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.
I’m surprised Nikon has gone from the “quality” pixel mode to the “quantity” pixel mode. I don’t need that many pixels for what I do….then I got to thinking…medium format is getting more and more popular. In the old days, pro wedding shooters were using medium format and with the price coming down, we may see a move back to this in the next 5 years or so. So why the “more pixels”? Are more pixels to help “hide” imperfections like noise when downsized to an 8×10? Perhaps Nikon (and Canon) are trying to position themselves if a migration to MF happens. Even though it’s more about sensor size than pixels…I’m thinking it’s a marketing move.
My next camera will probably be a Mamiya 645 with a 20mp back and 80mm leaf shutter lens. It will be in the price range of D4 or a 1D-X with a 80mm 1.2 lens. Nikon and Canon don’t have medium format offering.
It looks to me like Nikon is not giving up quality for quantity. The low light performance looks great for ISO 3200 and 6400. However, this camera will not go to the ISO extremes of the D4, which I don’t need. For the work I shoot, I would much rather have a versatile D800 rather than a cumbersome medium format camera.
I hope that the huge bump in resolution wasn’t at the expense of pixel pitch and low-light performance. I’m interested to see if, and by how much, the D800 lives up to the D700 legacy of superior low-light performance.
I also wonder if FPS can be boosted in lower resolutions, and if Nikon included a lower resolution RAW file option. I have a feeling that I’m going to want to shoot RAW as always but won’t frequently need to cram a card full of 36MP images.
Thoughts, anyone?
DX-format can shoot up to 5fps; I don’t see anything in the specs about smaller RAW files, other than 1.2x, DX, and 5:4 formats (which have <100% viewfinder coverage).
I am so eager to ask this – I don’t care if I sound dumb… but… D4 & D800… they seem to sort of equal each other out (except the price & the new fancy flash card deal in D4). How do I choose the right cam without trying to play with both first?
Alexander, the D4 and D800 are very different still cameras but very similar video cameras. The D4 will give you better looking/lower noise stills in low light, much faster frame rate if you’re a volume shooter (sports, wedding, photojournalist), while the D800 will be best if you’re a landscape or studio or commercial still shooter. The D4’s files will be much smaller, while the D800 files may tax your computer if you work with tons of images, depending on the speed of your computer.
*Disclosure, i shoot Canon 🙂 I also rarely shoot video
From what i’ve been reading/hearing, it has been a toss up between HDSLR shooters actually liking the magapixel increase or not. But with such a large increase and even with whatever new back end computing is going on, i can’t help but think that still images HAVE to become more noisy, right?? I mean, there must be some out-of-this-world-revolutionary ish going on for it not to! This makes me uneasy and continues to keep my hopes up for the 5Dmkiii (which hopefully will not come with 42.38957 megapixels)
It’s nice to see the new body finally. And I’m curious to see how the video stacks up to Canon’s offerings. The 5D Mk II is pretty stinking solid. 36 MP is large. I’d have preferred 21 MP with native ISO that extends far higher than 6400. Yeah it’s expandable, but that shiz is pretty noisy.
5D mkII video is as bad as most other dSLRs at the moment thanks to pixel binning introducing softness and artefacts,
I fear that on such a high res sensor, unless they have some powerful chips sampling the full resolution, those issues will actually be worse. As a still camera though, it looks incredible.