Nikon D800 via B&H
Here’s some highlighted specs:
_36.3 megapixel, full-frame sensor (FX)
_up to 5fps still image shooting
_1080pHD video 24 or 30fps
_ISO Range 100-6400 (extendable from 25,600)
_Live View + External Monitor viewing for professional video applications
_Built in external microphone with audio monitoring capabilities via external headphones
_Twin card slots – one Compact Flash and one SD
_weight = 2 pounds 3 oz
The curve balls for me? The megapixels. There’s a lot of em. Also, this is geared a lot more toward video than I would have anticipated. But beyond that… Please note I HAVE NOT touched one of these cameras, and like the D4, NO I didn’t shoot the campaign. I haven’t yet spent time with the camera to tell you any gory details, although I’m assuming I’ll be able to chat more soon.
Aesthetics? Click thru a range of images of the camera via the above tabs.
So.. I (we) knew this was coming, but rather than me spouting off about having played with the system (I can’t – although some of you journalist types have I’m sure), or telling you what your feelings about this system should be (I won’t), I’m turning the tables on you.
What’s your take? Love, hate, indifferent? Insights?
[Reminder that Nikon plays close attention to this blog, so your comments on this post – glowing or otherwise – might help inform Nikon about what your thinking.]Link to all the Nikon D800 details and/or purchase here via B&H.
Am I a dope for being disappointed with the massive sensor? I wrote about it kind of verbosely on my blog.
http://oftheairphoto.com/2012/02/no-nikon-d800-for-me-and-the-nikoncanon-debate/
Apologies if linking to it here is inappropriate. The bottom line is that I was hoping for a small D4, maybe with some features removed (they have to differentiate models after all), even though I knew from all the early rumors that this thing would be 36MP. Now I’m hoping for something like a D800S with a smaller sensor and better high ISO performance.
Yes less megapixels higher iso on a d800s would be the one to get for me. Video producer/photographer (in that order).
I agree. I would give up some of those megapixels for better ISO in a heartbeat. Then you’d have a perfect camera for someone who’s budget doesn’t include the D4. I want this camera, but I feel like I would be wasting my money/it’s potential since I would use 36 megapixels.
I also feel that the price on the grip is a bit high. Maybe they are making up for the low price on the body?
I agree. I was hoping for less megapixels too. Mostly because of file size and archiving issues. ISO is important to me, but I’ll wait to see some proper images before I make a judgement on that. A tad faster frame rate would be little nicer too. I’m waiting on D400 before I buy. I will admit that I’m intrigued by it though. Now it just makes my decision so hard: used D3 vs. D700 + used lens vs. D400 + new lens VS D800. The D3s is out of my price range. Man I hate making these kinds of decisions. Any advice on how to spend about three grand to upgrade from a D90?
Not a dope at all–completely agree with you. As I read the description I became more and more disappointed. I argued the same point you make here over on Ken Rockwells facebook page (not sure why I even spent the energy there). Higher ISO performance (by far more important) as well as faster frame rate would have fit the needs of far more photographers than this beast. This thing gets a mind numbing 4 fps full-frame ONLY with the optional MB-?? accessory. As O. and Jim mentioned above you are still not matching medium format quality with the smaller sensor, so what is the point if 24 mp will suffice for 90% of the applications at this chip size.
This should not have been named as the seeming successor in the lineage to the D700 and should have had a “call sign” all it’s own. Nikon still needs to fill the upgrade void missing for d700 users. Perhaps they are thinking that is the D3s when/if the price comes down when the D4 is out for a while.
I just need A FM3A with a digital FF sensor, manual focus. maybe they invent a FM3D for me. 1fps is ok. no huge LCD is ok. when will nikon do that? …zzzzzzzzzzzzzzZ
I would love that one, with those small/non G voigtlander lenses, but i think it’s not going to be… maybe some fuji X-something version?
Me too, something like this: http://jancology.com/blog/archives/2004/06/09/nikon_fm3d.html
amen That would be my dream camera. Can’t they put the d3s sensor in the D7000 make it bit more solid and bigger viewfinder and add a 7 frame autobracket and you have killer camera. WHy not a very sharp Electronic viewfinder that could display the histogram live or review the shots even in bright sunlight. . A dream camera.. I would buy two.
What will you do with 36MP on a FF DSLR?
What will one do with 36MP? Well, most importantly, one probably will not need to get a medium format camera in many (not all) cases. I was looking to get a medium format setup for weddings/portraits/landscapes, but if the D800/D800e approaches the dynamic range and image quality of MF, then I just saved myself a heap of $$$. Plus it’s faster and easier to use than a MF setup, and I have a full spectrum of glass since I use a Nikon D3s already.. From what I’ve seen, the D800 makes sense, and finally Nikon has drawn a line in the sand between the D4 and the D800….which they didn’t really do with the D3 and D700. Most pros, depending of course on what they are shooting, will probably want both the D800 and D4 in their arsenal for different purposes. I know I will.
The image quality of a digital medium format camera like the Leica S2 or a digital Hasselblad will never be reached by the D800. The pixel pitch of the D800 is simply to small to deliver all the details the S2 can capture. Just compare these http://www.photoscala.de/Artikel/Leica-S2-%E2%80%9Ein-echt%E2%80%9C images with any D800 shot.
On the other hand, you won’t get medium format for $3000. But who needs 36 megapixel anyway? 😉
+1
+2. I’d have easily traded 12 MP or more for D3s-level ISO performance and a higher fps. I get way more value out of those two things on a daily basis than I do MEGA-megapixels, and if I really wanted that quality, you simply can’t get it from a chip that small. (though I haven’t poured over samples yet.) I’m not giving up hope yet, but I’m pretty sure the gap I was hoping to be filled is still a gap.
+3, the sensor size is way too small to compare anything close to what medium format gives. Besides it was Nikon who printed, NLT a couple of years ago, the optimum mega pixel size for DSLR was approx 16-18 megapixels. Now they release this!! Confusing .
Hi Guys,
I’ve shot the D800 and from the samples I saw home it handles very well. It handles dynamic range far better than current medium format sensors. Also the refference to 16-18Mpix is already outdated. The progress in technology during the last 10 years is imense. And frankly, I rather shoot my D700 + a D800 than to bother with slow medium format hardware, which is many times more expensive. My technik is still not the best to reach for medium format and the D800 will enable for me a solid learning curve on my path. So whenever I earn enough to justify the purchase, I will buy one 4 sure,
Cheers
Paul
http://zackarias.com/for-photographers/gear-gadgets/why-i-moved-to-medium-format-phase-one-iq140-review/
Indeed. I have some similar thoughts. I come from medium format film (6×7 mostly)
And I am looking for a digital, affordable, replacement. Until now I was thinking 645D Pentax, although stil way out
of my budget. Now, with the d800 with 36 megapixels and a 5:4 ratio option this might look interesting.
Still, I would miss the large viewfinder of a medium format camera and also I have some doubts on the Nikon lenses with this amount of megapixels. I would love to put a Leica or a Limited Pentax on this system to see how well it delivers.
Does anyone have some thoughts about great primes (from other brands also) to put on a Nikon full frame?
I pre-ordered the d800. I don’t foresee any issues with the top tier G Nikkor lenses…especially my 200 f2….or my Zeiss 100 f2. Now, I reaaaaly want the Zeiss 25 f2. They all certainly looked great on the D3x, which I luckily sold in December. 🙂
what the heck is that 4th image??
A mistake. 🙂
yep – fixed. sorry 😉 replaced the mistake with the overhead shot of the camera.
awesome thanks!
Chase, when will it be safe for you to chime in on your thoughts? We’re all dying to hear…
but what was it?
IT LOOKS DOPE! check out lolaxfick.tumblr.com
This is a beautiful camera with set up features that are before it’s time. Yes, Nikon put 36MP sensor in it after years of capping their pro camera at 12MP. Why, most people ask? Because the tech to make it work has finally arrived. Most dont want the extra file size and complain that it’s excessive. I disagree, the benefit of such a sensor is information and with more information comes 2 things, increased color depth and dynamic range. These two things are what has set the d800 above the d4 and the 5d mlII in DxO’s reviews. Color depth means accurate colors and the ability to make more changes and adjustments to you images, particularly raw images before they start to break down. With an additional 2 stops of dynamic range over my d700 I am confident that I can push and pull my exposure to a larger extent because I have more detailed file information to read from in my highlights and low lights. SPEED, wow you wedding shooters hate this, 4fps ….. I’ve never shot a wedding on Cl or Ch, regardless the decrease in boot up time and shutter lag on the d800 vs my d700 is fantastic. That’s the speed that I need. I think Nikon built this camera to compliment the d700 as much as “replace” it and to me it’s a perfect companion. I get the resolution and information, increased focus speed and an improved metering system with the 800, and I super high speed 8fps all around solid camera from my 700. So no, I won’t be selling my d700 but every pro should have two body’s, I can’t think of two I would rather have. Price point and all considered, Nikon is giving us a lot for the money.