People who already have a FX camera body have reason to debate with themselves about whether to purchase a D800. What about the amateur hobbyist wanting to buy his first FX camera? I've waited for a long time for the D800, hoping it would be a 18-24MP replacement for D700. Now what the heck am I supposed to do? I can't afford a new D4, or used D3s or D3x. So it's either a used D700 for 2K or a new D800 for 3K. One has less resolution than I'd like and the other has more than I need. One has been treated who knows how by a previous owner and the other has that sweet new-camera smell. I'm not going to wait for some fabled D750 or D600 or D700x or D800jr that would meet my initial specification hopes, because such a thing will either never happen or won't happen for a long time, and I'm not getting any younger!
What it comes down to is figuring out what you want to use the thing for. I shoot outdoors, in natural daylight, and I shoot things that don't move. So I'm thinking the D800.
trakl, i think you should snag a used d3s...they are down to $4k now, and likely to keep coming down a bit more as there will be some pressure from guys selling the 3s to get the 800--even though they are very different cams. plus the normal upgrade sellers getting the d4. it wouldn't surprise me to see the 3s in the $3500 range over the next few months. but i'm with you, was hoping for a real d700 replacement instead of something aimed in a quite different direction.
or just get a d700 or d3...i love my d3, and the 700 is obviously very highly regarded as well.
So now I'm reading some different comments on RAW file size, some are saying the 75MB file is for uncompressed RAW, but not lossless compressed (which is what I use on my D700's), does anyone know how big the average lossless compressed RAW file is from the D800?
wjmeyer wrote:
Trakl, if you weren't committed to Nikon I'd say the 5D Mark II is probably the right camera for you, 21MP and great for things that don't move
Ha! I'm on a 7D now and had (have?) made up my mind to switch to "the dark side" when I get my first full-frame camera. I know, I know, probably foolish, but if I don't try Nikon at some point I know I'll always wonder! And I will confess, too, another thing that's foolish but true: There's just something about having the newest camera in the lineup that's attractive to me. So if I were sticking with Canon, I'd be waiting for the 5D3. But I don't think I am sticking with Canon. In short, I'm the sucker everyone loves, who buys the newest thing and sells off perfectly good stuff at a discount. You're welcome, world.
cohenfive wrote:
trakl, i think you should snag a used d3s...they are down to $4k now, and likely to keep coming down a bit more as there will be some pressure from guys selling the 3s to get the 800--even though they are very different cams. plus the normal upgrade sellers getting the d4. it wouldn't surprise me to see the 3s in the $3500 range over the next few months. but i'm with you, was hoping for a real d700 replacement instead of something aimed in a quite different direction.
or just get a d700 or d3...i love my d3, and the 700 is obviously very highly regarded as well. ...Show more →
The D3s is so beloved that I am tempted, yes, but 3k is already a stretch for me, plus I prefer a smaller form factor. . . . I think it's probably going to be D800 for me . . .
Hi Trakl, I am a Canon convert myself. I got tired of waiting for the digital version of the EOS 3 and when the 5D Mark II came out I was so frustrated with the lack of AF improvements no matter how much Chuck Westfall tried to convince us. So I bought a D700 and a 5D Mark II to try out for myself, not only was the D700 so much better than the Mark II, it also was so much better than my 1D Mark II in AF (I had used a 1D Mark III for a while, but as Rob Galbraith well documented, the AF had issues). It ended up being a no brainer for me because I shoot a lot in low light and with moving subjects.
If you photograph things that don't move then AF is not going to be a huge deal for you, but everything else will. The only thing I was unhappy with Canon with was the AF, but after using and shooting with the D700 and some awesome Nikon glass and their superior flash system, I was surprised at how much I was missing with Canon
Good to know, wj. I mostly like landscape but I am an amateur hobbyist and need a camera with some flexibility to do other things, too, so AF is useful to me, too, and you and many others have told me that Nikon's AF can be something of a revelation after Canon's, so I am determined to check it out. You only live once! I've really enjoyed a lot about my 7D over the last couple years and will be content to pass it on to someone else to enjoy while I experiment with a new system. Best to you, Trakl
Hey y'all, I just found a review over at pixiqthat shows the file size and buffer limits, this is so much better than the previously reported 75MB uncompressed numbers!
• NEF 14-bit uncompressed RAW in DX, 32.5MB - camera buffer memory 25 frames
• NEF 12-bit lossless compressed RAW in DX, 14.9MB - camera buffer memory 38 frames
• JPG at highest resolution, 16.3MB - camera buffer memory 56 frames
• JPG at highest resoultion in DX, 8.0MB - camera buffer memory 100 frames
That's around 41MB per image in 14-bit mode and 32MB in 12-bit mode, the D700 for 14 bit lossless compressed was around 15MB so the D800 is showing around a 2.7x increase in RAW file size, not bad for a 3x increase in pixels. I still want to see Nikon put in an sRAW option at around 18MP, but this is so much better than the 5x increase I thought it was.
I am usually in line for the latest pro body when they come out... put lots of miles into a D1, D2 and now D3.
But despite realizing that the D4and D800's will no doubt do very well, I'm not feeling the need right now. I've never been limited by 12MP, at least that I'm aware of, and the low light goodness of the D3S is still what calls me.
I can't say never on the D4... but the D800 really isn't something that interests me for what I shoot. So until the D5, I'm thinking I'm still spoiled with D3S and D700.
Nikon sure can’t make every one happy. I really don’t understand all the complaining it is to many megapixels. If that it the way you feel don’t buy it. The D700, D3, D3s & D3x are still outstanding cameras. Think about how nature has set Nikon Back so far, they just got things going in Thailand then they lose the plant. They built a new plant from ground up in Japan. I am a construction worker ( well was, I retired 4 years ago.) And it does take time to build a new plant, design and manufacture all the new tools and machinery needed to run the plant, this is easy a year process by it’s self.
If Nikon doesn’t have what you want now just be patient and give them time to catch up. With what they have gone through, were they are now is pretty amazing in it’s self. I think they have done fantastic.
I am wanting the D800, but my regular print sizes are 16X20 inches and 24X30 inches, and I am still debating whether a D3s would serve me better. Until there are bodies out there and lots of testing I really can’t make up my mind.
I do think we will see a D300 and a D700 replacement maybe mid summer.
Dennis
All the kvetching about 36MP being way way too much. It's not necessary to shoot at 36, is it? Give most of the naysayers a month with the D800, and I wonder how many will be complaining then? I wonder how many will be praising the wonders of the 36 megapixels? It's my guess that 90%+ will be more than happy with 36.
Give the D800 some time to prove itself. People will eventually come to the conclusion that:
a) 36MP is quite useless for most people's photography. Why no sRAW
b) 12MP in the D700 is so woefully tiny.
c) Why can't Nikon come out with a 24MP D800 with faster fps and more advanced AF?!
I think Nikon have just gone after the wow factor with lots of MP, or are aiming square at the video market, with photographers who 'want' more MP saying yes please.
As most people don't print big, and a lot of images don't even go past being on a computer screen, ie web etc, the best thing Nikon could have done was to improve the quality of a lower MP sensor, and thats what the 'D700 replacement' should have been. The D4 looks great, and that kinda sensor in the 'D700 replacement' would have been much more useful.
Maybe that will come in a few months, but as it is the D800 does not look or perform like a D700 replacement. Its sitting in a different market place.
Can’t please everybody. Guess it's good for you there's a used camera market. You are right, I am going to be using the DX section of that D800 sensor a lot and be happy with it. I guess the early reports are that it is going to be cleaner at high ISO’s than your D700’s sensor. I’m excited!
I want to go back to FX because for portraits, I like FX much better. As many people say, D3s is better than D800. True, I would prefer D3s because of its low light capabilities and 12mp is plenty for me. BUT it is much more expensive than D800 and I don't need the fast fps. So, I will choose D800.
D700 is a great camera but the price (new one) is not that much different from D800 price. D800 adds video, 100% viewfinder, 36mp etc. If it's high iso iq is as good as that of the D700 as some have predicted, an extra $300 is a no brainer. I don't shoot thousand of images, so processing should not be a problem also, computer technology advances so fast and becomes cheaper and cheaper. A used D700 however, may become the best alternative if the price goes down significantly when D800 comes out
Ghost wrote:
Give the D800 some time to prove itself. People will eventually come to the conclusion that:
a) 36MP is quite useless for most people's photography. Why no sRAW
b) 12MP in the D700 is so woefully tiny.
c) Why can't Nikon come out with a 24MP D800 with faster fps and more advanced AF?!
By your own argument.. the D700 used prices may not go down as much as you may think, right? If the 800 is not really a replacement of the 700, then the 700 may rise in price, rather than fall?
wjmeyer wrote:
You're not alone. The D800 at 3x the MP of the D700 is just too much (MP), back when I shot Canon I was always bothered by their constant jump in MP, for my line of work I do not need it or want it. 12MP is more than sufficient for the majority of work I do (wedding and portrait) so having 36MP gives me no advantage whatsoever, heck, some of my colleagues are still shooting with 5D classics. The D700 represented the best thing that happened to DSLR's since the 5D was introduced. The 5D broke new ground in making an "affordable" FF DSLR, but the D700 stole the thunder with making a FF DSLR that had superb high ISO and best in class AF system at an "affordable" price.
But I'll say it again, now that the D800 is official, Nikon may think the D800 replaces the D700 but many photographers will not agree because the huge bump in MP is niether needed or wanted.
I don't want 50+ MB RAW files, I want cleaner higher ISO, and I know many of you will give me your mumbo jumbo about if you compress down the 36MP file it will be cleaner, I don't care, I don't want 36MP to begin with for many other reasons.
So, will I be buying the D800, I don't think so, instead I'll be looking for some nice D700's to be selling for $1500 or possibly less in a short while. Nikon could have done ONE THING that would have made the D800 much more desireable for me, offer an sRAW option at 18MP, now that I would have jumped all over!...Show more →
I don't know if 36MP is useless for "most people's" photography. I would have no data or broad survey information to evaluate that. In either case, it's completely uninteresting. I don't base my equipment decisions on 1) what "most" people think or do or don't think or don't do, and 2) what's good for the manufacturer. I base them solely on what's good for my own photography. I leave the speculation to the group psychologists, economists, and social sciences and buy whatever works for me and go out and shoot.
This was shot with the 24MP Sony A850 and ZA 24-70. It prints nicely to 17x25 (16x24 with 1/2" border), and 24x35 (22x33 with 1" border) is okay but doesn't really reveal much not visible at the smaller size. In the larger size the layering out in the avenues is still not clear enough. At 12MP it would be mush. The D800E would bring shots like this to life at 24x35. While most of my printing is 16x20ish occasionally I have shots with enough detail to require a step up in size. I consider this a marginal improvement, the cherry on top sort of thing, but it's nice to have when you need it. If I didn't also want to buy into the Nikon lens lineup I'd probably not bother and see what Sony comes up with. But as it is the D800E is going to be spot-on; exactly the right tool for me. It's not a D700 replacement to me, because the D700 was never of interest to begin with.
when I get my first full-frame camera. I know, I know, probably foolish, but if I don't try Nikon at some point I know I'll always wonder! And I will confess, too, another thing that's foolish but true: There's just something about having the newest camera in the lineup that's attractive to me. So if I were sticking with Canon, I'd be waiting for the 5D3. But I don't think I am sticking with Canon. In short, I'm the sucker everyone loves, who buys the newest thing and sells off perfectly good stuff at a discount. You're welcome, world. 
