Nikon D800......

This looks to be an absolutely fantastic camera, I'm really looking forward to the reviews! Hopefully Canon will reply with a belter in the 5D Mark III as well.
 
here is the best summary.
we are looking at it as a replcement to the D700 which it dosent seem to be which is confusing.



Since my post last night here on Google+ (http://www.scottgplus.com), and here on my blog earlier today, I’ve seen a lot of comments flowing in pro and con about this camera, and I just want to say a quick few things about the comments I’ve been reading thus far:

(1) The D800 was apparently created for a very specific type of photographer
There is no law that every camera introduced by a camera company has to be designed to fit your personal needs. If you read that it has 36.3 megapixels and you’re like “36.3 megapixels is overkill!!!” then obviously this camera isn’t for you, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t photographers out there who read that spec and cheered! (Me being on of them). It looks like this was designed for commercial photographers, and wedding and landscape shooters that want to be using a camera with Medium-Format type resolution without the medium-format price. If that’s not you, that’s OK. Nikon makes other camera models for you.

(2) The D800 doesn’t appear to be designed for sports or action photographers (like the D700 was)
In fact, it looks like the D800 is an entirely different camera intended for an entirely different market, which is why it only shoots 4/fps (which for a camera with that high a resolution is actually very fast. If you’ve ever shot a medium-format camera, this is blazing!!!).

(3) The D700 was kind of a stripped down version of the D3…
but the D800 doesn’t seem to be a stripped down D4 on any level (even though the name D800 alone would make us think otherwise). I wish Nikon had given it a different name just to make a more obvious break with the D700 line, and I really hope Nikon does introduce a stripped down version of the D4, because I always thought the D700 had an important place in their product line that a lot of people really benefitted from (I have a D700 myself).
 
straycat said:
here is the best summary.
we are looking at it as a replcement to the D700 which it dosent seem to be which is confusing.



Since my post last night here on Google+ (http://www.scottgplus.com), and here on my blog earlier today, I’ve seen a lot of comments flowing in pro and con about this camera, and I just want to say a quick few things about the comments I’ve been reading thus far:

(1) The D800 was apparently created for a very specific type of photographer
There is no law that every camera introduced by a camera company has to be designed to fit your personal needs. If you read that it has 36.3 megapixels and you’re like “36.3 megapixels is overkill!!!” then obviously this camera isn’t for you, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t photographers out there who read that spec and cheered! (Me being on of them). It looks like this was designed for commercial photographers, and wedding and landscape shooters that want to be using a camera with Medium-Format type resolution without the medium-format price. If that’s not you, that’s OK. Nikon makes other camera models for you.

(2) The D800 doesn’t appear to be designed for sports or action photographers (like the D700 was)
In fact, it looks like the D800 is an entirely different camera intended for an entirely different market, which is why it only shoots 4/fps (which for a camera with that high a resolution is actually very fast. If you’ve ever shot a medium-format camera, this is blazing!!!).

(3) The D700 was kind of a stripped down version of the D3…
but the D800 doesn’t seem to be a stripped down D4 on any level (even though the name D800 alone would make us think otherwise). I wish Nikon had given it a different name just to make a more obvious break with the D700 line, and I really hope Nikon does introduce a stripped down version of the D4, because I always thought the D700 had an important place in their product line that a lot of people really benefitted from (I have a D700 myself).
Click to expand...

Good summary,I think we will have to wait,for a D700 replacement,if it ever comes :)
 
Regarding the comments about the £300 price differential between the 800 and 800E, as far as I can tell (and correct me if I'm wrong) you only get the bundled Capture NX2 (value around £150) with the E... which would account for half of the difference.

Looks like it will suit me... but whether to go for the low fat or the 'E' :thinking: :shrug:
 
straycat said:
here is the best summary.
we are looking at it as a replcement to the D700 which it dosent seem to be which is confusing.



Since my post last night here on Google+ (http://www.scottgplus.com), and here on my blog earlier today, I’ve seen a lot of comments flowing in pro and con about this camera, and I just want to say a quick few things about the comments I’ve been reading thus far:

(1) The D800 was apparently created for a very specific type of photographer
There is no law that every camera introduced by a camera company has to be designed to fit your personal needs. If you read that it has 36.3 megapixels and you’re like “36.3 megapixels is overkill!!!” then obviously this camera isn’t for you, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t photographers out there who read that spec and cheered! (Me being on of them). It looks like this was designed for commercial photographers, and wedding and landscape shooters that want to be using a camera with Medium-Format type resolution without the medium-format price. If that’s not you, that’s OK. Nikon makes other camera models for you.

(2) The D800 doesn’t appear to be designed for sports or action photographers (like the D700 was)
In fact, it looks like the D800 is an entirely different camera intended for an entirely different market, which is why it only shoots 4/fps (which for a camera with that high a resolution is actually very fast. If you’ve ever shot a medium-format camera, this is blazing!!!).

(3) The D700 was kind of a stripped down version of the D3…
but the D800 doesn’t seem to be a stripped down D4 on any level (even though the name D800 alone would make us think otherwise). I wish Nikon had given it a different name just to make a more obvious break with the D700 line, and I really hope Nikon does introduce a stripped down version of the D4, because I always thought the D700 had an important place in their product line that a lot of people really benefitted from (I have a D700 myself).
Click to expand...

I think the frustration/negativity probably stems from the fact that those with a D700, which remember is now nearly 5 years old, all of a sudden have no real upgrade path in terms of new cameras, should they want one. The D800 is seemingly very different (though well priced) and the D4 is over £4k.

That leaves a used D3S as being the only obvious choice but you would think that Nikon would rather hoover up some new sales somewhere.

I'm not disappointed, just a little confused as to what the general plan is here.
 
straycat said:
(1) The D800 was apparently created for a very specific type of photographer
There is no law that every camera introduced by a camera company has to be designed to fit your personal needs. If you read that it has 36.3 megapixels and you’re like “36.3 megapixels is overkill!!!” then obviously this camera isn’t for you, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t photographers out there who read that spec and cheered! (Me being on of them). It looks like this was designed for commercial photographers, and wedding and landscape shooters that want to be using a camera with Medium-Format type resolution without the medium-format price. If that’s not you, that’s OK. Nikon makes other camera models for you.
Click to expand...

Well said actually. The medium format mega pixel but without the heavy price. I can see this camera working for some photographers doing studio, fashion, wedding etc.
 
gad-westy said:
those with a D700, which remember is now nearly 5 years old, all of a sudden have no real upgrade path in terms of new cameras, should they want one.

snipped bits


I'm not disappointed, just a little confused as to what the general plan is here.
Click to expand...

the d700 was mid 2008 accouncement , so its not nearly 5 year old.

I think Nikon;s strategy ( and its a good one) is blindingly obvious
 
boyfalldown said:
if you were Nikon though, wouldn't you be wary of pulling sales away from the D4 (like the D700 did to the D3)
Click to expand...

The point being, the D700 was a cut down version of the D3. There were a lot of advantages with the D3 which a lot of people wanted over the D700: Dual slots, better battery, effectively a built in vertical grip, 100% VF, higher FPS, etc
 
Last edited:
straycat said:
here is the best summary.
we are looking at it as a replcement to the D700 which it dosent seem to be which is confusing.



Since my post last night here on Google+ (http://www.scottgplus.com), and here on my blog earlier today, I’ve seen a lot of comments flowing in pro and con about this camera, and I just want to say a quick few things about the comments I’ve been reading thus far:

(1) The D800 was apparently created for a very specific type of photographer
There is no law that every camera introduced by a camera company has to be designed to fit your personal needs. If you read that it has 36.3 megapixels and you’re like “36.3 megapixels is overkill!!!” then obviously this camera isn’t for you, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t photographers out there who read that spec and cheered! (Me being on of them). It looks like this was designed for commercial photographers, and wedding and landscape shooters that want to be using a camera with Medium-Format type resolution without the medium-format price. If that’s not you, that’s OK. Nikon makes other camera models for you.
Click to expand...

Well I am that kind of photographer then. It would be perfect, except none of my lenses will mount on it. Why didn't nikon release D800EOS? It would be like a direct upgrade from 1DsII and 1DsIII or D3x.
Unless you need 11fps, this camera is pretty amazing. If you need 10+fps, there are single digit cameras for that. Simple.
Large file sizes are largely irrelevant. The whole computer industry is rapidly evolving, with speeds and capacity doubling every 18mnths or so. In 2 years time we will be laughing at the current specs, and 36mp files will be easy to 'digest'.
 
boyfalldown said:
if you were Nikon though, wouldn't you be wary of pulling sales away from the D4 (like the D700 did to the D3)
Click to expand...

Partially.

You'd also be drooling at the prospect of extra sales from those not in the D4 market (people switching from Canon, people who can't quite afford a D4 but want similar performance, people who simply don't want an integrated grip). They key for the company is balancing at the point where they maximise profit.

That the D800E came out along with a D800 suggests Nikon is happy to have additional SKUs. That suggests to me that in a year or so, when D4 supply has caught up to demand (because why sell a sensor for £2400 when you can sell it for £4800), there could be a D800h with the D4 sensor, to draw in some additional sales that don't detract too much from the D4, as those who may have been in the market for both will have already purchased a D4, and they can be sold an additional backup camera, as well as capturing those other people.
 
boyfalldown said:
the d700 was mid 2008 accouncement , so its not nearly 5 year old.

I think Nikon;s strategy ( and its a good one) is blindingly obvious
Click to expand...

My mistake, nearly 4 years then. Either way there will clearly be some D700 owners who might be itching for a change. What new Nikon product are they going to buy? I'm yet to be convinced that it will be a D800 and a D4 represents a serious leap in cost terms. Will the D3S continue to be sold?

Would love to hear more about their 'blindingly obvious' strategy...
 
Last edited:
Woodsy said:
The point being, the D700 was a cut down version of the D3. There were a lot of advantages with the D3 which a lot of people wanted over the D700: Dual slots, better battery, effectively a built in vertical grip, 100% VF, higher FPS, etc
Click to expand...

I know ;) - but from a marketing perspective, how many people (like me) bought a d700 when they would otherwise have bought a d3. You're going to cannibalise sales if you bring a cut down version out
 
Woodsy said:
The point being, the D700 was a cut down version of the D3. There were a lot of advantages with the D3 which a lot of people wanted over the D700: Dual slots, better battery, effectively a built in vertical grip, 100% VF, higher FPS, etc
Click to expand...

And I think Nikon lost so much money from lost D3 sales that they are trying not to make that same mistake again. :shrug:
 
boyfalldown said:
I know ;) - but from a marketing perspective, how many people (like me) bought a d700 when they would otherwise have bought a d3. You're going to cannibalise sales if you bring a cut down version out
Click to expand...

It depends what margin is built into each camera. Sales are sales and as long as customers are buying your products at a good margin and not a competitor's why would they care?
 
gad-westy said:
It depends what margin is built into each camera. Sales are sales and as long as customers are buying your products at a good margin and not a competitor's why would they care?
Click to expand...

Given the two cameras are so similar, and therefore are likely to have very similar build costs, the profit margin in a D3 is likely to be much much higher than a D700.
 
Joe T said:
Given the two cameras are so similar, and therefore are likely to have very similar build costs, the profit margin in a D3 is likely to be much much higher than a D700.
Click to expand...

In the D3's case I'm not so sure, it was only (iirc) £800 or so more than a D700, compared with £2k between the D800 and D4.....
 
Joe T said:
Given the two cameras are so similar, and therefore are likely to have very similar build costs, the profit margin in a D3 is likely to be much much higher than a D700.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I get the impression that the D700 sold to a lot of people who would never have considered a D3 so volume would have generated decent profits that would never have otherwise existed. Just speculating but I know in my personal business, I'd much rather offer a range that will draw in as many customers as possible than worry about one product selling better than another.
 
I will buy the D800 if i'm looking for a similar camera to the D3x. Also for *** that can't afford a hasselblad or medium format camera. For 2.3k this camera is great for that purpose.

For general use etc i'm happy with my D7000/D300 but would love a D700 or D3 to behonest.
 
We need a D750!

D4 sensor,D700 body, 7FPS, video from the D800 etc etc.

Bold move by Nikon, but they know what they are doing.

The D400 should be interesting, and may force current FX shooters back to DX (if that what the D400 will be)

Who knows, they may add another range aimed more at the D700 market.

There is certainly a big gap now between the D300s which is aging, the D7000 and D800.
 
gad-westy said:
Maybe, but I get the impression that the D700 sold to a lot of people who would never have considered a D3 so volume would have generated decent profits that would never have otherwise existed. Just speculating but I know in my personal business, I'd much rather offer a range that will draw in as many customers as possible than worry about one product selling better than another.
Click to expand...


it did, but it also sold to a hell of a lot of people who would of gone for a d3 if it hadn't been available
 
Well I just placed my order and the feller at Calumet said just about every call he'd had today was to order a D800... hot cakes apparently!
 
daugirdas said:
Well I am that kind of photographer then. It would be perfect, except none of my lenses will mount on it. Why didn't nikon release D800EOS? It would be like a direct upgrade from 1DsII and 1DsIII or D3x.
Unless you need 11fps, this camera is pretty amazing. If you need 10+fps, there are single digit cameras for that. Simple.
Large file sizes are largely irrelevant. The whole computer industry is rapidly evolving, with speeds and capacity doubling every 18mnths or so. In 2 years time we will be laughing at the current specs, and 36mp files will be easy to 'digest'.
Click to expand...

Hey Tomas

Tempted?

Flashman said:
Regarding the comments about the £300 price differential between the 800 and 800E, as far as I can tell (and correct me if I'm wrong) you only get the bundled Capture NX2 (value around £150) with the E... which would account for half of the difference.

Looks like it will suit me... but whether to go for the low fat or the 'E' :thinking: :shrug:
Click to expand...

The modified AA filter?
 
Remember the D700 was a parts bin strategy; Nikon fused the D300 and the D3 at a time when they didn't have as much R&D freedom. It was successful, but at the cost of D3 sales. Nikon had, up until that point, given professionals two choices; high speed, or high resolution.

We are back to business as usual; now there's a 1DX competitor, and a 5D2/3 competitor. You have FX speed or FX resolution. Nikon are back to their longer term position.

Once upon a time, a camera existed that accidentally offered the professional FX camera sensor to wealthier amateurs who would otherwise have invested in the D300. It was a departure from normal SOP for Nikon at a time when they had to compete with the 5D but without the sensor options. No longer. Maybe we should be thankful it ever existed at all, but perhaps not expect to see a true D700 replacement in the same vein as the D4?
 
Timmy2wheels said:
1. Why are you showing your gear as D4 when you don't own one?
2. None of the links in the photography services section of your site work
Click to expand...

1. Technically I do own one, it just hasn't reached me yet, although I'm hoping that by the end of next week this will be rectified.

2. Correct, the site is being refeshed as we speak (as per the front page) so a lot of pages either do not work or are out of date.

And whilst we're having a cheerful chat, welcome to the forum. :p
 
How do you correct moire in PP. The D800E is looking pretty likely here.
 
i for one dont want to keep chasing the latest gear

the D700 was good camera and it still is.



i just recieved a NPS email

it features the following photographers using it

wedding
architecture
nature [stills,macro]
fashion

all using low iso and picture controls [not raw?]

its obvious its closer to D3x and going for max quality

i thought the photo examples where as dull as dishwater though

saying that the specs compared to 5 years ago is enough for most low light photographers i expect?
 
boyfalldown said:
I think this looks like a fantastic camera. I don't really understand the comments regarding the ISO performance. On paper, its still a greater performer then the d700. Obviously its worth waiting for real world test to be sure, but do you actually need iso higher then 6,400?. How many people who shoot the d700 wish it had higher iso capabilities?
Click to expand...

Not higher - just better.

With that many pixels my concern is that 1600 ISO (say) on the D800 is noisier than the D700 at the same ISO. As I suspect it will be.
 
What a surprise, Mr R says "The D800 is the best DSLR ever made by Nikon by a long margin..." :D
 
with ISO sotry is similar to d700 vs 5d2 (in my opinion) ...
5d2 has more Mpix so on 100% zoom, you will see bit more noise on 5d2.
on lets say fit the screen zoom, they are similar, very much similar...

but it was just me. never had problems with high ISO on any of those cameras.


I think it will be same story here with d800...

you may see tad more noise on full zoom. but it is not going to differ from d700 performance.
I would be really surprised if it would be
 
ryanyboy said:
Not higher - just better.

With that many pixels my concern is that 1600 ISO (say) on the D800 is noisier than the D700 at the same ISO. As I suspect it will be.
Click to expand...

I'd be very surprised if it was. I'd think it's atleast as good as
 
danbroad said:
Remember the D700 was a parts bin strategy; Nikon fused the D300 and the D3 at a time when they didn't have as much R&D freedom. It was successful, but at the cost of D3 sales. Nikon had, up until that point, given professionals two choices; high speed, or high resolution.

We are back to business as usual; now there's a 1DX competitor, and a 5D2/3 competitor. You have FX speed or FX resolution. Nikon are back to their longer term position.

Once upon a time, a camera existed that accidentally offered the professional FX camera sensor to wealthier amateurs who would otherwise have invested in the D300. It was a departure from normal SOP for Nikon at a time when they had to compete with the 5D but without the sensor options. No longer. Maybe we should be thankful it ever existed at all, but perhaps not expect to see a true D700 replacement in the same vein as the D4?
Click to expand...

I agree. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top