D800 Announced!

[Trever1t]

Just played around with a D800E RAW ISO 12800 file, um...amazing. I mean AMAZING resolution and damn low noise, even at that high ISO.

Find the files here...look for the money shots! Fotopolis.pl: Nikon D800E - zdjcia testowe

On the laptop I do see a little lag with LR4 moving sliders but not so in ACR 6.7.
Importing into LR is fast, faster than I expected.
Exporting to JPG nets a 46.9mb file from a 48.6mb RAW (?)

 

[Garbz]

I simply expected the D800 to blow the D700 away so bad I had to scrap my D700 and have one. Its too close for me to do such. If I was buying new I'd buy the D800 of course, but it doesn't seem all that to trade up to. Thats my only gripe. Perhaps I'm wrong and once it comes out I'll be forced to change my mind and make the D700 my back-up cam, but I'm just not feeling it yet.

Other than the D3 stepup from the D2, and the introduction of the D7000, has any Nikon release in the same line of cameras ever given you this opinion? I mean the D300 was yawnable compared to the D200. The D90 over the D80. D60 over the D50. For the most part people step up between product ranges. The D60s jumped to the D7000, the D80s to the D300s, etc.

As great as the D800 may seem, I'm still trying to work out how the D800 will do in terms of potentially out resolving lenses, diffraction issues, sharpness issues caused by hand shake.. These are all issues that intrigue me. And not to mention Dynamic Range?

For some perspective people did not have the same complaints about the Canon 7D, 60D, 50D, 550D 500D, or Nikon D7000 which all have a finer pixel pitch than the D800, and borderline below the Nikon D3100 at just under. The step-up in resolution in a full frame 36mpxl camera is insignificantly more than any ~15mpxl APS camera on the market. Yet there's no major complaints about lenses, resolution, or hand shakiness on those cameras.

I honestly think people are scared of the the wrong big number here because of the dramatic departure from Nikon's past product offerings.

 

[Trever1t]

any clue I'm excited about this?


Check out this comparison site Imaging Resource "Comparometer" ™ Digital Camera Image Comparison Page

 

[skieur]

Can I get a clear Explanation why someone would and would not want a D800 "E" .. is it supposed to have higher IQ without the filter?

Without the AA filter, the images are susceptible to moire when photographing something that has a pattern. That is why 99.9% of digital cameras have AA filters. But the cost of the AA filter, is that it robs some possible sharpness...hence, the market for cameras without the filter.

Also of note...I believe that LR4 has an moire fixing feature in the adjustment brush...making life easier for those shooting without an AA filter.

36mp without aa filter. Are they trying to steal some digital medium format market?

Of course, that is where the current development objective is leading. On a side by side comparison the Canon T3i produces sharper shots than the Nikon D4 at 16 megapixels. The Nikon D800 will eliminate that gap and surpass the Canon T3i by a good 20 percent if not more depending on the detailed specs.

skieur

 

[skieur]

I've said it once and I will say it again!

They are trying to steal the studio market with the prosumer level full frame body? WTF????? :er: Please someone explain this to my naive mind.. The D3X was clearly a PRO level studio camera.. this isn't mean to be a PRO camera? Or have I missed something?

You have missed a lot, as usual. The Nikon D800 using the Sony chip will have to compete with 2 Sony A99 cameras in the wings both with 36 megapixels: one will be their replacement for the A900 and their new flagship model also without filters....interesting, eh?

You may not like the direction that the technology is taking, but as far as I am concerned, competition is always good for photographers: amateur and professional.

skieur

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Without the AA filter, the images are susceptible to moire when photographing something that has a pattern. That is why 99.9% of digital cameras have AA filters. But the cost of the AA filter, is that it robs some possible sharpness...hence, the market for cameras without the filter.

Also of note...I believe that LR4 has an moire fixing feature in the adjustment brush...making life easier for those shooting without an AA filter.

36mp without aa filter. Are they trying to steal some digital medium format market?

Of course, that is where the current development objective is leading. On a side by side comparison the Canon T3i produces sharper shots than the Nikon D4 at 16 megapixels. The Nikon D800 will eliminate that gap and surpass the Canon T3i by a good 20 percent if not more depending on the detailed specs.

skieur

This sounds like another classic comedy case of a post that is from 'downhill skier' syndrome... . The T3i is sharper than the D4? :lmao:

 

[Nikon_Josh]

I've said it once and I will say it again!

They are trying to steal the studio market with the prosumer level full frame body? WTF????? :er: Please someone explain this to my naive mind.. The D3X was clearly a PRO level studio camera.. this isn't mean to be a PRO camera? Or have I missed something?

You have missed a lot, as usual. The Nikon D800 using the Sony chip will have to compete with 2 Sony A99 cameras in the wings both with 36 megapixels: one will be their replacement for the A900 and their new flagship model also without filters....interesting, eh?

You may not like the direction that the technology is taking, but as far as I am concerned, competition is always good for photographers: amateur and professional.

skieur

I am actually converted on the idea of the D800 now, it has taken awhile but due to some of the informative posts on here concerning the matter. I am having a change of heart, the D800 seems as if it could be great camera! I see the 36MP as overkill for my own needs still, but it will be a highly usable camera by the sound of it.

Am I interested in what Sony is releasing? No I am not interested at all.. I really COULD NOT CARE LESS!

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Without the AA filter, the images are susceptible to moire when photographing something that has a pattern. That is why 99.9% of digital cameras have AA filters. But the cost of the AA filter, is that it robs some possible sharpness...hence, the market for cameras without the filter.

Also of note...I believe that LR4 has an moire fixing feature in the adjustment brush...making life easier for those shooting without an AA filter.

36mp without aa filter. Are they trying to steal some digital medium format market?

Of course, that is where the current development objective is leading. On a side by side comparison the Canon T3i produces sharper shots than the Nikon D4 at 16 megapixels. The Nikon D800 will eliminate that gap and surpass the Canon T3i by a good 20 percent if not more depending on the detailed specs.

skieur

You're joking right? Did you take the AA filter into account, the lens into account?

 

[Markw]

any clue I'm excited about this?


Check out this comparison site Imaging Resource "Comparometer" ™ Digital Camera Image Comparison Page

That site's a joke. They use the same photos for the 1DsIII (I believe that was the one I chose) and the D300s. No way to compare.

Of course, that is where the current development objective is leading. On a side by side comparison the Canon T3i produces sharper shots than the Nikon D4 at 16 megapixels.
skieur

:lmao: That's hilarious.

Mark

 

[Derrel]

I went to the site and compared the Canon T3i and the Nikon D4 at ISO 400. I downloaded both full-sized images from the "New Indoor (INB) 400" set. I noticed that the focus on the Nikon photo is not quite right on much of the mannequin. Look at her necklace, and you can see that only the very left edge of it is within the depth of field, and the right hand side is already slipping out of the depth of field zone, and into defocus!

Looking at the wine glass and wine cork however, the Nikon's image IS IN the focus plane, and is a slight bit crisper and sharper than the T3i image. One thing that is clear too is that, on the book the mannequin is holding,and on her wrist watch, there is a goodly amount of magenta chromatic aberration showing on the black type and the watch band shot with the Canon lens. The Nikon lens sample is completely free of that chromatic aberration. The depth of field, or focus point, in the Nikon shot, is not "quite right" on the sample photo I downloaded. Perhaps this is due to the lesser depth of field a full-frame sensor gives compared to a 1.6x crop sensor. Or perhaps it's due to sloppy work. The Nikon image appears to me to be over-exposed a slight bit as well--making me wonder how the exposure was determined. By a light meter? By in-camera meter? By histogram?

Anyway, the claim that the Canon T3i delivers "sharper images" than the Nikon D4 is a pretty broad claim. Many cameras aimed at newbies have the default in-camera sharpening set pretty high, creating that kind of point & shoot type eye-candy type of file that newbies often want. Without Photoshop, and shooting in-camera JPEG, many newbies want to have HIGH in-camera sharpening applied by default, and we can see this by looking at the dPreview camera reviews; MANY cameras aimed at beginners, like the Canon T3i, use strong in-camera sharpening. Many pro cameras use lower sharpening, which is less-destructive, and which allows the user to process the images as needed in Photoshop or CaptureOne, using SOPHISTICATED sharpening methods out of the reach of the skill set of newbies.

As to being sharper...I looked on dPreview, and the T3i seems capable of around 2,500 l/ph resolution with normal processing, and as high as 2,700 l/ph with added sharpening. They have not yet tested the D4, but I expect its larger sensor to produce higher l/ph figures than the T3i. Regardless, the D4 is optimized for speed, and high-ISO capabilities. The D4 is the Ferrari Testarosa to the T3's Volkswagon Jetta...not really a fair race, but then, we all know that.

 

[skieur]

36mp without aa filter. Are they trying to steal some digital medium format market?

Of course, that is where the current development objective is leading. On a side by side comparison the Canon T3i produces sharper shots than the Nikon D4 at 16 megapixels. The Nikon D800 will eliminate that gap and surpass the Canon T3i by a good 20 percent if not more depending on the detailed specs.

skieur

This sounds like another classic comedy case of a post that is from 'downhill skier' syndrome... . The T3i is sharper than the D4? :lmao:

Needless to say, someone with a limited mindset such as yourself, would not even bother to check it out. :lmao:

It would seem from Derrel that there are image quality weaknesses in both, which is not unexpected. My point however is accurate that the Nikon D800 is intended to surpass its Canon competition in image quality. Why else would they produce it?

New technology in cameras goes to where the market is. If the prosumer market represents more sales than the pro market, then the improvements will hit those cameras first, which is probably the tact that Nikon is taking. Notice that new features often appear at the point and shoot level, the compact level, entry DSLR level, prosumer level, and finally the pro level.

Pros have a choice. Buy a slightly older technology pro camera, buy a new technology prosumer camera, or wait for the new technology to hit the pro level.

In Nikon terms: buy the D4, buy the D800, or wait for the D5.

skieur

 

[skieur]

36mp without aa filter. Are they trying to steal some digital medium format market?

Of course, that is where the current development objective is leading. On a side by side comparison the Canon T3i produces sharper shots than the Nikon D4 at 16 megapixels. The Nikon D800 will eliminate that gap and surpass the Canon T3i by a good 20 percent if not more depending on the detailed specs.

skieur

You're joking right? Did you take the AA filter into account, the lens into account?

Why remove the anti-aliasing (AA) filter in the Nikon D800E? | Nikon Rumors


skieur

 

[gsgary]

But it still won't be as good as a Sony A77

 

[Trever1t]

ok have we had enough fun?

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Do you realise that at the same equivalent focal length and same lp/mm, a larger sensor will always beat the smaller sensor in terms of resolution (and sharpness)?