Nikon D800

[PBelarge]

I am surprised to see that no one yet seems to have posted about Nikon's new body, so I will.

I shoot Canon, and like I am to my hometown, I am loyal.

I primarily shoot the 5DII/24-70 for landscape, architecture and some abstracts -although I have other lenses and bodies.

When I first read the specs for this camera, I was pretty impressed and somewhat envious...I know it is not the camera it is the photographer. Yet I still love to hold/touch my equipment, all of it.

As I have read the other threads, it is funny how as each day passes, people either love it or are finding a tarnish here or there. I am now very curious to see what happens when some get their hands on it and start shooting.
A couple of links - there are plenty to find.

http://www.nikon.com/news/2012/0207_dslr_01.htm

http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Produc...5480/D800.html

[Colin Southern]

I am surprised to see that no one yet seems to have posted about Nikon's new body, so I will.

I shoot Canon, and like I am to my hometown, I am loyal.

I primarily shoot the 5DII/24-70 for landscape, architecture and some abstracts -although I have other lenses and bodies.

When I first read the specs for this camera, I was pretty impressed and somewhat envious...I know it is not the camera it is the photographer. Yet I still love to hold/touch my equipment, all of it.

As I have read the other threads, it is funny how as each day passes, people either love it or are finding a tarnish here or there. I am now very curious to see what happens when some get their hands on it and start shooting.
A couple of links - there are plenty to find.

http://www.nikon.com/news/2012/0207_dslr_01.htm

http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Produc...5480/D800.html

You're about 3 days too late

Attn: Nikon Fans - Nikon D800 and D800E Just announced

[darkslide]

I'm a Nikon man - always have been. I make no bones about it, it just sort of started that way and I didn't see any reason to change.

As to the D800 I'm sure I'd love to 'own' one, but I frankly don't think it would make me a better photographer. I'm not convinced by this constant chasing around after megapixels - my D700 seems to churn out perfectly acceptable rubbish to me.
(I mean, the images are technically superb, just lacking in every other way...)

This said, I'm not decrying the evolution - just questioning the need, for the average amateur photographer.

[Colin Southern]

I'm not convinced by this constant chasing around after megapixels

Frankly, I was pretty surprised by what they put into it MP wise - what I can't figure out is just what people are going to do with them all. Shoot distant wildlife with a wide angle lens and then just crop? Seriously, I suspect that it may just start to cost them sales of longer focal length lenses.

[herbert]

The new Nikon cameras have made me think that there is something more to this than just Nikon. It seems to be driven by Sony. First there was the D7000 with the 16 MP Sony sensor. The best crop sensor out there at the moment so a good move by Nikon to get it.

Next the D4 with the use of proprietary Sony QXD memory cards. A lot of pros will be annoyed that they cannot just use their existing 120 Gb or whatever of compact flash (although the second slot is CF they will have to buy QXD cards for data redundancy while shooting).

Now the D800 with another Sony sensor who are seriously driving the mega pixel race. If they took the 24mp sensor from the NEX 7 to full frame it would be 50MP.

I wonder what Nikon are doing for Sony? Perhaps they are giving them in camera tech for noise reduction or helping with lenses. Sony's weak point is the lenses. Only Zeiss are making good glass for them, and they even auto focus unlike the Zeiss Lenses for Nikon and Canon.

Perhaps we will see Sony get a bit of class for their next generation cameras from Nikon. The d7000 is better than the equivalent Sony. I think this is everything from ergonomics to the lack of semi-translucent mirror technology. When I went to my local camera shop I was unimpressed by the Sony camera. The electronic viewfinder was poor and the ergonomics felt all wrong for the button layout.

Maybe Nikon and Sony trading tech is in the infancy but in the long run I hope that it produces some good cameras. I would not like to see them incumbent by administration and the desire to pursue dead ends. Sony have some history of techno politics with betamax, mini discs, Sony flash cards, and blu ray all springing to mind.

I hope Sony's drive of the megapixel race will not prove to be Nikon's undoing.

Alex

[Andrew1]

36MP for more depth in the results and the ability to blow them up big-time along with 10 frames per second isn't what 95% of us are going to utilize more than an occasional opportunity. Is this just their engineering group trying to outdo the competitors as is usual in the electronic market? Push technology to create a demand? Personally I think this is an attempt to address the high end commercial shooters to keep them from going back to medium format cameras which are drastically dropping in price. Within a year or so the previously $30,000.00 MF cameras will be under 10K. That puts them back in the professionally affordable range.

My 2 cents.

[Colin Southern]

Is this just their engineering group trying to outdo the competitors as is usual in the electronic market? Push technology to create a demand?

Seems like it - but what amuses me is that sensor design is always a compromise; crank up the pixels and you also crank up noise and reduce dynamic range. If one "has the technology" (and clearly they do), then why not keep the pixels at a level that's more than enough for most folks (geez, even 8MP was fine!), and give folks better DR & high-ISO performance?

[darkslide]

Megapixels aside, there is one VERY good thing with the D800 - a 100% viewfinder, at last!

Sorry guys (and I have no idea what it's like with Canon) but having a 95% viewfinder in a 'machine' as sophisticated as the D700 is just ridiculous - and it bugs me as I prefer printing whole neg.

It bugs me but it's sadly not enough to make me trade in for a D800!!

Another 2c....

[Colin Southern]

Sorry guys (and I have no idea what it's like with Canon) but having a 95% viewfinder in a 'machine' as sophisticated as the D700 is just ridiculous

Canon are typically 100% for 1D series, and typically around 95% for other models.

[herbert]

The 7D has a 100% viewfinder with a 1x magnification ratio. This means that with a 50mm prime you can see through the viewfinder (almost) exactly what you see with your other open eye. Nice for compositions.

The step up from the rebel viewfinder is significant. You can eliminate those little glitches from your composition at the edge of your frame. The 5D is a 98% viewfinder. The next model may address this.

There is a lot about the new Nikon that is very impressive. It doesn't accept EF mount lenses though.

Alex

[darkslide]

It doesn't accept EF mount lenses though.

This is true - but it does take any lens manufactured from as far back as the late sixties...one advantage of keeping the same lens mount

[krispix]

Megapixels aside, there is one VERY good thing with the D800 - a 100% viewfinder, at last!

Sorry guys (and I have no idea what it's like with Canon) but having a 95% viewfinder in a 'machine' as sophisticated as the D700 is just ridiculous - and it bugs me as I prefer printing whole neg.

It bugs me but it's sadly not enough to make me trade in for a D800!!

Another 2c....

Just jumped back with my time-machine. 1964 Nikon F is the only camera that offers 100% viewfinder. The reason given by other manufacturers for their + 95% views is that when you mount a slide in a frame you lose a small percentage of the image. It's always been my view that this is a poor excuse and it was a sad day when Nikon decided to follow the herd, especially since this is now an irrelevance in today's digital world. So, welcome back to the real world with the D800

[aeras]

Hi ,
I am using nikon gear since 1979. I own a lot of pro spec glass and I was waiting for a FX digital camera form nikon. the D700 was "low" in megapixel the D3X super expensive as is now the D4. So I ordered the D800.
I think though that I was too hasty in my decision. What about diffraction limitation. The newer pixel size of the D800 is roughly about 1.7 times smaller than that of the D700 . So far I have seen image samples taken with the D800 at wide open apertures but what happens as we approach the F11 or F16 , and what about landscaping ? I will get the D800 (since I already paid for it ) but are we getting a higher resolutions with less detail ?

[IanCD]

Hi ,
I am using nikon gear since 1979. I own a lot of pro spec glass and I was waiting for a FX digital camera form nikon. the D700 was "low" in megapixel the D3X super expensive as is now the D4. So I ordered the D800.
I think though that I was too hasty in my decision. What about diffraction limitation. The newer Sensor of the D800 is roughly about 1.7 times smaller than that of the D700 . So far I have seen image samples taken with the D800 at wide open apertures but what happens as we approach the F11 or F16 , and what about landscaping ? I will get the D800 (since I already paid for it ) but are we getting a higher resolutions with less detail ?

Might be worth checking out this thread at Photozone - see, particularly, Wim's posts (#19 and #44). Although I don't grasp the technical detail, I think the brief summary re 'higher resolution + less detail?' is that's not the case.
Ian

[darkslide]

1964 Nikon F is the only camera that offers 100% viewfinder.

Not in fact true. The F and the F2 were both 100% viewfinder coverage, as is the D3 - I can't speak for the cameras in-between though.

[herbert]

Sure you will get diffraction. The real question is will it matter?

Given a point light source shining through a hole, the light actually bends a bit at the edges and so the light beam spreads into a cone. This is diffraction. Diffraction is worse when the hole is smaller. However it is not made worse when the resolution of your sensor is better. The difference is that you will be able to see the cone better as is spreads out over the smaller pixels.

So even though the diffraction limited aperture is much lower, the final quality of your image should be the same or better with a higher resolution sensor. E.G. You could just bin the pixels (2x2) together to make an 8+ MP image instead.

What you must not do is compare the crispness of the image at 100% between the D700 and D800. The D700 will be crisper. (At least for images with a spatial frequency that fits the pixel pitch of the sensor, for most images it may not matter). But the D800 will have more detail. You just may have to apply different sharpening to get the best out of the image.

Where the D800 will be much better is downsizing the image to a lower resolution. The additional pixel detail from the extra pixels will greatly help the interpolation used to downsize. I think a downsized image from a D700 will look worse, even after optimal sharpening.

However the truth will be in the real world experience when the camera is out. For now I would stay on the waiting list.

Alex

[aeras]

thank you Ian , I am reading it right now

[aeras]

However it is not made worse when the resolution of your sensor is better. The difference is that you will be able to see the cone better as is spreads out over the smaller pixels.

So even though the diffraction limited aperture is much lower, the final quality of your image should be the same or better with a higher resolution sensor
Alex

So , there is no limit at to how high can we go in Full Frame ?. I thing that the lens will be out resolved by the cameras sensor. In the end just getting more empty info. Just a thought.

[herbert]

So , there is no limit at to how high can we go in Full Frame ?. I thing that the lens will be out resolved by the cameras sensor. In the end just getting more empty info. Just a thought.

That can only be judged on a lens by lens basis. However the top lenses will be OK, at least up to 50MP. The density of a current Canon crop camera (18MP) is about 46MP full frame. There are lenses that are fine with this density. This is in the centre of the frame. At the edge the lenses may fall short. But we will only know when the sensor is out and can be tested.

Interestingly this was the thing I did notice about the test images from the D800. The indoor 'landscapy' shots taken with the 14-24 lacked great detail at the pixel level at the edges. The shots were done at f8 so only just inside the diffraction limit. So either the focus was off or more probably (given this was a benchmark test piece shot) a case of the greatest wide angle zoom lens in the world meeting its match with a 36MP sensor.

Alex

[aeras]

All the images (except maybe one ) presented by nikon on their site regarding the D800 are shot at F8. coincidence ? diffraction limit ? optimum aperture for given lens ? what can I say ?
Looking at the one with the jewels with the 70-200 at f10 at full resolution reminds me of some bugs shots that you see all that small small hairs and pores and stuff ...., like a microscope
what makes me sad is that probably I will have to ditch my 80-200 f2.8 and 35-70 f2.8 that I love ! and get the newer corrected lenses.
The only way to judge diffraction limitation regarding the D800 is to run some tests the moment I have it.