Nikon D800 "Missing Features"

<p>As many Nikonians were, I was also anticipating D800 with bated breath. Now that it has finally arrived, it feels like an anti-climax, partly due to the long delays and then a lot of information was already leaked in the media. I was a little disappointed at 36 MP sensor, what with requiring to update hard-disk, RAM etc. However I was expecting something more from this camera.</p>

<p>How if Nikon had incorporated the following:</p>

<p>1. Articulated LCD to take pictures at odd angles and perspectives as well as without alerting the subject.<br /> 2. 90 degree rotatable lens mount-sensor assembly so as not to have to turn camera vertically to take pictures in portrait orientation ( Nikon owns the patent for this).<br /> 3. Interchangeable sensor.<br /> 4. More picture controls emulating for example Kodachrome or Velvia.<br>

5. A white/silver body model.</p>

<p> </p>

Uhmmm..... There so many things that could be added or taken.....

 

From your list.....

 

1- I never use Live view, only the viewfinder.

 

2- I'm trying to figure this out..... If I have the camera on a tripod or hand holding the camera and I

rotate the lens mount, the sensor would stay in the same position, wouldn't it? How could that

help?

 

3- This could be good if there was a line of sensors to choose from. Specially one with only 12 MP.

 

4- You can create them.

 

5- For me, black is the way to go.

 

In my list of things to get rid of:

 

1- Too many pixels

 

2- Movie. I have been playing with my V1 and I hate the movie switch. It's always on the way.

<p>Rene' when one rotates the lens mount, sensor would rotate with it. At least that's the theory.</p>

Got it!! Good when using a tripod..... easier the way it is when hand holding the camera, i think.

<p>The only thing I missed (and I`m not sure, I still don`t know the complete list of features) is about the flash. I`d have prefered a <em>more serious</em> thing; better than the usual "toy flash", something like a built-in SU-800 kind of commander, a really good triggering device or so.<br /> One more time we`ll have to deal with the almost useless (to me) "toy flash" and the IR panel. Another lost opportunity.<br /> Otherwise, the D800 seem to me a real wonder, exactly as it is. Personally, no need of articulated screens, rotating sensors, colors, film emulation, etc. Lesser is more...</p>

<p>Well, instead of "rotatable sensor-lens mount" I'd prefer a square sensor with a quick menu ability to pick your desired frame: square, landscape crop 3/4...3/5...4/5 or portrait crop 3/4...3/5...4/5 etc. This is more helpful and easier to implement IMHO.</p>

<p>I also miss the articulated LCD and as well a GPS module. </p>

<p>It would be a great idea to have available a D800 barebone and one to have the option to pick between D3s, D4 and its 36MP sensor... but I doubt Nikon will go this path ever.</p>

<p>Just because Nikon makes a patent on something, doesn't mean it's always coming out right away (or ever). Nature of the business.</p>

<p>Honestly, the new cameras are amazing for what they are designed to do. The articulated LCD is, I think, very much an amateur feature, and probably prone to break anyway. The rotatable lens mount would add more to the cost than it would be worth to consumers. The interchangeable sensor is, I think, asking for a feature that no other DSLR-maker is offering, and I am not hearing a lot of clamor for it anyway. And black cameras seem to be working just fine for Nikon. White would get dirty and silver would look totally amateur.</p>

Jose...... Have you tried those little toy diffusers for the Mickey mouse flash on your D700? Of

curse is still a toy flash but it does wonders...... I really like mine and it's on my camera 90% of the

time.

<p>Apurva - interesting list, but I have to say that none of the things which you mentioned are things that I care about in a DSLR - with the possible exception of an articulated LCD, but I'd probably prefer that the camera be robust. That's not to say that your requests are invalid, I'm just demonstrating that not every Nikon customer matches your requirements; I'd go so far as to guess that - with price and robustness compromises - you might be in a minority with some of these. I'd be extremely surprised if 2 (because the mirror unit would have to move) or 3 (because the sensor is pretty integral to the camera design) ever appear in a Nikon DSLR - although a medium format back provides both, along with #5.<br />

<br />

There are things that each of us would like in a new camera. I submitted a request list to Nikon - some are in the D800, some almost definitely aren't, and I don't know about some of the others yet (and won't until the final firmware is released). The ones which are expensive or fiddly to implement are the ones about which I have the greatest doubt - for example, I'd love a sensor with rear movements. :-)<br />

<br />

The commercialisation of any product is a compromise. I accept that not everything I want is going to be available in any given product, and I certainly accept that there are features I'm not going to use without feeling the need to suggest that they need to be removed from the camera. Despite my girth, the world doesn't revolve around me, and the people who <i>do</i> want these features are subsidising my camera purchase.<br />

<br />

There's some good stuff in the D800 beyond the headline resolution increase (and you can always shoot at lower resolution, although if there's a low-res RAW format then I'd be happier). I have to say, despite mostly wanting other features, the fact that it does have such a high resolution and therefore complements rather than replaces my existing D700 makes me more tempted to get one. I'm waiting to see how many other improvements are in there when we know about the BIOS. It's a little early to criticise except for those features which require mechanical implementation, and those are always the least likely to get included.<br />

<br />

This is, of course, in danger of turning into a wish list thread. Just saying. :-)</p>

<p>"…silver would look totally amateur"</p>

<p>My old Leicas are pouting.</p>

<p>Kent, silver looks great on a Leica. It looks like a 70s tourist camera on an SLR. just imho, of course.</p>

<p>Seriously, we could all make lists of our dream camera. Nikon is making something at a price point for the masses, not custom designing a camera for me...</p>

<p>Renè, I have just checked it in a previous post... thanks for the idea. I have already seen that Gary Fong also have the same item in his catalog.<br /> The problem is that this items only work with medium to small sized lenses. And, I like to use remote flash, mostly to avoid front illumination; this way I need to use either a triggering system or the in-camera CLS... most of the times the camera built-in flash is used (with the ever lost, painful IR accessory) to control the remotes.<br /> I think I will probably build an IR mask to be stucked and stored with the tiny flash. One day.</p>

<p>I agree, rotatable sensor and interchangeable sensor are two things which require a total reconstruction of the machine and may not or not at all be available. However I would like ha to have articulated screen however amateurish it may look. It complements greatly to what you call "street photography" though I think no street photographer is ever going to need a 36 mp monster.</p>

<p>Well to me that each of those things on the wish list would be bad things to have, and would devalue the camera in my eyes, and might even rule it out for serious use.</p>

<p>Articulated LCD - this would near rule the camera out as far as I'm concerned. Who takes pictures looking at the LCD anyway except for family snaps on the point and shoot? I don't want something that is going to break off at the first sign of serious use, or that is going to leak and malfunction when it rains on it. 90 degree rotatable sensor - nasty gimmick that would get in the way of fuctionality. Interchangable sensor - no thanks, I want a camera that is optimised in every way for the sensor that is there. Picture controls emulating Velvia etc. - no, I don't want gimmicky amateur features from point-and-shoots, I want RAW files that capture enough information for me to work on. Offer the body in different colours - but why - is this a fashion accessory, or a camera?</p>

<p>I don't think I'll buy a D800 anyway unless I'm forced to by client demand - it has too many pixels, and I'm waiting for better low light performance. Hopefully Nikon will come up with a lighter version of the D4, or similar.</p>

<p>But gimmicks on the camera, no thanks!</p>

<p>The large pixel count is one of my prime reasons for wanting and pre-ordering this camera. I can't justify buying a MF digital system, but I'm used to getting many more pixels from my MF and LF film scans than from my DX cameras. Having a digital sensor that comes close will be fantastic. I just don't understand all the negative comments about the sensor size. Hard drive space and RAM are cheap, at least in the context of how I shoot (only several thousand frames a year).</p>

<p>The things I see missing are the custom settings modes (U1 and U2). I really like being able to set the D7000 U1 up the way I like it, and then always return to that setting when I switch back.</p>

<p>I also wish there was an in body image stabilization, since I use a lot of older lenses. Of course I may find many of them aren't as good as I would like on this camera. But I never expected this from Nikon, so it's not really missing.</p>

<p>Maybe it's in there, but in LiveView it would be nice to be able shoot without the mirror coming down. That should help keep the camera settled between rapid successive shots.</p>

<p>I would also like an intelligent auto focus bracket option. This should be based on aperture and lens choice. Obviously would only work with AF lenses. Just doing three shots as fast as possible while leaving the mirror up. This could really help to nail focus for lenses that have a focus shift when stopped down, or where the AF sensor picked up the nose instead of the eye.</p>

<p><strong>Simon</strong>, there is more widespread use of LCD while shooting than what you suggest. Many landscapes on tripods are shot with the LCD for precise focus. Many press people use LCD to take overhead shots. Even some of D800 sample shots were taken on LCD rather than viewfinder according to the concerned photographer himself.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I just don't understand all the negative comments about the sensor size</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For studio type use it's not a problem. If you have to process several hundred images a week however, speed and size become an issue. Speed of transfer between discs, speed of processing the RAW files, speed of processing TIFFs, speed on burning discs for clients, and so on.</p>

<p>In principle, I wouldn't mind 39 megapixels for my own personal use - though it's likely to outperform any currently available lenses - and no doubt computer processing speeds and transfer speeds will catch up, but at the moment, it's a bit too much for my everyday use. It introduces a slow down in the whole process, without any significant advantage yet becoming obvious.</p>

<p>It remains to be seen, but I am sceptical that it will really offer competition to medium format. Smaller format lenses just aren't there, and can't be. They have been saying that medium format has been made redundant ever since the Nikon D2X, and of course, that is marketing hype - it hasn't been, and isn't likely to be any time soon. In the same way that adding extra pixels to micro four thirds doesn't mean that it seriously challenges FX format, adding extra pixels to FX format is very unlikely to make it seriously challenge medium format.</p>

<p>So for the moment, 36 megapixels sounds very nice in theory, but in practise the advantages remain to be seen, while for the moment the downsides are evident (but will no doubt diminish with time).</p>

 

<p>I'm actually quite happy with the D700's flash - it's better than nothing for an emergency, and it's not bad as a trigger. I'd prefer if it was as capable as the SU-800, but then I'd also like if you didn't have to buy the (more) expensive version of the external trigger to get a timed >30s exposure; if you want unusual features, I suspect Nikon would rather sell you them separately, on the basis that they won't make much difference to the D800 sales.<br />

<br />

As for silver, I love that my 28-200 is the silver version. Oh, it looks cheap, but it means that people don't notice I'm using a relatively expensive camera. My preferred colour depends on the weather - black is unobtrusive, white is easier to hold in direct sunlight (as Canon would claim). My LSM lenses are silver, admittedly. That said, I've never cared in the slightest what a camera looks like so long as it's functional.<br />

<br />

Mihai - square sensors. I'll restrict myself to saying "oh no, not again", and "you don't want to start with a system designed around 35mm film". There are plenty of threads on the subject, but I tend to believe that paying for film you're going to cut off is less criminal than paying for bits of sensor that you don't want (and I suspect the majority of the world's images are rectangular). But the D800 has plenty if pixels if you want to stick to cropping the edges off your frame and you don't mind being a little more telephoto than you might have been. I think any discussion of image shape or orientation is better started with a medium format back than with a system based on a fixed-orientation, fixed-size film strip.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Even some of D800 sample shots were taken on LCD rather than viewfinder according to the concerned photographer himself.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hardly surprising, Nikon's marketing people no doubt like the selected photographers to do their best to demonstrate the camera's 'features', they may have been asked to try to explore them.<br>

I'm not really intending to criticise the D800, I would love to get my hands on one, in principle wouldn't mind one at all for personal/studio use. And am incredibly grateful that it doesn't have articulated LCD's etc. on it. I am just put off, for the moment and until I read all the reviews, actually buying one (or rather, two - I need two) for work by the thought of all those pixels.</p>

 

<p>Simon, I sort of see where you are coming from, but how much of this is really just impatience? I usually let lightroom import and then start working on the first images as the new ones come in. The will still import way faster than I can mentally process them. Since I don't burn discs for clients, or batch process large numbers of files routinely it's a not issue for me. Heck, even opening a 1GB drum scan isn't unduly painful to me, but I did need to add extra RAM to the system for that.<br>

As far as the lenses go, I know many lenses I have easily have enough resolution in the center to be sharp at the pixel level on the D7000, so they will work fine on the D800. What remains to be seen by me is how they hold up on the corners and the edges. But unless I'm working on a tripod, or using very fast shutter speeds, it seems must of the resolution is lost from camera movement. This will be very true on the D800. And with it's relatively low flash sync speed may make hand held fill flash shots with long lenses not look much better than a 12MP camera. So I can certainly see how it's not going to automatically give you three times the resolution. And I really doubt it will replace my Hasselblad for portraits. What I hope it will do is let me get good shots when carrying the 4x5 is a non starter because it takes to long to setup.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>how much of this is really just impatience? I usually let lightroom import and then start working on the first images as the new ones come in.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do similarly. I try to get the computers to do as much of the work while I'm sleeping or working on something else as possible. But in the high season, I sleep very little, because I'm constantly, when not actually photographing, processing files, perhaps 16 hours a day, nearly every day. There is limited scope for waiting longer while RAW files are converted, files are transferred between discs etc. etc. The thought of more megapixels at the moment just doesn't sound appealing!</p>

<p>Actually, that's not true, I would be very happy if there was a D800 with 20, maybe even 24 megapixels. 12 nowadays is almost not-quite-enough. I could even live with 36, but what I really want is stellar dynamic range, great colour/bit performance, and even more extraordinary low light performance (which the D700 is great at, but even more fantastic would be better). We don't know yet about the D800's dynamic range etc., but it doesn't look like it's going to be a great leap forward in ISO. More megapixels for me is somewhere between indifference and positive disadvantage. Even if it slow things down a bit that would be an issue for me. Plus of course, I'd have to go out and buy a thousand pounds worth of new memory cards...</p>

<p>On LCD screens etc.: if when you stamp on it wearing heavy boots and pour water on it from a watering can, or bend it backwards and forwards 30,000 times, if there is any risk that it will snap off, or short circuit, or that the contacts will wear out, or that the software controlling it will do a blip then it's a bad idea.</p>

<p>I have a D700 that has been in hospital for the last four weeks, they just telephoned me yesterday to say that yet another spare part is needed and its going to be a few more weeks. Luckily it's the quiet time of year, and there's the other D700 to play with in the meantime, but reliability and robustness is all-important. And anything that adds extra buttons or dials to the camera is also inherently a Bad Thing, it has too many all ready.</p>

<p>Rotating lens/sensor would add to the complexity of the design IMHO costs would go up I think way up. Then 1% of the market (wild guess) would want pay the price for that. As Rene mentioned this could come useful on a tripod but maybe not, it would not work as well in handheld mode as it would take time to rotate the assembly. They use this type of assembly in medium format due to the size of the camera (easier to rotate the back rather then than the body).</p>

<p> As to removable sensors I dont know about that. How many end customers would like to fiddle with removing and re installing a sensor. I think that a better design would be a electronically controlled about of pixels (I think they alerady have that implemented).<br>

Those are all interesting ideas but I don't think we will see then on DSLR soon IMO</p>

<p>I'd like to add an interchangeable viewfinder such as in the good ol' F3. Have the flash integrated in the "normal" view-finder and remove it together with it, if you want to put an alternative one. I find the nntegrated flash important to be used as a remote flash trigger.<br>

I'd like to remove 12 M pixels to get back to totally suficient 24 of them. Or can you have 18Mpix-raws right away with better noise performance?<br>

I'd like to remove another 100 gramms of the weight and some millimetres here and there.<br>

I'd like to see 2-EV steps in bracketing. And three.<br>

In case they didn't, i did not verify, I'd like Nikon to remove the 100-shots limit in serials to be able to take longer star-trails.<br>

And I'd like to have it in hands asap in order to stop dreaming of totally irrelevant features it does not have and use the ones it has...</p>

 

<p>Rotating lens/sensor is the way of making difficult something easy; a solution looking for a problem. The rotating back on a Mamiya 6x7 is great; try to take a portrait just revolving the whole camera; a DSLR is way smaller, the viewfinder is not as bulky, the grip work in both ways, and there are accessory vertical grips if you like on short bodies (pro bodies already have them). Better to attach a second tripod thread, or to design a body with an ArcaSwiss type profile in both sides!<br /> <br /> Removable sensors could be a very expensive, and maybe a technically non-viable solution. Together with the sensor, I suspect many other electronic or even mechanical components should be removable too because they work in conjunction; imagine a car with removable, upgradable engines. The cost of the engine removal/installation could be too high, and the future engine designs could be then subject to many limitations. Even the real life span of the car/camera could make this idea not worth it.</p>

<p>The only thing I'm missing is someone willing to send me the $3000 to buy one. I may have to do that on my own.</p>