D800 Announced!

[timethief]

Seems like alot of people are let down by the 36MP sensor.
Is it not possible that the performance of these many pixels be worth it ?
Should we not see some benchmarks before deciding ?
Did Nikon not take into account market surveys ? or are the market surveys perhaps leaning towards the 36MP?
Why have they decided to go this way ? What would the alternative choice for them have been ? Did they think they would have been worse off ? or is there yet another product lurking to be announced ?

 

[molested_cow]

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?

But the D7000 cannot do FX. I am comparing it to D700, not D7000.

Say if I have a D800, I can continue to use the 50mm F1.4 at FX, then switch to DX with a Tokina 11-16mm for wide angle. Both lens are about $600 new, instead of using the expensive Nikkor 12-24mm. Yet I am still getting a very decent photo size. The D700 gives you only 6mp at DX.

Therefore, for $500 more (D700 @ $2500 vs D800 @3000), I am buying a whole lot more options for lens. I know the depth of field blah blah is different between FX and DX, but that's really up to personal taste.

36mp is huge, more than most people will need, but at the same time, it's not a bad thing to have.

 

[480sparky]

More to the point...... what can 36mp do so much better than a measly 24 or skimpy 20 or an anemic 16 can't do? (Besides fill up your hard drive faster!)

 

[Destin]

Any word on the size of a .NEF file from this monster?

 

[480sparky]

Any word on the size of a .NEF file from this monster?

I'm sure one can extrapolate the number from existing files. Comparing to my D7000 NEFs, I calculate 52mp per.


I heard a while back Nikon was going to offer Medium and Small NEF capabilities. Not sure if the D800 was gonna start that trend or not. But if it shoots only 7,360 x 4,912 NEFs, I'm not playing that game.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

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?

But the D7000 cannot do FX. I am comparing it to D700, not D7000.

Say if I have a D800, I can continue to use the 50mm F1.4 at FX, then switch to DX with a Tokina 11-16mm for wide angle. Both lens are about $600 new, instead of using the expensive Nikkor 12-24mm. Yet I am still getting a very decent photo size. The D700 gives you only 6mp at DX.

Therefore, for $500 more (D700 @ $2500 vs D800 @3000), I am buying a whole lot more options for lens. I know the depth of field blah blah is different between FX and DX, but that's really up to personal taste.

36mp is huge, more than most people will need, but at the same time, it's not a bad thing to have.

Thanks. The megapixels are a hindrance rather than an asset, I suspected they threw that huge truckload at the D800 to hinder its performance (since it shares the same sensor as the D4). I'm still open-minded to the cam but was just wondering your take when you mentioned pixels as a good thing.

 

[Robin Usagani]

Hard drive space is cheap. I dont care. Edit the photo, crop, import it to jpeg however size you want, delete the raw.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Same sensor as D4....but this:

"The D800's image resolution translates into a slower burst-shooting speed at full resolution when compared to the D4 (the D800 snaps 4 frames per second versus the D4's continuous shooting speed of 10 fps) and an ISO range that isn't quite as expandable as the one found in the D4"

 

[molested_cow]

Thanks. The megapixels are a hindrance rather than an asset, I suspected they threw that huge truckload at the D800 to hinder its performance (since it shares the same sensor as the D4). I'm still open-minded to the cam but was just wondering your take when you mentioned pixels as a good thing.

I myself don't need 36mp at FX either. However it will be nice to use DX at larger pixel than the miserable 6mp that D700 does. For FX resolution, 12mp is good enough.

It will be funny if Canon's up coming 5DMIII ends up being a high ISO with smaller resolution, the exact opposite of the D800. I almost think they conspire to avoid each other's market haha!

 

[480sparky]

............ delete the raw.

j/k

 

[molested_cow]

Hard drive space is cheap. I dont care. Edit the photo, crop, import it to jpeg however size you want, delete the raw.

Haha the photographer don't even need to care about where he's aiming anymore.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Thanks. The megapixels are a hindrance rather than an asset, I suspected they threw that huge truckload at the D800 to hinder its performance (since it shares the same sensor as the D4). I'm still open-minded to the cam but was just wondering your take when you mentioned pixels as a good thing.

I myself don't need 36mp at FX either. However it will be nice to use DX at larger pixel than the miserable 6mp that D700 does. For FX resolution, 12mp is good enough.

It will be funny if Canon's up coming 5DMIII ends up being a high ISO with smaller resolution, the exact opposite of the D800. I almost think they conspire to avoid each other's market haha!

I don't use my D700 in DX mode, are you shooting DX lenses? I'm trying to see a reason to upgrade to the latest and greatest but I'm not feeling it? Plus my back-up body is DX so for me that point isn't making me get a rise for this D800. But I was hoping to upgrade. There's got to be more to it than what we've been told.

 

[molested_cow]

I don't use DX mode. All of my lens are FX, which is limited by budget.

My sister has D90 and I got her a Tokina 11-16, which I think is a bargain for the price.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I don't use DX mode. All of my lens are FX, which is limited by budget.

My sister has D90 and I got her a Tokina 11-16, which I think is a bargain for the price.

I had that lens and sold it when I got the D700. I miss it!

 

[nickzou]

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).