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.
Well. I’m not a videographer so I think for now I will stick with my D700 bodies. I can’t see why upgrading to this camera (with out wearing out my 2 D700 bodies first) would benefit me. One concern I have, since I shoot a lot of sports, is the loss os shutter speed. With my grip on my D700 I get 8+ fps in my display. This one is 3 fps slower. Is this progress?
I’ve been with Nikon for 40 years. Shooting corporate annual reports and advertising work, they have never failed me. Now we offer video and I ended up with some Canon gear, 5d’s and glass. With the exception of the Canon FF sensor, I’m not impressed. The build of the body & the lenses, don’t compare to my D700’s and Nikon glass IMO. I placed my order for the D800 though NPS immediately. I will continue to shoot the D700’s for my reportage stills. I’ll use the D800 for specific ad shots where we need the pixel count as I used to go to the Hasselblad and certainly for video. I have great expectation from Nikon, so much that I purchased sight unseen for the first time ever. I glad they are recovering from the devastating Tsunami and floods and want to continue my support.
Looks like an excellent camera with more megapixels than I imagined (expected 24 or 32).
As long as it drops D3X prices to $2500-3300 I’ll be ecstatic.
I think high ISO capability will make or break the deal for me. I hoped to get some kind of D700/D3s high ISO with some more resolution.
What’s interesting for me as a wedding and commercial photographer is that you can choose from various resolutions.
For weddings you can choose between DX crop 15 MP what’s plenty (imho) for nice prints and huge books or 1.2 crop with 25 MP for portraits (I think you probably never ever need 36 MP for weddings).
As commercial photographer I find myself smiling to have the choice to switch to 36 MP for customers who need it really big. So you can serve various needs with one camera.
I really hope for some “miracles” regarding high ISO. ISO 1600 on the D7000 is not great but fine, if I get results like with the D700 or let alone the D3s I would order one today 🙂 but I do not really expect that. Hope dies last 😉
Cheers, Harry
I think th D800 promises to be a good camera.
My beef with it is in the sales pitch which claims it will challenge Medium Format.
Which in my opinion is plain wrong.
Anyone who thinks that a few more mega pixels is a substitute for medium format 16bit capture with a large sensor and a real would aspect ratio is missing the point.
Regards
Drew
Drew…absolutely love your work.
For me, I would say the D800 will indeed “challenge” MF, but please allow me to define “challenge” as: 80% as good for 1/8th the price. For many, even with the cash for MFD, that just doesn’t make sense.
Scenario:
If I shoot the same subject with an IQ140 and a D800. I make two prints at 33×46 inches (A0), one from each camera. I have a buyer and I say this print is $3000 (D800)…and this print is $25,000 (IQ140+body). Do you think the buyer will choose the $25,000 print? Do you really think the IQ140 will look “dramatically, night and day” better?? For a $22,000 difference shouldn’t it look night and day better? Personally, I would have to think the D800 image looked like crap to justify that difference. I’ve seen similar comparisons with the D3x…and while I did prefer the MF images, *I* would characterize the difference as subtle. You find yourself saying things like “it just has that….”. That’s cool !!… but worth $22,000.? Not to me. And if not comparing side by side??…the D800 image will fare far better.
Lastly…if MFD is so clearly superior….won’t it be obvious to us all?…with no need to defend it’s superiority on your blog and elsewhere? This whole MFD vs DSLR, FX vs DX, ISO vs MP, LF vs MF…yowsa. Sorry but I think I’m having a bit of an epiphany about how massively misplaced my priorities are in photography…gear, bragging rights (conscious and unconscious), etc, etc. The people shooting with iPhones seem to be having more fun. Need to go contemplate my navel.