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 am currently in the process of starting up a media production company. With limited startup capital I need most of what I purchase to be multi purpose, so in this case a couple full frame HDSLRS’s. Having been a Nikon shooter for all of my brief career, I am now looking at making the switch to Canon. The D800 seems great on paper, but just don’t think 36mp was a good idea, especially for the video side of things. That is essentially an 8k sensor being down sampled to 1080p. That is a lot of information that has to be thrown away. And so far, it doesn’t look to do a very good job at it. I am really hoping Nikon gets this camera in the hands of some great cinematographers to see what the video can do, but for the time being, this D800 announcement has made me more excited for the 5D3 announcement.
Curious, what you have seen in the way of video that is worse than a 5d2? Have you seen any uncompressed 8bit 4;2;2 footage?I work with 5d2 and 7d footage every single day…and Joy Ride compressed for youtube certainly doesn’t look worse than a 5d2 to my eyes.
I was actually hoping this camera would be the one that gets me to switch over to Nikon. Im a canon shooter right now, and knowing that Nikon would most likely make the D800 with a bigger res image chip excited me as most of my commercial clients want a bigger resolution. I also shoot lots of concerts/nightlife. Which is where the problem is, Nikon is def better performing in low light, but Canon usually offers the best bang for the buck in terms of resolution. But I def couldnt afford having to comera systems. Basically Zack Arias problem lol. While the D800 could still ultimately get me to switch to Nikon, I def have to wait and See if the High Iso performance has stayed the same/improved or if it has taken a hit with having such a big megapixel size. I also have to see what canon comes up with for the new 5D and whether its high Iso performance is the same and if their low light AF improves a bit + if they really do make the improvements to the 24-70 f/2.8 they should to make it more comparable to Nikon’s beastly version.
The ISO performance isn’t there, not if you’re looking on the scale of the D3s/D4. This is a studio/landscape camera primarily.
Cliff Mautner one of the guys who shot promo images says the ISO performance was on par with a D3, but the sample images I’ve seen make it appear even better than a D3.
Sorry to repeat myself, but unless I’m missing something….
Just apply a *bit* of NR with Topaz Denoise or Nik’s Dfine 2…then downsize to 16MP and sharpen a bit. I would expect it to look slightly better than the D700 on a 16×20 print. I think Cliff Mautner’s images support this expectation. You get the same resolution as the D4. Pretty good compromise…36MP for studio work + D700 Hi ISO at 16MP in one body. Worse case, downsize to12MP for iso 6400 images.
If I am wrong, please correct me!
This looks like something I just might get myself for my birthday!
I currently use a D3x and I am very happy with it, 36 MP is a bit too much for me, my D3x already puts my computer through a hard time, and my clients are very happy with my current 24 MP, so for me the camera I’ll get will be the D4 love to have the things I cant currently do, like high ISO and lots of frames per second.
I dont like Nikon following Canons early path and its megapixels race, that was the reason I bought a D3x in the first place, magazines were demanding of me , more than 12 MP but I see now 24 MP are just fine for that, I mean I dont shoot for Gucci or anything like that, but my local clients (mostly Catalogues) are happy with my D3x files.
Those are just my thoughts, 36 MP is overkill in my opinion.
I’ve been thinking hard about this, and as a really keen amateur photog, I don’t think this is the camera I move to from the D700. It’s great that they got the weight down, but video isn’t a key feature for me and the reason I stretched my budget to the D700 was shooting hand-held in low light. Looks like Nikon is choosing to make low-light performance a D4 selling point. I simply can’t afford entry to that club, so I will look closely at the successor to the D300s, and a return to a lighter, smaller DX kit. If it had the D4 sensor, I’d already have pre-ordered.