The D800 has Landed!

[nobbylon]

and a lot of wedding photographers who carry 2. A lot lighter than carrying 2 D3's. I'll bet this 800 ends up doing a lot of weddings!

[Viktor Sebastian]

It´s probably the perfect body for Leica R glass...

[Harry Lime]

Where are my 14 stops of dynamic range?

Lost in a sea of pixels.

[rover]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

You guys are already set against the sensor in this camera without seeing results? why?

secretly they all can't stand anything larger than m4/3 sensors?

[dallard]

Nikon's pretty clever. They don't install an AA filter then charge you more for not installing it. The profits on the E are going to be sweet.

[Tim Gray]

Originally Posted by Spicy

I'd say that the D700 was just at the cusp of prosumer. The D800 is basically only "prosumer" because the D4 is going to cost almost twice as much. That's like saying a Lotus is a cheap car for poor people because Lamborghinis and Ferraris are 5x as much.

3k is a lot for an avid enthusiast...

Wasn't the D700 $3k when introduced? I would imagine the D800 will drop down in price in the future just like the D700 did. Nikon (or Canon) isn't keep introducing camera successors at the final price point of the predecessor. They're trying to maintain that price point zone.

[Benjamin Marks]

Ha. I'm with Michael on this. Deep breathing. They are just cameras. By way of a round-about comment: I have recently been trying to tweak a studio light setup -- lots of portraits with a Leica M9 at ISO 100. I have been very happy with the quality of the Leica files so far. I also have a D3 and have to say that my favorite photographs from the last three years consistently come from that camera (particularly portraits with the 105/2 DC – the color rendition out of the camera is perfect for what I do). However, the high-ISO capabilities of the D3 were what sold me on the beast. But I laugh at what I considered high ISO at the time. A usable, attractive ISO 1600? Luxury!

Rightly or wrongly, I think the collective gear-head mindset (of which I am as much afflicted as the next RFF'er) has come to expect miracles on a regular basis. I have to say, based on the specs, the D800 looks like a pretty impressive feat of engineering, particularly when compared to, say, the D200, just 6-7 years ago. Can anyone think of a comparable leap in absolute image quality (or capability) in a comparable 6 year period of film photography? I can’t. In 1985 I was shooting Tri-X in a Pentax K1000. In 1989, I was shooting Tri-X in a Pentax LX. In 1994 I was shooting Tri-X in a Nikon F4. Notice a trend? However in 2005, I was shooting with an Epson RD-1 and a Canon digi-Rebel. Now I am shooting with a D3 and an M9, and all the APS-C options for Leica glass (Ricoh, Sony NEX, Olympus Pens etc.), have better high ISO performance (by several stops) than my 2005 cameras. Just amazing.

BTW, for definitional purposes - I view "professional" prices as starting at $20K for digital medium format backs and/or the Leica S2. These are prices that only make sense for the very rich or working pros who can amortize the cost and write it off as a business expense. Most of the rest of us are balancing photography costs against other entertainment expenses in our lives. $3K? For a working adult with disposable income who is focused on photography rather than cars, stereos, musical instruments, or second homes it is not too much to contemplate spending on entertainment over a reasonable period of time. To make a spurious comparison: most folks in the US will spend more than that on their cell phone bills over the life of a durable piece of photo equipment. Or their cable bills. $3000 is $57.60 a week for a year. I bet most working grown-ups spend that much on gas or lunch in the course of a year. Hey, that Leica S2 is looking better and better . . . .


Edit: re: AA filter. The articles I have read say that the 800E will have "a weak" AA filter, rather than none. We'll see, I guess, when the thing actually hits the stores.

[dogberryjr]

I winced when I saw the announcement. There has been a lot of buzz about what the D800 would be (starting soon after the release of the D700, of course), but I'm pleased. The D800 will be the camera for many photographers out there, but it doesn't do anything that I want (need?), so my trusty D700 is in no danger of the dreaded upgrade. I'd love to have the D4's high ISO capabilities, but, damn, isn't 6400 pretty impressive already?

[BobYIL]

Concerning the filter on the 800E: (scroll down)


http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/mul...=7-11674-12304

[literiter]

I didn't by the D300 'cause I knew the D700 was going to come out. I'm glad I didn't buy the D700 because the new D800 is so great.

I think I'll wait on the D800 and see what the next one is like perhaps the D900E or even the D1000E. Then even Canon may get into the fray..................!

[ray*j*gun]

We have wealth of options and quality why complain? My D90 works just as well now as it did before. And its only a mere Dx.

[buzzardkid]

Odd one out: I'm gonna get me a D300 once everybody has jumped the bandwagon.

Ain't nothing wrong with that brilliant 'lowly' D300 in my book...

[boomguy57]

I have to say that the high-ISO thing has become more than an obsession...it's an absurdity. Like every other GAS-infected person out there, I drooled over the ISO capabilities of the D700 (and subsequently got one; 3.5 years later it's never let me down) when it was released. But at some point it just gets absurd. I sometimes get sucked into the clamor for more and more ISO power, until I return to film.

It's when I go back to shooting 400-800 speed film that I realize that ISO 25k or whatever we have now is totally unnecessary. The 6400 files on my D700 are usable, but what would I ever need that for? I capped the Auto ISO on the D700 at 3200. We are spoiled by this ever-increasing ISO ceiling. Who has ever been out shooting film and thought "man, I really wish I had brought that roll of ISO 51,600 with me"?

[rover]

Hey, don't knock it, we all need to be able to shoot in light that is sooo dark that we can't find the camera or see our subject.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by literiter

I didn't by the D300 'cause I knew the D700 was going to come out. I'm glad I didn't buy the D700 because the new D800 is so great.

I think I'll wait on the D800 and see what the next one is like perhaps the D900E or even the D1000E. Then even Canon may get into the fray..................!

Haha, sounds like you are not in need of a camera at all...

[Gary Briggs]

That guy that sounds like Ren Cockwell has a very diff take on all this....

[thirtyfivefifty]

Originally Posted by gavinlg

Haha what?

Like the af-d lenses that won't AF on the base model bodies?

Are you still stuck in 2008? I have to admit, the day Nikon took screw drive out of their lower models, I was thinking the same, "Where are the in-lens focusing lenses?" but guess what? They followed up! Big time over the years! A little reminder (zooms, a given and not need to be mentioned):

10.5G DX (Fish)
35/1.8G DX
40/2.8G DX (Micro)
84/3.5G DX (Micro)
24/1.4G
35/1.4G
50/1.8G
50/1.4G
85/1.8G
85/1.4G

Granted, they need to throw a nice "consumer" oriented wide prime in there and they are good to go. Canon JUST started releasing updates for the wide primes at 2.8 with a hefty price ($849? $799? Really?), which I'm not happy about. They turned all Hollywood and became obsessed with video development since they changed marketing strategy with the Canon EOS 5D Mark II.

[chris00nj]

Originally Posted by punkromance

Well, we're getting completely shafted in the UK. £2400 and £2700 respectively for the D800/E.

As an ex-D700 owner who wanted FF video but can't afford a D4, this release was such a disappointment. Not to mention the absurd focus on MP rather than ISO. I imagine there are more hobbyists shooting in the dark than there are ones needing to blow their photos of cats up to billboard size.

I guess the D700 ate into their D3 sales too much, stopping them from making the D800 a mini D4.

Lol!

I'm not up to date on the specs, but what was the difference between the D700 and D3 to justify the huge price difference?

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Gary Briggs

That guy that sounds like Ren Cockwell has a very diff take on all this....

Yep, he said "The D800E is for tweaks."

[Jamie Pillers]

Kent, I can see your new kit... D800 with three zooms, plus the Pentax Q for backup. :-)

[Frank Version Two]

Looks to me like there is now definitely room in the line-up for a low-light, high range, moderate resolution, compact camera for journalists and, umm, people like most of us.

It would be nice if Nikon made it ;-p

[gb hill]

Almost the same pixel's in a 24X36 frame as the Leica S2's 37.5 30X45. How many more pixel's are they gonna cram in there? I don't see Nikon or Canon ever going MF.

[drew.saunders]

Originally Posted by dallard

Nikon's pretty clever. They don't install an AA filter then charge you more for not installing it. The profits on the E are going to be sweet.

DPReview has a graphic explaining this:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond800/page3.asp

Both the 800 and 800E have filters, they just do different things.

[celluloidprop]

Originally Posted by boomguy57

It's when I go back to shooting 400-800 speed film that I realize that ISO 25k or whatever we have now is totally unnecessary. The 6400 files on my D700 are usable, but what would I ever need that for?

Action-freezing shutter-speed in low-ish light? Depth of field in low-ish light? A combination of the two? It's nice to not have to shoot at f/1.4 @ 1/30 sometimes.

I capped the Auto ISO on the D700 at 3200. We are spoiled by this ever-increasing ISO ceiling. Who has ever been out shooting film and thought "man, I really wish I had brought that roll of ISO 51,600 with me"?

When I shoot film, I find myself wishing for digital ISOs on a regular basis.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by celluloidprop

It's nice to not have to shoot at f/1.4 @ 1/30 sometimes.

Amen to that...