Nikon D800......

simonblue said:
I am thinking the same here.

I think the D800,has more to do with taking on the Canon 5DmkII Or III when it come out,than replacing the D700.

I am still kind of hoping their will be a baby D4.
Maybe the D400,will go full frame,with the D4 sensor :)
Click to expand...

There are to be two D800 cameras the D800 & D800E so maybe a D400 & D400F with the F being full frame and taking over the D700's price point. The D400 only as full frame would leave a cropped sensor hole in their range!
 
cowasaki said:
There are to be two D800 cameras the D800 & D800E so maybe a D400 & D400F with the F being full frame and taking over the D700's price point. The D400 only as full frame would leave a cropped sensor hole in their range!
Click to expand...

I honestly can't see two more bodies to fill the next gap down.

Apparently, according to the TP mob, nobody would want a DX body anyway because FX is better.... unless you are a motorsport tog who doesn't suffer from low light problems because 99% of motorsport is daytime but you need high FPS, lightning fast AF and AF points that aren't the centre 10% of the frame....

Canon have already abandoned the idea of a top notch non-full frame body, lets hope to god that Nikon see a gap!
 
desantnik said:
I honestly can't see two more bodies to fill the next gap down.

Apparently, according to the TP mob, nobody would want a DX body anyway because FX is better.... unless you are a motorsport tog who doesn't suffer from low light problems because 99% of motorsport is daytime but you need high FPS, lightning fast AF and AF points that aren't the centre 10% of the frame....

Canon have already abandoned the idea of a top notch non-full frame body, lets hope to god that Nikon see a gap!
Click to expand...

I can't either really. Another alternative is the D400 goes full frame and the D7200 and D5200 get more expensive too.
 
POAH said:
are peoples lenses going to be able to resove the detail a 36mp sensor will have?

tis a fairly hefty jump from 12 to 36mp which is not going to be nice to computers lol

5D2 raw files eat up my HD and sucked the performance out of my computer.
Click to expand...

In terms of pixel pitch it's about equal to the D7000, and my 105 produces fantastic results on the D7000. Lesser lenses not so amazingly sharp, but nonetheless more than acceptable. That said there may be problems towards the outer edges of the frame on the D800 - time and reviews will tell.

To be honest it really isn't the camera I was holding out for. Given the specs it would appear that the ISO performance will be about the same as that of the D7000, which while it's no slouch in that department, it's still a good stop behind that of the D700, but then again ISO isn't everything. I now see the D700 and D800 as 2 cameras each with different purposes - swapping between them will mean equally that you gain something, but lose something else.

In reality I see the D800 as the hi-res studio sidekick to the D4.

I think I'm going to stick where I am at the moment, as my style of photography at the moment doesn't really require full frame, and some cases full frame can be a disadvantage, although I guess that argument is now moot given the D800's resolution.
 
In fact the D7000 is about a grand anyway so with a few tweaks it would take the D300s model's place and keep them at that price point.

The thing is that bodies are just getting SO expensive now. It is getting absolutely ridiculous. I like some of the D800's features but I'm not paying that much! Now if the pricing is a bit off and they came in at £1999 then without the VAT it £1650 ish and selling the D300 it might have been a possibility making the D700 my second body. At least all my lenses are full frame other than the D200's kit lens but as I am swapping the D200 and lens for a Canon equivalent that wouldn't matter. (For testing my current and forthcoming inventions :))
 
cowasaki said:
There are to be two D800 cameras the D800 & D800E so maybe a D400 & D400F with the F being full frame and taking over the D700's price point. The D400 only as full frame would leave a cropped sensor hole in their range!
Click to expand...

I'm not sure thats likely though. I'm not convinced Nikon see it as a hole either (or indeed there is one) looking at the RRP's the D800 is suprisingly (to me anyway) cheap against the D700, so I don't see a whole in the range price wise.

I can't see a d400f using the d4 sensor either
 
cowasaki said:
I like some of the D800's features but I'm not paying that much! Now if the pricing is a bit off and they came in at £1999 then without the VAT it £1650 ish and selling the D300 it might have been a possibility making the D700 my second body.
Click to expand...

give it a while to settle though, the d700 RRP is above £2,200 so not that different and the price will drop from RRP anyway
 
Last edited:
It looks like an interesting camera for your keen amateur/hobbyist who likes to do a bit of everything. You could look at it as a 15mp DX camera (for sensible file sizes and good enough resolution, plus the crop factor for, say, wildlife) with the added ability to use as full frame if you need the attributes a full frame sensor gives you - or the other way round if that suits your preferences. It's not all things to all men, but that seems to be its aim.
 
badboy1984 said:
the AF mode on the back is not their anymore because it have been replace for the camera.video switch
Click to expand...

It has moved to the front next to the other focus control switch.


badboy1984 said:
I think i will get a D700 instead since mega pixel is not important for me and i can live with 12mp and all my accessories from my D300 can use on the D700.
Click to expand...

Good point about the accessories especially batteries, and to be honest I get some cracking results from my D700
 
A 36Mpix camera could produce a 9Mpix image with each pixel made up of a 2x2 block of pixels from the original image. This would allow a brilliant ISO and noise boost as one random light pixel out of the four could be eliminated. 9Mpx is plenty enough for an A3 image.
 
Well then - Its out and I am even more confused at who this camera is aimed at at half the cost of a D4:thinking:

Still looking at the specs.......Its looking like the D700 will still be produced and this is aimed between the 700 and D4......
 
Last edited:
Here's a question.... why in DX mode are they quoting only 97% viewfinder coverage?

Surely just masking down the centre should give you 100% of the DX sensor area?

BTW, I see this as a massive pain in the bum - just when DX mode looks like it has enough MP's to be usable... this comes along. 97% is worse than more old 30D which was painful in this respect.
 
This is one camera I WANT. The resolution is perfect for landscape and studio, and the samples on Nikon site look great. It also comes with good AF, sealing and video, effectively trashing 5dII on every front.

The price looks reasonable and will certainly come down a little bit in a few months.

Can I expect some dead cheap D700's now? I really fancy some Nikon glass to replace a couple Canon oddities.


jonneymendoza said:
I wished I had gone Nikon: ( Canon are crap for bodies
Click to expand...

Canon will announce their answer shortly. I am expecting nothing less but a serious contender, just like 1Dx will be a close match to D4.
 
Guys which out of the D800 and D800E would be best for shooting landscapes? I used to have a D700 which I sold some while ago and I am now looking at either getting one of the newer D800's or will try to get the D700 if the newer cams aren't worth the extra money.
 
daugirdas said:
This is one camera I WANT. The resolution is perfect for landscape and studio, and the samples on Nikon site look great. It also comes with good AF, sealing and video, effectively trashing 5dII on every front.

The price looks reasonable and will certainly come down a little bit in a few months.

Can I expect some dead cheap D700's now? I really fancy some Nikon glass to replace a couple Canon oddities.

Canon will announce their answer shortly. I am expecting nothing less but a serious contender, just like 1Dx will be a close match to D4.
Click to expand...

Hope so mate.
 
Beardy said:
Now that's interesting/confusing

CompactFlash and SD dual memory card slots

Why on earth have they done that ? Either follow the D4's lead or stay with dual CF surely ?
Click to expand...

The D700 only had a single card slot, so CF+SD is an improvement. Looking at the body, there isn't space for a second CF slot. Honestly, I wish they'd gone XQD as that would have at least had the possibility of dual slots, but given the restriction to 4FPS, it was probably seen as unnecessary.

badboy1984 said:
They taken out some pro features on the D800 ....... the AF mode on the back is not their anymore because it have been replace for the camera.video switch ....... I would expect to be D700 size but they not ......

I think i will get a D700 instead since mega pixel is not important for me and i can live with 12mp and all my accessories from my D300 can use on the D700.
Click to expand...

What?

It has the same AF selection system as the D7000 and D4. It's faster than the D300/700 system, and you can change more AF settings without taking your eye from the viewfinder than the old system. How is that not pro?

Slaphead said:
In terms of pixel pitch it's about equal to the D7000, and my 105 produces fantastic results on the D7000. Lesser lenses not so amazingly sharp, but nonetheless more than acceptable. That said there may be problems towards the outer edges of the frame on the D800 - time and reviews will tell.

To be honest it really isn't the camera I was holding out for. Given the specs it would appear that the ISO performance will be about the same as that of the D7000, which while it's no slouch in that department, it's still a good stop behind that of the D700, but then again ISO isn't everything. I now see the D700 and D800 as 2 cameras each with different purposes - swapping between them will mean equally that you gain something, but lose something else.

In reality I see the D800 as the hi-res studio sidekick to the D4.

I think I'm going to stick where I am at the moment, as my style of photography at the moment doesn't really require full frame, and some cases full frame can be a disadvantage, although I guess that argument is now moot given the D800's resolution.
Click to expand...

Same as the D7000 means it should beat the D700, as it has 2.4x the sensor area of the D7000 so should be over a stop better. The ISO640 shot seems to be bearing that out, but as that's relatively low ISO nowadays we shall have to wait for reviews.

I seem to be in a minority of one on this forum for liking the smaller size :LOL:
 
:| Got to say, there is nothing in those specs that really excites me. Yes the price will have dropped and will stabilise in a few months just as all previous bodies have done, but there is nothing that makes me lust after it. I would rather stick with a D700 and replace the D300 with another D700 or perhaps a D3s though I have always backed away from those as having small hands, I like being able to remove a grip and have a smaller camera.
 
POAH said:
someone missed the sticky at the top of the forum lol
Click to expand...


:bonk:


Easy to miss though LOL - I am happy I did not hold out for this, out of my budget and spec is not what I need.......Hoping people with D3s Who just like owning the latest tech - sell up in about 6 mnths....:naughty:
 
Last edited:
Flash In The Pan said:
I'd imagine you'll need to pony up a fair bit of your own cash to own one then, if the £25-2600 price being mooted in the US is anything to go by....
Click to expand...

Looks that way. A used D3s would be a good option, although a D3 is still my main option and then a D2x will be sold to part-fund a D7000, which will be my video camera and backup body.

Why did Nikon have to get all confusing with new models?....
 
Ausemmao, still going on about the D7000 high ISO being a stop better than the D700? I still haven't seen any of the reputable reviews you needed to link me to, and unless you do then I think prevailing opinions that the D700/D3/D4 high ISO texture and tonality are better than the DX bodies still stand.

Dynamic range at base ISO looks to be superb with the D7000 and I think that the D800 will exhibit the same trait. If youre a base ISO shooter - studio, landscape, the this is the camera for you. Let's see how it does at higher ISO before we judge it as a sports cam. It renders the D3X obsolete; whether it does for the D700 is a different matter. Certainly I don't see any reason to upgrade, seems to be the theme for many of us D700 owners.
 
To behonest i'm not too keen on the D800 still. For studio work i guess it serve a good purpose but i still would rather have a D700.

This is more like a D3X upgrade ........
 
Last edited:
specialman said:
Looks that way. A used D3s would be a good option, although a D3 is still my main option and then a D2x will be sold to part-fund a D7000, which will be my video camera and backup body.

Why did Nikon have to get all confusing with new models?....
Click to expand...

To sell them to people who are blinded by the spec babble and shinyness of them! ;)

Looks like a great camera for those that like to do a bit of everything- decent lanscape/people body and crop mode for wildlife. Once the early adopter tax has gone I can see this being very popular.
 
danbroad said:
Ausemmao, still going on about the D7000 high ISO being a stop better than the D700? I still haven't seen any of the reputable reviews you needed to link me to, and unless you do then I think prevailing opinions that the D700/D3/D4 high ISO texture and tonality are better than the DX bodies still stand.

Dynamic range at base ISO looks to be superb with the D7000 and I think that the D800 will exhibit the same trait. If youre a base ISO shooter - studio, landscape, the this is the camera for you. Let's see how it does at higher ISO before we judge it as a sports cam. It renders the D3X obsolete; whether it does for the D700 is a different matter. Certainly I don't see any reason to upgrade, seems to be the theme for many of us D700 owners.
Click to expand...

Are you reading what I write?

The D7000 is not a stop better. The D7000's sensor is somewhere between a nothing and a stop better (depending on which ISO you're shooting at and what your primary subject is) per unit area, so an FX version would be better. I linked comparisons in that previous thread.

It's not magic and it really isn't a difficult concept, it's pretty to understand with a grasp of optics, signal theory and physics.
 
ausemmao said:
Same as the D7000 means it should beat the D700, as it has 2.4x the sensor area of the D7000 so should be over a stop better. The ISO640 shot seems to be bearing that out, but as that's relatively low ISO nowadays we shall have to wait for reviews.

I seem to be in a minority of one on this forum for liking the smaller size :LOL:
Click to expand...

I have not seen any images showing the D7000 as having a better high ISO than the D700. Have you any examples that you can share with the forum?
 
cowasaki said:
It's great isn't it!!

They leave out the AA filter and charge £250 more!! Where did they get their pricing, Porsche?
Click to expand...

:LOL:

In fairness there are economies of scale that affect pricing, and being more cynical, those who can benefit from the lack of AA would have spent £300-500 hot rodding it, so they want to capture some of that profit.
 
ausemmao said:
:LOL:

In fairness there are economies of scale that affect pricing, and being more cynical, those who can benefit from the lack of AA would have spent £300-500 hot rodding it, so they want to capture some of that profit.
Click to expand...

£250 for missing out 1 component on something that is on a production line would make no sense. You run the line for one day out of 10 missing the AA filter and attaching a different badge. It IS a cynical money grabbing ploy really!
 
cowasaki said:
I have not seen any images showing the D7000 as having a better high ISO than the D700. Have you any examples that you can share with the forum?
Click to expand...

My posting history should have a post where I linked to the FM forums. There are a low and high ISO comparison of the DX crop from a D700 and the full D7000. The low ISO one wasn't even close, the D7000 spanked the D700, though that wasn't entirely fair (the D7000 has native ISO100, the D700 has to digitally create it), the high ISO one was closer, with the D7000 resolving more detail and looking a little bit cleaner.

Will try and find it when I'm back home :)
 
so are we saying the D700 will still be better in low light?

i dont get the point of 36mp at all

it dosent seem to me a direct replacement for the D700 rather a totaly different sort of camera?
 
Ahh yes, welcome to underwhelmedville. Think I'll be sticking with the D700.

Video has never excited me, 36MP is pointless for me whereas 24 would be fine. I'd rather sharper images on a lower res sensor which I can resize later. Useful controls on body replaced with silly stills/video switch etc. Supposedly lower battery capacity? Lower FPS all over the shot... yeah. No.

Frankly, unless the noise performance is blisteringly good AND the images taken on current lenses such as the 16-35, 24-70, etc are acceptably sharp, I really fail to see the point of this camera. Studio work? well, that's either a D3X, 5D2 or Digital MF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top