Hi all,

As a Nikon Professional Services member I had the unique opportunity to hold Netherlands' only D4, D800, and D800E cameras in my hands today. Truly remarkable beasts!

I've posted a full report on my blog. Please feel free to comment/ask questions.

Enjoy, and start saving

But Hayo, don't you know that Nikon isn't giving us the D700 follow-on we want...............

Seriously, thanks for the blog post. I'm not in the FX market, but I really think there's a alot for FX shooters to be excited about.

As an aside, it seems to confirm my impression that the D800 will be as better than the D700 in almost every way (and nowhere inferior), at about the same price as the D700 was originally.

Cheers,

Marc

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"90% of my best life's work could have been made with a manual body, a 24mm lens, and a telephoto zoom in the 80-200 range"
- Galen Rowell
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Marcus,

You're right, but the D800 is not meant to be the successor of the D700, it's a new camera altogether, made for a different audience.

From the Nikon presenter: Expect the D700 (and D3x) to be around for a while longer. Don't let the fact that they aren't for sale in Japan let you think otherwise. That has all to do with the battery issue; Nikon just can't market them in Japan anymore because of this. They'll probably find a work around (e.g., lower capacity battery) for this to be able to sell them in Japan again.

My guess is we'll see one or both of a D4x (D800 in a D4 body) and a real successor to the D700 (e.g., a D4 in a D700 body).

Oh, and, yes, the D800 is better than the D700 in about every aspect. It's more expensive now too though. And the extremely high resolution requires different handling of the camera and also demand much more from post processing (hardware)… Not everyone will be up to this (nor require the high resolution).

Cheers,

Could somebody elaborate on the comment that "the extremely high resolution requires different handling of the camera and also demand much more from post processing (hardware)… Not everyone will be up to this." (I know that this point may be obvious to some, but it might be helpful to some of us who would consider buying the D800 to know more about some of the downsides.)

Many thanks.

>Could somebody elaborate on the comment that "the
>extremely high resolution requires different handling of the
>camera and also demand much more from post processing
>(hardware)… Not everyone will be up to this." (I know
>that this point may be obvious to some, but it might be
>helpful to some of us who would consider buying the D800 to
>know more about some of the downsides.)
>
>Many thanks.

I would like to join in as far as your above question is concerned, post no 9, and I am inclined to believe that quite a few others would also appreciate an elaboration of this issue, thanks beforehand...

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Hi Hayo,

Thanks for the review.
Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!

Best Regards,
Marty

Thanks for the review

Larry
http://www.larryandersonphotography.com
http://www.andersonmasterbuilders.com

Hi Marty, Larry,

My pleasure

Cheers,

Thanks for the write up on your blog. I found it very interesting and informative.

Don

Hayo, thanks very much for the review.

I have needed to move my primary D700 to be my backup/second camera, for a while (My backup/second is very long in the tooth at this point). When I travel, I never like to go without a solid backup, and potentially miss once in a lifetime shots, especially considering I may never get back to some locations (For example, I'm committed to a arctic shoot at Svalbard, and Greenland and that general area north of the Arctic Circle, before exploring Iceland next year.) and that many places I travel have no photo stores to pick up replacement gear, etc. even if in stock.

Your reviews have confirmed my own thoughts, research, etc. about these new Nikon DSLRs, and those of others I know who have already handled the cameras. It's helped me get comfortable with my choice of the D4, as my photography is primarily travel and wildlife work. Perhaps later I'll be able to get the D800 for other uses, or its replacement.

After all, there's always another one coming, even better than what's already been around.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

Hayo,

Bedankt.

I have the D4 and 800E on order through NPS and hope to be trying them out soon.
I understand the bodies are all in the country and are awaiting new firmware before shipping to the dealers.
It has been time to retire the great, but aging D3!

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Thank you all for your positive feedback on my little report. Really nice to hear I've done something that is appreciated

A couple of posts up, Per and Marvin have asked to elaborate on the statement “the extremely high resolution requires different handling of the camera and also demand much more from post processing (hardware)… Not everyone will be up to this.”

What I mean by this roughly twofold:

1. The higher the resolution the more every little mistake/fault gets visible. I'm talking about lens quality, slight miss focus, camera movement, mirror slap, etc. To prevent all this requires you to think more about your shots and also use a tripod (with good tripod technique) even more.

2. Files will be much much larger, demanding extra memory and computing power. Example, an uncompressed NEF will be around 75MB (!). A 16 bit tiff without layers is already 200MB, and even when just using 8 bit tiffs, we're still talking about 100MB files…

Hope this explains it a bit better.

Cheers,
Hayo

Thanks, Hayo. That's helpful. For the amateurs among us, it may be that the high resolution is more of a negative than a positive.

“For the amateurs among us, it may be that the high resolution is more of a negative than a positive.” – Exactly, hence my “warning.”

So that if I want to go to FX (I currently have a 300 and a 7000), the 700 might be a safer choice? Everything is a trade-off, of course.

Phew, that's a tough question. The D700 is still a great camera and will stay part of the Nikon line-up for some time in the future. With the introduction of the D800, prices of the D700 have already dropped so it is indeed a good choice/alternative if you want to go FX now. If you can live with the extra demands of the D800 (on yourself, your lenses, and your computer), that may still be the better choice though…

It's the "on yourself" part of your formulation that concerns me. I can buy lenses and computer memory; I can't be certain of my ability to focus well enough to reap the benefits -- and to avoid the detriment -- of the very high resolution.

Marvin,

Let me point out that the D7000 has approximately the same pixel density as the D800, so you are already living in this high-resolution world today, with the same restrictions. In fact, if you don't plan to increase the size of your prints, you will be decreasing the amount of your enlargement, and therefore I believe you will find D800 more forgiving and much easier to enlarge than D7000. Your only concern is that you will need larger and heavier lenses to cover the larger FX sensor.

That said, the D800 will certainly not be a magic wand for taking better pictures. I believe that for those not printing very large, 36MP will be much hassle with a limited return on investment. Unless you fall into the narrow category of people who need this kind of resolution, you might think twice about spending the money, and perhaps invest on something that will give a clear improvement like top-quality glass.

Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery

www.tempered-light.com

Thanks for that advice, Larry.

Larry, though the D7000 and D800 share about the same pixel size, there's still a significant difference. Thom Hogan already explained it very nicely so I'll just reproduce his statement here:

“A D7000 isn't exactly a D800. Some people think that the pixel density is the primary factor requiring tight discipline and because those cameras are the same, shot discipline needs to be the same. Consider this: a 16mm lens on D7000 puts ~5000 pixels across 74 degrees, while a 24mm lens on a D800 puts ~7000 pixels across the same angle. Put another way, 1° of motion is 68 pixels on the D7000, 94 pixels on the D800. 1° on a D2h was just 33 pixels and 41 pixels on a D70, You've got to handle a D800 cleaner than a D7000 folks. At least if you're going to pixel peep to see how good the results are.”

Thanking Thom Hogan for putting it so eloquently

Hi Hayo,

Thanks for your report. I have the D800E on order because my two passions are landscape photography and close-up photography. At first, the D800E was a Panacea to me. Next, I became Aware that I was going to have to be at the top of my game (and that I would also need all the help I could get from others) in order to get the very best out of this very fine camera. I am slowly coming to the Realization that while some subjects such as landscapes and close-ups that are going to definely be enhanced through the proper use of this camera, there are others such as "the family picnic" where I just don't feel like expending all the extra work in post (and so I will use my D700 instead). I call this Panacea, Awareness, Realization thing PAR. I have gone through this process many times as a scientist, where we initially thought some new piece of equipment, or some new process was sure to solve all our problems. When we later found out otherwise, we would shrug and say "Well, we guess that's just PAR for the course".

I guess there's still "no such thing as free lunch". If anyone thinks that this D800 will automatically just give super sharp photos, they are sadly mistaken. A considerable amount of extra WORK will undoubtedly be required to obtain those super sharp photos. The extra effort is justified for some subjects, but not for others (IMHO). What are your thoughts on this?

Ken Olson

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Hi Hayo,
For times when the full 36MP are not needed, is there a jpeg "small" mode like on my D7000? If there were such a mode, and it averaged groups of 4 pixels to produce a 9MP image, that would give the advantage of improved ISO performance without having to do a lot of PP and down-rezing of 36MP files. I pray Nikon implemented such a mode. It would be so handy. Did they?
Cheers,
Nick

Hi Nick,

This question has been raised to Nikon too, but in the current implementation, raw is always 36MP (unless you use the crop modes of the camera; 1.2=25MP, DX=15MP, 5:4=30MP). Perhaps they change this in the future and implement something like Canon's M-RAW modes, who knows?

>For times when the full 36MP are not needed, is there a jpeg
>"small" mode like on my D7000?

Hayo is right that NEF images are always full-resolution, but the D800 does offer Medium and Small options for JPEG images. The normal resolution - Large - is 7,360 x 4,912 pixels, whilst Medium is 5,520 x 3,680 and Small is 3,680 x 2,456. Small is therefore a 1:4 ratio of pixels compared with Large.

I don't know exactly what algorithms are used by the camera in making these resolution adjustments, nor what affect they have (if any) on noise performance.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

Hi Brian, oops thank you for elaborating my answer. I completely overlooked the question was on JPG, not raw… And indeed (as all Nikon cameras), there are three sizes available for JPG: Large, Medium, and Small.

Cheers,

Hi Ken, glad to have been informative

“I guess there's still "no such thing as free lunch". If anyone thinks that this D800 will automatically just give super sharp photos, they are sadly mistaken. A considerable amount of extra WORK will undoubtedly be required to obtain those super sharp photos. The extra effort is justified for some subjects, but not for others (IMHO). What are your thoughts on this?”

I think I fully agree with you here; a D800(E) to shoot “family pictures” is I think overkill, but for landscapes, architecture, fine art, etc. the D800 will great – if you need/want to print really big (>>20"), that is, otherwise a lower resolution camera probably gets your there too…

Hi Hayo,

Thanks so much for your timely and very important response.

Many D800/D800E buyers are going to wonder what all this fuss is about regarding image blur. This will be because they will continue to make 4 x 6, 5 x 7, and 8 x 10 inch prints, just like they always have. They will, however, find out what all the fuss was about when they decide to make a 20 x 24 inch print of an image that looked so sharp as a 4 x 6 inch print, if they didn't take all the precautions necessary to ge the best out of their D800/D800E. In other words, the D800/D800E may be overkill for someone who will never make a print larger than 8 x 10 inches.

Indeed, I believe that all the precautionary remarks that Nikon made in their "Technical Guide" were made with the assumption that the photographer is interested in making LARGE PRINTS. If the photographer will never make any large prints, then he need not worry about all this "blur talk" in the "Technical Guide" so much, even though the technical guide contains several suggestions which amount to good photographic technique in general (tripods, etc.) that most of us probably know already.

In my case, I will be thinking ALOT about making the best images with my D800E that I possibly can, whenever there is a possibility that I may want a LARGE PRINT of a subject in the future, even though I may not want one today. Otherwise, I will not worry so much about all the "blur talk" in the technical guide if I am SURE that I will NEVER require a LARGE PRINT of a particular subject, or I will use my "lessor" camera, the magnificent D700.

Do you agree with any of this?

Ken Olson

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Hi Ken,

I think I fully agree with you here

Hi Hayo,
Great report on the D800. I am mainly a wildlife/nature photographer and currently use a D3s. I find it a wonderful camera but too bulky to wander around all day with, I nearly bought a D700 for this purpose but decided to wait for the D800. Now I have a dilemma, is the D800 the right camera for my sort of photography? A slowish fps rate and as yet an untried low light performance, but on the other hand many improvements over the D700 and the capacity to allow fairly aggresive image cropping. I think the FPS rate will be just about adequate. Most people seem to think the D800 is more suitable for studio work and for use in more controlled environments. What are your views/thoughts on the D800 as a tool for wildlife photography?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Hmm, tough decision indeed.

Personally, I would find the framerate on the D800 way to low for wildlife, so for me the D4 would be the choice for this type of photography. For landscapes on the other hand, the D800 would be ideal. I shoot both so I'll want both

This said, I still shoot with the D200 too, and that gives me only 5 fps, slower than the 6fps in DX crop of the D800 (with the right battery). So it goes to show you can get wildlife results even with slower framerates (but as said, I'd prefer the higher count).

Cheers,

Thanks for your very helpful reply. I accept that the D4 is the better choice for wildlife photography but given that I already use a D3s and am looking for a smaller/lighter FX camera to carry around that only leaves the D700 or D800. So the question is which of these to go with? I would have thought the D800 is generally a better camera than the D700 (newer technology and so on)and would be the better choice. Or perhaps I should wait for a true successor to the D700??

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Hi Hayo,

Did you get a chance to compare results from a D800 with a D3x?

Hi Simon,

No, I did not get a chance to compare it directly to a D3x myself, but I can almost guarantee you the D800 will be much better with respect to image quality. Note by the way that the D3x will still be on sale by Nikon, so the D800 is not seen as a replacement (yet).

Cheers,

Hayo,

Thank you for your excellent analysis of the cameras. You have convinced me to get a D800E, because I had not seen comparisons like yours between the D800 and the D800E by other writers in these blogs or Nikon's literature.

Juan

>Hi Simon,
>
>No, I did not get a chance to compare it directly to a D3x
>myself, but I can almost guarantee you the D800 will be much
>better with respect to image quality. Note by the way that the
>D3x will still be on sale by Nikon, so the D800 is not seen as
>a replacement (yet).


Thanks Hayo - rather than clutter up your hands-on report thread I've sent you an email (to the academy address) to ask for your advice. I hope you don't mind.

Your report gave me much needed info, i.e. how noisy are the D800s. I do nature photography and rodeos.

I almost never use continuous mode. I think like Cartier-Bresson - when the right moment comes, depress the shutter release. Most blur I worry about with live critters is due to critter movement. I use a Nikon 300mm f4 with TC-17E on a Gitzo G2228 tripod with the Arca Swiss Monoball Z.

For rodeo I did use the D3S because of the higher ISOs and typically shoot at 1/200 to 1/4000 with the Nikon 28-300, hand held, of course.

For nature photography, now that I am assured I can use the higher ISOs <3200 or 6400>, I will be able to increase the shutter speed and end most worries about subject movement. I was doing great with the D3X's low ISOs, so the D800 will be like paradise. I sold both my D3X and D3S and am sure I will miss neither once I get the D800 and D800E. The D800s will be great for relatively low light in museums and places like the Academy of Science indoor nature exhibits. Now I should get some nice Monterey Bay Aquarium shots using the high ISOs. I feel like Christmas is coming in March and then again in April. See:

flickr.com/photos/tbr18

Posted there are nature, and other shots using everything from a D70 to the D3X. One conclusion I have come to is the lens matters. The Nikon 200mm f4 macro is still the king.

Tom Roach

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Hi Tom,

Just to make sure I have set your expectations right about the high ISO use on the D800 cameras, there will (of course) be visible noise when viewing high ISOs images at 100%. What I meant to say is that in practice (e.g., print and, especially, on-line), this noise is not going to be problematic. I hope I was clear in my report about this.

So don't go comparing the noise of the D3S at 100% to the noise of the D800 at 100% as then you may get disappointed

But yes, compared to both the D3S and the D3X, I think you'll not regret changing over!

Cheers,

Hayo:

Thanks for the feedback. I don't anticipate using very high ISOs. I almost never make prints, and viewing of my images is on a 27 inch iMac, which is spectacular if you have a spectacular image. I use LR 3.6 and Capture NX 2.3.1, both of which seem to improve continuously especially now that I am running the 64 bit versions. I will continue to use the tripod for almost all of my nature photography, and my rodeo shots are fine now, but should be even better with the D800s.

I never used the D3S for nature if I could use the D3X, and for rodeo I will now have a far more high resolution image with the D800. I also am looking forward to the using the D800 for natural light portraits of the rodeo participants at the behest of the local newspaper which uses my photos.

Your review was so useful because it was based on using the camera, not parroting spec sheets. Thanks for passing on your observations.

Tom Roach

Visit my Nikonians gallery.