This topic is in the 2011 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2011Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
p.3 #1Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
fsiagian wrote:
As long as it is priced $2500 please...
I hope it is closer to the $3500 range. Cheap is not good in my book since some critical features, performance or ruggedmess would likely be eliminated. Perhaps Nikon will be making a better grade camera with a similar sensor as well, but that may be a D4-something and a longer wait.
EBH
As long as it is priced $2500 please...
I hope it is closer to the $3500 range. Cheap is not good in my book since some critical features, performance or ruggedmess would likely be eliminated. Perhaps Nikon will be making a better grade camera with a similar sensor as well, but that may be a D4-something and a longer wait.
EBH
Nov 20, 2011 at 07:25 AM
p.3 #2Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
ohsnaphappy wrote:
In the Steve Jobs biography, Steve realized selling iPods that were Windows compatible would increase sales so much that iPods would make Apple more money than Macs. So super awesome products can make a company extremely profitable even if those awesome products cost significantly less than flagships. If the D800 has 36MP it will sell so well that it won't matter whether or not anyone purchases D3's. And if Canon doesn't match the D800 with the forthcoming 5D then Nikon will dominate the market in the next few years. D800's will be the camera of choice for new photographers, many...Show more →
... Except if, in doing so, the result is inferior in the areas that made the D700 the hugh success it was: AF, low light, high ISO. In making the iPod Windows compatible, Jobs took nothing away from Mac users.
Business is full of case studies where a company becomes so focused on beating a competitor at their game, they forget their own, failing at both keeping their own customers and winning their competitor's.
If these specs are true, the logical next question is, how is this a successor to the D700? Has Nikon figured out how to deliver these specs, and deliver at least the same high ISO\low light performance as the D3s? Is Nikon really going to release their next-generation AF in a body BEFORE releasing the D4? If the answer to both of those questions is "no", then can this really be the successor to the D700?
If the answer is no, it would be the equivalent to Jobs, in making the iPod compatible with Windows, turned it into a great portable game system, like the Nintendo PSP. It might be a hugh success, but it's no longer an iPod.
Or is it something else, like a Nikon leap-frog over Canon's next gen 5D? That's fine if it is, but it would not be the camera D700 owners would trade up to. No one who bought a D700 needs the performance characteristics of a 5D, just as no one who bought a 5D MkII needs the performance of a D700. They are two completely different cameras aimed at different needs.
In the Steve Jobs biography, Steve realized selling iPods that were Windows compatible would increase sales so much that iPods would make Apple more money than Macs. So super awesome products can make a company extremely profitable even if those awesome products cost significantly less than flagships. If the D800 has 36MP it will sell so well that it won't matter whether or not anyone purchases D3's. And if Canon doesn't match the D800 with the forthcoming 5D then Nikon will dominate the market in the next few years. D800's will be the camera of choice for new photographers, many...Show more →
... Except if, in doing so, the result is inferior in the areas that made the D700 the hugh success it was: AF, low light, high ISO. In making the iPod Windows compatible, Jobs took nothing away from Mac users.
Business is full of case studies where a company becomes so focused on beating a competitor at their game, they forget their own, failing at both keeping their own customers and winning their competitor's.
If these specs are true, the logical next question is, how is this a successor to the D700? Has Nikon figured out how to deliver these specs, and deliver at least the same high ISO\low light performance as the D3s? Is Nikon really going to release their next-generation AF in a body BEFORE releasing the D4? If the answer to both of those questions is "no", then can this really be the successor to the D700?
If the answer is no, it would be the equivalent to Jobs, in making the iPod compatible with Windows, turned it into a great portable game system, like the Nintendo PSP. It might be a hugh success, but it's no longer an iPod.
Or is it something else, like a Nikon leap-frog over Canon's next gen 5D? That's fine if it is, but it would not be the camera D700 owners would trade up to. No one who bought a D700 needs the performance characteristics of a 5D, just as no one who bought a 5D MkII needs the performance of a D700. They are two completely different cameras aimed at different needs.
Nov 20, 2011 at 08:08 AM
p.3 #3Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
Seems like this camera is design according to my specs except for the ergonomic ID.
No the price would not be $2500 or $3500, it will be around $3050 base on current USD/JPY exchange rate for initial release.
MPixel size is going to get bigger and bigger but file size might not need to be, because it provides digital crop option, better dynamic range, better post processed noise reduction, and better color reproduction. In addition it also provides the option for users to set the storage file size after pp.
Edited on Nov 20, 2011 at 09:25 AM · View previous versions
No the price would not be $2500 or $3500, it will be around $3050 base on current USD/JPY exchange rate for initial release.
MPixel size is going to get bigger and bigger but file size might not need to be, because it provides digital crop option, better dynamic range, better post processed noise reduction, and better color reproduction. In addition it also provides the option for users to set the storage file size after pp.
Edited on Nov 20, 2011 at 09:25 AM · View previous versions
Nov 20, 2011 at 08:24 AM
p.3 #4Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
Makten wrote:
Asking for a new, lower resolution camera is like asking for a new, slower computer.
As I see it, everything with these specs fits. More of everything in a smaller body = progress.
This is like politicians working on a budget, claiming to have cut one billion dollars in spending ... out of next year's budget ... when in reality in next year's budget they were over spending revenue by one trillion dollars ... and the press, knowing this to be false, rather than point point out there were really no cuts, runs a headline praising the politicians for saving a billion dollars.
No one has asked for a lower resolution camera. I was never very good at math, but I believe 16 and 18 are higher numbers than 12?
Was the D3s's low light performance progress over the D3\D700? Those who bought the D700 did so because of the excellent, at the time, AF and low light\high ISO performance. Would D700 users today define progress as improved low light\high ISO performance? Wouldn't the sensor in the D3s, a modified D700 sensor, be the benchmark?
If this rumored D800 does not perform better than the D3s in low light, would you call that progress? If the AF and FPS performance was no better than, or perhaps even less, then the D700, is that also progress?
For some people, only more MP's seem to represent progress.
But I doubt too many studio photographers who needed very high MP's, or videographers bought D700's, at least for that use. So if Nikon decided to only improve MP's in the D800, and nothing else, and the people currently shooting the D700 bought these cameras precisely for everything else it does except high MP's, could it be concluded that this D800 is aimed at everyone but those currently shooting D700's?
jhinkey wrote
I agree - there has to be a lower MP count FX body in there somewhereAs I see it, everything with these specs fits. More of everything in a smaller body = progress.
This is like politicians working on a budget, claiming to have cut one billion dollars in spending ... out of next year's budget ... when in reality in next year's budget they were over spending revenue by one trillion dollars ... and the press, knowing this to be false, rather than point point out there were really no cuts, runs a headline praising the politicians for saving a billion dollars.
No one has asked for a lower resolution camera. I was never very good at math, but I believe 16 and 18 are higher numbers than 12?
Was the D3s's low light performance progress over the D3\D700? Those who bought the D700 did so because of the excellent, at the time, AF and low light\high ISO performance. Would D700 users today define progress as improved low light\high ISO performance? Wouldn't the sensor in the D3s, a modified D700 sensor, be the benchmark?
If this rumored D800 does not perform better than the D3s in low light, would you call that progress? If the AF and FPS performance was no better than, or perhaps even less, then the D700, is that also progress?
For some people, only more MP's seem to represent progress.
But I doubt too many studio photographers who needed very high MP's, or videographers bought D700's, at least for that use. So if Nikon decided to only improve MP's in the D800, and nothing else, and the people currently shooting the D700 bought these cameras precisely for everything else it does except high MP's, could it be concluded that this D800 is aimed at everyone but those currently shooting D700's?
Nov 20, 2011 at 08:33 AM
p.3 #5Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
nikt wrote:
If the D800 as 36 MP, then I just can't imagine what their line up and strategy is. Nothing fits. There'd would be nothing to draw anyone to a flagship D3x, so that would disappear of the line up.
I think Nikon may be switching to a more "Canon" style strategy. Put a high res sensor in a lower end body (ala 5d) to keep it from killing your high end pro cameras. My thought is that Nikon saw a LOT less D3 sales when the D700 came out than maybe what they could have had. If they do the same thing with a D800, they might be hard pressed to sell the D4 in big numbers.
This also lets them compete with Canon on an, umm, "inexpensive" high res body.
Personally, I'm not sure if it's a good idea overall (I personally love the idea of a small, high res body, but that's just me), but time will tell.
Of course, as Nikon's new product line develops, maybe it will all become clear.
If the D800 as 36 MP, then I just can't imagine what their line up and strategy is. Nothing fits. There'd would be nothing to draw anyone to a flagship D3x, so that would disappear of the line up.
I think Nikon may be switching to a more "Canon" style strategy. Put a high res sensor in a lower end body (ala 5d) to keep it from killing your high end pro cameras. My thought is that Nikon saw a LOT less D3 sales when the D700 came out than maybe what they could have had. If they do the same thing with a D800, they might be hard pressed to sell the D4 in big numbers.
This also lets them compete with Canon on an, umm, "inexpensive" high res body.
Personally, I'm not sure if it's a good idea overall (I personally love the idea of a small, high res body, but that's just me), but time will tell.
Of course, as Nikon's new product line develops, maybe it will all become clear.
Nov 20, 2011 at 08:39 AM
p.3 #6Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
Makten wrote:
Why? More pixels does NOT increase noise per image height. That's a myth that should have been busted long time ago. And if you don't like large files, you could probably choose to scrap a lot of information by diminishing them in-camera.
Asking for a new, lower resolution camera is like asking for a new, slower computer.
As I see it, everything with these specs fits. More of everything in a smaller body = progress.
I'm not asking for a lower resolution camera, I'm asking for a new not that much more than 12MP camera - I want smaller steps to further increase the IQ over what a higher MP sensor with the same sensor technology can do. What's wrong with that?
Who said anything about noise? I don't need all those extra pixels and if I need to downsample I would think it would be better to do it in post and not have the camera do it.
I really push my pixels around many times and the D700 holds up very very well and am looking forward to an increased resolution sensor (but not 36MP) that can do that even better and I fear that 36MP will not be a positive step in that regards.
John
jhinkey wrote
I agree - there has to be a lower MP count FX body in there somewhereAsking for a new, lower resolution camera is like asking for a new, slower computer.
As I see it, everything with these specs fits. More of everything in a smaller body = progress.
I'm not asking for a lower resolution camera, I'm asking for a new not that much more than 12MP camera - I want smaller steps to further increase the IQ over what a higher MP sensor with the same sensor technology can do. What's wrong with that?
Who said anything about noise? I don't need all those extra pixels and if I need to downsample I would think it would be better to do it in post and not have the camera do it.
I really push my pixels around many times and the D700 holds up very very well and am looking forward to an increased resolution sensor (but not 36MP) that can do that even better and I fear that 36MP will not be a positive step in that regards.
John
Nov 20, 2011 at 08:41 AM
p.3 #7Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
Steve Perry wrote:
I think Nikon may be switching to a more "Canon" style strategy. Put a high res sensor in a lower end body (ala 5d) to keep it from killing your high end pro cameras. My thought is that Nikon saw a LOT less D3 sales when the D700 came out than maybe what they could have had. If they do the same thing with a D800, they might be hard pressed to sell the D4 in big numbers.
This also lets them compete with Canon on an, umm, "inexpensive" high res body.
Personally, I'm not sure if it's a good...Show more →
I agree. I think you'll see a smaller 5d2 like camera (D800) and a lower MP Pro body (D4). Nikon will be counting on a lot of people waiting for the D700/D3s replacement to jump on the D4 when it comes out. Just my thoughts...
nikt wrote
If the D800 as 36 MP, then I just can't imagine what their line up and strategy is. Nothing fits. There'd would be nothing to draw anyone to a flagship D3x, so that would disappear of the line up.This also lets them compete with Canon on an, umm, "inexpensive" high res body.
Personally, I'm not sure if it's a good...Show more →
I agree. I think you'll see a smaller 5d2 like camera (D800) and a lower MP Pro body (D4). Nikon will be counting on a lot of people waiting for the D700/D3s replacement to jump on the D4 when it comes out. Just my thoughts...
Nov 20, 2011 at 09:12 AM
p.3 #8Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
Nikon Rob wrote:
I gotta say though, there's plenty iffy about those images. The red swoosh is different than all the other Nikons, the PC port cover is the old style from the D300 not the style of the D700.The red swoosh is very similar to that on the D5100, Nikon's newest DSLR. The PC port cover is the same as on the D3x, D300s, and D3s, Nikon's three newest pro cameras. I'm not saying it's not fake, but in neither of those aspects does the image differ from what I'd expect on the actual D800.
Yeah, the whole PC cover situation has me scratching my head since the D700 came out. I figure it's one of two situations.
The first would be that the D700 was a flyer and there will not be another camera with a similar PC port cover.
The other situation could be that the D3/D300 have the solid type PC covers and those old style PC covers have carried through the refreshes/updates to those basic body styles (D3s, D300s, D3x). The D700 came out after the D3/D300 and represents the style for new bodies moving forward. The D700 being the only camera of it's type in the lineup makes it rather hard to draw meaningful conclusions though.
I didn't know the D5100 swoosh looks like that! How weird.
Jammy Straub wrote
Nikon rumors is generally pretty darn accurate in their rumor mongering.I gotta say though, there's plenty iffy about those images. The red swoosh is different than all the other Nikons, the PC port cover is the old style from the D300 not the style of the D700.
Yeah, the whole PC cover situation has me scratching my head since the D700 came out. I figure it's one of two situations.
The first would be that the D700 was a flyer and there will not be another camera with a similar PC port cover.
The other situation could be that the D3/D300 have the solid type PC covers and those old style PC covers have carried through the refreshes/updates to those basic body styles (D3s, D300s, D3x). The D700 came out after the D3/D300 and represents the style for new bodies moving forward. The D700 being the only camera of it's type in the lineup makes it rather hard to draw meaningful conclusions though.
I didn't know the D5100 swoosh looks like that! How weird.
Nov 20, 2011 at 09:17 AM
p.3 #9Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
lukeb wrote:
ROTFL – 
It would be pretty hard to justify a price that high if all they're doing is stuffing a new sensor in a D7000/D5100 body, as that "leaked" photo suggests...
fsiagian wrote
As long as it is priced $2500 please... It would be pretty hard to justify a price that high if all they're doing is stuffing a new sensor in a D7000/D5100 body, as that "leaked" photo suggests...
Nov 20, 2011 at 09:37 AM
p.3 #10Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
Thorsten wrote:
Their longer term predictions (i.e. 6 months out) have usually been laughable. I.e. they had no clue that the D3 was FX, or that the D700 was coming at all, or what the D7000 specs were, even remotely.
Exactly my point. There's also been more than a few fake photos there. I don't even check the site. It doesn't matter anyway since it seems to take Nikon months and months to stock the stores after announcements. As for smaller bodies, I think that's the way of the future, and I welcome it. If I want a large camera, I'll just take my Chamonix 045N with me.
Kent in SD
Their longer term predictions (i.e. 6 months out) have usually been laughable. I.e. they had no clue that the D3 was FX, or that the D700 was coming at all, or what the D7000 specs were, even remotely.
Exactly my point. There's also been more than a few fake photos there. I don't even check the site. It doesn't matter anyway since it seems to take Nikon months and months to stock the stores after announcements. As for smaller bodies, I think that's the way of the future, and I welcome it. If I want a large camera, I'll just take my Chamonix 045N with me.
Kent in SD
Nov 20, 2011 at 09:41 AM
p.3 #11Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
Looking like were getting closer to niche cameras as opposed to do it all cameras -
Nov 20, 2011 at 10:30 AM
p.3 #12Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
domdog31 wrote:
Looking like were getting closer to niche cameras as opposed to do it all cameras -
Good! I don't like lenses that 'do it all' and I would prefer bodies tailored in the same way. Do something great instead of everything decent.
Those who want a sports camera or wedding camera..what is wrong with the D3s? Or were you expecting the d3s sensor in a $2k body?
Looking like were getting closer to niche cameras as opposed to do it all cameras -
Good
! I don't like lenses that 'do it all' and I would prefer bodies tailored in the same way. Do something great instead of everything decent. Those who want a sports camera or wedding camera..what is wrong with the D3s? Or were you expecting the d3s sensor in a $2k body?
Nov 20, 2011 at 10:45 AM
p.3 #13Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
patriot wrote:
Was the D3s's low light performance progress over the D3\D700?
Yes, but the tradeoff was colors.
Those who bought the D700 did so because of the excellent, at the time, AF and low light\high ISO performance.
I didn't. I bought it because it was an affordable FF camera with Nikon mount (DX spoils all of the fast primes).
Would D700 users today define progress as improved low light\high ISO performance? Wouldn't the sensor in the D3s, a modified D700 sensor, be the benchmark?
I would definitely not choose the D3s sensor over a newer, higher resolving sensor with the same or slightly better noise performance as the D700 has.
If this rumored D800 does not perform better than the D3s in low light, would you call that progress?
Of course, are you pulling my leg?
jhinkey wrote:
I'm not asking for a lower resolution camera, I'm asking for a new not that much more than 12MP camera - I want smaller steps to further increase the IQ over what a higher MP sensor with the same sensor technology can do. What's wrong with that?
Who said anything about noise? I don't need all those extra pixels and if I need to downsample I would think it would be better to do it in post and not have the camera do it.
I really don't understand. Why don't you want an even further technical progress than the one you expected? Why don't you just stay with the D700 if it's enough?
I really push my pixels around many times and the D700 holds up very very well and am looking forward to an increased resolution sensor (but not 36MP) that can do that even better and I fear that 36MP will not be a positive step in that regards.
And I think you are very, very wrong. I expect a new sensor to be better in all respects, regardless of resolution. Having more pixels means that you don't have to "push around" each one of the as much, so the end result should be at least as good (probably better) as long as the efficiency is the same or better. Which I bet it is.
Was the D3s's low light performance progress over the D3\D700?
Yes, but the tradeoff was colors.
Those who bought the D700 did so because of the excellent, at the time, AF and low light\high ISO performance.
I didn't. I bought it because it was an affordable FF camera with Nikon mount (DX spoils all of the fast primes).
Would D700 users today define progress as improved low light\high ISO performance? Wouldn't the sensor in the D3s, a modified D700 sensor, be the benchmark?
I would definitely not choose the D3s sensor over a newer, higher resolving sensor with the same or slightly better noise performance as the D700 has.
If this rumored D800 does not perform better than the D3s in low light, would you call that progress?
Of course, are you pulling my leg?
jhinkey wrote:
I'm not asking for a lower resolution camera, I'm asking for a new not that much more than 12MP camera - I want smaller steps to further increase the IQ over what a higher MP sensor with the same sensor technology can do. What's wrong with that?
Who said anything about noise? I don't need all those extra pixels and if I need to downsample I would think it would be better to do it in post and not have the camera do it.
I really don't understand. Why don't you want an even further technical progress than the one you expected? Why don't you just stay with the D700 if it's enough?
I really push my pixels around many times and the D700 holds up very very well and am looking forward to an increased resolution sensor (but not 36MP) that can do that even better and I fear that 36MP will not be a positive step in that regards.
And I think you are very, very wrong. I expect a new sensor to be better in all respects, regardless of resolution. Having more pixels means that you don't have to "push around" each one of the as much, so the end result should be at least as good (probably better) as long as the efficiency is the same or better. Which I bet it is.
Nov 20, 2011 at 11:22 AM
p.3 #14Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
looks legit. weird to use such shallow DOF on a product shot. the grip, the flash shoe, even the shutter button is out of focus. hence the "photoshopped" look.
the body does seem to be a bit tinier than the current Dxxx bodies, more like a FX version of the D7000, even with the pixel density. im sure this camera will be absolutely wonderful, and will probably at least match the d700's ISO performance. just look at the D7000's ISO performance against the D300, despite having 50% more pixels. i trust nikon's secret sauce...
wont be for me though. D700's 12mp is more than enough for my shooting needs, and my PC will love me avoiding those 36mp RAW files. however, this does seem to be a studio photographer's/landscape artist's wet dream. this is just conjecture though, since i am neither...
the body does seem to be a bit tinier than the current Dxxx bodies, more like a FX version of the D7000, even with the pixel density. im sure this camera will be absolutely wonderful, and will probably at least match the d700's ISO performance. just look at the D7000's ISO performance against the D300, despite having 50% more pixels. i trust nikon's secret sauce...
wont be for me though. D700's 12mp is more than enough for my shooting needs, and my PC will love me avoiding those 36mp RAW files. however, this does seem to be a studio photographer's/landscape artist's wet dream. this is just conjecture though, since i am neither...
Nov 20, 2011 at 11:56 AM
p.3 #15Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
Mark_L wrote:
"AF identical to D3/D700"
Seriously, do not want. This is 3.5 years of progress in a key differentiating area for this camera over canon? Is this 2011? When do we get af points covering the frame and more than one line of cross sensors, 2020?
the current AF system in the D700 has yet to let me down, so i dont necessarily see this a negative, especially if it will keep the prices of this body competitive (im not going to say "low" since we are dealing with nikon of course). im sure nikon is saving their latest and greatest AF system for the D3 replacement, for the next summer olympics. if the D800 is getting faster processing, then the AF system, even though its the same layout, will probably be faster and more responsive than before.
as for the spreading out of AF points, i aint a nikon engineer, but im assuming that the mechanical vignetting of lenses on full frame bodies is the limiting factor. camera manufacturers probably dont put AF points nearer the edges since not enough light will get to them, leading to simply erroneous AF response. why put an AF point in the corner of the screen if its not even gonna work correctly??
"AF identical to D3/D700"
Seriously, do not want. This is 3.5 years of progress in a key differentiating area for this camera over canon? Is this 2011? When do we get af points covering the frame and more than one line of cross sensors, 2020?
the current AF system in the D700 has yet to let me down, so i dont necessarily see this a negative, especially if it will keep the prices of this body competitive (im not going to say "low" since we are dealing with nikon of course). im sure nikon is saving their latest and greatest AF system for the D3 replacement, for the next summer olympics. if the D800 is getting faster processing, then the AF system, even though its the same layout, will probably be faster and more responsive than before.
as for the spreading out of AF points, i aint a nikon engineer, but im assuming that the mechanical vignetting of lenses on full frame bodies is the limiting factor. camera manufacturers probably dont put AF points nearer the edges since not enough light will get to them, leading to simply erroneous AF response. why put an AF point in the corner of the screen if its not even gonna work correctly??
Nov 20, 2011 at 12:11 PM
p.3 #16Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
static808 wrote:
the current AF system in the D700 has yet to let me down, so i dont necessarily see this a negative, especially if it will keep the prices of this body competitive (im not going to say "low" since we are dealing with nikon of course). im sure nikon is saving their latest and greatest AF system for the D3 replacement, for the next summer olympics. if the D800 is getting faster processing, then the AF system, even though its the same layout, will probably be faster and more responsive than before.
as for the spreading out of AF points, i...Show more →
You seriously never have an out of focus shot with the D700? Do you ever shoot anything that moves or in low light? Even with the 70-200 I get backfocused shots occasionally at 2.8 for headshots, static portraits at 1.4 I will have focus misses and motorsport well I can bin 1/3 of the frames and that is shooting at f/4. The repeatability of the focus system is poor even in good light with an ideal target and can be clearly seen when trying to fine tune the AF.
I'm sure we will see af points nearer the edges of the frame or pretty soon we will have m4/3rds cameras with better af than slrs. At the very least we need to have more cross sensors, even the new canon has that
the current AF system in the D700 has yet to let me down, so i dont necessarily see this a negative, especially if it will keep the prices of this body competitive (im not going to say "low" since we are dealing with nikon of course). im sure nikon is saving their latest and greatest AF system for the D3 replacement, for the next summer olympics. if the D800 is getting faster processing, then the AF system, even though its the same layout, will probably be faster and more responsive than before.
as for the spreading out of AF points, i...Show more →
You seriously never have an out of focus shot with the D700? Do you ever shoot anything that moves or in low light? Even with the 70-200 I get backfocused shots occasionally at 2.8 for headshots, static portraits at 1.4 I will have focus misses and motorsport well I can bin 1/3 of the frames and that is shooting at f/4. The repeatability of the focus system is poor even in good light with an ideal target and can be clearly seen when trying to fine tune the AF.
I'm sure we will see af points nearer the edges of the frame or pretty soon we will have m4/3rds cameras with better af than slrs. At the very least we need to have more cross sensors, even the new canon has that
Nov 20, 2011 at 12:21 PM
p.3 #17Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
Makten wrote:
I didn't. I bought it because it was an affordable FF camera with Nikon mount (DX spoils all of the fast primes).
So the pro-grade AF, build quality, IQ, or high ISO performance didn't matter to you? If not, and more MP's was what you really needed, why not buy 5D MkII?
I would definitely not choose the D3s sensor over a newer, higher resolving sensor with the same or slightly better noise performance as the D700 has.
You would settle for that, and call it progress? I for one would not. I want high resolution and noise performance equal to or better than the D3s, which is better than the D700. The question is, how high can Nikon go in MP's? If it's 36, great. But 14, 18, 24, that's fine too.
If this rumored D800 does not perform better than the D3s in low light, would you call that progress?
Of course, are you pulling my leg?
It what way? The D700 was is a great general purpose camera that excels in high ISO's. Would it be progress to accept less? Especially if this can be done with a more reasonable increase in MP's?
Earlier quote
Those who bought the D700 did so because of the excellent, at the time, AF and low light\high ISO performance.So the pro-grade AF, build quality, IQ, or high ISO performance didn't matter to you? If not, and more MP's was what you really needed, why not buy 5D MkII?
Earlier quote
Would D700 users today define progress as improved low light\high ISO performance? Wouldn't the sensor in the D3s, a modified D700 sensor, be the benchmark?You would settle for that, and call it progress? I for one would not. I want high resolution and noise performance equal to or better than the D3s, which is better than the D700. The question is, how high can Nikon go in MP's? If it's 36, great. But 14, 18, 24, that's fine too.
If this rumored D800 does not perform better than the D3s in low light, would you call that progress?
Of course, are you pulling my leg?
It what way? The D700 was is a great general purpose camera that excels in high ISO's. Would it be progress to accept less? Especially if this can be done with a more reasonable increase in MP's?
Nov 20, 2011 at 12:49 PM
p.3 #18Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
domdog31 wrote:
Looking like were getting closer to niche cameras as opposed to do it all cameras -
Whatever specs it has a D800 will sell in larger numbers and be used by more people than the D3s and especially the D3x. I'm not sure that would be considered a niche camera.
EBH
Looking like were getting closer to niche cameras as opposed to do it all cameras -
Whatever specs it has a D800 will sell in larger numbers and be used by more people than the D3s and especially the D3x. I'm not sure that would be considered a niche camera.
EBH
Nov 20, 2011 at 01:29 PM
p.3 #19Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
D800 having “AF identical to D3/D700” sounds solid but at the same time disappointing if it means that the rumored AutoFocus improvement has been reserved for the usual higher priced ‘big and bulky’ model with built-in vertical grip.
Segmentation that hinders combination of the best possible Image Quality performance with the smaller more portable form factor is unbearably annoying.
And a pixel pitch of about 4.9 µm is far smaller than what I had hoped for.
With today’s technology I don’t want all those sensel millions.
I had hoped for big fat photosites of max light gathering quality.
4.9 µm is disappointing, at least for me. I hope it’s a false rumor.
Oh well, so what’s left ?
If there will actually be a specific D800 version / model with the anti-aliasing filter removed, then I may still buy it, depending of the price level.
Nov 20, 2011 at 02:56 PM
p.3 #20Nikon D800 pictures..almost here??
A member from Romania posted these comments about the D800 on the Manual Focus Nikon Glass thread this morning and I thought they are worth sharing. This is the first assessment that got me to thinking this may not be a bad way to go... Time will tell. With a tip of the hat to Mihai...
Excepting perhaps the thousand dollars part, you will want for sure this camera Curtis. Don't be fooled by tech specs from rumor sites. Tech specs could be true but they don't say much. As you know D7K is not D300 replacement, somehow being not so "pro" camera... But after using D300 for about three years and D7K for a month I am overwhelmed by the advancement of technology done by Nikon engineers. The new Expeed processor is unbelievable good... the way D7K treats colors is very pleasing, I believe the dynamic range is improved, the quiet shooter... and even something I...Show more →
Excepting perhaps the thousand dollars part, you will want for sure this camera Curtis. Don't be fooled by tech specs from rumor sites. Tech specs could be true but they don't say much. As you know D7K is not D300 replacement, somehow being not so "pro" camera... But after using D300 for about three years and D7K for a month I am overwhelmed by the advancement of technology done by Nikon engineers. The new Expeed processor is unbelievable good... the way D7K treats colors is very pleasing, I believe the dynamic range is improved, the quiet shooter... and even something I...Show more →
Nov 20, 2011 at 03:23 PM