Nikon D800......

ausemmao said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

The D700 should have been at ISO200. The reason that the D700 doesn't have an ISO100 is that there is no improvement at that ISO so holding the shutter open twice as long can introduce noise etc making the image worse. Also what is the point of comparing a D700 using DX or is that an image taken FF and the middle chopped out? If it is then again it's not a proper comparison anyway. The only comparison that would make sense is both cameras attached to the same lens and the same image taken but as they have different sensors the D7000 owner would have to stand further back which would affect the shot anyway. I don't see many people switching from their pro nikons to D7000 bodies.
 
Woodsy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. I got my heart set on a D700 or a used D3(s) now after seeing the release of the D800. Is not a bad camera but is not something i'm looking for.
 
cowasaki said:
The D700 should have been at ISO200. The reason that the D700 doesn't have an ISO100 is that there is no improvement at that ISO so holding the shutter open twice as long can introduce noise etc making the image worse. Also what is the point of comparing a D700 using DX or is that an image taken FF and the middle chopped out? If it is then again it's not a proper comparison anyway. The only comparison that would make sense is both cameras attached to the same lens and the same image taken but as they have different sensors the D7000 owner would have to stand further back which would affect the shot anyway. I don't see many people switching from their pro nikons to D7000 bodies.
Click to expand...

There is literally no difference between shooting ISO 100 and shooting ISO 200 then pulling down in post. It's a purely digital change.

For comparing sensor areal efficiency, this is the only way to do it. The whole point is to normalise for area so that information about how a FX sensor based on that technology would perform can be obtained.

What you suggest compares the technology AND the total area, so for getting information about a hypothetical FX D7000 sensor it sheds no light.

For the avoidance of doubt: I am not saying the D7000 outperforms the D700. I am saying an FX sensor with D7000 pixels would outperform the D700.
 
Last edited:
If anyone is upgrading their D700 to the D800 feel free to give me your old D700! :D

:LOL:
 
the more i read about it the less i understand why is the mp so much higher tha a D4?
 
cowasaki said:
£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!
Click to expand...

I dunno, from what I gather the D800E will have a filter which filters UV and IR, however it won't do the anti aliasing bit. This effectively means that nikon has to tool up to produce 2 filter variations, and it may not be as simple as running the "filter making machine" with AA filter switch in the off position.

It may also be that the non AA filter has to be of a higher grade, as it's possible that the anti aliasing function of the filter can hide small imperfections that you may get in a lower grade filter.

Before anybody starts, the above is purely guesswork and should be taken with an extemely large pinch of salt.
 
Last edited:
ausemmao said:
There is literally no difference between shooting ISO 100 and shooting ISO 200 then pulling down in post. It's a purely digital change.
Click to expand...

All ISO settings on digital cameras are dealt with in this way but the ideal is 200, the settings either way create more noise. I have done full range comparisons in the studio and when blown up you can see the difference albeit subtle between 100 and 200 or 200 and 400 etc.
 
greys say lower production run and tooling costs is the reason

i predict a increase in D700 prices for new stock and S/H prices to stay the same not a reduction,its a totaly different camera :)
 
Slaphead said:
I dunno, from what I gather the D800E will have a filter which filters UV and IR, however it won't do the anti aliasing bit. This effectively means that nikon has to tool up to produce 2 filter variations, and it may not be as simple as running the "filter making machine" with AA filter switch in the off position.

It may also be that the non AA filter has to be of a higher grade, as it's possible that the anti aliasing function of the filter can hide small imperfections that you may get in a lower grade filter.

Before anybody starts, the above is purely guesswork and should be taken with an extemely large pinch of salt.
Click to expand...

That is entirely feasible. I am getting a 500D shortly for astronomic photography and will be fitting a new filter to it internally that costs half as much as the entire camera. Specialist filters are alway expensive but £250 more, we'll see :D. Everything we are all saying is just guesswork really and we will find out over the next 3-4 months as people buy them etc.
 
straycat said:
greys say lower production run and tooling costs is the reason

i predict a increase in D700 prices for new stock and S/H prices to stay the same not a reduction,its a totaly different camera :)
Click to expand...

Lots of places have no D700 bodies already!
 
straycat said:
greys say lower production run and tooling costs is the reason

i predict a increase in D700 prices for new stock and S/H prices to stay the same not a reduction,its a totaly different camera :)
Click to expand...

D700 is discontinued as far as I am aware.

I shall wait to see the results of some real world images from the D800, if it is as clean as my D700 at ISO6400 I would be interested.
 
What about defraction problems with the higher MP sensor, won't this now mean you have to use lower f nums to stop losing sharpness, then you lose DOF, if I use f16 on landscapes I will then loose detail, if I lower to f5.6 I then lose DOF, and again lose detail.
You would have to have very good glass to make use of the MP.

Or am I talking cr:nono: ?
 
John, apparently it contains loads of clever stuff that eliminates most of what you talk about in software... go take a look on the nikon website...

I don't think its easy to describe it in terms of what has gone on before - I mean enough of you poo-poo'ed the D700 to start with and didn't believe it possible...
 
I am really pleased that I waited to see the specs of the D800 before parting with one of my D700 bodies. I think I will be keeping hold of both of them, only a D3s would tempt me to part with one at the moment.
 
Gob smacked and entirely underwhelmed by the specification of the D800 - a real backward step IMHO.

I'll be hanging on to my D700's.. I think their price will go up rather than down.
 
Same here... Big numbers mean nothing to me. I want quality and handling..
My D700 is going nowhere.
 
ausemmao said:
There is literally no difference between shooting ISO 100 and shooting ISO 200 then pulling down in post. It's a purely digital change.
Click to expand...

This isn't correct.

Shooting the D700 at ISO 100 such that the "metered" exposure is correct in actual fact means over exposing at the sensor by a stop and reducing it in software by a stop. This is NOT the same as shooting the sensor at ISO 200 for the correct metered exposure and reducing by a stop. Obviously the first method achieves the correct exposure but with processing applied, and the second gives an exposure which is 1 stop under exposed. A fair test can only be made for the comparison of two sensors when they are exposed correctly at their base ISO. That way there is no processing done on the information.

Sensors only have one "sensitivity" going outside this is ALWAYS a software or electronic amplification process. Hence making a comparison where one sensor is not as Base ISO (above OR below) is not a fair test.
 
Have Nikon got caught up in the MP war with Canon?

I guess you can't please everyone, but hey they have already pleased me with the D700 lol

I think I will be investing my pennies with Apple, sorry Nikon.
 
Last edited:
Its funny how a lot of people are saying they don't want one when there are not even any decent numbers of (non-manufacturer) photos out there. Will people not reserve judgement until they see what it is actually capable of in real life?
 
^^^ Well, this is true to an extent. But ultimately, if the specs don't really excite, and the price tag is enough to make you squint... I guess it just doesn't look promising.
 
Grays of Westminster have some more details on their website today of the D800 being released in march 2012 at £2400 and the D800E released in April at £2700 both 36MP.

at these prices it would seem that the D700 will hold its price well and peeps like me will have to wait a while longer before we can go second hand full frame :(
 
I guess a lot of this must boil down to what you need from a DSLR. I currently shoot a D3 for architecture/digital art so the increased MP will work great for me. I think its real difficult to compare the D800 with any of the other Nikon range (apart from the D3X). After shooting a D3X I could not find a reason to buy at its price point.

If the stats on the D800 translate to great image quality then for me, I would be very interested in dropping the D3 and going to a D800. The only thing I wonder about is how a smaller DSLR would feel in the hand.

The D800 is a great enhancement and does not look like a logical upgrade for a D700 owner, Nikon looks clear that its segmenting its product range far wider than before - personally I think this is a good thing. Cannot wait to head to Warehouse Express for a comparative shoot out based on quality, crop capability and dynamic range vs. my D3

I for one am very excited about this product
 
Adam_K said:
Have Nikon got caught up in the MP war with Canon?

I guess you can't please everyone, but hey they have already pleased me with the D700 lol

I think I will be investing my pennies with Apple, sorry Nikon.
Click to expand...

Have Nikon got caught up in the mp war with Canon,i would say yes,and the DSLR video market.

Their no dout that the Canon 5DmkII,has been good for Canon,do Nikon leave that market to Canon,i guess not now :D
 
Upon some further consideration, I will possibly warm to the D800 if the Images from current glass are acceptably sharp, the dynamic range is noticeably improved over the D700, and the ISO performance comes somewhere close to that of the D700. If not I *personally* don't see the appeal.
 
Last edited:
Digitalize said:
Nothing about the D800 has really excited me, just seems they've gone for massive specs, and not really thought about the camera as a package.
Click to expand...

Everyone is so negative and wrong about this... the D700 is pants compared to the D800...

waits for a flood of cheap D700 to hit the second hand market now

Seriously though, I dont see this selling huge volumes initially and feel Nikon have messed up! A few years ago you had the D300 - a great DX camera for pros or serious amatuers. Then the D700, an amazing camera with great ISO. You then had the D3 and D3s which was serious stuff but very good cameras and the D3x to take on Canon and the studio side.

Now, the D7000 has almost replaced the D300, but is smaller and not as 'pro'. The D700 was a classic and what should have happened is that it gets additional card slots, D3s ISO handling, 16 or even a few more MP and the normal tweaks. By all means bring our the 800 but not at the expense of the 700!

I would like to upgrade my D300, and the D700 is still the obvious choice.
 
Woodsy said:
Upon some further consideration, I will possibly warm to the D800 if the Images from current glass are acceptably sharp, thee dynamic range is noticeably improved over the D700, and the ISO performance comes somewhere close to that of the D700. If not I *personally* don't see the appeal
Click to expand...

Exactly what I would expect from it, stats do not show the entire story. One shot 3EV stack also looks like a nice function if compiled and written to a single RAW.

Only one way to find out... :)
 
I think the D800 looks like an amazing camera. I can't really see what's not to like. I think the D4 would suit me better for the ISO but that doesn't make the D800 a bad camera.

If I could justify the expense I would buy one and use it for model shoots etc where I'm controlling the light and don't usually go much past 400 ISO.

Those file sizes would make file management more of a hassle of course but not deal breaker.

And I'll NEVER know why FPS holds so much power over photographers.
 
ryanyboy said:
And I'll NEVER know why FPS holds so much power over photographers.
Click to expand...

Exactly, depends on the subjects you shoot. For sports then the D800 is not going to cut it against a 11fps DSLR. D3/D4 great as a 'cover all' camera, they really can do anything you want no matter how diverse however if you specialise then you have differing needs so there are more specialist models to help you achieve
 
D700 spec is already promising enough to do a wide range of stuff. From studio to sports

12mp is more then enough for most things realistically. So 36mp maybe overkill for most of us.

The high iso low light shooting for the D700 is already very good and the higher fps on the D700 is much much better then D800 to shoot sports.

Handling and feel of the camera is totally personal preference but i prefer the D700 grip handling, D800 don't excite me at all.

I still want to see the full review of the camera which might change the way i approach the D800.

At the moment D700 or D3/s still on top of my list.
 
If you look side by side, you can see some shared components of the D3X

Same CAM3500-FX sensor
Same 14-bit linear ADC, 16-bit data pipelines
Same viewfinder magnification
 
I predict D700 prices will not drop for a good while as there will now be a scramble to get Nikon's only 'affordable' full frame body. Minor-league pros and serious enthusiasts with a bit of money could just about justify a D700 either new or second-hand (and there were some bargains to be had just before the disaster in Japan) but £2,400+ will be beyond the reach of many people, myself included. Also, if, like me, you have a D700 but can't afford Nikon's pro zooms and rely on cleverly-chosen older and third-party lenses, will they hold up on such a high resolution body?

I have to say that I think we are just leaving behind a really important generation of camera bodies - D700 & D300(s) - which were a perfect balance of spec and affordability.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Because some potential images are only there for a fraction of a second.....
Click to expand...

Indeed, something like a red carpet (or a podium presentation) you have to machine gun it - that celeb aint going to pose for you and everyone else out there and the paper won't buy a shot of Angelina looking like a chimp sucking a golf ball (those shots you keep for yourself for posting on flickr :D).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top