Nikon Announced D800 and D800E, 36MP FX-Format

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>this is entirely different from having an AA filter with a second, counteracting, anti-AA filter. it's confusing to me. or is this just hair splitting?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It should not be confusing at all. Both DPReview and Rob Galbraith have (the same) diagrams showing how the second filter cancels the first in a set of 4 filters on the D800E. On the D800, the second filter splits the light in a different direction:</p>

<ul>

<li>DPReview: <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond800/page3.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond800/page3.asp</a></li>

<li>Rob Galbraith: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.robgalbraith.com/data/1/rec_imgs/5563_d800_olpf_graphic.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.robgalbraith.com/data/1/rec_imgs/5563_d800_olpf_graphic.jpg</a></li>

</ul>

<p>Again, you can find Galbraith's entire article here: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-11674-12304" target="_blank">http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-11674-12304</a></p>

[eric friedemann]

<p>Matt Laur, I'm with you. I like nothing more than to get a 500 Megabyte scan from a piece of 6x7 film. A huge file gives me maximum flexibility to make large prints. And the bigger the RAW file from a digital camera the better.</p>

<p>I can always throw away pixels, downrez and maintain image quality. I cannot uprez without some image degredation.</p>

<p>If you're spending $3,000-$3,300 on a D800 variant, plus some lenses to go with it, you can certainly afford to spend a few hundred dollars on terabytes of hard drive space. Think of it this way; you're saving a bunch of money on film and developing and you're putting it into digital image storage.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>This was due to 24MP making the noise unmanageable at higher ISOs. Doesn't 36 MP scare people in terms of performance in not-daylight situations?</em></p>

<p>The D800 sensor is likely to have much better efficiency in collecting photons, utilizing what Nikon and Sony have learned since they made the D3X sensor. Also other aspects of the sensor are likely improved. I would expect significant improvement in SNR across the ISO range. Not a huge amount but perhaps even a stop. So I would not worry about the D800 being "bad" at high ISO - it may not be spectacular like a D3s or D4 but it's not going to be as noisy as the D3X.</p>

<p><em>Would this lense be even more useless with such a large sensor?</em></p>

<p>This is not how it works. A higher resolution sensor always yields an image which is sharper or at least equal to the same lens on a lower resolution sensor, ignoring the effect of noise for the first approximation. And certainly the 70-200 Mk I is not "useless" on any sensor - it is a great lens, with soft and slightly dark corners at wide apertures on FX and 35mm film, but it has excellent bokeh which some might say is more important than corner sharpness in such a lens (depending on application). You can certainly use it on any FX camera for just about any kind of people photography ... just being aware that the corner quality is not the best, when shooting architecture or landscapes this may become a consideration.</p>

<p>Interstingly Nikons samples are mostly taken with 14-24 or 70-200 II ... they don't seem to have much trust in their lenses ;-) The library shot with the 14-24 and D800 is very nice printed. This lens really is in a class of its own.</p>

<p><em>a few hundred dollars on terabytes of hard drive space.</em></p>

<p>Let's say I keep my current 40000 shots per year rate. At approximately 75MB per shot that's 3TB of storage for the primary copy, then 2 backups => 9TB. Over the next five years it's going to amount to a lot more than a few hundred dollars. What's more I want the files to be editable reasonably quickly => SSD => astronomically higher costs per TB (if they even speak those units in SSD land). Not to mention all the time moving the files around etc. I will also want to do editing of the files on trips with a laptop ... again high costs if all files on a trip are to remain on SSD and processing times manageable. </p>

 

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I cannot uprez without some image degredation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't say that upping the resolution degrades the image... it just doesn't make it any better.</p>

[erik_christensen3]

<p>Shun - I have just read a discussion on another site regarding the AA filter on D800E.<br>

Somebody claimed that the 2nd filter mentioned by you can be "disabled/enabled", however, I have not been able to find any info on that. Furthermore, if so why then make two versions of the D800.</p>

[steven_p]

<p>Just because you have 36mp, doesn't mean you cannot shoot lesser resolutions. (I seldom drive my automobile at top performance, but it's nice to have what's under the hood.)</p>

<p>Feel free to delete this post, because it is only my speculation, but without another production problem/catastrophe, and "business as usual....."</p>

<p>By late summer, I'm thinking a 24mp DX, D300s replacement to appeal to the price gap and user base between the new D800 and the D7000.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Somebody claimed that the 2nd filter mentioned by you can be "disabled/enabled"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, when Josh and I discussed with Nikon last week, we went over that point carefully. The functionality of the second filter that cancells the anti aliasing is baked into the D800E. There is no electronic switch to turn that feature on and off; there is also no mechanical switch to remove that filter at will. When you choose to buy a D800E, you are stuck with that feature. (Likewise, if you buy a D800, you are stuck with its AA capability as well.) Of course, I suppose you can take the camera apart and the sensor apart to replace the filters or, if necessary, replace the entire sensor assembly. But that is definitely not something you can choose on the fly.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Maybe it goes like this. Birefringent layer 1 spreads a ray of light into two (divergence in the x direction). In the D800, the second birefringent layer spreads these into four (diverging in y direction). Anti-aliasing effect is achieved. Now, rotate the second birefringent layer by 90 degrees somehow => voila, this layer makes the two beams converge into one, no antialiasing effect (D800E).</p>

<p>Somehow achieve this rotation in camera at the touch of the button => maybe a D4X. I would think this works only for a square sensor but then what do I know ;-)</p>

[chansonbleu]

Funny, I was just getting ready to splurge on a fuji X pro 1 and a couple of lenses and this comes along. I did not think Nikon had anything like this in the works. Time to rethink my photographic needs.

[Richard Williams]

<p>Random trivia: Nikon UK is claiming that the D800 will be made 'at a single factory in Japan':<br>

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Nikon_confirms_D800_and_D800E_to_be_made_in_Japan_update_845pm_news_311332.html<br>

But presumably the information about Thailand also comes directly from Nikon?</p>

[robertbanks]

<blockquote>

<p>And say goodbye to the d3x;) - Leslie</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmmm, I think I will prefer to keep my D3x for studio fashion than go for a D800. My clients have already commented that my D3x shots give them so much detail (when they get other photographers in to shoot new items etc). 36mp is overkill for me, and D3x files already slow down my PP and fill up my drives! You already have to be more careful shooting with a D3x, it is less forgiving, so I guess the D800/e will demand even tighter technique - maybe not a bad thing! The price point of the D800 brings high MP within reach of more photographers, but I wonder if there will be a lot of people disappointed with their D800/e images...and of course you will need the top glass so still a big investment.</p>

<p>The D800 seems like a very specialised/niche camera, or if you're being cynical a box-ticking exercise! While it is a very interesting addition to the Nikon line-up, its not a replacement for the D700, and the line-up will be much more interesting if/when Nikon produce a proper D700 replacement (a "D4 cut-down") and a D300s replacement, and maybe a fullsize high-res camera "D4x".</p>

<p>About the D800E version and Shun's comment:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The D800E is the same as the D800 but has an additional filter over the sensor to cancel out the effect of the anti-aliasing filter. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>the Nikon UK website says:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Modified to deliver unprecedented sharpness, its 36.3 megapixel FX-format sensor features an optical low pass filter with anti-aliasing properties removed. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>So it does not sound like an additional filter?</p>

<p> </p>

[waltflanagan]

<p>Imaging Resource asked Nikon why the D800E has the second filter to undo the splitting of the first when it just seems simpler to leave out both or possibly replace them with clear glass like the companies out there that will remove the AA filter of a normal camera. They have not gotten a response yet. I read on another side that thickness of the filters is part of the optical formula of the camera. The lens doesn't really focus the light on the sensor. Above the sensor are microlenses, IR blocking filter, 1-2 AA filters. The microlenses help make the light coming in perpendicular to the sensor. Perhaps the AA filters do as well. Speculation at the moment, hopefully Nikon will clarify.</p>

<p>http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d800/nikon-d800A.HTM</p>

[eric friedemann]

"Let's say I keep my current 40000 shots per year rate."

 

 

 

Ilkka, show me someone who's shooting 110 images a day 365 days per year, and I'll show you someone who could delete at least 90% of their images without getting rid of any pix worth looking at.

 

 

 

"I wouldn't say that upping the resolution degrades the image... it just doesn't make it any better."

 

 

 

Steve, I've looked at thousands of prints at my store made from uprezzed files. I think such prints uniformly look like crap, and I never uprez to make a print. But everyone has their own standards.

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>But presumably the information about Thailand also comes directly from Nikon?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes it did. I explicitely asked about that during our conference call with Nikon USA. I also comment that it would be the first FX-format DSLR made in Thailand, and they did not object.</p>

<p>But there can be errors in these discussions. For example, they quoted me twice that the MB-D12 would cost US$616, and Rob Galbraith got the same information. I can't believe that is the correct price. Nikon USA must have goofed up somewhere. Batteries and vertical grips are two components that are relatively easy to clone. If a real MB-D12 costs over $600, everybody is going to get those $100 clones.</p>

<p>Back in 2007, I paid $240 for the MB-D10 when it first came out. The MB-D12 is essentially the same thing but updated to current batteries.</p>

[kj_thomas]

<p>$616 for the grip? That's definitely an error...especially if it's made in a lower-labor-cost country like Thailand or China.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I added to my opening post links to Rob Galbraith's disucssion about the AA filters on the D800E and D800, with diagrams supplied by Nikon as well as similar discussion/diagrams on DPReview. Those links were not available when I started the thread. I learned more about those filters from those links myself. If you are still confused, unfortunately I cannot help you as that is what I know myself at this point.</p>

<p>I will not respond to further questions on the AA filters.</p>

[aaron l]

<p>It looks like there's purple fringing on the veil's outer lace:<br>

<a href="http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/img/sample01/img_02_l.jpg">http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/img/sample01/img_02_l.jpg</a><br>

I presume this is more of a lens rather than camera effect?</p>

[aaron l]

<p>Hopefully the noise floor of the audio input of this camera is better than the D300s? My films shot with that thing almost sound like they have tape hiss, even with awesome mics.</p>

[denniswms]

<p>So if my Amex is out what are the specific lenses of choice at the various focal lengths that will best serve the demands of the D800? A common comment references "you'll need the right glass". Though I am most interested in the 80-120 range I would appreciate the full list. </p>

<p><em>Canon has "L" which simplifies things if you're shopping Canon and even easier my brand only made one version per focal length at a time so you just bought them all and that was that.</em><br>

<em><br /></em><br>

<em>I can't believe grown men really complain about weight on these little cameras.</em></p>

[kj_thomas]

<p>Not sure if this has been posted (or if I can even post this), but a link to Cliff Maunter site that summarizes his D800 use. He specifically demonstrates the dynamic range capabilities. Interesting...</p>

<p>http://cliffmautner.typepad.com/</p>

[joel_b.1]

<p>Is there any place one can download a RAW sample from the D800? </p>

[John Crowe]

<p>This is the kind of announcement I have been looking forward to. Congratulations Nikon. Very good to see the continuation of the dual format but I am disappointed in DX providing only 5 fps. I am also unsure why the DX format is only 15.4 MP instead of 18 MP. I am surprised to see the price 20% less than I thought. </p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Correction, DX seems to have 6 fps, so not too bad after all.</p>

<p>P.S. I figured years ago that it would take a 36 MP camera to equal Kodachrome 25, now I can look forward to testing my theory, sometime in the not too distant future.</p>

[cyrus_procter]

<blockquote>

<p>Correction, DX seems to have 6 fps, so not too bad after all.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But that's only with the battery pack me thinks</p>

[vincetylor]

<p>I put in my order this morning. This is what I have been waiting for. I disagree though that there is no need for a D4X. It will be the same D4 robust body, with plenty of added Nikon 'soup' like ingredients mixed in on top of what the D800 has now, but for a lot more.</p>