Anyone moving to the D800?

The D800 specs are pretty impressive - essentially giving shooters a 16MP D7000 sensor in DX mode and a 36MP sensor in full frame mode in the same camera. I have been eagerly awaiting the D400, but without a strong need to go beyond 4 frames per second, I am wondering what possible advantages a D400 can provide, other than a slightly lower price point?

I am currently shooting a D7000, which I upgraded to from the D300, a move that I had no complaints about, apart from the fact that the grip on the D300 felt more comfortable in my hands. On very rare occasions, I would fill overfill the buffer, but such occasions were few and far between.

Apart from needing to pick up a 16-35mm f/4 on the low end to complete my version of the full frame "Trinity" (not crazy about the non-filter issues with the 14-24), I will have a full range that extends to 420mm, counting the 300mm f/4 and the 1.4 TC. After selling my D7000 and some of my DX lenses, I might actually come close to breaking even on the upgrade. Others in the same boat?
--
Best Regards,
Bob
http://www.flickr.com/photos/innerdemon/
http://www.epochphoto.com

Nope, not me from what I've read (spec wise) its not worth it to me.
--
ABA DABA

I need to see real pictures first. Also, I want to see how it works at higher iso.

lock

Well, I'm on the B&H preorder list for a D800 (as well as for a D800E - long story - still making up my mind).

I've been a loyal DX shooter (D70, D200, D300, D300s), but I'm tired of waiting for the D400.

I'm excited about the D800's multiple crop modes. I think both the DX and 1.2x crops will work out very well. Especially love that the 1.2x crop works at 5 fps with simple battery. That mode could well end up my favorite.

I really wish the max non-grip rate were more like 7-8 fps, but I think I can live with 5.

Having said all this, I'm still keenly awaiting the D400 announcement. If that body shows impressive improvements on the D300s, I may cancel my D800 order, or perhaps buy both. -iwbs

Definitely not, quite the opposite, the D800 convinced me to stay with DX. I am ready to wait one more year (or maybe more) with my lousy "old" D300s. Works just fine. There are times I wish for more MP and better high ISO but for most situations it is just excellent.

Given the massive MP count, it could save you from wanting to buy another body for many more years to come, as opposed to waiting for the next latest and greatest D400s, then D500, then D600, etc. That's the only reason I can see to spend double the money on a full frame body.
--
truview

It is not just the body. It is the cost of the glass and upgrade of the computer. I estimated that to go to the D800 would probably cost at least 10k minimum. For now, I am quite content shooting my D7000 and D5100. When the D400 is announced, I will probably sell the D7000 and move up. I would keep the D5100 for it's size, weight and articulating LCD.
--
http://digitalphotonut.zenfolio.com/

The D800 FPS is too slow and does not match what I have and need (wildlife) with D300+MBD10 (and the D7K will fail in the rain). Waiting for D400.

What a great time to be a Nikon shooter, I have a D700 and D7000 and really the only thing I am wondering about on the D800 is the focus speed and accuracy. I'm sure it will be good but will it be good enough to offset the 4 fps in wildlife shooting? Personally, 4fps is enough for what I usually do, but I can see the outdoor folks making this a deal breaker. Anyone on the fence should really wait for the D400 announcement, good times indeed.

Good point. Some of us (like me, for instance) have switched so many times we have glass from both formats. While the full format lenses work well on the DX camera, the reverse is not always the case because of the smaller sensor. So, to make a total switch-over, you make a good point.
--
truview

No, thank you! What I lack is higher noiseless ISO but that's too much pixel thus too much pricey (change computers, memory cards and so on !). Even more, battery may be problematic for long shootings and not compatible with MB-D10, EN-EL4 (who knows why batteries have to be changed in Japan ?).

It doesn't solve any photographic problem for me - it just plain isn't a wildlife camera - and I'd rather wait another year before upgrading my computer system. I'm hoping (against hope) that the D400 will be only 16MP and very fast.
--
Jim

+1 for JimPearce and Olyflyer's comments.

I am going to wait for the review of the D400 vs the D800. If the D400 has just as good high iso pictures as the D800, then why bother moving to the D800.

It took me a whil to get into rapidshare but I've got the jpegs to look at.

They are jpegs, and yes, it's dangerous to start pixel peeping. What does strike me is that I do not need much sharpening. This helps to keep the noise down.

There's a serious noise at iso 25600. Not really usefull at that resolution. The scene was well lit in general, so not very useful. Lowering the resolution does help a lot and it may indicate that this resolution could be used as a final rescue option.

The iso 6400 cleans up well, although I've seen better results from the 16 MP sensors.

The iso 3200 scen is really a cooked up shot, but I used the dark and underexposed parts to check for noise. I upped the dark colors and the shadows all the way to 100%, and only a tiny bit of color noise reduction, a bit of luminance reduction was enough. It's better than my d300 for sure.

I'm not saying it's as good apsc 16 mp sensors. I does look like it and the DR and colors are very pleasing. So all in al, its promising.

There's one thing that worries me though, and it confirms wghat I already thought although many considered it as 'rubbish':

"The inherent file size can require some unusual treatment. The large capture can make the camera sensitive to vibration more than smaller cameras, requiring faster shutter speeds or a tripod. Even in the studio with flash, I used a tripod on shots done with a 200mm F/2 lens. "

It's a quote from Rob van Petten's blog about the D800. It means the extra pixels actually demand higher iso's to get to the minimum shutter. Depending on how many stops more I need ( I have no idea), this could negate a large parts of the improvement in terms of noise management in these modern sensors.
Btw, basically this should also be the case with the d7000 sensor.

lock

Because of the quote by van Petten about shutter speed and Mpixels. With the expected 24 Mp in aps-c this is even more important.

lock

2005magnum said:

It is not just the body. It is the cost of the glass and upgrade of the computer. I estimated that to go to the D800 would probably cost at least 10k minimum.

Click to expand...

Why would you have to upgrade your computer just to work with larger files ?

I don't get why some people say this.

If that larger NEF is going to bog down your system then you are already in need of an upgrade... that should be quite noticeable already.

i doubt my D200 will go on forever, i love the idea of different crop modes especially the DX mode, i look forward to the reviews, and whilst i mull it over the D200 hopefully will soldier on
--
working as intended

lock said:

It's a quote from Rob van Petten's blog about the D800. It means the extra pixels actually demand higher iso's to get to the minimum shutter. Depending on how many stops more I need ( I have no idea), this could negate a large parts of the improvement in terms of noise management in these modern sensors.
Btw, basically this should also be the case with the d7000 sensor.

lock

Click to expand...

It should but in practice I have noticed no rise in shutter speed with the move from D90 to D7000. It took a few weeks of use before I developed a steadier technique but that was a good thing anyway. However i rarely use a tripod and get sharp bird images with the D7000. I can use the better iso properties to increase shutter speed when I want to freeze movement. I think this may be due to quieter shutters but Im not sure. Certainly quiet shutter mode gives a higher eeper rate.

The interesting thing is that the new CX sensors in the Nikon V1 use electronic shutters and these enable sharp image capture with ease using pro glass long lenses. These are the smallest pixel pitch sensors in cameras that can use FX or DX lenses.
In other words I think worry about pixel size is not necessary.
--
Cheers, BB
FlickR site
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandon_birder/
FlickR Nikon1 V1 gallery
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandon_birder/sets/72157628774050455/