D800 article

<p>Interesting information on the new Nikon from a respected magazine.<br /> http://www.chassimages.com/forum/index.php/topic,146552.0.html</p>

<p>Why they wrote it .<br /> http://www.photographydailynews.com/2012/02/nikon-d800-breaking-news/</p>

<p>aw, now you've gone and spoiled the surprise!</p>

Why are they intent on shoving video cameras into these?

 

It you are a pro, wouldn't you use a real video camera?

 

I just can't foresee ever needing it, and would prefer the price lowered to reflect the omission.

 

/shrug

 

This is not to say that I believe this source or not.

<p>merci Anthony</p>

<p>Richard, <br>

I've seen several TV-documentaries filmed partially with DSLRs. Most of the time the DSLRs were used from a tripod for cross-angle-takes (I'm not familar with the film-terms), close-up-shots of the interviewee and so on. It looked like the DSLRs were set-up as remote-cameras, filming the entire interview from different angles without being touched during the take. The main camera was a „classic” looking TV-camera.<br>

For independent reporters the use of DSLRs might be a cost-efficient way to get additional footage.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>would prefer the price lowered to reflect the omission</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It wouldn't be cheaper, as the video capture ability only requires software (firmware). It would make the market smaller as more and more journalists do video and photo, and hence can use this mixed ability. Why does this keep coming back with every new DSLR? They'll all have video from here on.</p>

<p><em>would prefer the price lowered to reflect the omission.</em></p>

<p>It would probably be more expensive without video since the market would be reduced.</p>

<p>Some years ago this same magazine published the claim that Nikon would be changing the F mount to another mount because they can't implement full frame DSLR within the narrow current mount. They claimed inside information if I recall correctly. Some inside info, huh ...</p>

<p>What seems to be the case is that Nikon no longer trusts them with actual early product info under NDA and therefore they're stuck reading forums, rumor sites and repeating what has been published there months ago.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It you are a pro, wouldn't you use a real video camera?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />DSLRs are considered "real video cameras" by a lot of current videographers. I see them all the time now at press conferences and other events I shoot. The professional world has adopted the 5DII as a standard tool. Here's one I saw recently in use.</p>

<p><br /></p><div></div>

<p>I've had the opinion that video in DSLRs is unnecessary. But - I came across this video on Vimeo the other night that has me re-thinking it.</p>

<p>http://vimeo.com/35769757</p>

That's fine.

 

Why can't Nikon just make an $1800 full frame camera like the 5DII, then?

 

I guess that's the issue, I don't like the lowest price point of the Nikon FX format. For 50 years Nikon was able to

make pro cameras and consumer cameras both with the same format. They won't do it now.

 

I'm at the point to upgrade, Nikon's stubbornness to making a sub $2K FX camera has me seriously thinking of getting off

the Nikon boat.

 

"Why does this keep coming back with every new DSLR?"

 

Probably because there are plenty of us that don't want a video camera with our camera. I don't need a video camera, I

don't need 38MP. I would just like access to an affordable FF digital camera, with the Nikon form factor. This D800

doesn't look like it's it(again, I am not trusting the veracity of this French site's info).

<p> Well 36mp sounds excessive for my purposes. </p>

<p><em>Why can't Nikon just make an $1800 full frame camera like the 5DII, then?</em></p>

<p>The 5D Mk II and D700 are priced exactly the same where I live, at 1899.90€ (including 23% tax). I don't know why they're priced differently at your store. It is possible he store is taking advantage of shortage in supply due to the tsunami's effects on Sendai and Nikon, whereas such an attempt at making a profit on someone else's misery doesn't go down well with customers in my country.</p>

<p>"I am not trusting the veracity of this French site's info"<br>

IMHO, that's the right idea. Both the Canonistas and Nikonistas are going nuts over silly 5D3/D800 rumors. And they all sound real silly to me. IMHO, a lot of 35mm glass won't be up to producing 38MP images, if you are expecting your 38MP images to look as good at the pixel level as MF digital images do.</p>

<p>Personally, I don't see much need for improvements in either of them. Maybe 24MP would be nice so I could remember how big my images are (5616 x 3744 pixels isn't a pair of numbers I've succeeded in memorizing, and I've been producing that size image for 3 years now) and the Nikonistas might like to make larger prints. (12MP blows 35mm film out of the water, but it's really no better than 645. 21MP makes 6x7 quite pointless.)</p>

<p>Unfortunately, the one thing that won't happen is an under US$1800 FF camera: the D700 and 5D2 came out when one US4 got you 115 or so yen, and nowadays it'll only get you 76 yen. I'd love a light, 24MP, FF Rebel. But it ain't gonna happen soon. (Canon manufactures camera bodies in Japan, so we're scrod on price, but Nikon may have offshored to Thailand, although parts from Japan and costs of refurbishing the flooded factories may offset lower mfg costs.)</p>

<p>Whatever. At some time in the next two or three years, both Canon and Nikon will have new models, and we'll have a new round of Canonista/Nikonista sniping at each other. Viva la differance!</p>

<p> </p>

<p> I am sure whatever it turns out to be will be very popular. It's all out of my hobby price range anyway so I will not buy one or anything but it's fun to see what kind of new gadgets are attached to the camera's. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>don't need a video camera, I don't need 38MP. I would just like access to an affordable FF digital camera, with the Nikon form factor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So do I, all I'm saying: removing video from the spec-list is not going to give me that camera any sooner or any cheaper.<br>

The only merit I see in the ultra-high resolution would be that i can postpone upgrading 2 DX lenses I have (Tokina 12-24 -> Nikon 16-35, Nikon 16-85VR -> ... probably 24-120 f/4VR), as the DX mode on such a camera would still be sufficient resolution for all normal sizes of print.<br>

But I wait and see what the real deal will be like, and decide then.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why can't Nikon just make an $1800 full frame camera like the 5DII, then?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 5D Mark II definitely was not $1800 when it was announced back in September, 2008. It was $2699: http://www.dpreview.com/news/2008/09/17/canon_5dmarkII<br /> Nikon announced the D700 two months earlier at $2999. Therefore, the difference was merely $300.</p>

<p>Today, 3+ years later, B&H is selling the 5D Mark II at $2170: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/583953-REG/Canon_2764B003_EOS_5D_Mark_II.html after the $100 rebate.</p>

<p>I wonder where you got the $1800 price from. But as long as you don't mind a 3+ year old design that should be replaced soon and an old AF system, by all means buy a 5D Mark II. However, if you prefer newer technology, it'll cost more.</p>

<p>Sheesh. I'm completely, 100% dead wrong: 36MP FF (and high-end AF!) for US$3000. Good show, Nikon. Canon must be freaking out. Grumble. I was hoping to limp along on my current peecee for a couple more years, but dealing with that large files with anything less than a quad-core 3.4 GHz i7 isn't going to be fun (assuming Canon comes out with a similar pixel count 5D3). Sigh.</p>

 

<p>Richard, you SHOULD get off the Nikon boat. I got off it, and before that I got off the Canon boat. Now I'm on the Sony and Sigma boats (at the same time!). One camera for some things and another for other things. Combine the price of both, and you get enough money for a D800, but you don't get all the features of both. I have to use adapters to mount a Nikon 50mm f1.2 AIS or 135mm f2 DC, but no big deal. The biggest issue is the lack of auto-focus and VR, though the Sony has built-in image stabilization, so I really don't lose VR, when using the Sony. In fact, in those two lenses I gain image stabilization that I would not have with a Nikon body. The nice thing is that I get a fold-out screen with better live-view focusing, 12 fps, and incredibly high quality 60p video, if I want that. My ultimate image quality, when shooting with a tripod and using the Sigma SD1 will be breathtaking too (assuming equivalent to that of the Nikon D800).</p>

<p>The future is giant digital image files. Today's 24 megapixel RAW files are old news. We have files that are 50% bigger coming down the pike. Of course, that's really not that much bigger, considering today's processors are more than twice as fast as the processors that were available, when the 24 megapixel cameras started to appear on the scene. New computer? Don't you get a new computer every three or four years anyway? Hard drives are more than twice the size, memory cards are more than twice the size and more than twice as fast, and they all cost about half as much for that speed. Isn't it about time we see a 48 megapixel camera? It will be interesting to see how long it takes Canon and Nikon to pass this new 36 megapixel number.</p>

<p>O.K. After some analysis of the D800 images on Imaging Resource, I am eating my words. The D800 is VERY impressive. It's still more expensive than the Sigma SD1, but there are many advantages to it. I even created a gallery of comparison images that show how the D800 spanks the SD1 in image quality (in some elements of the images, particularly the entrance sign in the bottom left of the image). I suspect it has something to do with the lens used, but frankly, it is the SYSTEM that you are buying into, and I am willing to admit that Nikon does have an advantage, though it is an expensive one. I would certainly love to get a D800 with the Nikon holy trinity (14-24mm f2.8 G, 24-70mm f2.8 G, and VR 70-200mm f2.8 G II). With Nikon you can get most of the Sigma lenses too, and then there is the advantage of Nikon's PC lenses, which Sigma does not offer (though they could probably be used with mount adapters, since they are manual focus and have aperture rings anyway). Certainly the large viewfinder and the faster operation are big advantages of the Nikon D800 (and any Nikon full-frame camera).</p>

<p>I will still get Sony's A65 first, because of its advantages over any offering from any other camera manufacturer, but I think I may be swinging back to the Nikon camp, with this new D800. My comparison is with D800 images . . . not even D800 E images. I find that incredibly impressive, since it will be the D800 E that I will buy, if I decide to pull the trigger on buying a new Nikon. I just dread the cost of those expensive Nikon lenses!</p>