feb 7, 2012)

Nice strategy from Sony side to sell this sensor to Nikon. Remember how some people have been bitching about 24MP sensors being too dense and that Nikon & Canon know better about cameras, etc.

Not only Sony makes some big $$$ selling the sensors to Nikon, this breaks the barrier and shuts the mouths of those fanboys. Now Nikon is leading Sony in higher mega pixel full frame. Nobody would complain anymore about 24MP being too high in A850, A900, A77, A65. We can point finger to Nikon D800. And when Sony come out with their own 36 MP full frame machine next year, no troll would have an excuse to bitch about this LOL.

7 upvotes
AmaturFotografer
By AmaturFotografer (Feb 8, 2012)

Interesting theory.

0 upvotes
Ben Tomohiku
By Ben Tomohiku (Feb 7, 2012)

So sad that few months ago already switched to 5D2 from my D300s and have couple L glasses, pretty hard to switch back again. Glad I finally see a real D800 here.

1 upvote
Ah Pek
By Ah Pek (Feb 7, 2012)

Nikon trying to flog a specialist camera to the mass market? Great for D700 values.

1 upvote
star shooter
By star shooter (Feb 7, 2012)

.. and is there Nikon glass that can deliver the rez for 36megs?

3 upvotes
Ben Tomohiku
By Ben Tomohiku (Feb 7, 2012)

Nice question.. I want to ask as well.
However if the glasses can handle 24mp of D3x, it shouldn't be a big problem for them. Waiting for the test results.

0 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (Feb 7, 2012)

Considering how good the samples look, the answer is obviously yes.

5 upvotes
panos_m
By panos_m (Feb 7, 2012)

Nikon 1 shots with various Nikon lenses is like 10mp crops from the center of a 74mp FF sensor. If you check these samples you will see that even the consumer Nikon zooms hold very well and deliver the resolution. And the D800 is only 36mp. Look in Nikon 1 forum for posts with the FT1 adapter.

1 upvote
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Feb 7, 2012)

And all my lenses outresolve the D7000's sensor at similar density. People keep propagating this myth about resolution and lenses.

1 upvote
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Feb 7, 2012)

rhlpetrus people repeating that because it´s true.

center performace vs. border performance.
next time get some infos before writing....

0 upvotes
AmaturFotografer
By AmaturFotografer (Feb 8, 2012)

Worry about poor lens resolution, resize your picture to say 16 or 12mp.

0 upvotes
star shooter
By star shooter (Feb 7, 2012)

Just how big a print would this Nikon D800E 36megs make at say, 100 ISO as compared to the Phase One's 30 meg chip at 100 ISO?

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Feb 7, 2012)

Depends on your printer res. At 300PPI, likely more than you'll ever need, it'll be about 24x16", lower it to a very acceptable 180PPI for poster viewing distances and you get 41x27". Very nice!

0 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Feb 7, 2012)

Ehm yea, right Nikon.

Remove low-pass filter (low-pass filter is expensive part), put instead that thicker IR filter (or just glass) and sell it for higher price than D800. :D

Interesting way to make money, by selling less for more..

2 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Feb 7, 2012)

Read it at IR, not so simple, different approach, and it's supposed to sell less, so lower number make for increaded price of optical filter.

0 upvotes
Joesiv
By Joesiv (Feb 7, 2012)

Also consider that if uninformed people saw two D800's in a store, one had no AA filter (which they were described to allow better detail), which one would they buy? They'd pick the D800E, becuase of the greater detail.

Then they get home take some pictures and find aliasing.

I think Nikon made it more expensive so that it would cause buyers to really look into their purchase decision, and see if it's worth it or not. The last thing they want is to have a bunch of people calling for support due to moire/aliasing not knowing what they were getting into.

2 upvotes
dark goob
By dark goob (Feb 7, 2012)

If you want low light performance... GET A FREAKIN TRIPOD

2 upvotes
Jared Huntr
By Jared Huntr (Feb 7, 2012)

And how does a tripod help capture a moving subject?

2 upvotes
dara2
By dara2 (Feb 7, 2012)

Grab the tripod and hit your subject's head, it will stand still, I promise.

Comment edited 17 seconds after posting
17 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Feb 7, 2012)

i prefer ultra high detail in the darkest of conditions (moonlight without artificial lighting) and minimal hi-ISO noise... at medium apertures ideal for deeper DOF without diffraction issues, and fast shutter speeds for minimal (zero) blur...

well... at least i want it... but ISO 25600 just won't do it

and prefer ExpSim LV... exposure simulation live preview (D4/D3 series have it) why not D800??

meanwhile... Canon has it across the board... including prosumer models, not just pro models

all Canon Cinematographic EOS FF/APS-H/APS-C 1080p video models have it... so... why Nikon only offering it in their D4???

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Feb 7, 2012)

Once you get your new Canon, do share your ISO 51,200 and higher *night* shots. Should be great food for thought.

1 upvote
arammc
By arammc (Feb 7, 2012)

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/img/sample01/img_02_l.jpg
slow loading
sample image. although one questions the wisdom of a portrait...
a library... staggering detail
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/img/sample01/img_01_l.jpg

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Alfie Smith
By Alfie Smith (Feb 7, 2012)

weddings and landscape. Market Target revealed.

0 upvotes
Alfie Smith
By Alfie Smith (Feb 7, 2012)

library one is iso 100.. hmmm.. this doesnt smell very well.

0 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Feb 7, 2012)

Awesome, the 1.2x crop is the cherry on top, 5fps, better AF coverage, very smart.

0 upvotes
diforbes
By diforbes (Feb 7, 2012)

I want to see how well this pixel-packed sensor does in high ISO testing against the D700, the D4 and the expected 5D Mk III. My needs are for clean high ISO images; certainly the D4 will deliver that but the price is too high for me.

I'm still puzzled why Nikon couldn't have just doubled the resolution to a more reasonable 24MP rather than triple it. Canon apparently is choosing to keep the Mk III at 21-22MP. Must be a good reason for that.

1 upvote
jtan163
By jtan163 (Feb 7, 2012)

Maybe the continuing falling prices of digital medium formats?
Hoping to persuade a few landscape/portrait/studio shooters not to jump formats yet?

Medium format has been getting some mentions with some of the american "rockstar" shooters lately.

And if it gets really ugly and doesn't do well, well I'd imagine you can release an D800(E)S version with lower pixel count and more sensitivity by averaging multiple adjacent pixels into a bigger virtual pixel.

0 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Feb 7, 2012)

Images resource is reporting "36-Megapixel Nikon D300 Announced! See our Hands-on Preview"

D800 36MP
and
D300 36MP!

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2012/02/06/36-megapixel-nikon-d300-announced-see-our-hands-on-preview

0 upvotes
jtan163
By jtan163 (Feb 7, 2012)

That link appears to be a 404 now.

0 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Feb 7, 2012)

How much lighter is the D800E, Its $300 extra for the weight savings right?

0 upvotes
spoorthy
By spoorthy (Feb 7, 2012)

no, the d800e removes the anti-aliasing filter which effectively gives higher resolution pictures (but also adds some moire in fine detail)

0 upvotes
PrunoPower
By PrunoPower (Feb 7, 2012)

wow, that was fast! Fast moderator is a fast moderator.

Congrats, everyone. It's been a long wait - but hopefully worth it. I'm pre-ordering ASAP.

1 upvote
jj74e
By jj74e (Feb 7, 2012)

Honestly, who needs this much resolution at this point. Pros have been doing fine with all the great "low res" cameras that are already out there. At this point, things like memory card usage, faster processing both on camera and post on computers, battery life, etc. are more important than extending even current standards of image quality (except for low light quality, cause the room for improvement is always endless there :P)

I mean, I'm not saying no one can use more resolution, but most people won't. Nor will most people necessarily afford more resolution because of the expensive glass you would need to buy.

Honestly, I really would have rather liked to see Nikon put the money for this new sensor elsewhere in their camera development.

0 upvotes
nicolaiecostel
By nicolaiecostel (Feb 7, 2012)

Nikon made it clear with the last generation of FF cameras that the fast model is the D4 and the studio, landscape model is the D800. No more sacrificing D3 sales with the D700. If you are a pro and desire resolution with decent high ISO, get the D800, if you shoot sports and jurnalism, get the D4 or the older FF models. Simple as that. Canon is doing this just fine for some time now. I need resolution, btw, as soon as I will afford this camera, I will get it. No more amateur FF cameras from Nikon, no-man's land D700, competing limp-wristed against both the canon 5D2 and canon 1D.

4 upvotes
Caleido
By Caleido (Feb 7, 2012)

@nicolaiecostel
I'm not sure this polarisation is such good thing. Maybe for Nikon, but not for people seeking an D700 upgrade. The D700 was and still is a very popular and succesful body.

Now Nikon decided to change the plan and force people to chose between an expensive fast, high ISO D4 and low ISO D800... only time will tell whether it was a good idea. I always thought the D700 was a genius move and ultimate bang for the buck. Canon didn't really have an answer.

1 upvote
bossa
By bossa (Feb 7, 2012)

Who needs the Starship Enterprise when a Space Shuttle will do?

Who needs a car doing 100 kph when a horse is just fine at 30?

Who needs 1920x1080 TV when the old standard res was fine as along as you didn't need to see a tennis ball etc?

Who needs a D800? Me, that's who.

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
nicolaiecostel
By nicolaiecostel (Feb 7, 2012)

@Caleido: even so, as a genius move, the D700 was no match in sales for the canon 5Dmk2. Amateurs seeking a FF camera loved it, pros on a budget loved the D700, but everybody else seemed to want what the 5D had to offer, and corporations are all about profit. I enjoy my D700 but it is clear that nikon would have continued to loose this battle with canon otherwise. I think we will see a sudden increase in D700 prices and D3's after this launch.

1 upvote
fourcorners
By fourcorners (Feb 7, 2012)

The queen of diffraction is here....

1 upvote
davidbindle
By davidbindle (Feb 7, 2012)

Is it just me... or is this really pushing the limits of a lot of glass out there? If I wanted to exploit the resolution of this camera, I would have to put nothing less than the absolute best glass in front. But well... I suppose everyone already realizes this. I'm probably just a wee bit jealous 'cause I won't be able to afford one. If pixel density continues to be a factor in the amount of noise when shooting in low light, I'm anxious to know how this one performs because cramming 36 mp into the full frame might be making things somewhat tight. Still a lot less crammed than high MP compacts but obviously more crammed than the earlier full frames that were noted for their low noise at high ISO's.
Yet... I still drool a bit...

0 upvotes
jppentax
By jppentax (Feb 7, 2012)

same pixel density as d7000 so should be no prob at least in the apsc frame.

3 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (Feb 7, 2012)

yes, part of nikon's plan is for you to buy more lenses.. sell a cheap high resolution body.. and raise prices on ff lenses.

Comment edited 9 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
PhotoArtKC
By PhotoArtKC (Feb 7, 2012)

For sale: Kidney and Lung, slightly used. Will trade for Nikon D800. LOL

Before everyone starts moaning about how many megapixels and how few frames per second this is... It's not meant to be a nimble sports camera, buy a D3/D4 for that. And before you gripe about the low light performance not being 27 billion ISO, it goes from ISO 100 to 6400 native, what more do you want?

I bet that 70% of people who buy it gripe that their images aren't sharp this or that. Because the lens is going to be the weak point in the system once you get to this level of resolution and up.

For what it's worth, unless the image quality is a disaster (which I doubt), it will be the next camera I purchase without question.

5 upvotes
Ithackermike
By Ithackermike (Feb 7, 2012)

RE: the "E" model, is the AA filter gone altogether or is it able to be turned off? The press release uses the phrase "canceling the properties of the OPLF". If the E does both then it's worth the $300.00 easy... Providing the images are noticeably sharper.

1 upvote
Zebooka
By Zebooka (Feb 7, 2012)

How you imaging turning of AA filter? :)
It is impossible, because it is assembled with IR cutoff filter and CMOS altogether.

0 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Feb 7, 2012)

I'll have to cancel pron for tonight, better things to look at ;)

9 upvotes
Total comments: 287
123