I did not read Thom's blog to indicate that he thought we would get less high-ISO performance from the D800 at 12MP than we do with the D700 @12MP. Unless you also need higher frame rates, it looks on paper that the D800 beats the D700 in every category. But until we start seeing a lot of D800 images, who knows really.
Tue 07-Feb-12 11:09 PM | edited Tue 07-Feb-12 11:22 PM by Bob Chadwick
Higher frame rates and the crop factor as well as low light. Its a good camera but it leaves something on the table. I was hoping for more than "reasonable" noise at ISO 3200 downsized.
The D700 is not a perfect match either but it will work with my D300 grip.
I've got plenty of time to continue to read, but as things currently stand I would probably wait to see what the D400 has to offer. I suspect, and hope, that it will be a closer match to what I shoot and slightly less money.
I now shoot with the D7000. I would like to make the move to an FX camera but would have much preferred to see greater low light capability than 36mps. Resolution is more than good enough on the D7000. However, better low light capability is always appreciated.
>I now shoot with the D7000. I would like to make the move >to an FX camera but would have much preferred to see greater >low light capability than 36mps. Resolution is more than >good enough on the D7000. However, better low light >capability is always appreciated.
Very much depends on your scenario. If you can fill the frame with your optics, then yes, I agree the D7000 has plenty of megapixels. However, if you cannot... different story.
>I now shoot with the D7000. I would like to make the move >to an FX camera but would have much preferred to see greater >low light capability than 36MP. Resolution is more than >good enough on the D7000. However, better low light >capability is always appreciated.
And, how much better yet would it have been to have a 20-24 MP sensor with exquisite 6400 ISO...a real achievement. 100 to 6400 ISO native, with 12800 ISO where 3200 was.
The 36 MP D800 is best suited for landscape and portrait photography, and would have been better tagged, the D4X as a follow-on to the D3X...and as was projected, it really isn't the next newer version of the D700.
If Canon is smart, they will grab a huge segment of the new release market with a 24 MP 5D3, with superior, clean, usable native 50-12800 ISO, upgraded focus sensors, and color metering system with 8 frames per second, and dual card slots with 100% viewfinder and a Digic 5 processor and huge buffer...and of course, it would have to have a pop up flash so that their new version of Nikon's CLS would work with the new 5D3.
I was hoping for something like this from Nikon...a good all around midrange camera, like the 5D2 has been in the past. Good for landscapes, good for weddings, good for portraits, and good for family outings. Not a 5D2 mind you...but the upgraded competitive version from Nikon...a lot like the D800...with much better ISO...and speedier FPS.
I know we see usable ISO at and above 6400...but really...to be perfectly honest...wouldn't it be better if the ISO above 1600 was a clean as ISO 1600...or even ISO 800. This is where I see the next big contest.
I would like to see the D800 placed in the D3X forum.
Well, it looks like you got your wish. Those who have used the camera on assignments have a more optimistic impression of high ISO performance where the common description is that the D3 and D800 are equal. Downsizing to equal size would give the advantage to the D800. Note that Thom was speculating on lower performance but had not seen one yet. From the images I've seen, it is certainly not worse than the D700 and probably better without downsizing. Stan St Petersburg Russia
But, I am so disappointed. If you look straight across, the row of books next to the fire extinguisher, the third book from the right, I can't read the title and author. Its blurred! What kind of a crummy camera is this. And, how many frames a second did you shoot anyway?
Now, you know the way comments are going on this forum, someone would say that. Truthfully, it is absolutely fantastic.
>Now, you know the way comments are going on this forum, >someone would say that. Truthfully, it is absolutely >fantastic. > >
I cannot seriously believe that we are sitting here in a discussion, talking about a midrange, $3,000 camera that "might" be ok at 6400 ISO but some want to have pretty clean at 12,800...
Maybe I am just old, but I remember being absolutely ECSTATIC when I could push TMAX to 1600, and still read the school name on the front of the football jerseys at night games.
And I remember being among the many, MANY people who marveled at the D2x shooting 5FPS and 12MP, and a very nice ISO 800... I still marvel at the D2H and am thankful I can get such nice imagery at 8fps even if it is only 4MP.
Some people will NEVER be happy. I'm frankly thrilled with every Nikon I own, and I know I am going to be just as thrilled with my new D800 and D4.
I agree. the D800 looks fantastic and I will get one. I will keep my D700 as well. the D800 for landscapes will be the perfect camera for me! Nikon has never disappointed me. I still keep my D100 and occasionally even take a photo with it just to remind myself how far we have come in the last 10 years. And my D2Hs rocks at sporting events (still).