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, Ive 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 Ive 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 youre like 36.3 megapixels is overkill!!! then obviously this camera isnt for you, but that doesnt mean there arent 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 thats not you, thats OK. Nikon makes other camera models for you.
(2) The D800 doesnt 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 youve 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 doesnt 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).
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, Ive 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 Ive 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 youre like 36.3 megapixels is overkill!!! then obviously this camera isnt for you, but that doesnt mean there arent 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 thats not you, thats OK. Nikon makes other camera models for you.
(2) The D800 doesnt 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 youve 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 doesnt 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).
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).
(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 youre like 36.3 megapixels is overkill!!! then obviously this camera isnt for you, but that doesnt mean there arent 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 thats not you, thats OK. Nikon makes other camera models for you.
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.
Exactly.
if you were Nikon though, wouldn't you be wary of pulling sales away from the D4 (like the D700 did to the D3)
D3s or learn how to use flash.
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, Ive 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 Ive 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 youre like 36.3 megapixels is overkill!!! then obviously this camera isnt for you, but that doesnt mean there arent 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 thats not you, thats OK. Nikon makes other camera models for you.
if you were Nikon though, wouldn't you be wary of pulling sales away from the D4 (like the D700 did to the D3)
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
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
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
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
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?
And I think Nikon lost so much money from lost D3 sales that they are trying not to make that same mistake again. :shrug:
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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' :shrug:
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
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?
D3s or learn how to use flash.
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.
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?
I wonder at what point you'll actually notice the difference of having the extra megapixels, over the D3/s?