D800 Announced!

[xyphoto]

Well if it is not a big deal than there shouldn't be any reason for D700 users to be holding onto their old cameras so tightly.

Anyways, having a 15+ megapixel DX equivalent allows DX users to upgrade without switching all of their glass and still shoot higher-res than D700 users. And if the ISO performance is about the same... it's almost as if they have a D7000 built-in (maybe even better since the D7000 doesn't quite perform as well in low light as the D700).

Why would people want to spend $3000 on an FX camera just so they can use their DX lenses?

 

[Netskimmer]

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, I don't think it's half bad. If the D800's ISO capability is the same as the D700, honestly I am happy with it. The D700 is a very capable camera, the D800 adds video and shear size. Think about it, at DX the D800 still captures 15+mega pixel, far larger than the D700's 12mp at FX. So basically, you can use DX lens on D800 and still get larger image than D700 at FX. That opens up many opportunities!

Wondering if they will ever come out with a true D700 replacement in the future. I highly doubt so though.

Also, being just slightly lighter than the D700, that I am quite disappointed.

I'm confused about the megapixels being a "big deal", can you ellaborate and help me understand. The D7000 captures more than this at DX anyway?

Well if it is not a big deal than there shouldn't be any reason for D700 users to be holding onto their old cameras so tightly.

Anyways, having a 15+ megapixel DX equivalent allows DX users to upgrade without switching all of their glass and still shoot higher-res than D700 users. And if the ISO performance is about the same... it's almost as if they have a D7000 built-in (maybe even better since the D7000 doesn't quite perform as well in low light as the D700).

I would also be cool to be able to select DX mode even if you have an FX lens attached if using the camera in DX mode also upped the FPS that would be like the best of both worlds.

 

[480sparky]

Why would people want to spend $3000 on an FX camera just so they can use their DX lenses?

Mebbe $3k is all they can afford, so they'll use their DX lenses until they can afford FX glass.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

I'm non-plussed. The D4 priced itself out of my reach, and the 36mp of this cubical egg makes me puke.

So you hate your D7000?

 

[480sparky]

I'm non-plussed. The D4 priced itself out of my reach, and the 36mp of this cubical egg makes me puke.

So you hate your D7000?

No reason I should. No reason you should think I would. And no reason I should fall ass-over-elbows over a D800, either.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

The Real Megapixel Myth

 

[Markw]

I'm confused about the megapixels being a "big deal", can you ellaborate and help me understand. The D7000 captures more than this at DX anyway?

Well if it is not a big deal than there shouldn't be any reason for D700 users to be holding onto their old cameras so tightly.

Anyways, having a 15+ megapixel DX equivalent allows DX users to upgrade without switching all of their glass and still shoot higher-res than D700 users. And if the ISO performance is about the same... it's almost as if they have a D7000 built-in (maybe even better since the D7000 doesn't quite perform as well in low light as the D700).

I would also be cool to be able to select DX mode even if you have an FX lens attached if using the camera in DX mode also upped the FPS that would be like the best of both worlds.

If I read everything correctly, you can. And The FPS does increase from 4 at FX, to 5 at 1.2x, to 6 in DX.

I preordered a D800E through B&H, and a D800 through Amazon. I'll wait to see what the tests show, as I can't handle the moiré in my videos, and, frankly, don't want to deal with it in my photos if most of them will have it. But, there is incredible detail from both of them because of the new enhanced low-pass filter in the D800, and the lack of any at all in the D800E. This is going to be a bigger hit than everyone thinks it is. I'd lay money on it. Approx $3k, actually.

Mark

 

[jake337]

I'll wait till I see some reviews by pros actually using the body before I decide.

 

[nickzou]

Well if it is not a big deal than there shouldn't be any reason for D700 users to be holding onto their old cameras so tightly.

Anyways, having a 15+ megapixel DX equivalent allows DX users to upgrade without switching all of their glass and still shoot higher-res than D700 users. And if the ISO performance is about the same... it's almost as if they have a D7000 built-in (maybe even better since the D7000 doesn't quite perform as well in low light as the D700).

Why would people want to spend $3000 on an FX camera just so they can use their DX lenses?

Here's a situation. Suzie wants to go full frame but is warned against picking up the D700 because of its place in the product life cycle so she waits for the eager announcement of the D800. When it comes out it costs a more than what she intended to spend on the D700 and now doesn't have any extra money left to spend on FX glass. But that's okay, because she has her old DX lenses from her D5100. She gets the D800 and "wow, lo and behold it has the same ISO capabilities as the D700 but at 15 megapixels!" So while she waits to save up for some very expensive FX glass, she can shoot at a higher resolution than the D700 that she would've got without sacrificing image quality. It's like she has a D700 but better and she hasn't even cranked it up to 11 yet. Wow what a buy!

 

[analog.universe]

Well if it is not a big deal than there shouldn't be any reason for D700 users to be holding onto their old cameras so tightly.

Anyways, having a 15+ megapixel DX equivalent allows DX users to upgrade without switching all of their glass and still shoot higher-res than D700 users. And if the ISO performance is about the same... it's almost as if they have a D7000 built-in (maybe even better since the D7000 doesn't quite perform as well in low light as the D700).

Why would people want to spend $3000 on an FX camera just so they can use their DX lenses?

Here's a situation. Suzie wants to go full frame but is warned against picking up the D700 because of its place in the product life cycle so she waits for the eager announcement of the D800. When it comes out it costs a more than what she intended to spend on the D700 and now doesn't have any extra money left to spend on FX glass. But that's okay, because she has her old DX lenses from her D5100. She gets the D800 and "wow, lo and behold it has the same ISO capabilities as the D700 but at 15 megapixels!" So while she waits to save up for some very expensive FX glass, she can shoot at a higher resolution than the D700 that she would've got without sacrificing image quality. It's like she has a D700 but better and she hasn't even cranked it up to 11 yet. Wow what a buy!

This is nice in theory... but if all I had was a D5100 and a bunch of DX lenses, and I had $3000 to spend, I'd be buying more glass before a body.

 

[Markw]

I'll wait till I see some reviews by pros actually using the body before I decide.

No one charges your card until it ships. But, if you don't jump on the list soon, you'll have to wait until everyone who 1) did get on the list and 2) beat you to the punch after those on the list.

That is, if you were interested in the first place, of course.

Mark

 

[nickzou]

Why would people want to spend $3000 on an FX camera just so they can use their DX lenses?

Here's a situation. Suzie wants to go full frame but is warned against picking up the D700 because of its place in the product life cycle so she waits for the eager announcement of the D800. When it comes out it costs a more than what she intended to spend on the D700 and now doesn't have any extra money left to spend on FX glass. But that's okay, because she has her old DX lenses from her D5100. She gets the D800 and "wow, lo and behold it has the same ISO capabilities as the D700 but at 15 megapixels!" So while she waits to save up for some very expensive FX glass, she can shoot at a higher resolution than the D700 that she would've got without sacrificing image quality. It's like she has a D700 but better and she hasn't even cranked it up to 11 yet. Wow what a buy!

This is nice in theory... but if all I had was a D5100 and a bunch of DX lenses, and I had $3000 to spend, I'd be buying more glass before a body.

I also have this theory about people underestimating DX glass.

 

[vipgraphx]

Gunna need some processing power to go with that 36 mega pixel camera. Especially if you edit raw files.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Gunna need some processing power to go with that 36 mega pixel camera. Especially if you edit raw files.

I believe a 16 gig RAM would be sufficient for it without any lag at all.

 

[molested_cow]

Most people hoped that this will be the baby D4, but if Nikon did so, it will definitely kill the sale of D4. Since both products are released within such close time frame, it's a rational move that they have clear distinctions. Perhaps there won't be a D4x or D4s. Perhaps the D800 is the D4x. This way, they can avoid having too many SKUs on the market while still serving their core customers.

Now I am very interested to see what the D400 will be.....