Hello: Look, I know this will be debated for monts here, but here's my take on the D800.
Yes, initially, it sounds great, but....I'm a low light shooter. That's why I bought the D700, and the D3s. I shoot high school sports (crappy lighting) and small weddings....mostly in small churches or evening back yard ceremonies (also crappy lighting).
Now, I no expert by any means, but even I can figure this out. Both new cameras took ISO cuts in order to accommodate the increase in MP.
And.....the D800 took a pretty hard hit in FPS as well. It dropped from 8fps to 4fps????
All I'm sayin' is if you are like me and shoot a lot in low lighting, I wouldn't get too excited about the D800 and sell my D700.....just yet.
Yes, I would like a new camera too, but at least for now, I'm sticking with what I got!!!
> >... waiting for the used market to explode with used D700's for sale and your not >helping! LOL!
My local Kijiji just exploded! I swear I had NEVER seen a D700 offered for sale there, even though it is a pretty dynamic market with lots of lenses trading hands, and as you might expect a lot of low-end stuff (over priced I might add). Anyhow, out of interest I checked yesterday and SEVEN D700 for sale - prices ranged from $1750 $CAD to $2100. I have sold a lot of stuff on my local Kijiji and each transaction has gone well.
Still never even once seen a D3S on my local Kijiji though. It will be interesting to see if that changes.
If you use Google+, check out Scott Kelby's comment on the D800. Essentially, he stated that we all have to get the camera that fits our needs. I agree with his point that "The D800 was apparently created for a very specific type of photographer. There is no law that every camera introduced by a camera company has to be designed to fit your personal needs."
Personally, I'm excited about the D800 (and the D4, but my wife would kill me!) I do art festivals all summer and routinely sell 20" x 30" prints. I am beginning to get requests for much larger prints and the D800 would definitely make my large photos improve. I also like the option to be able to severely crop an image, so having the extra pixels would really make my life easier. I'd love to have a D4 for its low-light capability because I do a fair amount of low-light work, but that will have to wait. I could make ISO 6400 work for much of my work.
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
If the ISO is as good as it is on my D3, I am good with this camera for weddings. I do not need the extra MP really. But I also shoot landscapes and would like the extra pixels. This would give me about 240ppi for a 20x30" print.
If you are doing weddings or events in dimly list venues, stick with a D3/3s. (Unless you are very good with noise reduction in post). My guess is the D800 will be about as good as the D7000 as far as high ISO noise performance. My D7000 is certainly not as good as my D3s in this regard, not as good a the D700 that I had.
I agree. I need D800 for my studio portraits. More of my clients want large prints, and it's hard with a 12MP sensor!
Looking forward to the D800, and I will also use it at weddings. Although the ISO isn't up with the D3, it doesn't look bad. If it is at least as good as the D7000 it's ISO performance won't be a a problem for me at weddings as my secondary body.
-------------------------- Rick Paul Tucson, Arizona
I really do think this is a step back for Nikon, particularly in the low light arena. They upped the pixels to compete with our friends at Canon, and are going against why Nikonians bought into the Nikon system in their first place. Of course, hands on reviews are not even available yet, but if I was to guess? We're talking noise at higher ISO's.
I don't see it as a step back, but it is certainly a step in a different direction. The D800 is so different than ony other DSLR-Canon, Nikon, everybody. I think it is a brilliant piece of work, but not for everyone's needs. Let's see what else they have up their sleeve.
There's an interesting write up of the "Advantage of a Large Sensor" or something like that on the Mansurov's website. I would refer those concerned about high ISO performance to it. There's even mathematical analysis. My (very simple and rudimentary) understanding is that noise is random, signal is not. So when you downsize from 36 MP to 12 MP, noise is relatively reduced by random cancellation. So the fair comparison between a D700 and D800 would be to first downsize the image from the D800 to 12 MP. A long time ago in a different life I did chemical analysis using Fourier Transform Analysis. I believe that technique is based on a similar idea regarding the randomness of noise vs. the constancy of the signal. I'm not presenting myself here as an expert but I must admit reading the Mansurov's analysis has changed my thinking about the D800. That, plus the surprisingly "low" price has made me re-think buying it. That said, I wish I would have purchased the D700 in 2009, but we can't look back. I agree with Mick that, for what it is, it is a brilliant piece of work.
Before seeing the camera and its output, there seems to be a lot of complaints. Without a doubt, the new camera is not for everyone but it will be loved by a wide range of video and still shooters that will make it a very popular model. Many of those buyers will be getting their first Nikon and start of a lens collection. Sure it is not super fast, a sports shooter is already covered very very well with the D4. I see both FF cameras having a place a well heeled owner's bag since they both have compelling reasons to get it. The concern over noise will lessen when downsizing to 12mpx will reveal a big advantage. It sounds like there are a lot of options for users with specific priorities....except raw frame rate. But even with a lower frame rate, more keepers will likely result due to the new metering and AF system that allow continuous tracking. The only people who should really be concerned and view the D800 negatively should be Canon management. Stan St Petersburg Russia
For the last few years the industry has told us the pixel race is over and more isn't needed, mainly because more pixels mean more problems. Nikon has upped the pixel size. I think we need to re visit the information that was given out and see how Nikon has managed to buck the trend and figure out who is correct?
In analyzing noise, the number of photosites (pixels) is entirely irrelevant; the important thing is signal to noise ration (SNR) per unit area. Therefore sizing images so they match resolution is a valid idea.
However, mathematically, the right place to do this is with the NEF; doing it with the JPG is only an approximation. This is due to the nature of demosaicking, tone curves, etc.
Furthermore, comparing JPGs from two different cameras of two different scenes with difference firmware settings, lighting, etc. is problematic.
Regards, Bill P.S. - BTW, not all noise is random; but that's a different subject!
I'm curious as to what types(s) of noise are not random, but it may be too complicated for this arena.
Not too complicated, but possibly off topic. I'll list a few quickly.
Pattern noise in the photosite array. Think of each photosite as starting from a repeatable value but that they don't all start exactly at "zero". Also sometime called Dark Signal Non-Uniformity (DSNU).
Photo Response Non-Uniformity (PRNU). Think of each photosite responding in a linear fashion when exposed to light but that some respond a little more or less than others.
Pattern noise in the multi-channel readout. Imagine you have 12 channels of readout and they don't all start at the same "zero". (BTW, bad cases cause banding.)
When performing sensors tests, these forms of noise can be effectively eliminated by subtracting two identical exposures leaving the truly random noise behind to be measured.
Sun 12-Feb-12 03:32 AM | edited Sun 12-Feb-12 07:40 AM by briantilley
Bill I have looked at the D800 data on your website. I am curious as to how you measured the Noise from the NEF. As you know, the size of the D700 Sensor pixel is almost 2x the size of the D800 Sensor Pixel . S/N suggest to me that with the larger D700 Sensor (8.45 micron) vs the 4.8 micron D800 Sensor, you get twice as much light for the D700 compared with the D800 Sensor.
The Question is how does the Noise for these two different sensors compare? I know you have done some Read Noise calculations for the D800 at different ISO's . It would be very useful once the D800 is at hand to do a like to like comparison of Read Noise for the D800/D700. Then one can get some good idea on a comparison of the S/N for the D700/D800.
However the S/N is also dependent on the Shot Noise, the Dark Noise as well as the Read Noise. These are very difficult to measure independently .I think to get a real quantitative comparison , one would have to calculate like images from a D700/D800 using the same lenses, the same settings everything and compare the raw NEF files from both cameras. Gut feel tells me that unless Nikon has put in some extraordinary noise reduction technology in the D800, if like for like, a raw NEF D800 at higher ISOs will display lower S/N to a similar NEF from a D700 for the same settings, that is the D700 will have a better S/N at higher ISOs. What is interesting , Nikon does not seem to publish Noise Sensor Data or S/N comparison for their different sensors. If they do, let me know where I can find it.
Some have suggested under sampling a D800 raw NEF to 12 MB, but all that does is just apply an averaging or a smoothing function over the image.
The speculation that higher MP automatically means more noise is not something that I am going to assume before the tests are in. When has Nikon ever released a replacement digital camera, especially at this price point, that ended up with worse noise that the camera it replaced, regardless of increasing the MP in the new camera. Obviously, its noise curve is not going to be as good as the D4, but that camera is twice as much money. But I'd bet that the D800 has at least as good as the D700/D3 when you down-sample to 12MP. So you can have a great low noise 12MP camera and a 36 MP fashion/landscape camera all rolled into one? This sounds pretty good to me. I have been living with 12MP for a long time and if they announced a D800 with better low light performance of a D4 @ $3000, I would think that was a good camera too. But as long as the down-sampled images are as good as the prior version, I think that this is going to be a big hit with many in the landscape, portrait and wedding arenas.
I still think that a D400 DX camera for sports enthusiasts and low light shooters who cannot afford a D4 will also be released.
SO, on video capture, is it resolving to a JPEG motion of 4MPs versus the typical 2MPs for h.264, and, would that equate positively as well, when capturing to a stand alone HD or SSD via HDMI at 4.2.2 versus h.264?
In other words, will the video exceed the current available pixels for the D7K and the pending D4?
I'm going to the shop tomorrow to put yet another deposit down, the D4 is already in the pipeline, however, the reasons for the D4 are video related as the D3S, has done quite well in non flash for me, but if I get the D800, I can hand off or sell the D7K to make back a little and perhaps(?) skip the D4 altogether, remote control isn't critical for me.
I'm pretty new to the Nikon scene but I really like the look of the D800.
I was a Canon shooter until recently and I remember when the 5DII came out everyone ( including me ) was going on about how noisy it would be. The truth turned out to be that it wiped the floor with the 12mp 5D in terms of noise performance and to my eyes is pretty much as good as the D700 in this regard. I read the Mansurov article and it seemed reassuring too.
I've also noticed quite a few comments on other sites about the price being high. I don't know about anywhere else but it's launch price is the same as the highest price the Canon 5D mkII got to here in the UK. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
Really the only downside to my mind is the file size which is a bit on the large side for processing and storage. I'd put up with it though
I'm still very happy with my D700 and I'm not going to buy the new one yet ( can't afford it ) but it certainly seems to be an absolutely stunning camera and I'd love one!
The advertised ISO on the D700 is 200-6400. The advertised ISO on the D800 is 100 to 6400.
None of us have done a comparative test of the two in low light conditions, certainly the first thing I will test when I get mine. So, I don't see how anyone can logically conclude that the low light performance of the D800 will be any worse than the D700, which we all know is excellent.
Before it was announced I had said (perhaps to myself) that if the ISO performance remained the same, and it had the improved pixel count, the improved focusing logarithms, and the video, I was in. I am in. Maybe the actual performance will turn out to be slightly worse than the D700, but to date, there is zero evidence of that.
I think it is fair to say the D800 will not have the high ISO noise control performance of the D3/D4.
It may be equivalent to the D700 in this regard, even with the greater pixel density, or it may have perform similar to the D7000, which has roughly equivalent ISO range and pixel density. I would prefer to see some real world use to see which that will be.
My own experience with using the D700 and the D7000 is that the D700 is a better high ISO performer than the D7000.
So, for those who were looking for the D800 to improve high ISO performance over the D700, this may be a disappointment.
To me, the D800 wasn't designed to address that issue, but it a completely new camera with completely different capabilities.
I have never used a D700, but correct me if I am wrong here, but isn't the high ISO performance on the D700 identical to the D3? Don't they use the same sensor?
I am "expecting" or "assuming" that the ISO performance of the D800 will have at least the ISO performance of the D700 and thus what I am used to from the D3. I regularly shoot at ISO 2000-3200 for reception shots and have no issue with post processing. These shots are rarely blown up past 8x10" prints if if they need to be, they have enough dynamic range to hold up after a tad of post processing. And I can spend time doing this when I need to for large prints. Dimly lit churches often have some many restrictions on shooting during the ceremonies, that it is mostly a non-issue about noise. And I shoot at 3200 at a slower shutter speed when I am allowed, often with a tripod, and the only issue I have is stop motion when the B&G walk /run out. But by this time, most churches allow you do use flash.
Bottom line is if the D800 is as good as the D700 which is as good as the D3 in low light, the D800 would suit me just fine. I'd rather have the better focusing that the D800 should offer than my D3 focusing does.
Tue 14-Feb-12 01:52 AM | edited Tue 14-Feb-12 01:56 AM by iamnotjerry
>The advertised ISO on the D700 is 200-6400. The advertised >ISO on the D800 is 100 to 6400. > >None of us have done a comparative test of the two in low >light conditions, certainly the first thing I will test when I >get mine. So, I don't see how anyone can logically conclude >that the low light performance of the D800 will be any worse >than the D700, which we all know is excellent. > >Before it was announced I had said (perhaps to myself) that if >the ISO performance remained the same, and it had the improved >pixel count, the improved focusing logarithms, and the video, >I was in. I am in. Maybe the actual performance will turn out >to be slightly worse than the D700, but to date, there is zero >evidence of that. > >Am I wrong?
I agree and will wait and see once the D800 is in my hands. Regardless of D700/D800 comparisons I wanted a new DSRL and opted for the D800 over an older D700.
Just my $.02 here but the reason there is so much conversation and apparent disappointment with the 800 all boils down to this: a large number of people wanted and were expecting a D700 replacement. An excellent low light FX for less than $5000.00. The 800 may be a great body but it doesn't improve on what the 700 does best. It is not what many (including myself) expected. I love my 700 that I bought last December. Now I feel even better about buying it when I did instead of waiting for a replacement that is still non-existent in my mind.
Nikon rates the "basic" ISO (before going into the HI category) for the D800 at 6400. Is there any reason to think that Nikon does not know the camera's capabilities? I assume that one may rely on the Nikon ISO ratings to compare the Nikon camera's low light capabilities. The "basic" rating for the D4 is 12800, 1 stop better than the D800 rating.
So far I have not encountered a landscape that was moving so fast that I could not capture it at 4 FPS. Obviously the D800 is not a camera for the sports photographers and photojournalists.
I see much to like in the D800 at a price that, in my case, will allow to avoid paying a lot of money for features that I don't want, e.g. the D4, and at the same time obtain more of what I do want, i.e. superb quality and detail. Of course I will be anxious to see the reviews after field testing. However, I am not aware of any Nikon camera that did not test out well in the field, i.e. verify the specs claimed by Nikon. Nonetheless I am eager to see the reviews.
>So far I have not encountered a landscape that was moving so >fast that I could not capture it at 4 FPS. Obviously the D800 >is not a camera for the sports photographers and >photojournalists.
Why do people keep saying this?
With the grip, which surely ANY sports photographer would be putting on anyway to balance against that 300/2.8, 400/2.8, or 600/4, the camera will shoot 6fps.
The F3 shot 6fps and was arguably the most iconic sports camera ever built. The F4s shot 5.5, the D2x shoots 5, and moved a GREAT many pro sports guys over from film.
We had 25 years of Sports Illustrated where there was no motor winder at ALL. 6fps is plenty fast enough for me, and it's been fast enough for sports shooters all around the world for the past 20 years. It's only in the past VERY few years we've seen the 8-9fps stuff, and quite honestly, very few people need or use it. I'd say fully half of my sports shots are done with single frames. And that includes my bat on ball, tennis ball on strings, ball leaving the pitcher's hands, volleyball spike, etc.
I remember my sports shooting mentor commenting to me after me remarking about his F3's frame rate... If you can't get the shot on a single frame, the motor drive isn't going to help you any.
Fri 10-Feb-12 01:50 AM | edited Fri 10-Feb-12 02:02 AM by km6xz
I tend to think along the same lines. When a skilled shooter decides on the key frame and nails it, 1 shot is all that can be at the right moment. I do not shoot sports but lots of dance, ballet, events and such and find that the 6fps of my D7000 does not help at all if I do not time and anticipate what I am intending to capture. Random shooting, without timed anticipation really does rely on luck which can get a great shot occasionally but for consistency and a regular assignment call, that is not high enough odds. Maybe the 4-6fps of the D800 will provide MORE keepers due to better AF, speed and tracking between frames. I would rather have better tracking between shots than number of shots any time. If one really wants to grab the unexpected shots maybe they should be looking into hi-res video from multiple vantage points, like is done in TV sports coverage. One camera is trained on, say, the outside wall after the widest turn of a NASCAR event just for that most likely spot for a wall contact. Knowing the sport intimately lowers the luck factor a lot. In my ballet shooting, being at a dress rehearsal sort of eliminates the excuses for missing the best shots. Same with theater, gymnastics, swimming, and many other predictive activities. When I am back home in the US, I use my sister's season tickets for the Kings NBA games and find that that, once the game and players are learned a little, really is a moderate to slow game that does not require bursts of speed, a parabolic arc of a ball is about as predictable as anything in daily life. Someone who specializes in the craft would certainly be expected to develop skills that would set them apart from amateurs with only a fast frame rate camera. Regarding the assumed poor low light performance of the D800, to believe that, one must ignore the consistent reports by those who have been shooting with it for assignments. The consensus is that high ISO performance is the same as the D3, not the D3s. That means if low light is involved and normal sized prints are needed, downsizing/resampling of D800 images will yield a 1-1.5 stop advantage in a practical application. I appears that some are just grasping as straws to find "deal breaker" flaws in the camera, when I have not seen any serious flaws yet, only better image related performance: faster more accurate/lower light capable Af, metering, face tracking, WB, DR, lower low ISO noise and wider DR, great options for getting two ranges of field of view from every lens without giving up res(compared to what they have now), HDR built in, and game changing Video. Plus about 100 other useful upgrades all for a reasonable price that will have some other brand's model managers waking in a cold sweat every night. Plus a D800e...wow, Nikon just changed the playing field. Stan St Petersburg Russia
Sun 12-Feb-12 03:38 PM | edited Sun 12-Feb-12 03:42 PM by RRRoger
Quote > >I appears that some are just grasping as straws to find >"deal breaker" flaws in the camera, >Stan Quote<<
There are many readers that are either jealous or just trying to talk themselves out of spending $3,000 to upgrade their cameras. And, it will be natural to try and justify your recent purchase when a better camera comes out.
I do not feel sorry for D700 users, that camera fills a nitch very well and will be useful for many years. The same with the D3s.
It is the D3x owner that just lost $thousands$. Their cameras will not be less useful, it is just that the D800 has surpassed it in every way for my use.
And, as far as 4fps goes, that is what I had my D3 set for. The only time I used CH was to show off!
I agee with the D3x assessment. The point I was making is that the D800 is NOT a D700 replacement. Your point emphasizes mine. Recent purchases of the 700 look pretty smart now. What I don't like is that Nikon has apparently discontinued the 700 without a replacement. Assuming you don't want to pay $2-3k more for a D3s or D4. The D700 fits a niche alright. It was the only FX with great low light performance at it's price point.
>I agee with the D3x assessment. The point I was making is >that the D800 is NOT a D700 replacement.
Technically, it is a replacement - in the sense that the D700 is discontinued and the D800 has appeared in the range
It might be better to say the the D800 does not cater for the user requirements that the D700 satisfied, and thus D700 owners who value its particular combination of abilities do not have an obvious upgrade path.
>It might be better to say the the D800 does not cater for the >user requirements that the D700 satisfied, and thus D700 >owners who value its particular combination of abilities do >not have an obvious upgrade path.
Well, technically, they do. It's just going to cost them more money. For those users, it would be something to see a D700s with the D3s sensor in it and everything else pretty much left alone, or upgraded to the standard of the D3s.
The D700 was really the niche product. And one I think ultimately hurt Nikon in some ways. I can certainly understand why they don't seem to be keen to continue on that path.
If you pretend that the D700 never existed, Nikon's path suddenly becomes a LOT more clear.
1. Pro range is full body sports, small body studio/resolution 2. Everything else is DX. 3. Every camera gets video capability going forward.
This essentially mirrors Canon's position and it's not hard to see why. Nikon is a company reeling from being trounced in the DSLR video market, beaten for years in the landscape and portrait market, and had it's manufacturing facilities essentially leveled. Streamlining their offerings for the foreseeable future seems to make smart business sense, and honestly, it should be evident to Nikon loyalists why this is necessary.
It's probably easier for me than most to make these comments about the D700 because I have no vested interest in it. It was never a camera I was going to buy. I hate small body cameras. I'd like my D3s to be larger. I'd like it to hold two batteries. But I'm one out of 100,000 probably. Right now, I am going to buy a D800 with the knowledge I will ditch it the day they put that sensor in a D4 sized body. But it's not available now. So I'll just have to make do with what's on offer.
For those shooting a D700, I truly don't understand the anger. If the camera is meeting the need, why the desire to move away? And if it's not meeting the need, why own it?
>Well, technically, they do. It's just going to cost them more >money.
No, not really. There will soon be nothing in the range that has the smaller form factor of the D700, emphasises high-ISO performance rather than pixel count, AND fits in the price gap between the top DX camera(s) and the single-digit series.
That's not to say that Nikon inevitably has to keep that particular niche filled, but I can understand that a D700 owner looking for "the same but better" might feel he/she has been left out.
We will wait. I think their is a significant number of people that didn't get what they expected with the D800. Maybe we're a small number but I doubt it. It's a big jump for me to go from $2700 to $5200 or $6000 to get an upgrade in low light performance. I'm not knocking the new body. I don't know that anybody is. More resolution is great. The new sensor sounds great. It sounds like its 2 bodies in one. That's great too. Unless you want one of them to be a great low light performer.
>We will wait. I think their is a significant number of people >that didn't get what they expected with the D800. Maybe we're >a small number but I doubt it. It's a big jump for me to go >from $2700 to $5200 or $6000 to get an upgrade in low light >performance. I'm not knocking the new body. I don't know that >anybody is. More resolution is great. The new sensor sounds >great. It sounds like its 2 bodies in one. That's great too. >Unless you want one of them to be a great low light performer. >
Honestly, I think there are a LOT of buyers out there for what you are describing. The question is whether it's in Nikon's best interest to build it.
On the other hand, I expect D3s prices to drop to less than $4k in a year. That's still quite a stretch from $2700, but if you need that low light performance, then you do. Believe me, I was none to happy when I got awarded a sports contract to shoot on a field where I was coming up 3 stops short at ISO 6400. And the best low light camera I had was a D7000. The job dictated I buy a D3s, so I did.
I truly do hope Nikon come out with a D700s with that D3s sensor. I think that will answer the cries of a LOT of users for the next few years.
"I expect D3s prices to drop to less than $4k in a year" Yes, it might drop the price far more.... And this might be the best options for those need better Low light performance than D700 for now.
Personally, knowing ISO performance to be similar to D700, 36mp is a huge PLUS for my needs, knowing I can not afford for D3x nor MF cameras. I had one pre-ordered 800e at the same day of announcement.
If I seriously need for extreme low light in a near future, I will sell other D700 and finance D4.
>That's not to say that Nikon inevitably has to keep that >particular niche filled, but I can understand that a D700 >owner looking for "the same but better" might feel >he/she has been left out.
Understood. Just like those of us who had to jump to Canon to get video felt left out for 3 years. Or those who wanted a D3x in a smaller studio body were left out for 3+ years.
I get it.
If this is your hobby, sit tight until the answer comes along. If this is your JOB buy a D4 or D3s and get on with it.
We all want a perfect camera. I had been shopping the Mamiya and Pentax MF cameras the past few months. And the full frame Sony as well. I needed something in the 24MP-30MP range. Nikon had the D3x but it fell short in a number of ways. The D800 isn't the perfect answer since I know shooting it is going to physically hurt. But it's the best option I've got, and the cost savings over the $12k-$20k medium format cameras will help dull the pain in my hands.
>Just like those of us who had to jump to Canon to >get video felt left out for 3 years. Or those who wanted a >D3x in a smaller studio body were left out for 3+ years.
All true, but I see this situation as slightly different. In the past, Nikon has generally created a clear upgrade path for its DSLR customers. The D70 was replaced by the D80, then the D90 and D7000; or there's the D2H - D2Hs - D3 - D3s - D4 sequence, and so on. This time, the D800 just isn't a obvious update for the D700; its emphasis has changed.
I'm not saying that this is good or bad, or that Nikon are wrong, but I can see how it could confuse or disappoint some members.
>All true, but I see this situation as slightly different. In >the past, Nikon has generally created a clear upgrade path for >its DSLR customers. The D70 was replaced by the D80
The D70s got a D70s. Maybe the D700 will also.
> then the >D90 and D7000;
Which Nikon claimed the D7000 was NOT a successor to the D90
or there's the D2H - D2Hs - D3 - D3s - D4 >sequence, and so on. This time, the D800 just isn't a obvious >update for the D700; its emphasis has changed.
The F6 came after the F5. Absolute oddball.
>I'm not saying that this is good or bad, or that Nikon are >wrong, but I can see how it could confuse or disappoint some >members.
Completely agree. But, it appears from all outward indication that the D700 was another Nikon oddball. An experiment perhaps. A low light stunner offering 90% of the pro body for half the price. Maybe their numbers say they shouldn't do that again. I don't know.
But I can say if I was a D700 owner and I was in need of a new camera, I'd certainly not be waiting around for a successor to the D700. Nikon appears to have shifted strategy, and so would I be.
Very interesting. But there's more to the game than megapixels. Part of the problem is getting that data OFF the sensor quickly enough. And without burning anything up.
A part of what Nikon has brought to the table in the D4/D800 is something we video folk have been DYING for from Canon. Give us the HDMI video out cleanly. Canon has not yet provided a camera that can do it. Nikon has apparently succeeded where others have failed. Additionally, Nikon seems to have successfully allowed decent in-camera audio. That is huge. And 5D had the same sensor issue as the D200. The noise is just unbearable beyond ISO 1000. In most video applications, you don't get to do much cleanup.
If Nikon wanted to rule the roost in DSLR video right now, they'd take the D3s sensor, put it in a D700 body, give it the output of the D800, and, position it for $1500. Canon would not sell another 5D or 7D for video for years. Well not many.
Why do people keep saying this? (referring to the "low" fps)
Because the flagship sorts cameras are coming out at 14fps. When you see 4 vs 14, people think that they must be really missing something. They might not expect the top end, but they are expecting close to it.
Obviously, this high FPS expectation from a camera with more resolution than any other "full frame" digital camera ever made is ridiculous.
Honestly, when I shot at the PGA this year, even 14fps would not have helped me get any more keepers. I was using the D300 with grip, I think that is like 7fps. I think that I would have been the same with 4 fps too. Timing is more important. And honestly, the racket that the shutters make at golf tournaments is just insane nowadays going at those speeds. I managed to snap these with my lowly D300.
So far Nikon has chosen not to sell a camera with the low light performance of a D3S or a D4 in a D700-style body. So the pattern is two full on pro bodies in a row and no "D700 version" offered. That might be a clue.
Hard to say if that pattern will continue though. The recent stat that Sendai is positioned to manufacture only 5,000 D4 a month seemed very low to me. If they were positioning to sell 10 or 15K D4 a month I might be inclined to think they are not planning a smaller body D4 sensor. It's possible though that they will time the release of a small-body-D4 with the issuance of a D4S, so that might mean a further two year wait. Very difficult to say. Maybe one other clue - if Nikon wanted to sell more D4 than ever they sold D3 or D3S, wouldn't they just come out and say "this sensor is only going to be offered in the D4"?
Another wildcard is the D3S sensor. Shame to retire it yes? Make a good mirror less with it? But really I can't see it, probably anything offered now onwards has to have a D4 style sensor due to its many video advantages. So I think the D3S sensor, marvel of photography that it is, is toast - hard to believe really.
See, Canon actually came out and said something to the effect that "the 1D X is all we are offering in the large-body line up". Although come to think of it, in the smaller-body line (5Dx) they neither have offered any clarity.
Personally I am not taking the chance of a further long wait for a D4 sensor in a smaller body, I want something better in low light than my D700, so I ordered the D4. I should have ordered the D3S back-when, but I wasted two and a half years waiting for a D700S. Anyhow, I am not bitter, lesson leaned and all that and the D4 looks pretty phenomenal
Isn't it pretty pointless to debate the performance of a camera that nobody here has ever taken a picture with? Like someone posted above, I find it hard to believe that the D800 will not surpass the D700, or at least equal it in low light performance. But, let's wait for a few tests to see.
I think by far the next likely body from Nikon is a D300 replacement: something with the D7000 DX sensor, in a "pro" control layout body and 51 point AF system, with faster FPS. Anyone shooting a D7000 can tell you that in terms of low light sports shooting, the D300 is an obsolete dinosaur at this point.
My hope is that the next body after the D300 replacement will be a $2,000 FX body at around 15-18 MP. I'd love to see this with the relative build quality of the D7000, and perhaps it's same AF system. It wouldn't replace my D7000 for outdoor field sports, but it would supplement it beautifully for gym work, in a package an amature could justifiably afford. Not sure there's a huge market for this camera, but...
Bill: Everything I read in this thread is based on theory. Unless I'm wrong, nobody here shot any of those images? Besides, "sample images" are like those pre-production cars that car magazines get to drive before the production cars roll off the assembly lines. They offer a pretty good representation of the experience, but they are cherry picked samples, and the production versions are often different.
It just seems silly to debate this issue until there is real field test data to support some of these assertions. To my knowledge, there has never been a new Nikon DSLR that did not surpass the performance of the previous model in the same class, in virtually every area - and low light performance is a very big area. Let's just assume it will, until we find out it doesn't.
The type of testing I do, statistical analysis of NEF files, is almost certainly unaffected by last minute firmware changes and has nothing to do with photographic technique, lens, subject matter, etc. So, I feel confident about the technical data gathered in this fashion.
>Bill: Everything I read in this thread is based on theory. >Unless I'm wrong, nobody here shot any of those images? >Besides, "sample images" are like those >pre-production cars that car magazines get to drive before the >production cars roll off the assembly lines. They offer a >pretty good representation of the experience, but they are >cherry picked samples, and the production versions are often >different. > >It just seems silly to debate this issue until there is real >field test data to support some of these assertions. To my >knowledge, there has never been a new Nikon DSLR that did not >surpass the performance of the previous model in the same >class, in virtually every area - and low light performance is >a very big area. Let's just assume it will, until we find out >it doesn't. > >Just my opinion, though.
I agree completely. I cannot believe that Nikon would launch a new camera in 2012 that would not improve on a camera launched in 2008. I bought my D700 in August 2008 and it will not be going into retirement or a new home. I see D700 and D800 working together and hopefully the low light capability of the D800 will match the D700. Then consider all the improvement in the D800 that members on this forum have been looking for since the D700 was launched. Dual cards, video (?), 100% viewfinder, more pixels (well some people seem to want them), faster on board processor, better and faster focusing etc.
I will wait until Nikonians get their hands on the D800 and see what their feedback will be in relation to low light capability. I expect to be surprised. I met a pro recently who now shoots only his new D7000 instead of his D3, which he says surpasses the quality he can get on his D3!! Not so sure that I would agree....
The Nikon D700 and D800 are indeed different cameras serving a different purpose at times when pushed to their limits. The D700, which I own, is an outstanding low light performer and will go down as a classic along with the D3/D3s model cameras.
The D800 is not a D700 on steroids as some have said. It is a different animal that provides results that can differ dramatically based on the challenge presented to it. Even within the D800 family there are variations with the D800E being offered as an alternative solution to photographic challenges. It is a powerful image capturing tool which compliments the existing models and offers an additional choice for those who may need/want it.
Sun 12-Feb-12 05:02 PM | edited Sun 12-Feb-12 05:38 PM by briantilley
I downloaded the files myself, and processed them the same way I process my D3s files. I can say with a fair degree of certainty, that processing these files to the same 3500 wide frame, the D800 is cleaner than my D3s at each ISO I just tested it at. And I went as far as ISO 12,800.
Now, if I had to use the D800 at it's full resolution, I have no doubt the D3s would be cleaner. But I don't.
This is terrific news for me. I now only have to buy 1 D4, or I can bypass the D4 entirely and sell one of my D3s and keep the other. The one can finance the D800 with grip.
>Perrone, > >the D800 is cleaner than my D3s at each ISO >I just tested it at. And I went as far as ISO 12,800. > >Practical confirmation that my measured D800 PDR is actually >correct. >You can see the chart under Hot Topics at the top of my site. > >Regards, >Bill >
Again, with the caveat that I am NOT outputting at full resolution. But once I make the D3s and D800 match resolution, it's just as clean if not better.
If they put this sensor in a D4 body, I'm selling every nearly every other body I own. The images that are going to come from this Olympic games are going to be stunning. What I am REALLY curious to see is how many pros will be shooting the D800 with a grip instead of the traditional pro body.
I concur with the OP. The introduction of the D800 is a disappointment. It appears that the Nikon marketing department specified the camera specs and was the impetus for the D800. I was looking for a viable upgrade path from my already good D7000 to a new FX camera. I really didn't want to go with yesterday's (i.e., 3+ yrs. old, etc.) camera technology. What I was hoping for was a modest increase in resolution (i.e., from 12mps to 18 - 24mps). However, much more important to me, was that there be a significant step forward in low light capability. Unfortunately, this edition is not that step forward. The additional resolution is appreciated, but not at the expense of better low light capability. Moreover, 36mps is hardly necessary and, I think, is just a way for Nikon to pursue alleged superiority claims over Canon and other camera manufacturers. A more modest increase in resolution would have, I believe, been ample. What I really need, and hoped for, was better low light capability. Most of my photographs are taken indoors in average to below average lighting conditions. I cannot always use a flash. A better low light capability, with less noise at the higher ISO's, would have been wonderful. Hopefully, we will see such rationality implemented in the next Nikon DSLR iteration -- probably in 2015. I am not a real happy camper, Nikon.
I am confused....why all the hand wringing and angst over the D800 not being as good as the D700? Has anyone seen any evidence that the D700 is better in low light? Has even one hands on shooter on assignment, any expert measuring DR and the details of the files or any knowledgeable insider commented anything negative about the low light performance of the D800? I have not. The more credible the source, the most enthusiasm they have shown. For example, our own Bill Claff has measured the noise and DR of files already available and presented quite informative analysis and is much more optimistic than those who have not either used the camera or analyzed the files it produces. Other than 2 frames per second what possibly does a D700 do better than the D800? AF, no, it got the new D4 AF. Metering? No, it got the D4 91k sensor. Low IS0 DR? No contest. High ISO, closer to the D3s and D4 than D700. Res? Forget it... Can someone explain the anger over Nikon releasing a clearly superior camera for a moderate price? Stan St Petersburg Russia
I always seem like the old geezer after reading these limitation reports on cameras . They ramble on , only 4 FPS , two cards to store images , video , tethered displays . DX MP No WIFI . Not the highest ISO capability .
I will insert a CF card and a battery , set it to ISO 100 f8 put it on a mono pod and take photos . Edit them ...... I rarely go higher than 2000 iso
Simliar to a cellphone with the web , music , camera , touch screen , games . I push ON and talk to people .... Not interested in distractions .
Shooting in DX mode let's you use less of the sensor, yielding a smaller picture, and less pixels for your downsize. No advantage there in terms of noise that I can see, but some definite disadvantages.
>Thanks. I'm trying to figure out how best to use the camera >for sports, that is if I decide to keep my pre-order in place.
I'll be using mine for daytime sports as well.
>I think I'm confusing cropping, creating the equivalent of the >1.5 DX lens affect, and downsizing.
Cropping simply extracts a portion of the image to make a new image. Downsizing takes the ENTIRE image, and simply makes it smaller. Like shrinking your masterpiece photo to be displayed on an iphone. You wouldn't take a 5000x4000 sized image and put it on the internet for iphone viewing, you'd resize it to 1000x800 or something similar. Whereas if you cropped it, you'd just get a small 1000x800 box of what USED to be your image.
I am reading a lot of people complaining about high resolution and impact on noise and people wishing Nikon provided lower resolution camera with better low light performance.
My question is: If I do mainly JPEG shooting and will set up JPEG quality to something lower than max (ie instead of 7360 x 4912 have it set up for 4256 x 2832 for example), would than improve the low light/low noise performance)? So does Nikon effectively makes both groups happy if they set up their camera properly (low light vs high resolution groups)? Will D800 set up for smaller JPEG give a similar performance as lower resolution D4?
I realize many people should in RAW and this might not work for them...
about high resolution and impact on noise and people wishing Nikon provided lower resolution camera with better low light performance.
There is no strong relationship between photosite (pixel) size and noise per unit area (which is what really matters). Smaller noisy photosites covering the same sized area as larger less noisy photosites can have exactly the same dynamic range.
Smaller photosites (high resolution) is important to certain photographers and the D800 is certainly aimed towards them.
But smaller photosites don't come without a price. File are larger. There is more data to read out so frames per second drops. Softening due to diffraction occurs at lower f-numbers. Etc.
Many people would have preferred a different trade-off, and this is what I think you're hearing.
instead of 7360 x 4912 have it set up for 4256 x 2832 for example), would than improve the low light/low noise performance
Setting the D800 to capture less than the full FX sensor will sacrifice dynamic range. You would lose over 1 1/2 stops of dynamic range going to the size you indicated.
Thank you for the explanation. Ken Rockwell on his web seems to indicate that by downsampling in post processing, the noise get eliminated effectively the same as if you had a lower MP camera. So my question is:
1. Is his statement correct ? 2. By setting up camera at smaller JPEG size (ie 4256 x 2832), is it the same effect as if I was down sampling (resizing) in post processing in Photoshop or aperture.
If both these are correct, then D800 sounds like a winner and I do not understand why people complain about high MP/High noise as you can have the best of both worlds 1) low noise if you choose to downsample (used in low light situations) 2) high detail when you do need it (ie landscape pictures)...
under 11 February 2012, Saturday - D800 Changes the Game
Ken Rockwell: "Some people are afraid that the D800 won't look good at high ISOs. Au contraire, if you look at my Nikon D3X versus Nikon D3 ISO comparison, what common men seem to forget is that at a given ISO and print size, the two are the same! In fact, the noise is the same, while the D3X image still has more resolution at ISO 6,400. The D3X and its higher resolution wins big time over the D3 and D700, but at $8,000, Nikon can keep them.
Having more pixels allows you the choice of ultra-resolution for huge prints or crops, and when displayed at reasonable print or screen sizes, the natural downsampling gives the same noise advantage of having fewer, larger pixel wells. If you've got three times as many pixels, the noise cancels the same way it does when you have larger wells, so it's a non-issue. The D800 will work great at high ISOs!
While less experienced people might worry, the key here is that having more pixels than you need is a very good thing, because it gives you options. You can't shoot a D700 at 36 MP, but at the same ISO and resolution, the D800 ought to smoke the old D700."
Thank you for the explanation. Ken Rockwell on his web seems to indicate that by downsampling in post processing, the noise get eliminated effectively the same as if you had a lower MP camera. So my question is:
1. Is his statement correct ?
His statement is essentially correct but he is not careful about his choice of words and you have changed the meaning.
We sometimes "downsample" to make images from two cameras the same size for a fair comparison. Downsampling doesn't "cancel" noise but it does concentrate the signal and noise from multiple pixels into one. Signal concentrates faster than noise so combining pixels always makes for a higher quality combined pixel. What gives the pixel it's quality is how much light originally went into it, concentrated or not.
2. By setting up camera at smaller JPEG size (ie 4256 x 2832), is it the same effect as if I was down sampling (resizing) in post processing in Photoshop or aperture.
No! Your smaller pixels will not be the same quality as pixels of the same size that were "concentrated" from a larger area. Remember you collected less light to make the smaller JPEG pixel than the amount of light that got squeezed into the downsampled pixel.
Quote >Can someone explain the anger over Nikon releasing a clearly >superior camera for a moderate price? >Stan
Very simple, They are going to have to take a loss on their "perfectly good" camera (any brand) in order to upgrade. And, because the D800 is clearly superior, it will drive their used price down. Then there is also the problem of feeling inferior themselves by not getting the Latest/Greatest when their camera already fills there needs 100%.
Both my son and my son in law, when I sent them an email telling them that I had placed my D800 order, both sent me back emails asking who was going to get my D700. My son has my D300 and my son in law has my former D200. Don't tell them that there aren't advantages to the new D800!
By the way, my son in law operates a satellite truck up-link business and contracts with ESPN and other TV networks. He knows a little bit about the video business. He says that everyone in the business is talking about this camera and are anxious to get their hands on it. We have to realize that this camera opens a whole new market for Nikon, regardless of what we may think about it.
My sentiments exactly. Let's give it a break! Of course, if you were expecting some doubling of low light capability you can be disappointed. You can also be disappointed in the D4 that presents what appears to be a modest improvement in low light capability.
The day I receive my D800 (and I am very high on the list) I will immediately put a good lens on my D800 and do a side by side comparative test in low light conditions with my D700. I am sure a hundred others will do the same. Then we can whine if the results are poor. I doubt it.
I honestly think the AF and metering improvements will be very significant, not to mention the 36mgpxls and the video. But, hey, no camera is for everyone.
Please, none of that out the doorway, hand held, 20 minutes later, with a different lens stuff. Do your testing on the same TriPod, lens, lighting, remote shutter release, subject, and with as little time lapse as possible.
>How much better do these things have to get? Really, was >anybody thinking that the AF and metering were in need of >improvement on the D3S or the D700?
This is a tough one. The metering on my D3s is VERY good. The AF is too, but I am in that fringe group that could REALLY stand for it to improve.
Shooting college volleyball has got to be one of the toughest things I've ever done. And I've shot many, MANY sports and other subjects over my nearly 30 years at this. There is about 8/10 of a second of possession at this level of volleyball. Less for the pros. In 8/10 of a second, I have get on target, compose, get focus, and fire. All while looking through a 300/2.8 which gives me field of view about 2.5 players wide. If I am off an inch after swinging the camera nearly a foot I miss the shot. If the camera catches something high contrast adjacent to the player, I miss the shot. Oh, did I mention that correct exposure in my team's home gym is 1/800, F2.8, ISO 10,000? It is an absolute nightmare. I shot soccer on a field a few weeks ago at ISO 12,800, 1/640, F2.8 and was still half a stop short on my exposure.
So yes, improvements in focus are VERY welcome. As are metering improvements in those horrific conditions. Sometimes I think folks covering pro sports and who are able to shoot at 1/2000, ISO 400 forget what it's like on those high school and small college fields.
I have thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread to this point. Alas not in my budget so why worry, because it is fun.
It has the same shutter as the D700 which is loud, and for one of my ventures unacceptable, which is unfortunate.
Part of the announcement over the loud speaker is, ask the photographer to stand down during your test if your horse has an issue with cameras. Some of them do and it is usually the click of the shutter.
I have found shooting Dressage as a professional, as well as other sports on a casual basis, it is all about learning the sport and timing and has absolutely nothing to do with frames per second.
I know others have stated the above about timing your shots but I wanted to repeat it. In dressage you get one click and only one click. I get invited back to shoot events by following the rules and not machine gunning my shots taking a serious risk of spooking a horse.
And no a D3, D3s or D4 is not in my budget so please don't go to the quiet shutter mode of these fine bodies.
And yes I could use a higher ISO in some indoor arenas but the D700 does just fine for now.
The D800 has a quiet mode. You can also shoot from further away and crop more. High ISO samples at 6400 look a lot better to me. The advanced metering, AF accuracy and speed, 3D tracking, and face recognition will all help greatly when you encounter that Black Horse that has been oiled down.
>Michael, > >The D800 has a quiet mode. >You can also shoot from further away and crop more. >High ISO samples at 6400 look a lot better to me. >The advanced metering, AF accuracy and speed, 3D tracking, and >face recognition >will all help greatly when you encounter that Black Horse that >has been oiled down.
RRRoger, Ok, I am not liking you very much right now. (This might be a good thing) especially when it comes to achieving focus lock on that oiled down black horse.
>In dressage you get one click and >only one click. I get invited back to shoot events by >following the rules and not machine gunning my shots taking a >serious risk of spooking a horse.
You can only shoot one photo of each horse? So that means that if there are 16 horse/rider combos at an event, you will come home with 16 frames from the entire event? How long does each ride last? Is it just a few seconds, basically? If so, I could see one shot being a reasonable limit, especially if you're close enough that the horse can hear the click. But man, one shot of each horse...you could almost do that with a large format camera.
Not one click per test but one click at a time. Each test is 6-8 minutes in length. I shoot on average of 30 shots per test. The key is to not pull the shutter pardon the pun when the horse is close. The arena is 20m x 60m so there is room to work the ends and across.
RRRoger brought up some good points. In outdoor arenas I can shoot from farther back. Indoors I am limited of course. but some good points.
Tue 14-Feb-12 12:48 AM | edited Tue 14-Feb-12 12:50 AM by km6xz
It seems that Nikon has developed a new feature framework starting with the D7000 and now joined by the D800 and D4. Each has similar layout and features such as the Quiet mode, the button+command wheels for AF mode config, dual slots, ultra-low read noise at base ISO, dedicated video button, vertical grip mounted multi-selector, 100% VF and dozens of more characteristics that seem to be design minimums for new models. It is safe to predict that these will be features of the D400 as well.
Back to the question at hand, shutter noise. The D7000 and presumably the cameras in this discussion, in quiet mode is Q U I E T, very quiet. I shoot in ballet performances(among many other events) and the best company here, probably in the world, is the St Petersburg Ballet Company whose home base is the famous Mariinsky Theater. The wing balconies are close in to the stage as in all late 18th century Baroque extremely ornate theaters were. That restricted photography due to noise of cameras that in a hushed theater during a quiet passage in the orchestra pit sounding like a cell phone ringing in a funeral parlor. I had to shoot in dress rehearsals until I got my D7000 and showed in a demonstration that it was very quiet by sitting in a balcony rail seat and shooting. I figured the manager could notice even if quiet if I shot a series of shots so I pressed the button once only while the manager was not focused on me. She was at stage front and directed me to shoot to prove she could hear it and reject my request for special permit. I replied that I already had and came down to show her. I got a hand written permission sheet with 3 official stamps on it that gave me permission to shoot during live performances.
Having a 70-200 on camera, plus a Neoprene body glove (for cold protection of the battery mostly), in Quiet mode would never disturb a horse despite their acute hearing. The only horses I used to shoot, back when I was living in California were American Quarter Horses in Cutting competition and Halter events. Cutters are so focused on the targeted calf that they would ignore a gun shot. At least, my campaigned 3 Cutters ignored all distractions when competing. Halter horses grow up with flash cameras stuck in their faces, the same way a child beauty pageant entrant learns it is part of the job so they might feel distracted if there was no flash or loud click to assure them of normalcy.
It can be arranged...my day business is incoming tourism;>)
It also helps buying 8,000 tickets a year for clients...which is why I get to shoot in the Hermitage and Winter Palace before opening or in the evening after it closes. Same with Catherine Palace, the Grand Palace, the Russian Museum, St Isaac Cathedral, and lots more. I had proposed a Nikonian's event a year or so ago but apparently the foreign programs were all worked out farther in advance so nothing happened. We most provide shore excursions for cruise ship passengers arriving in St Petersburg but also Helsinki, Tallinn, Gdansk, Berlin, Stockholm, Copenhagen, Oslo and Riga, and soon to be in Odessa and Sevastopol on the Black Sea as well. If anyone is coming on a cruise ship to the Baltic, let me know, I can show you around some good sights with fewer visitors in the way or ones they never knew about. With the embarassment of riches in photo opportunities, I do not take advantage of them as much as I should, my most shot subjects are in dance clubs.....which reveals the real "beauty" of St Petersburg;>) On vacation or s special purpose trip, every opportunity is used to good advantage but living in it as a daily environment there is always a feeling that, "oh, next time" because there is little urgency to get things that are very familiar and commonplace even when they are unique and rare on any scale. Stan St Petersburg Russia
I've been reading a lot of these d800 threads and it's fascinating to see all of the predictions, condemnations, criticisms and complaints about features on a camera most members here have never seen.
One guy even asked how many will ship in the first batch from Nikon (300,136) and I especially enjoy the earthquake/tsunami damage and production impact assessments.
I believe they will ship 300,136 in the first batch, flooding the market, dropping the price by $500 within 13 days of launch. People will reject the camera due to its inferior qualities compared to the d700. Then after strange sores develop, the CDC will find the bodies are radioactive, introducing noise to the sensor and subjecting customers to the equivalent of 400 chest X-rays during a baketball game shoot, destroying sperm in male shooters and causing female shooters to have fertility problems and lose their hair.
And the ISO performance will prove only 1/2 percent better than the d700.
If you have a d700 and you think the d800 sucks, the only stat you have is frame rate.
B&h told me they have never seen such pre launch demand. The market is speaking louder and more clearly than the crystal ball-rubbing that's going on here.
My only concern with the d800 is whether I will get one before march 16. The local camera shop says shipping begins late feb. according to Nikon. The store lady said Nikon always lies about the ship date.
I can't wait to shoot some test shots of my kitty cat, brick walls and light bulbs. (I buy cameras for Pixel comparisons and chat forum ammo, not actual photography.)
I've owned the D200, d300 and D700 and none of those was a step back. During that time I have shed the dx lenses and invested in a nice batch of Nikon's best primes and zooms. I can't wait for this crappy, slow high res, hd video, stereo audio camera to arrive. Good riddance to the spectacular D700.
If you think the d800 sucks, good! Leaving fewer people in line ahead of me is aok.
You have to scroll down a bit to get to all of what he says. In brief, he says that the noise is similar to the D700/D3, but that the AF is noticeably faster than the D3S (which he has used extensively), and that the dynamic range of the D800 is better than that of the D3 or D3S. He also feels that the metering system is better, though he doesn't appear to have done anything like controlled tests.
Ridiculous! After seeing that, I think I want a PAIR of D800s... And I am going to put an 85/1.4 on order next month. Whhooooo MAN. I didn't know what I was missing with my 70-200, and I've been so jealous of the Canon guys with that 85/1.2...
Maybe I can sell a kidney or two and pay for all this.
Well guys: What can I say....Wow!! I really want to thank each and every on of you for your thoughts on this new camera. I'm really embarrassed to have to say this.....but......After reading what Scott Kelby and then Cliff Mountner had to say.......I'm selling my D700 and buying the D800!!! (Blush red!) Since wedding photography is my primary job and income, and sports is my passion (but no money), I think what Cliff had to say really nailed it for me. Yes, I admit it, I am a BIG Cliff Mountner follower. I really love his work, and follow him closely on KT. IF Cliff says this is "THE" primo DSLR camera for wedding shooters for the foreseeable future, then that's good enough for me. So, look for another D700 in the for sale section soon....
I can't imagine any D700 shooter being displeased with the D800.
4fps is still very fast and would not often make the difference between success and failure in most cases. Not a whole lot happens between one quarter second and the next. I get that may be the difference between a baseball approaching the bat and the ball hitting the bat.
It would be interesting to see a 2 second burst at 4fps and a 2 second burst at 10 fps. Shooting something like a baseball hit or a run up to a basketball net. Just to see how much difference there is in the shots.
I just hope my D800 arrives before March 16. I know the release said late march but the local camera shop says Nikon says late feb in the stores information.
>I get that may be the difference between a baseball approaching >the bat and the ball hitting the bat.
It's much more of a difference than that - a 100mph pitch will travel about 35 feet in 1/4 second. It will travel nearly 15 feet in 1/10th second, so some skill or luck is still needed to get that shot...
>>I get that may be the difference between a baseball >approaching >>the bat and the ball hitting the bat. > >It's much more of a difference than that - a 100mph pitch will >travel about 35 feet in 1/4 second. It will travel nearly 15 >feet in 1/10th second, so some skill or luck is still needed >to get that shot...
Yep. I work on this with timing and have fairly good success.
Dave, nice graphic. You need to add 14FPS on there too now.
When shooting baseball batter, I always try to capture ball hitting bat. I do it just about as well with my D3 as I used to do with my D100. Until we get up to movie frame rates, I think that timing is the most important factor, assuming lag time is minimal.
That graphic is very interesting. Thanks. I noticed all three cameras end up being even when the ball reaches the plate, and there are only incremental differences between the shots. Most of them being between plate and home.
Maybe that's not to scale, as some of the shots start before the pitch.
It almost looks like with any camera the baseball shooter would be better off taking one shot a split second or so after the pitch.
Fri 17-Feb-12 12:40 AM | edited Fri 17-Feb-12 12:48 AM by dm1dave
“Maybe that's not to scale, as some of the shots start before the pitch.”
You are looking at it in reverse. The pitchers mount is on the right side so the place where the balls are lined up is the first frame.
Still takes skill and timing but the higher frame rate can help.
One thing to remember is that for some things, like the basketball example you mentioned above, is not to think about the big movements as the frame rate will make little difference there. You need to think about the small differences such as the plays facial expression, closed eyes, arm/leg positions, location/visibility of the ball and other players blocking part of the scene. The high frame rates help to get that just right shot.
I shoot birds in flight where wing position, head position and a clear eye are very important. I can fill the buffer at 7 FPS and end up with 18 nice sharp shots. Normally two or three will have subtle differences that make them stand out from all of the rest. Many of those differences are impossible to predict or even see through the viewfinder.
Total speculation on my part, but I consider it a given the D400 will match D800/7000/V1 battery, 400/800 will match on grip, 400 will have improved AF, EXPEED3, and subsystem improvements of D800.
Will make for a compelling case for many to get a matched D800/D400 pairing just like the D700/D300 were so well matched as shooting companions.
Am still not sure about a D400 sensor, mp, or fps but these three features go hand in hand. D400 will almost surely be at least 5fps, probably at least 6fps though. and then more with the grip (good motivation to get the MB-D12 grip).
I also consider D400 will have to be DX camera, but I know many hope it will be FX. A DX sensor with Nikon D3S/D4 technology low light sensels would be ideal (but I doubt it somehow).
Quote>Total speculation on my part, but I consider it a given the >D400 will match D800/7000/V1 battery, 400/800 will match on >grip, 400 will have improved AF, EXPEED3, and subsystem >improvements of D800. >SteveK<Quote<< > Don't tell me that. Just stirs up the NAS. What am I going to do with 4 cameras?
I still use all my cameras. They have different purposes for me. When I need speed in camera and in post, I shoot the D2H. When I need a camera to go in harms way, I send in the D200. When I have to battle awful light and I need speed in the camera, the D3s. If I have to battle changing lights, it's the D7000 on AWB. The D2x gets used for a remote very often.
And then sometimes I shoot film...
If you buy good cameras to fill a need, then you don't need to keep tossing them. My needs have not changed, thus the cameras I bought to fill those needs are still viable. If you're still chasing performance because the technology just isn't there (like fast, low light cameras), then you keep chasing. Maybe by the D5 of D6, I'll have what I need for my environments.
I just looked at Cliff's blog about the D800. Yep, I'm fairly confident it will work for me, even at events. I was pleasantly surprised at the 6400ISO shot. His comments and example images about The D800's improved metering are exciting; I hope as reviews start to trickle out they report the same findings.
Of course I understand that I'm coming to this conclusion by looking at super downsized images for web viewing. And obviously his post processing skills are top tier and integral to the fantastic images he produces. Even so, I think the D800 is going turn out to be a very popular camera in the long run.
Nice Mike! What was your aperture for this shot? I really want that lens. My 85 1.8 is pretty good. But its not quite the same as the 1.4. I want the 85/1.4 and the 24/1.4 very badly. These are really the only two lenses that I think that I "need". I will have to get the 24 first since since already have the 85 1.8.
I have to say this particular thread of discussion has been a real learning curve for me. From low-light to highlights, D4 & D800 speculation, Bill's wonderful data sheets, Stan's Palace shoots (jealous)and Brian and Dave's baseball theories; Amazing! Thanks guys. The Nikonians website has some extremely knowledgeable members. Plus, the harmony that exists is there for all to see. Cheers! Richard.
Hello guys, i'm back on the site after 1 week,because my line was dead! I've been thru that tread,very interesting and instructional too...as usual... Personally,i'm not going to make the move to the D800 now.I'm still learning the D700,which i bought only last september! I'm not the guy to run after new technology and i really think that photographers make the camera,and not vice versa.there's always a way...just think of the old golden days of the FM's or the Minolta X-700 to name only a few. technology eases our life,that's sure but isn't a must. So guys,i leave you here and meet you in another forum. Regards Ned
Yesterday I pre-ordered my D800. Today I called back to Nikonians to see what people were saying (I've been away, sorry. Won't happen again) I was initially horrified at the comments, convinced that I had made a terrible mistake - but I continued to read the whole thread.
I really can't remember where I saw it now but yesterday I saw some really nice side by side comparisons at high ISO where the D800 clearly 'looked' cleaner and better than the D700. Is this also going to be better than my D3s? Don't know - maybe once naturally downsized.
So, from what I read the D800 out performs the D700 in all respects with the exception of FPS. I love the MP count - gives me options and saves me buying that longer lens. I usually only use 21 point dynamic AF (Since my D200 and maybe I can move on from this) but I am looking forward to seeing how this performs with the Face Recognition etc.
I will use this body for weddings and portraits. For my sports I will stick with my D3s - and eagerly await a D4s? with the D800 sensor.
The only question now, is do I sell the D700 with grip, like I intended, or do I hang on to it for a while?
Throughout your life advance daily, becoming more skillful than yesterday, more skillful than today. This is neverending. --Hagakure-- GreenNinja Photography
Quote>Yesterday I pre-ordered my D800. > >I really can't remember where I saw it now but yesterday I saw >some really nice side by side comparisons at high ISO where >the D800 clearly 'looked' cleaner and better than the D700. > >The only question now, is do I sell the D700 with grip, like I >intended, or do I hang on to it for a while?<Quote<<
You may have to wait a while for the D800. If you do not have a backup camera, keep the D700.
If you list it now, ask a reasonable price (what the D700 is worth to you). The price of D700 bodies is going to go up and down like a YoYo because at some point there will be a perceived flood on the market. However, this is a niche camera. I think price & demand will rebound as there are plenty of photographers waiting to "move up" or get a second camera.