Strange thoughts on the Nikon 800

<p>Firstly let me say I have the D800 on order and am counting the days till I get my excited hands on it. I mostly shoot landscapes and personally think it will be a dream landscape machine. What I cant understand is a certain amount of negativity and sometimes downright nonsense that is firing round many forums.<br>

I will certainly be keeping my brilliant D700,but the D800 is surely on a different plane,24x16 at 300 dpi straight from the camera, whats not to love,yes the files a big,I will also have to upgrade my PC,but surely the clarity,detail,definition etc is what developng digital technology is and should be all about.<br>

It is not for everyone,sports photographers etc,but for detailed landscape,studio work it could be one of the best yet.<br>

I can't wait to see my first 30x20 inch print to compare to what my D700 gave me.</p>

 

<p>That isn't so strange...</p>

<p>A 2-camera system for landscapes is certainly appealing - D700 for low light, rendering, and the amazing ability to pull up low-noise shadow detail in post; and the D800 (E?) for fine detail. Would like to see the dynamic range of and shadow detail from the D800.... May sensors continue to improve!</p>

<p>The criticism isn't about the D800 itself, which should be a great camera, but the fact that it replaces a different kind of a camera, the D700, forcing people who wanted a more advanced D700 (action/low light camera in a compact body) to either purchase a far more expensive camera (the D4) or stay with old technology. Ever since the D3s came out there have been people who would have wanted to see this sensor in a D700 class body. A D800 is great, but it doesn't solve any significant problem that I currently have (with the exception of the stability and quality of the live view image and the inconvenience of the mirror dance in the old implementation of LV). Since Nikon gives no roadmap about future products, the decision of whether to buy an expensive D4 has to be based on immediate needs rather than as a longer term investment that the body is to many people (3-4 years). </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Are you not getting the E? That's the one I'd get.</p>

<p>I would have no use for a camera which can not correctly render scenes with regular patterns in it, such as clothes, architecture, grass in meadows etc. In my opinion a camera has to give a correct rendition of the scene in all circumstances when it comes to the lower frequency components (those are the ones that get contaminated by aliased high frequency detail if the AA filter is not present). It's a basic requirement. The "E" is in my opinion for people who can afford both, or those who are willing to play with fire and don't mind getting burned.</p>

<p>The rumor site ran a poll last week of over 25,000 people.</p>

<p>59% wanted a D800 body with the 16MP sensor from the D4. Only 41% want the D800 with the 36MP sensor it has. Thom Hogan had a similar poll last year asking whether you want a D700 size body with the 12MP D3s sensor the 24MP D3X sensor. His poll showed them much closer to 50/50.</p>

<p>Just based on D700 sales I'd say that the market for this kind of camera is certainly there. Whether Nikon makes it or not is anyone's guess but that is the main reason people are complaining.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>but the fact that it replaces a different kind of a camera, the D700,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In an interview with french Nikon Representative Thomas Maquaire, it says that the D800/e is not replacing the D700, this guy says that the D700 will remain in production too.... :</p>

<p>( <a href="http://www.chassimages.com/forum/index.php/topic,147678.75.html">http://www.chassimages.com/forum/index.php/topic,147678.75.html</a> )</p>

<p>Some quotes from the interview :</p>

<p>par Didier A 16:26<br /> Question :<br /> le D700 ne va donc pas être arrêté <img src="http://www.chassimages.com/forum/Smileys/default/huh.gif" alt="Huh" border="0" />?<br /> par Thomas Maquaire - Nikon France 16:26<br /> Answer :<br /> Non, le D700 reste dans la gamme. ....</p>

<p>and :</p>

<p>Question :<br /> par Thomas Maquaire - Nikon France 15:19 <strong> Bonjour, les Nikon D4 et D800 forment la nouvelle gamme plein de format. Cependant si une personne souhaite se procurer un appareil plein format il a le choix entre un appareil de 36Mpixels, qui demande des optiques de haute qualité et du matériel rapide pour traiter efficacement autant d'informations, ou d'un appareil (certes ultra-performant) mais hors de prix. Le D700 réalisais ce lien entre l'ultra-polyvalence du D3s et le D3x dédié aux amateurs de photographie en studio et d'impression grand format. Comment conseiller une personne qui souhaite passer au plein format ? Il faut avouer que les 36Mpixels du D800 ne sont pas facile à gérer. </strong><br /> <strong>Answer :</strong> <br /> Le concept du D800 est de proposer un maximum de définition dans un boîtier qui soit polyvalent. Le D700 reste dans la gamme et permet d'apporter aux photographes qui n'ont pas besoin de la haute définition un boîtier très accessible.</p>

<p>I think because the D700 is equipped with four year old technology the demand will diminish and the product will eventually be discontinued. Most people, when buying a new camera, want new features and technology, whether they need it or not. If the D700 price stays at the 2000 EUR level or slightly below it then I think they can keep selling them for people who shoot a lot of frames and want or need 8fps capability. But I think what these people would <em>like</em> to buy is a camera that has D700 price, D3s sensor and D800/D4 AF. :-) It's unrealistic to expect the D4 sensor in a low priced body because that would kill the commercial viability of the D4 itself, but with a D3s sensor and new AF ... I would love it. For my high ISO low light stuff normally does not require or benefit significantly from a high pixel count, and the number of frames is quite high in night concerts etc. where shooting is extremely difficult, so a moderate file size would be perfect. And really the images I've seen from the D3s at ISO 6400 are quite fantastic compared to D700 at the same settings. A second hand D3s is always a possibility but I think these will be snatched quickly. People <em>have</em> heard about this camera and its capabilities.</p>

<p> It's interesting technology to me. The latest thing. However I don't want one as I have no use for such a camera myself. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The criticism isn't about the D800 itself, which should be a great camera, but the fact that it replaces a different kind of a camera, the D700, forcing people who wanted a more advanced D700 (action/low light camera in a compact body) to either purchase a far more expensive camera (the D4) or stay with old technology.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> ILKKA..... I think you are completely right....... I just don't understand what is the hurry for people to get rid of their older cameras.... I think they think with a newer camera they will take better photographs...... (I'm not talking a bout people who make their bread out of photography coz I think they need any edge they can get) I'm just talking about people like me...... I just love my D700 and I don't want movie on my DSLR and my D700 is good enough for me with hi ISO so am happy with that old technology. <br>

Also I think people have too much time on their hands and instead of using it behind a view finder they just rather stay home on a nice sofa in front of their computers.....<br>

Look at the Nikon 1 cameras.... everyone was talking about the small sensor, blah blah blah.... How big of a sensor do they need in such a small camera.... Just ridiculous...... I bought a V1 and i am so happy with it.... such a fun camera to play around..... Now everyone is quiet about the Nikon 1's coz they have something else to talk about.....</p>

<p>C.P.M. ....... I just wonder in what country they will keep producing the D700 because if they do it in Japan they will be breaking the law in their own country....... I don't think Nikon is up to that! Unless they are aloud to produce it as an export product.... We don't know all the fine prints of the laws here.</p>

<p><em> I just don't understand what is the hurry for people to get rid of their older cameras....</em></p>

<p>Ah, not so much getting rid of them but buying some new stuff ;-) It's human nature, to want "more" and "better". ;-)</p>

<p><em>Also I think people have too much time on their hands and instead of using it behind a view finder they just rather stay home on a nice sofa in front of their computers.....</em></p>

<p>How very true. I've been with flu on and off for a couple of weeks so I have lots of time to post and no possibility to go out and shoot. :-( But you're very right - people tied to their computers should break this marriage and shoot more. ;-)</p>

<p><em> I just wonder in what country they will keep producing the D700</em></p>

<p>In Sendai of course. It will be sold in other countries than Japan. I don't believe the law prohibits the manufacture of the product, just sales in the domestic market.</p>

<p>I think I should start a thread myself...... "Why the D800 is not for me" Uhhmmm! The 100% viewfinder is too big for my small eyes..... or something like that!!!! </p>

<p>From what I understood, Nikon would still be producing the D700, to run down the inventory on the parts they still have. It would make sense, since I'd count myself among those which describe the camera Ilkka described earlier - I like a lot of what I read about the D800, but I just really have no need for these enormous files. As it is, the D700 remains more appealing to me...and prices are quite nice now on the D700 (in Europe at least) - it is around €1000 less than a D800, to me that is a quite substantial amount of money.</p>

<p>And as for the OP... I think this kind of negative chatter is there with any new camera. It's too big, too small, the AF not improved enough, too little megapixels, too many, too advanced, a button too much here, one too little there etc. etc. You can't please all.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>From what I understood, Nikon would still be producing the D700, to run down the inventory on the parts they still have.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A few people have suggested that, such as Thom Hogan, but it makes absolutely no sense to me.</p>

<p>In Japan, they passed the new safety regulation on batteries back in November 2008, with a three-year grace period. Therefore, Nikon had known years in advance that by November 2011, they wouldn't be able to sell EN-EL3/EN-EL3e-based products. In fact, by the time Nikon introduced the D300S in mid 2009, they already knew that they wouldn't be able to sell it in 2+ years.</p>

<p>I would imagine that Nikon already had plans to replace the D700 and D300S in mid to late 2011, but of course the March earthquake/tsunami and the October Thai flood disrupted all the plans. But one way or another, they shouldn't be building up D700 parts in 2010 and 2011. The Sendai plan should be busy making D4 and D800 at this point; they shouldn't have spare capacity for the D700.</p>

<p>I am sure that the D800 will turn out to be a fine camera. What is insufficient are the many photographers behind those new D800 bodies, but very few people want to hear that.</p>

I for one have been waiting to move to full frame but could not justify the cost to buy a D700 when I already have a D300

as they have the same mp. My D800 is on order. I'll work with the larger file sizes. It appears from the limited pictures out

there that the higher iso output is almost the same as the 700:-) . Very curious to get the 800 in my hands and see what it

can do.

<p>Ilkka - while I've never played with a camera without a low pass filter, I suspect you're over-stating the circumstances under which it's a problem. There are a lot of medium format cameras out there, and happy M9 owners, who don't seem to suffer too greatly with moirée problems. I'm sure it can happen, and I'm not saying you shouldn't avoid the E if you're worried, but I'd expect it to affect the minority of scenes, and for it to be rarer still that it can't be fixed in post (I would imagine using a D800 in RAW even more than I do my D700). I'll be interested to know whether Nikon are underestimating the interest in the E version - the people who really want medium format resolution might well lean that way. On the other hand, those asking to buy "the best prosumer Nikon" without qualifying that might be a bigger market, I don't know.<br />

<br />

I see the D800 supplementing my D700. I use the frame rate and low light capabilities of the D700 a lot, so there's no way I'd replace it. A D4 (or D3s) might be another matter, but I can't justify the expense for "the same but better" - although selling the D700 to fund one might make some sense. As a camera for different kinds of shots, however, the D800 (probably E, but I'm deciding) is very tempting.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am sure that the D800 will turn out to be a fine camera. What is insufficient are the many photographers behind those new D800 bodies, but very few people want to hear that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's what I want to hear. To me it's great to know that I am the limiting factor, not my gear. At least I can concentrate on improving myself without ever doubting the fine quality of the camera.<br />Actually, I never doubt or blame my trusty D200. I know it's noisy (even for me) above ISO800 and I can use better AF. But then I can get better ISO and AF performance than D200 from the current crop of cameras much cheaper than the D800. What do the extra 20 or so megapixels add to my pictures (besides huge prints or tiny crops, which I very rarely need) is the key question?<br />"Nothing" is the party-pooping, but probably realistic, answer from the inimitable Ken. "Hyper-reality" is the enticing prospect I gather from reading Mark Dubovoy of Luminous-Landscape, but I don't know whether the nice images in his article are really a testament of Dubovoy's photographic skills, the sensor size, or sheer MP of his MF Leica (all three would be a useless copout answer ;-). Thom Hogan gives the eminently good, if profoundly obvious, answer: choose more pixels if all else are equal.<br />So, here is my strange thought to myself and my wife: D800 will be the last DSLR camera for me. Don't quite remember if I said the same about the D200.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ilkka Nissila<br /> Ever since the D3s came out there have been people who would have wanted to see this sensor in a D700 class body.<br /> And really the images I've seen from the D3s at ISO 6400 are quite fantastic compared to D700 at the same settings.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have never had the privilege of shooting a D3s, nor the opportunity to compare high ISO shots with this camera vs. the D700. However based on the technical data available (dynamic range, read noise specs, etc.) it is hard to conclude that the D3s sensor has an edge over that in the D700. Can someone elaborate on the differences?</p>

<p>P.S. I am well aware that one cannot compare the performance of two cameras based on technical data alone.</p>

<p>What I don't understand is this assuption that the D800 will be worse at high ISOs than the D700. I get the fact that it has 3 times the resolution, but ISO performance has been increased twice since it came out (from the D3 to the D3s, and again to the D4, which even comes with a higher pixel count).</p>

<p>I can only assume that people are, consciously or not, really worried about the <em>relative </em>ISO performance of the camera, based on where it sits in the lineup. While there's zero proof that the new one is going to be worse, all the complaints seem to be about how it doesn't "do everything the more expensive one did" like the D700 to the D3.</p>

<p>I think Nikon is making the right call. I can only speak for my local market, but here there are a lot more people buying D700s for weddings than for sports. Most of the local sports guys are using D3s bodies if their company buys the camera (in which case they'll get D4s anyway), or D300s bodies if they buy it themselves. In my market at least, there are a lot more people getting the D700 for resolution than for high ISO performance. That seems like a more useful market to court in that price range, especially if they want to compete with Canon.</p>

<p>But again, that's just my market. I'm sure it's different elsewhere.</p>

<p><em>However based on the technical data available (dynamic range, read noise specs, etc.) it is hard to conclude that the D3s sensor has an edge over that in the D700. Can someone elaborate on the differences?</em></p>

<p>The D3s has 57% quantum efficiency vs. D700's 38%. The read noise is 2.8 and 5.3, respectively (these data are from sensorigen.info). DXOMark shows 18% SNR graphs and dynamic range here (after copying the link to a browser, click Measurements and then SNR (or dynamic range)):</p>

<p>http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/628%7C0/(brand)/Nikon/(appareil2)/441%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon</p>

<p> Notice especially the differences at the highest ISO settings.</p>

<p><em> While there's zero proof that the new one is going to be worse, all the complaints seem to be about how it doesn't "do everything the more expensive one did" like the D700 to the D3.</em></p>

<p>The point is that there is no good reason the D4 feature set is more expensive than the D800 with vertical grip, any more than there was a reason for the D3X to be more expensive than the D3(s) was. Pricing is just what Nikon dares to ask for a product, and not based on component cost. A lot of dissatisfaction resulted when Nikon asked a lot more for the D3X than the D3, for example, and never offered a more affordable D700X (until now, with the D800). Now the same dissatisfaction is expressed by people who want a fast, high sensitivity camera, since in this new generation it is their camera (D4) which is priced sky high while the high resolution camera is the more affordable one (at least superficially, before buying all the storage and computing capacity needed). Why not sell them both at the same price? Then neither group of photographer would feel discriminated against. As it is there is no telling what comes out next. A 100MP camera at 1500 EUR, and a 24MP high speed camera with switchable AA filter at 10000 EUR? Or the reverse. Anything is possible with Nikon pricing. They just like change things. Would you be happy as a buyer of the D4 if six months from now they made a D800H with a similar sensor and 8fps, at 2500 EUR? That's what they've done in the past (with D2X->D300, D3->D700), who is to say it won't happen again? If they were consistent in their pricing and product placement into markets people could make educated buying decisions. As of now this is not really possible. We pay what they ask us to pay.</p>

<p>Ilkka,<br>

Thanks for your reply. May I suggest you take a look at the following:</p>

<p><a href="http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/RN_ADU.htm">On Read Noise</a></p>

<p><a href="http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm">On Dynamic Range</a></p>

<p>And an interesting discussion about interpretation of data from DXOMark <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=61636.0">here</a>.</p>

<p>Let me know your thoughts. Thanks.</p>

<p>Ilkka, it's extremely difficult to be consistent when new features or technology roll out so quickly. Take video, for example. Video quality is (now) a major selling point in all major manufacturer's cameras. Since it is so important and (was) special to pros, you would think that it would have began as a pro feature.</p>

<p>But most of the first DSLRs with video were prosumer models or below. Why? Presumably because that's what Canon and Nikon had slated as the next cameras to be announced when they had figured out how to do video. Nikon wanted to be the first one with that feature, which meant attaching it to the next camera out the chute, even if it was probably the least useful camera in the entire lineup to have video.</p>

<p>If models were announced faster (every year), it would make sense to hold off on new technology. If they were announced more slowly (like if the D3 was around for ten years), they would upgrade existing models more often. But the current model of production simply does not lend itself to total consistency.</p>

<p>And that's why you should buy a camera because of the specs and features that it has NOW, and not the ones that came before or may come later. If you buy a camera based on what the previous one had or what you think the next one should have, you will almost always be dissapointed.</p>