Nikon D800 "Missing Features"

[bob_sunley]

<p>Rotating lens/sensor might be a great idea if you only have an electronic view finder, but how are you going to "rotate" the fixed size 24x36mm mirror, screen and prism setup. There is no room in the camera body for a mirror and prism to work with a portrait format 36mm high frame size.</p>

 

[zack_zoll]

<p>My guess is that we won't see an 'options list' like you propose on a pro DSLR for some time, if ever. In fact, the 800/800E is the only 'option' package I can remember ever having on a pro DSLR, unless you count the various 'S' models, that came out later. I assume the 'S' stood for 'Second generation.'</p>

<p>An options list on an F3 makes sense, since cameras used to have a much longer life cycle, and are top end. And it makes sense on various Leicas and Mirrorless cameras, because those are often purchased for reasons of style and personal expression, beyond the personal expression of the actual photos. But doing so greatly increases production costs, as you now have to track which serial number camera is going where and pull of from this production line and put it in that one, rather than just letting them all go down the same line.</p>

<p>It reminds me a bit of guitar production. If you want to buy a custom-colour guitar from a manufacturer that does not use an automated system, it's not a whole lot more than the regular price. They're doing everything themselves anyway, so it's not much more work to mix a new paint colour. But if you want to buy a custom-colour guitar from a company that uses an automated system the price difference is astronomical, because now they can't use a machine to paint the guitar. Of course, not using an automated system means that the guitar is a lot more expensive to begin with, even if it's all stock.</p>

<p>Options packages are also often used to make a less expensive product look or perform as well as a more expensive one. In that case it makes sense on the F3 (then the most expensive model), but why would you want to give customers the option of 'building' a D800 that is better, and possibly cheaper, than a D4 or D4X? Or stripping a camera down so they can get it for less? The company would have to charge so much for it to protect their price points, that it probably wouldn't even be worth it for you to buy one.</p>

[thomas_k.]

<blockquote>

<p>I was a little disappointed at 36 MP sensor, what with requiring to update hard-disk, RAM etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You do not have to always shoot at maximum 7360 x 4912 resolution. Here is the list of other options for d800 : 6144 x 4912, 6144 x 4080, 5520 x 3680, 4800 x 3200, 4608 x 3680, 4608 x 3056, 3680 x 2456, 3600 x 2400, 3072 x 2456, 3072 x 2040, 2400 x 1600. Choose the resolution which suits the job.</p>

[wpahnelas]

<p>my wish is that i wouldn't have to buy 2 cameras to get one with D4-like pixel count and one with the D800's configuration. i don't doubt there'll be a D4-lite down the road, and i'm conflicted on which is more attractive to me (but isn't it always the case that we want most what we can't have?). at this point, however, i'll keep using the D700 and augment it with a D800, and be grateful for what i have.</p>

 

[orcama60]

<p>I am not interested in this camera for now. As someone said above, buying this camera means that : 1 - You need to have better lenses; 2 - You need to have a computer with more storage, more RAM and a much better video card and 3 - you need to have money to buy it. I don't like 4 fps, I don't like video either and I don't like 36 mp. Even though the D7000 is not a FX camera, I would be more happy to switch or buy this camera than the D800. I am always looking for IQ, high ISO performance and speed and the D7000 have all of that. For now my D300 does the job well except for the ISO. My next upgrade so I can have my D300 as a second camera, will be the D7000 unless Nikon comes up with the D400 in the near future but we don't know yet if Nikon has decided to give us that camera. Probably they want us to switch to a camera like the D800 which give us the chance to use it as DX and FX at the same time. </p>

[arun_seetharam]

<p>Looking at the list, hah.....I feel a lot better!! I am going for it.....Personally, I'd have been happy even without a video!! Only disappointed about the 36MP.<br /> Hey Tell me something.....If I shoot lower resolutions, does it use the whole sensor to catch a smaller res image (E.g. using 4pix as One or something) or does it snap up full resolution (36MP) and (internal software) size it down to what I specified and store it?<br /> :-D</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>If you shoot at lower resolutions it will simply resize the image from the full 36MP to another res, just as if you did it in Photoshop with resize (well there might be algorithmic differences but the basic idea is that). Then it will write a JPG on the card. But, it's a JPG.</p>

[thomas_k.]

<p>You can also shoot in DX format using only a part of the sensor and get 15Mp Raw or jpeg.</p>

[rossb]

<p> Connectibility with the internet. <br>

Some stying as it looks like it eats at McDonalds every day. Basically it's fat and ugly. </p>

[daverhaas]

<p>Wider range of ISO's is the only thing it doesn't have that I'd want.</p>

<p>I'm with most here in that it could have left the video part out too...</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[jim_momary]

<p>For you guys who want to block visible light from the pop up flash without a large clip on diffuser I've tried this and it works 'fairly' well.</p>

<p>4 - 6+ layers of this filter material taped to the flash lens really only lets IR / near IR to be emitted. The dk. blue absorbs most of the visible light yet seems to be transparent to IR, at least that's what I hypothesize. I tape the layers together, then use a simple piece of tape to hold the 'assembly' to the flash. You could get fancier and use velcro too.<br>

Elegant it is not. Woodshed functional, most assuredly. It also may be just a silly old guy screwing around in his worksop too long, sawdust in the brains :o)</p>

<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/181-Congo-Blue-Filter-Sheet/dp/B004GE67SK/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1328890775&sr=8-2">http://www.amazon.com/181-Congo-Blue-Filter-Sheet/dp/B004GE67SK/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1328890775&sr=8-2</a></p>

<p>10" x 10" sheet yields 200 pieces of filter for a Nikon D7000 sized popup flash, and at let's say a 5 layer stack then that piece equals enough material for 40 cameras at a whopping cost of $2.65 total (plus shipping), or speaking sillier ... less than 7 cents per camera !<br>

Beat that SG-31IR development team!</p>

<p>Now, I'm sure the "Jim Kludge Add-On" range is reduced over the real Nikon product, but I know that it does work out to about an 8-10 foot radius from the camera to the CLS SB600's I use, indoors. So given that, using this in my 'studio', it's OK.</p>

<p>CCC Jim<br>

(cheap, crazy coot Jim)</p>

<p> </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>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).</blockquote>

 

<p>Quite - rotating the sensor is a lot of effort for minimal gain unless you've got the camera on a tripod, although arguably that's going to happen more with the D800 as people have a little more trouble holding it steady and getting the focal plane right; that's certainly what I've heard from reviews of the medium format backs. Then again, 1.7x the linear resolution of a D700 that I can hold perfectly steady enough in most lighting conditions doesn't scare me that much. An 80MP back might scare me a little more.<br />

<br />

I think I suggested that Nikon think of following Pentax's medium format bodies and put a second tripod socket on the camera. That said, I doubt I'd use it; putting a 90-degree curve on the bottom left corner and actually letting the tripod mount slide around would be interesting in a camera though. I imagine that someone's made a tripod mount that lets you pivot the camera (for the times when you aren't using a tripod mount on a lens), but I've never been looking for one. Then again, I mostly use a tripod with longer lenses with tripod collars anyway.</p>

 

<blockquote>Connectibility with the internet.</blockquote>

 

<p>I believe the D800 supports Eye-Fi cards. Good enough for me.</p>

 

<blockquote>Hey Tell me something.....If I shoot lower resolutions, does it use the whole sensor to catch a smaller res image (E.g. using 4pix as One or something) or does it snap up full resolution (36MP) and (internal software) size it down to what I specified and store it?</blockquote>

 

<p>What would be the distinction whether the processing is done at the sensor level or inside the image processor? I strongly assume that the image processor does the downsampling, but since you'd only see the final file anyway, I'm unclear why the detail of where it's processed matters.</p>

 

<blockquote>Wider range of ISO's is the only thing it doesn't have that I'd want.</blockquote>

 

<p>I wonder whether the D3, D700 and D3s have primed Nikon owners towards low-light shooting (assuming that there aren't that many D3x owners out there). Even if it's only as good as the D7000, the low light performance is pretty good. Not that I'd turn down a D3s if a cheap one falls on my lap, but I see the D800 as a complement to my existing D700 rather than a replacement for it.</p>

 

<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

 

<p>Likewise (when I get around to deciding I can afford it). The D800 is a substitute for my Pentax 645, making my recently-acquired 35mm lens a bit of a waste, and might stave off my urge to go 5x4 for a bit.</p>

[Michael R Freeman]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Rotating lens/sensor is the way of making difficult something easy; a solution looking for a problem."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly. Complex (<strong>very</strong> complex) solution looking for a minor problem that doesn't exist or has already been solved with a simpler and much cheaper method (L-bracket).</p>

<p>Reminds me of the story (probably an urban myth or just a joke) of NASA and the Russian space programs in the 1960's searching for a way for their astronauts to write data and observations on a piece of paper in zero gravity. NASA spent mega-dollars developing a ball point pen that would write in zero gravity. The Russians used a #2 pencil. :-)</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>I wonder whether the D3, D700 and D3s have primed Nikon owners towards low-light shooting </em></p>

<p>I'm not sure if that's the case, since Canon for a long time had a better lineup of fast primes. But the low resolution of those cameras has led to people associating FX with low light, while it could be also high resolution, as in the new D800.</p>

<p>Custom L-brackets are expensive but excellent. I got the RRS made one for the D3X and I'm very happy with it. It's surprising how much sway that I blamed on other parts of the tripod apparatus were actually due to the quick release plate or L bracket which was not custom designed for the camera. Now, it's rock solid.</p>

[Apurva Madia]

<blockquote>

<p>For you guys who want to block visible light from the pop up flash without a large clip on diffuser I've tried this and it works 'fairly' well.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>A crude but simple solution. Almost entire of my vintage car series has been shot with pop-up flash covered with my handkerchief as I was careless enough not to replace cells on my SB-800 which died in the early part of the session.</p>

[rossb]

<blockquote>

<p>I believe the D800 supports Eye-Fi cards. Good enough for me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> I never heard of that until now. Sounds good I guess. Of course with a 36mp camera you will need huge cards plus plenty of time to transfer the huge files. Anyway I was just kidding about it, I have no use for a giant picture file anyway and my AT&T interent service could not handle it if I did. </p>

[maury_cohen]

<p>Any smart manufacturer/seller is going to be constantly evaluating/analyzing technological advances in the market while also listening carefully to what buyers want and will buy. There are countless photographers with every concievable list of "ideal" features. I venture Nikon will look at the combination of features that utilize profitable new technology while satisfying the largest number of customers possible. What often happens when you try adding features beyond this "sweet-spot" is that you please a handfull of new customers but lose a larger number of those that didn't want these features to begin with.</p>

[rossb]

<p> Very true Maury. . </p>

[daniel_roth]

<p>ad 2.) Why not make a quadratic sensor and rotating the camera will not be necessary anymore?? Is it the marketing unit of the manufacturer having fear people would not accept it?</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Good grief, Nikon releases a DSLR that leap frogs over Canon for the first time, and all for an extremely reasonable introductory price and it is already being criticized by some. Strange. </p>

[AlanKlein]

<blockquote>

<p>Reminds me of the story (probably an urban myth or just a joke) of NASA and the Russian space programs in the 1960's searching for a way for their astronauts to write data and observations on a piece of paper in zero gravity. NASA spent mega-dollars developing a ball point pen that would write in zero gravity. The Russians used a #2 pencil. :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, but who got to the moon first?</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Only because Sputnik scared the cosmos out of us.</p>

[Michael R Freeman]

<blockquote>

<p>"Yeah, but who got to the moon first?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nobody. Everybody knows that the moon landings were actually faked on a sound stage in Pasadena. :-)<br>

Because the Russians used a pencil and put their resources to better uses than zero gravity pens, they were the first to put a man in space. ;-)<br>

-</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Good grief, Nikon releases a DSLR that leap frogs over Canon for the first time, and all for an extremely reasonable introductory price and it is already being criticized by some. Strange."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hardly surprising is it? For some, even the latest and greatest is never quite enough. :-)</p>

[photom]

<p>Not sure if they added the option to adjust iso from the "non-active" 2nd control wheel when using A or S program mode. Simple and easy to add. Pentax has had this since K-10d. So should everyone else.</p>

<p>One more. Ability for LCD screen to show and adjust all SU800 functions. And, add additional group or two. SU-800 is just an IR transmitter that should be able to be programmed by camera to send any coded messages required for flash control. Just an idea.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Not sure if they added the option to adjust iso from the "non-active" 2nd control wheel when using A or S program mode. Simple and easy to add. Pentax has had this since K-10d. So should everyone else.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nikon has the option to adjust exponsure compensation from the non-active command dial (main is inactive in Aperture priority and sub is inactive in Shutter priority and Program). That feature is called <I>Easy Exposure Compensation</I> has been around for a few generations. It is controlled by Custom Setting gruop b.</p>