I can’t believe the whining. You have choices either buy it or don’t
For me personally the D800 is my dream camera, I am 66 years old and most likely the D800 will be the last camera I will ever buy. At $3,000 the camera is a steel.
Dennis
Without trying to sound like a broken record, I'll say it again:
If you feel the D800 should have an 18MP FX mode, then let's start an organized campaign to respectfully ask Nikon to add this feature in. Bickering about 36MP being too much or too little doesn't solve *anything*. The firmware in the camera just has to be tweaked to support pixel binning -- it's a net win for everyone! I'm in the camp that would love an 18MP RAW mode.
Is there someone willing to start a blog and take e-mail signatures?
trevanian wrote:
This has made me realize its time to update the old pc, its not superfast with the d700 raw files so it's definitely time. I don't think the d800 files will be that horrrible to work with if we update our pcs. Can someone enlighten me on how the d800 will bog down our pcs? I don't keep my raws after I'm done with them, so I'm not too worried about space.
You make a great point. We all know we've got to think in terms of system cost, not camera body cost, and your computer is part of your system. All the hand-wringing over processing power necessary for D800 NEF's is making me wonder -- what kinds of computers are people working on out there? For $2K you can get a brand new top of the line 3.1GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i5 iMac with 4GB of RAM. Upgrade that RAM to 8GB for a measly extra $200, and your system will chew up 75MB image files no problem. As for storage, you could put 28,000 75MB image files on a $138 2TB drive. Storage might be an issue for professionals who shoot 28,000 images a month; as a hobbyist, I shoot about 5000 images a YEAR.
There's nothing wrong, at all, with using a five year old camera and a five year old computer system. Plenty of people do and make great images! But if you want the newest camera, you shouldn't be surprised to learn you're going to need a current computer system, too!
System wise, I know I will have to upgrade storage, but I also will be upgrading my computer systems - I currently use a Quad core PC, and I will be getting an iMac 13" powerbook -- that has been in the plans for a while now.
raboof wrote:
This is just to calm myself down a bit since I just bought a D700 last month.
Based on what I've been reading so far, I will stay with the D700 that is $1K less.
Who would like to join this comforting thread?
You performed a public service and helped nikon clean out old, out dated, and soon to be heavily discounted inventory.
Sorry, I feel for you. Buying an expensive body (and for those of us that shot film when $2k bought a top of the line body), a digital throw-away (and they all are at some point) only to have it rendered discontinued a month later is hard to take. perhaps you can work something out with the store and get a credit?
Just a side note having used all three systems. the 5dII is a lousy camera, the af is only 70% accurate unless you use a f2.8 lens. then it is 90% accurate. compared to a 1DS III that is 95-99% accurate. So how good is a 21mp file that is out of focus?
and you cant compare canon ttl flash or metering to Nikon
THe D700 is a great camera.
THe D800 is a Canon killer.
And Sony is limiited on lenses and good batch raw software for a working pro. and the sony jpgs are mediocre.
wjmeyer wrote:
There is none indicated by anything from Nikon so far.
there is *I believe* a 1.2x crop at 25mp. I'm assuming it's available any time you want to scale down the image, but I don't know if you just lose pixels or if you lose effective AOV as well.
I'm very impressed with the D800 specs but I don't need 36mp either. What I'd really like to see is a D800 with a D4 sensor (and keep the 100% viewfinder please). That would have been a fantastic third option along with the D800 and D800E. I wonder if Nikon will ever do it though. It would probably cannibalize D4 sales much more than the D700 did for D3/D3s. The camera would have to be cheaper than $3,000 but it would also come close to the performance of the $6,000 flagship. Not sure if the math makes sense for Nikon but, I'd sell my D700 for that camera.
wjmeyer wrote:
Define disappointment. Disappointment to me is having way more MP than I need for my work, and thus having monstrous RAW files that will tax my system and take up too much space. Yes, for some the 36MP will be a welcome addition to what they've been wanting, but to others it will be overkill, and for them, can you understand that it is a disappointment? If not, that's okay, we can agree to disagree, but my gripe is that Nikon is eliminating the D700 line which filled a beautiful niche that worked perfectly for my photography, the D800 does not and in fact hinders my everyday workflow. If they come out with a D700s in addition to the D800, then I will no longer be disappointed ...Show more →
You can shoot cropped on the D800 if workflow is your only concern and use 36mp when needed.
I currently own a d90 and have been wanting to upgrade to a full frame for a while. The D800 specs is very impressive and I must admit I will definitely appreciate the extra pixels.
For those worried about noise I believe that the D800 will be just as good if not better than the D700 in a noise comparison test when its been downsampled (its not really fair to compare 100% crop). There may be subtle difference between the two but then again if you really care about these little difference you're pixel snooping and if you're doing that how can you overlook the high MP capability of the D800?
The D800 file size will be massive so for those editing hundreds of pictures per day this is probably a deal breaker and only you can decide whether the extra detail is worth the extra processing time.
The D800 outspec the D700 in almost every way and its slightly smaller and lighter. I've bought Zeiss ZF lenses hoping this 36MP rumor becomes true and now I can't wait to use it with the D800
I doubt D800 will match the high iso capability of the D700 or D3s. I could be wrong as technology keeps advancing in that area. But people seem to be trying to push the square D800 through a round hole. It's not a hi-iso camera. Nor is it a speed demon for sports shooters. Nikon has all the pieces in the parts bin to make it faster, give it a smaller file size and great hi-iso capability. The only question is whether they will put those parts together and sell that camera.
Diavolo wrote:
You can shoot cropped on the D800 if workflow is your only concern and use 36mp when needed.
Jamesf99 and Diavolo, thank you for the info on the cropped options, I am aware of those features, but I don't want cropped options for reducing MP, I might as well buy a D400 if that is the case, I like shooting FF. Listen guys, I really don't want to start a big argument or bash Nikon for the D800, my frustration is simply that the D800 is a huge deviation of the D700, and for those (like me) who appreciated the D700 for what it was (small body, best AF, low MP and superb high ISO) the D800 is not an upgrade for us. The D800, on its own, is a fantastic and wonderful camera that is going to be awesome for a lot of people, just not for me.
"So why don't you stick with the D700 and don't buy the D800" you may ask, well that's exactly what I'm going to do. The title of this thread is whether or not we think the D800 is a replacement for the D700, and I am giving my opinion saying I (me personally) do not think it is, and for the life of me cannot figure out how Nikon does I am still holding onto hope that this summer Nikon will announce a D700s that uses the D3s sensor, but I'm not holding my breath either
When I was frustrated with Canon when they released the 5D Mark II and I saw first hand that it's AF was still as bad as ever, my only choice was a 1Ds Mark III which was going for $8000. I didn't want to spend $8000 on one body, but I wanted FF with great high ISO and the best AF and Nikon had just come out with the D700 a few months before, so for $6000 I could get 2 - D700's and still have $2000 left over vs. buying a 1Ds Mark III and because I didn't need 21MP I was just fine with 12MP. Now I'm thinking that instead of buying 2- D800's (because I don't need or want 36MP) it might be better to get a D4 and have a D700 as a backup eventually, yes, a little more money, but in the end I think this will work much better for the photography that I do which involves a lot of low light work.
If Nikon could figure out an sRAW option for the D800 at about 18MP that had at least a stop better high ISO IQ than the D700, I would be playing a different tune here.
i ditched canon last month knowing full well a 36 megapixel FF nikon monster was in the pipes. i shot my 5d2 at sRAW 90% the time, and preferred my dual 5d1 bodies over the 5d2 because of their skin tones. i invested in a pair of D700s and am stoked.
no way am i going to get a d800 and use a crop mode! that's ridiculous! i don't want a crop camera. i want my 50 to look like a 50 and my 85 to look like an 85, and so on and so on. a real sRAW pixel binning option would be sweet though.
had i waited until today to switch i would have saved about $100 and wouldn't have been able to work for a month. had i waited until august i might have saved $1000 and wouldn't have made half my income this year.
an sRAW pixel binning option would be cool, and if nikon added it into the firmware, i'd be way more tempted to pick up a d800 in addition to my pair of d700 bodies.
some of us simply don't need 36 megapixels. they don't help me pay my mortgage.
Agree with wjmeyer. But I don't hold out hope for a D700s although it's the camera I've been wanting Nikon to sell... until now. Now that the new cameras have been announced I think a D700 with D3s sensor could be a step backward. A D800 with D4 sensor, that's something that interests me.
