# D800 is finally here



## V8Beast (Feb 7, 2012)

I know lots of Canon fans were in denial of a 36 megapixel D800, but it looks like most of the rumored specs were 100% spot on. This is a Brazilian release translated to English, so it does read a little funny, but you can make out the specs nonetheless. 

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/02/06/nikon-d800-press-release.aspx/#more-32762

Come on Canon, I really don't want to switch, so please announce a 5D3 that can go head-to-head with this beastly Nikon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 7, 2012)

Hmmmm...

_"The D800 also employs 9 cross-type sensors fully functional when used with compatible NIKKOR lenses and teleconverters *aperture f / 8* or smaller."_


----------



## V8Beast (Feb 7, 2012)

I don't quite understand this part either, but something must have been lost in translation:



> The focus system uses 15 sensors of the type AF Crusaders for accuracy and the system also emphasizes human faces even when the viewfinder is used.



Does anyone have any idea what an "AF Crusader" is ?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 7, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> I don't quite understand this part either, but something must have been lost in translation:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are reading a Google Translation from Portugese which is translated from Japanese. Its a wonder you can make out anything at all.


----------



## V8Beast (Feb 7, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> You are reading a Google Translation from Portugese which is translated from Japanese. Its a wonder you can make out anything at all.



No kidding. I'm actually surprised how coherent most of the release was. I suppose it would make more sense to wait a couple of days for the English release, but what fun would that be?


----------



## BDD (Feb 7, 2012)

NO. Canon, please DO NOT turn the 5D3 into a D800!!! Not that it looks that way if the latest CR rumored specs are spot on or even close to being accurate. 

Now it's Canon's turn to make an announcement. Please give us a low light shooting (100-12,800 or 100-51,200 native ISO), moderate FPS (5-6 FPS), with the 1D-X's 61-pt AF system (or something "similar"...maybe with fewer pts). For the quoted asking price of $2700 USD. Make us happy!! (or some of us)


----------



## jrista (Feb 7, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Hmmmm...
> 
> _"The D800 also employs 9 cross-type sensors fully functional when used with compatible NIKKOR lenses and teleconverters *aperture f / 8* or smaller."_



HAH! Now thats a huge dig at Canon's 1D X if I ever saw one!  I'm curious how accurate they are though...LOT of light loss at f/8...


----------



## mkln (Feb 7, 2012)

wow.

just... wow.


----------



## macfly (Feb 7, 2012)

There's my new camera, but sure feels odd leaving Canon after 22 years.


----------



## te4o (Feb 7, 2012)

Well, now we need an EF-to-Nikon lens adapter : :'(P... why is this not available yet? Then everyone can just relax using all his/her dozens of white lenses on whatever system he/she desires...
Jokes aside, the DPReview read is quite painful... I wonder what will be the response from Canon


----------



## wtlloyd (Feb 7, 2012)

DPreview has it:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02/07/Nikon_D800_D800E_launch


----------



## V8Beast (Feb 7, 2012)

BDD said:


> Now it's Canon's turn to make an announcement. Please give us a low light shooting (100-12,800 or 100-51,200 native ISO), moderate FPS (5-6 FPS), with the 1D-X's 61-pt AF system (or something "similar"...maybe with fewer pts). For the quoted asking price of $2700 USD. Make us happy!! (or some of us)



Honestly, I wouldn't mind a camera like that, either, but if the 5D3 specs end up being similar to your wish list, Canon better have another high megapixel body up its sleeve that can compete with the D800. I see the D800 as a nice upgrade over my 1Ds3, as it has similar AF and FPS but with way more megapixels. A pop-up flash to control off-camera strobes is a nice perk as well. 

Now that Nikon has showed its hand, the 5D3 will have to be a substantial upgrade in the ISO department or the megapixel department compared to the 5D2. Merely upgrading to a 9-cross-type AF system while maintaining similar resolution, as some people have suggested, just isn't going to cut it.


----------



## V8Beast (Feb 7, 2012)

wtlloyd said:


> DPreview has it:
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02/07/Nikon_D800_D800E_launch



Holy f'n $hit. 

- 36 mp
- 51-point AF
- 15 cross-type points
- 9 cross-type points sensitive to f/8
- 4 to 6 FPS
- Dual card slots
- Weather sealing

And all this for $2,995? Good grief.


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 7, 2012)

I'm a little confused about the differences between this and the D700... The main point is the 36mp sensor. Don't both have 51 point AF, 15 cross (Crusader, ha) types, ISO 100-6400, Weather sealing?

The rest honestly sounds like marketing speak. "Better" this and "improved" that. Don't get me wrong 36mp is pretty incredible (if unnecessary), but I don't find the rest all that impressive.


----------



## CrimsonBlue (Feb 7, 2012)

*D800E*

The D800E (without antialiasing) version is the really interesting release!


----------



## V8Beast (Feb 7, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> I'm a little confused about the differences between this and the D700... The main point is the 36mp sensor. Don't both have 51 point AF, 15 cross (Crusader, ha) types, ISO 100-6400, Weather sealing?
> 
> The rest honestly sounds like marketing speak. "Better" this and "improved" that. Don't get me wrong 36mp is pretty incredible (if unnecessary), but I don't find the rest all that impressive.



Wow, you must have some pretty high standards. I take it Canon's going to have to come out with one heck of a 5D3 to impress you 

What I really like about the D800 is that it retains or slightly improves upon the virtues of the D700 (AF, FPS, weather sealing, etc.) while addressing its weak point (resolution). For my shooting needs, I dreamed of a camera that was a cross between a 5D2 and a D700. Nikon has delivered just that with the D800 while adding another 15 megapixels.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Feb 7, 2012)

I welcome the release of the D800 with those specs so Canon would have no more reason to hold out on any of the specs of the 5D3 or EOS-3D since the two remaining advantages of the 5D2 (resolution & video) have now been wiped out. And no more apologists encouraging Canon to just use xxD-type 9pt all-cross type or even just 7D-type 19-pt all-cross AF.


----------



## V8Beast (Feb 7, 2012)

Mark D5 TEAM II said:


> I wonder what the Nikon "12MP is enough" crowd would be saying now. ;D



On the Nikon forums, the "12 mp is enough" crowd is actually pretty pissed about the 36 mp sensor. If the 5D3 ends up being a baby 1Dx, they'll probably switch to Canon


----------



## vuilang (Feb 7, 2012)

Can Anyone confirm about the AF in video mode for Nikon D800?.. i read n re-read 2,3 times but doesnt see any thing. It doesnt seems to support AF in video mode??


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Feb 7, 2012)

I kinda sympathized with the good Nikon folks when they were stuck at 12MP on what, 9 or 10 models IIRC. BTW, 7D pixel density == ~46MP on FF, so Canon can one-up this D800 if they want to.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 7, 2012)

Mark D5 TEAM II said:


> I kinda sympathized with the good Nikon folks when they were stuck at 12MP on what, 9 or 10 models IIRC. BTW, 7D pixel density == ~46MP on FF, so Canon can one-up this D800 if they want to.



yeah at 7D IQ i would not be impressed i would much rather 1D4 pixel density at FF = 27MP this would most likely be able to keep extremely high clean iso too

46MP would be fine if they get the IQ right but i cant see it happening


----------



## CrimsonBlue (Feb 7, 2012)

I'm a little surprised that there is as much dissent in the Nikon camp. I guess they can always dial down the resolution on the camera, but overall it looks really solid. If I didn't already have so much glass that wasn't available in Nikon form, I'd seriously consider this camera.


----------



## jseliger (Feb 7, 2012)

CrimsonBlue said:


> I'm a little surprised that there is as much dissent in the Nikon camp. I guess they can always dial down the resolution on the camera, but overall it looks really solid. If I didn't already have so much glass that wasn't available in Nikon form, I'd seriously consider this camera.



How many people out there really need more than ~20 megapixels of resolution? I mean, unless you're making wall-sized prints, what's the use, especially given the file and pixel size trade-offs involved? We'll see what the reviewers think of the image quality when the street models hit, but I can't see much utility *for most people* in all these megapixels.


----------



## TexPhoto (Feb 7, 2012)

Looks cool. Hope the 5D3 is better.


----------



## BDD (Feb 7, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> BDD said:
> 
> 
> > Now it's Canon's turn to make an announcement. Please give us a low light shooting (100-12,800 or 100-51,200 native ISO), moderate FPS (5-6 FPS), with the 1D-X's 61-pt AF system (or something "similar"...maybe with fewer pts). For the quoted asking price of $2700 USD. Make us happy!! (or some of us)
> ...



I believe CR mentioned something about "Cinema EOS" DSLRs. Maybe those will have a lot of MP. I really hope Canon sticks to the latest rumored specs mentioned here for the upcoming 5D3. I was actually considering the D800 but now that the D800 has been announced and we know the confirmed specs...I now know it's not for me. So I hope Canon delivers what I want in the 5D3 (or "5D-X"). Giving us a low-light moderate FPS shooter with maybe the 1D-X 61-pt AF system for sports and photojournalism.

Now we wait for the 5D3 announcement...better be this month...


----------



## V8Beast (Feb 7, 2012)

jseliger said:


> How many people out there really need more than 20 megapixels of resolution?



Given the popularity of the 5D2, I'd say a lot of people need 20-plus megapixels. Or at least they think they do


----------



## jseliger (Feb 7, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> jseliger said:
> 
> 
> > How many people out there really need more than 20 megapixels of resolution?
> ...



That's fair: I should've written ~20 megapixels; I'll go back and edit that section.


----------



## Ricku (Feb 7, 2012)

Question is.. Will we see a 5D3 without antialiasing?

I'd buy it.


----------



## RedEye (Feb 7, 2012)

Ricku said:


> Question is.. Will we see a 5D3 without antialiasing?
> 
> I'd buy it.



Me too, that would be fitting for new L series lens purchases.


----------



## torger (Feb 7, 2012)

The specs for the D800 is exactly what I'd like (I like to shoot landscapes) but I guess as a Canon user I'm at least a generation away from getting that high resolution. I don't plan to switch brands though ;-).


----------



## MyPhotographer (Feb 7, 2012)

See http://cameraelectronic.blogspot.com.au/ for a post from a local Pro Camera supplier.

Now to see if the 5D Mk III comes out with the magical 39 Mpx


----------



## hoousi (Feb 7, 2012)

The sample images are crazy, I'm just wondering how the average Joe like me will convince his wife that the D800 is better if all she does is cry out loud that she can see every little pimple or freckle on her face. My wife just said that she only accepts portraits of her in summer with make-up if I point the 85L with 5dmkii on her...... ;D


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 7, 2012)

hoousi said:


> The sample images are crazy, I'm just wondering how the average Joe like me will convince his wife that the D800 is better if all she does is cry out loud that she can see every little pimple or freckle on her face. My wife just said that she only accepts portraits of her in summer with make-up if I point the 85L with 5dmkii on her...... ;D



Get a 135 soft focus


----------



## bornshooter (Feb 7, 2012)

macfly said:


> There's my new camera, but sure feels odd leaving Canon after 22 years.


are you being serious?so you aren't even going to wait to see canons response before jumping ship and you say you have used canon for 22 years i do not believe you!


----------



## Bobster (Feb 7, 2012)

I've been reading all these comments about how Canon shouldn't introduce features on a 5D/7D replacement that would cut into the sales of the 1DX (ie you can't have both resolution and IQ AND quality AF), but from what I'm seeing here, Nikon don't seem that bothered by such issues.
If I'm reading this right, the D800 has 36mp against the D4s 16.2 and they both have the 51 point AF system.
I can see that the D4 has other improvements (such as the maximum 11 fps as opposed to the D800s 5 fps), but it looks like they're not holding back much on the features on this one.
Does Canon always have to split its cameras to appeal to markets such as one for the sports/wildlife section and the other for studios/weddings/landscapes?
To me, a good all rounder (which is what I think the D800 is) would appeal to everyone (more sales).
Just some thoughts.


----------



## kirillica (Feb 7, 2012)

stock photographers will be happy: they need more megapixels 

c'mon, Canon, do smth for stockers too!


----------



## CJRodgers (Feb 7, 2012)

The sample video looks great. I wonder if moire for video will be a problem with the way theyre sampling from the sensor? Any one know if its a potential problem? Also i read something on dpreview.

"If you want to know the prime reason for such a high resolution sensor, here it is: Videographers can shoot full HD with DX lenses as well as FX. This gives the D800 a versatility in video that nothing else can match"

Is that true?


----------



## Bob_McBob (Feb 7, 2012)

The D800 is the benchmark by which we will measure Canon's failings with the 5D Mark III.

9 point autofocus, anyone? Bring on the Canon apologists.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Feb 7, 2012)

I've had a look at the sample photos Nikon put up on their website - per pixel sharpness isn't at all impressive but the amount of detail you get to work with is staggering, even on the "regular" D800. I'd probably go for the D800E, myself, even though I can imagine I'd run into moire a good bit it should be reasonably simple to just downsample and wipe it out.

Their sole ISO 640 image (from the D800) has a fair amount of noise visible in the shadow area, don't know if ETTR would help that (although the "original data size" suggests to me that it could've been bumped up in exposure a good amount) but it's a pleasing type of noise distribution, and I didn't see any noise in the subject areas. Good detail on small patterns too.

Not a bad release so far, looks like! Hope the 5D3 can catch up, but we keep hearing it'll be a "low mp" release.


----------



## torger (Feb 7, 2012)

Edwin Herdman said:


> per pixel sharpness isn't at all impressive



I think we need RAW files to evaluate that, jpeg compression (even if mild) does soften the files some. But one will surely notice the somewhat reduced sharpness in corners of the lenses with this pixel density. Still this is exactly the type sensor I'd like to see in a Canon camera too...


----------



## nicku (Feb 7, 2012)

kirillica said:


> stock photographers will be happy: they need more megapixels
> 
> c'mon, Canon, do smth for stockers too!



Exactly  in stock more megapixels is better. 

I hpe canon will came with an APS-H (1D4) extended at FF, a 27 MP sensor with 1Dmk4 ISO performance will ''destroy'' the new D800.


----------



## caruser (Feb 7, 2012)

I'm a happy 5D2 owner, but now it feels like I'm in the wrong camp!

More pixels, more video, and most importantly: much more AF!

5DX, where are you, I don't want to change system for the AF.


----------



## kirillica (Feb 7, 2012)

Astro said:


> yeah and they are to cheap to buy the right tool for the job.
> if you need MF quality you better buy a MF camera.
> 
> if you don´t make enough money to buy a MF camera for your job you obviously doing something wrong.
> ...


MF is a whole another world. for example, Hassel has only 1 focusing point with true focus and you cannot do series with focus shift and etc. So pro photographers require FF body functionality with near to MF picture quality. If Hassel does the same good job Canon/Nikon done with speed, focus and etc, then switching to MF will be massive.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Feb 7, 2012)

kirillica said:


> MF is a whole another world. for example, Hassel has only 1 focusing point with true focus and you cannot do series with focus shift and etc. So pro photographers require FF body functionality with near to MF picture quality. If Hassel does the same good job Canon/Nikon done with speed, focus and etc, then switching to MF will be massive.



there are other MF cameras then hasselblads.....


----------



## kirillica (Feb 7, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> kirillica said:
> 
> 
> > MF is a whole another world. for example, Hassel has only 1 focusing point with true focus and you cannot do series with focus shift and etc. So pro photographers require FF body functionality with near to MF picture quality. If Hassel does the same good job Canon/Nikon done with speed, focus and etc, then switching to MF will be massive.
> ...


Sure. And there are another FF cameras besides Canon. So what?  We are talking about market leaders, not niche players


----------



## Astro (Feb 7, 2012)

kirillica said:


> MF is a whole another world. for example, Hassel has only 1 focusing point with true focus and you cannot do series with focus shift and etc. So pro photographers require FF body functionality with near to MF picture quality. If Hassel does the same good job Canon/Nikon done with speed, focus and etc, then switching to MF will be massive.



well... people here in this forum say they need more MP because they are "landscape" or "studio" shooter.
ok... but why needs a landscape shooter faster AF or 51 AF points?

im not a studios shooter but i know a few.
they are all very happy with one AF point and they don´t care about ultra fast AF either.
it´s not as if their motives are running away.


----------



## kirillica (Feb 7, 2012)

Astro said:


> kirillica said:
> 
> 
> > MF is a whole another world. for example, Hassel has only 1 focusing point with true focus and you cannot do series with focus shift and etc. So pro photographers require FF body functionality with near to MF picture quality. If Hassel does the same good job Canon/Nikon done with speed, focus and etc, then switching to MF will be massive.
> ...


I'm studio shooter and I'm sometimes frustrated with this old-century 9 AF my camera has  from other hand, 1Ds3 is overpriced.


----------



## Astro (Feb 7, 2012)

caruser said:


> And, pray, what should I compare it with? The wishlists for the 5DX/5D3 that people post here?



you don´t compare a 1980 ford with todays ford or hondas?

i for sure do not complain that i bought the wrong car back in 1980 because today there are better cars.




> I'm a happy 5D2 owner, but now it feels like I'm in the wrong camp!
> 
> More pixels, more video, and most importantly: much more AF!


 
what a suprise after 3 years of development in the camera biz....


----------



## torger (Feb 7, 2012)

Concerning medium format vs 35mm and landscape photography; Digital medium format systems cost a lot more than 35mm systems. The 35mm has so far been under-utilized concerning resolution, it could be much closer to medium format than it has been. Many landscape photographers are of the hiking type and use 35mm despite lower resolution since medium format is just too bulky. On every professional landscape photographer there is probably 1000 serious amateurs that sell a picture now and then but don't make a living from it, and simply cannot afford a medium format technical view camera with Rodenstock lenses and a Phase One IQ160 even if that is "the best tool".

That is --- there is certainly a niche to fill with a high res 35mm system, and Nikon just filled it.


----------



## weixing (Feb 7, 2012)

Hi,
36MP... 75MB RAW file... storage manufacturer must be very happy now... more high capacity card and hard disk sales...  

My 2TB hard disk free space is already running out at a very fast rate with my 18MP only 60D and I only shoot on weekends (mostly photos and some video), can't image how large the hard disk I'll need if I had a 36MP digital camera.  

Have a nice day.


----------



## Astro (Feb 7, 2012)

torger said:


> On every professional landscape photographer there is probably *1000 serious amateurs that sell a picture now and then but don't make a living from it*, and simply cannot afford a medium format technical view camera with Rodenstock lenses and a Phase One IQ160 even if that is "the best tool".



that´s the point they don´t NEED it... they just want it. for pixel peeping.
nothing wrong with that!

but that´s not what people tell you here!
most *sound* if they absolutely need 36 MP or more because they are doing 2.4mx1.2m prints every day. or at least they regularly sell stock images that are printed at billboard size.

on the other side are the "i crop like crazy" people.
ok i get that it´s nice to crop for wildlife shoots.
but i bet most who talk about this don´t NEED it either.

there is a small percentage of PRO photographer who may NEED this to sell more.
but you normaly don´t see them 7/24 on internet forums. 
i doubt they have enough spare time to waste it on forums, discussing about camera gear. 

i have time, im sitting here in my office with not much to do and i get payed for that..... LOL.


----------



## torger (Feb 7, 2012)

Astro said:


> that´s the point they don´t NEED it...



That argument works all the way down to a mobile phone camera, so it is kind of meaningless. You don't need 16 bit audio either, 8 bit is almost just as good, etc. Take whatever and you can say that you really can satisfy with less.

But -- a quality wall-mounted print of a landscape view you can make use of 36 megapixels on as small as A3+. 360 ppi is visibly better than 200. Walk up close and see all the details and get that wow-feeling, that it is not just a fine composition it is also executed with excellent technique and materials. Some of us like producing the best quality we can. Do you need that quality difference? I generally print larger, but even for A3+ I'd prefer maxing out the printer.


----------



## zim (Feb 7, 2012)

Bottom line, sales will decide who is right Canon or Nikon.
For me looks like Nikon have just stompt all over Canon and the non is 24-70 is just like salt in the wound. I don’t have a lot of money invested in Canon (although I did once with the F1) but I have been considering upgrading back to FF from a 500D. The spec of D800 is for me the perfect camera. The real problem I have with Canon right now is that it looks like everything they are doing is reactive (perceived) and I don’t think that’s a good place for the company to be. So why don’t I just jump and be done with it well one word, glass. So I’ll wait, if nothing else it’s fun watching this play out and it’s not like I can’t take any pictures in the meantime.

Round 1 to Nikon


----------



## Maui5150 (Feb 7, 2012)

Well. It is an interesting camera for sure.

Will be curious to see how the 36MP plays out in the market. Those are large images... and pretty much cuts storage cards in half, etc. Definitely for some the MP leap is a great improvement.

I think comparing it to the 5D MKII is a little folly, as both the 5D MK II is not only two years old versus a just released camera, but the D800 is also for all intent and purposes 50% more expensive a camera. Better AF and resolution for sure, but will be interested in seeing the ISO comparison. Not really a biggie for me, as I tend to shoot 800 and lower, but still, for the price and 2 years worth of technology, I would expect a much stronger camera

In the end, I hope this pushes Canon a bit. Competition is great for the market. Looks like a sweet camera. Congrats to those who have been waiting, and in the end if Canon does respond in kind with greater gains in their new product releases as well, then we all win.


----------



## Gothmoth (Feb 7, 2012)

torger said:


> Astro said:
> 
> 
> > that´s the point they don´t NEED it...
> ...



you read the link someone posted here about the G10 vs. hasselblad 39MP on A3 print size?

nobody could tell what is G10 and what is hasselbald from that print size.
and that are experts in the field.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml




> The Results
> 
> In every case no one could reliably tell the difference between 13X19" prints shot with the $40,000 Hasselblad and Phase One 39 Megapixel back, and the new $500 Canon G10. In the end no one got more than 60% right, and overall the split was about 50 / 50, with no clear differentiator. In other words, no better than chance.
> 
> ...



now compare 21 MP vs. 36 MP images from DSLR cameras on A3 print size.

and for billboard sized prints.. even my not so small house is big enough to mount more then 2 or 3 of them.


----------



## kirillica (Feb 7, 2012)

Gothmoth said:


> you read the link someone posted here about the G10 vs. hasselblad 39MP on A3 print size?
> 
> nobody could tell what is G10 and what is hasselbald from that print size.
> and that are experts in the field.
> ...


Good point, but real life is full of "BUT's". One of them is: price for 20Mp+ size sold is significantly higher than 20Mp-. And people buying them do check quality with 1:1 reso, no just on A2 prints, because, yes, they may use it someday to make house-wide prints: one picture should satisfy all possible needs.


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 7, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a little confused about the differences between this and the D700... The main point is the 36mp sensor. Don't both have 51 point AF, 15 cross (Crusader, ha) types, ISO 100-6400, Weather sealing?
> ...



Not really. I'm impressed by 36mp for a technological standpoint. But I'm not drooling over it in regards to photography. Honestly I'd buy a 5DIII that was exactly like the 5DII but with better AF system. Not even a 61 point system. I'd take 9 spread out cross type sensors. Done. High standards? Please, I'd say mine are lower than most.


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 7, 2012)

Gothmoth said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > Not really. I'm impressed by 36mp for a technological standpoint. But I'm not drooling over it in regards to photography.
> ...



Yeah, hardly ever. Call me crazy I guess...


----------



## WarStreet (Feb 7, 2012)

So, we read from Nikon and Canon users being either satisfied or not for the D800 and rumored 5DIII specs. Since these cameras have exchanged their roles, unfortunately some users will be unsatisfied, but we still have to appreciate that these cameras have great value when we compare them to the previous generation high-end cameras.

How many will prefer the D800 from the 1DsIII, with a higher resolution, Nikon's best AF with f8 focusing, 4 fps, and possibly with a good noise and DR capabilities, 100% viewfinder, dual cards, 200K shutter, and high end video? The same goes for the rumored 5DIII, not far away from the great D3s with Canon's best AF, 6.9/7.5 fps, and an expected similar noise capability but with a better resolving power. Ok, they are not as durable like the big cameras, but when we add the price, size and weight factor, I am impressed with the technology improvements and the value for money. Now, I just wish that the 5DIII rumored specs are true and officially announced, so that I can click that pre-order button ;D


----------



## Picsfor (Feb 7, 2012)

ghosh9691 said:


> 10% of photographers will take a long hard look at the D800. These are pros and they will evaluate, test and retest before coming to a judgement. Some will buy it because it meets a need, others will let it pass. Another 10% are the serious amateurs - they will also evaluate, maybe rent it and try it out and then make a decision on whether to buy it or not. Some will, some won't. The next 10% are those that think their supreme talents are limited by their current camera. They will enthusiastically go out and buy the D800, take some more mediocre photos and then sit around the fireplace telling people how to photograph things and why the D800 limits their talents. Out of the remaining 70%, half the people will read everything about the D800, will perhaps contribute on various forums, and then quietly go do their photography with minimum fuss with their current camera gear. The remainder will rave and rant on every forum, insult disbelievers and generally be a nuisance to forum administrators every where. They will never hold a D800 in their hands let alone buy one, but will still want their opinions heard in a most disagreeable manner!
> 
> Bottom line: Some folks will find the D800 exactly meets their needs, others will let it pass and hang on to their current gear...but everyone will get much amusement from the 30% riff-raff that are out on the forums abusing other folks



Nope, not at all.

I comment cos i want to get a 1Dx for free - even if it's only under my name on this forum  :


----------



## lbloom (Feb 7, 2012)

Am I the only person that wasn't very impressed by the D800 sample images?


----------



## ghosh9691 (Feb 7, 2012)

lbloom said:


> Am I the only person that wasn't very impressed by the D800 sample images?



There are many who aren't! But keep in mind, they have only released low ISO images, the highest being ISO640. At ISO640, you can already see fine grained noise at 100%. It's not very distracting but wonder what it would look at ISO1600. If you look at the 1DX sample images, even at ISO1600 the noise is not distinguishable. Same for the Nikon D4 - no noise at higher ISO speeds. In addition, I noticed that the image corners are not very sharp - definitely running into some lens performance issues there!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 7, 2012)

ghosh9691 said:


> ...you can already see fine grained noise at 100%. ... If you look at the 1DX sample images, even at ISO1600 the noise is not distinguishable. Same for the Nikon D4 - no noise at higher ISO speeds.



Now...downsample those 36 MP images to 16-18 MP and see how the noise compares - otherwise, it's an unfair comparison, just like all those folks who complain that their new 7D is noisier than the old 40D, and they're comparing at 100%.


----------



## torger (Feb 7, 2012)

Gothmoth said:


> you read the link someone posted here about the G10 vs. hasselblad 39MP on A3 print size?



Yes. The differences may be considered small, and even if they are fairly large it is easy to make mistake in comparison, just like with any quality parameter. In this case especially if you're not allowed to walk close-by.

You can do the same type of tests to demonstrate that you don't need better ISO performance or better DR. So we can stop camera development at G10 .

I do prints myself, at many different resolutions. I look at them, both from a distance and up close. The value of resolution differs depending on subject. Some compositions invites close inspection of details, some don't. I do appreciate the fine nuances in quality though, that makes me pay lots of money for my lenses too, and really, differing between a low quality and high quality lens in a real picture is much harder than resolution.


----------



## altenae (Feb 7, 2012)

> Now...downsample those 36 MP images to 16-18 MP and see how the noise compares



Why buy a 36MP camera and downsample this to 16/18 mp...

36 MP way to many........


----------



## Astro (Feb 7, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Now...downsample those 36 MP images to 16-18 MP and see how the noise compares - otherwise, it's an unfair comparison, just like all those folks who complain that their new 7D is noisier than the old 40D, and they're comparing at 100%.



what does downsampling offer when im a wildlife photog who wants to crop?
or when i need billboard sized prints?

i mean that´s what the MP junkies tell all the time is the reason why they need more then 22 MP.

who is buying a 36MP camera to downsample images so they have the same quality as a 6 year old camera?

nonsense....


----------



## Astro (Feb 7, 2012)

lbloom said:


> Am I the only person that wasn't very impressed by the D800 sample images?



nope.. the landscape images i saw are not impressiv. neither detail or noise wise.


----------



## ghosh9691 (Feb 7, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> ghosh9691 said:
> 
> 
> > ...you can already see fine grained noise at 100%. ... If you look at the 1DX sample images, even at ISO1600 the noise is not distinguishable. Same for the Nikon D4 - no noise at higher ISO speeds.
> ...



Yes, you are correct. However, I was not making a comparison - just stating an observation that the D800 image at ISO640 taken by itself at 100% shows noise that is distinguishable. Not more or less than any other camera, but noise just by itself.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Feb 7, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Now...downsample those 36 MP images to 16-18 MP and see how the noise compares - otherwise, it's an unfair comparison, just like all those folks who complain that their new 7D is noisier than the old 40D, and they're comparing at 100%.



i prefer to UPSAMPLE images from a 1D X to 36 MP.

honest the D800 sample img_05_l.jpg does not impress me a bit at iso 320.

http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/img/sample01/img_05_l.jpg


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 7, 2012)

I'm sure its a fine camera, and having a choice is good. If all cameras were identical, we would only need one model.

Nikon was obviously hurt by criticism of the low pixel count of their bodies, and stated three years ago that they would not be giving so much weight to high ISO in the future. 

I'd not be afraid of it, and it offers some really nice features for a reasonable price. Its all about selling lenses, of course, thats where the profit is in DSLR's.


----------



## kbmelb (Feb 7, 2012)

To me the D800 is fools gold. It is relying heavily on scaling down to hide the limiting factors of a 36MP and it sacrifices a lot for the MP crown. I personally was very proud of Canon when they announced the 1Dx. At 18MP the DLA being a sweet spot of f/11 seemed genius to me. I shoot 5DII and 1DsII and I actually prefer the file size of the latter. Under ISO 800 the IQ is comparable.

As a shooter of 5DII I can really see the effects of diffraction at f/16. It's nothing to cry about but it is there. The landscape shot Nikon posted at ISO320 and f/8 looks to have a moderate+ level of sharpening to it and at the focal point still doesn't look sharp which I would suspect to be a diffraction issue.

As far as large prints go, the original 5D made for some astonishing 30x20 prints. I'm going to say, once printed, that the difference between the 36 and 18, 21 or 22MP (or whatever 5DIII will be) is going to be fairly indistinguishable. I might even guess the 18MP will best them all.

In the end for me, I will not be jumping ship to Nikon. I will be weighing the pros of the 1Dx and 5DIII(x) and as of right now without seeing the the new 5D I'm leaning to 1Dx for what I expect to be amazing IQ 18MP. If the AF on the new 5D is what I want and it doesn't go over 24MP I'll probably end up with it based on price.


----------



## Cropper (Feb 7, 2012)

Well the D800 seems to have a lot of the features that I would like to see in a 5D III, but doubt that Canon will indulge us with (good AF with f8 sensitive point !!!! ; a crop mode, for ex.). 

Hope Canon goes high resolution on the next 5D (30MP with a 1.6x crop mode with faster FPS would be really nice).
By now they should be able to bump the resolution and still improve high ISO quality and DR. 

Regardless of what Canon does I think Nikon has got a winner here.


----------



## altenae (Feb 7, 2012)

> Hope Canon goes high resolution on the next 5D (30MP with a 1.6x crop mode with faster FPS would be really nice).



I hope not.
21 MP on FF is enough..
Beter noise and dynamic range is what I need (and most others to I guess)

Unbelievable..


----------



## Canon-F1 (Feb 7, 2012)

Cropper said:


> Hope Canon goes high resolution on the next 5D (30MP with a 1.6x crop mode with faster FPS would be really nice).



what are you talking about?
in camera cropping?

if you talk about EF-S lenses.. forget it.


----------



## torger (Feb 7, 2012)

With 36 megapixels you can say you get into medium format territory. In is a low cost alternative to those that would like to have medium format but cannot afford it, or for those that can afford the 135 system is more versatile.

Concerning if 36 megapixels is "too much" "diffraction limited" etc, it is the exact same problem with medium format, and it have reached 80 megapixels so far.

You must have another mindset, with low res cameras you think it is kind of an error if the sensor is not setting the resolution limit. With higher resolution there are many other factors that come into play. You need to plan your DOF even for landscape pictures, you can often not expect that 100% of the picture is 100% sharp, but if you plan right the most important things are. Tilt-shift lenses should gain popularity from higher resolution, when you can plan your DOF just like large format view cameras. In shallow dof (people, fashion etc) photography the diffraction is a non-issue of course, but lens resolving power may become more of an issue.

An important feature the D800 lacks though as I see it is the mRAW and sRAW formats that Canon has. I want to shoot RAW 100% of the time, but if I shoot hand-held low light etc ~12 megapixels is suitable, I cannot hand-hold 36-megapixel-sharp (without flash). With high megapixel count a reduced RAW format makes the product much more all-around.


----------



## Cropper (Feb 7, 2012)

@Canon-F1 :

In camera cropping would allow to extend the range of telephoto lenses, and also increase the frame rate if needed. 
As someone who can't afford an EF 800mm F5.6, this would be a very appreciated feature, and should be very easily done (the D800 has it) !

@altenae :

If high ISO and DR improvement is not compromised why not more resolution ?

But It's a matter of "_different strokes for different folks_" I guess.


----------



## torger (Feb 7, 2012)

Cropper said:


> If high ISO and DR improvement is not compromised why not more resolution ?



High ISO and DR is compromised. But the compromise only becomes really significant above ISO6400 (at ISO100 the DR could even be better on the higher resolution camera).

So if you need to shoot ISO12800 - 51200 a high res sensor is with current technology bad for you. But on the other hand I don't think Canon or Nikon will let that kind of ISO performance drizzle down from their flagship models, so if you need that kind of ISO performance you will have to go for D4 or 1DX.

If you rarely feel the need to go above ISO6400, small pixels won't hurt you much. You'd probably use one of the binned RAW formats at that ISO if your sensor had 36 megapixels. It is a mystery to me why Nikon did not include binned RAW formats on the D800...


----------



## macfly (Feb 7, 2012)

Canon has made a huge misstep on this, and given away the lead they fought for and won back in 1991 when I traded my then new Nikon F4 for the far superior Canon EOS1n. IMHO Nikon (with Sony's help) have finally reclaimed the top stop, and Canon has given away a twenty year lead.

All those people whining about a camera having too many pixels, just buy the one with the right amount for you, but for those of us who want more, live and let live. Why should we be limited by your desire for mediocrity? 

For those of us who want ultimate quality, this post from the Sony rumor site is wonderful news - http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr4-sony-about-to-release-organic-sensors-in-2013-100-megapixel-sensors-for-2013-2014/


----------



## Canon-F1 (Feb 7, 2012)

Cropper said:


> @Canon-F1 :
> 
> In camera cropping would allow to extend the range of telephoto lenses, and also increase the frame rate if needed.
> As someone who can't afford an EF 800mm F5.6, this would be a very appreciated feature, and should be very easily done (the D800 has it) !



it´s nothing other then cropping in post. 

you mix things up here. 
you can´t use EF-S lenses on a canon FF body.. it´s not working as with nikon FF bodys and DX lenses.

so in camera cropping makes not much sense for canon.


----------



## Meh (Feb 7, 2012)

Cropper said:


> In camera cropping would allow to extend the range of telephoto lenses



Really, how so? Crop sensors are said to give extended range but that is because generally they have higher pixel density than contemporary FF therefore there are more pixels on subject when you are focal length limited... i.e. when you can not fill your frame with the longest focal length you have available. This is not true for a "crop mode" on a FF sensor.


----------



## Meh (Feb 7, 2012)

macfly said:


> Canon has made a huge misstep on this, and given away the lead they fought for and won back in 1991 when I traded my then new Nikon F4 for the far superior Canon EOS1n. IMHO Nikon (with Sony's help) have finally reclaimed the top stop, and Canon has given away a twenty year lead.
> 
> All those people whining about a camera having too many pixels, just buy the one with the right amount for you, but for those of us who want more, live and let live. Why should we be limited by your desire for mediocrity?
> 
> For those of us who want ultimate quality, this post from the Sony rumor site is wonderful news - http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr4-sony-about-to-release-organic-sensors-in-2013-100-megapixel-sensors-for-2013-2014/



To be fair, they haven't made any mis-step yet. The 1DX competes with the D4 not the D800. Now that the D800 is official, will Canon announce a new FF with 30+ MP? Time will tell.


----------



## Meh (Feb 7, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> macfly said:
> 
> 
> > All those people whining about a camera having too many pixels, just buy the one with the right amount for you, but for those of us who want more, live and let live. Why should we be limited by your desire for mediocrity?
> ...



Ouch but then again macfly did refer to anyone who's work doesn't require higher MP as mediocre while in the same breath suggesting we all live and let live. Practice what you preach?


----------



## Cropper (Feb 7, 2012)

@Meh :

If is still true if you have enough resolution. 30+MP should be enough to have a decent pixel density in a 1.3 or even 1.6 crop mode. Besides I don't see this feature as nothing more than an useful extra option. And a simple one to add ! 

Besides it would probably be the only way to get a fast frame rate !


----------



## Meh (Feb 7, 2012)

Cropper said:


> @Meh :
> 
> If is still true if you have enough resolution. 30+MP should be enough to have a decent pixel density in a 1.3 or even 1.6 crop mode. Besides I don't see this feature as nothing more than an extra option. And a simple one to add !



It is not true that a crop mode will "extend the reach" of a lens.... a crop sensor "extends the reach" of lenses if the crop sensor has higher pixel density than a FF sensor. In other words, for a given FF sensor the "reach" is the same whether you are in FF or crop mode. The benefits of Nikon's crop mode are smaller file size and faster frames per second.


----------



## Astro (Feb 7, 2012)

Cropper said:


> @Meh :
> 
> If is still true if you have enough resolution. 30+MP should be enough to have a decent pixel density in a 1.3 or even 1.6 crop mode. Besides I don't see this feature as nothing more than an useful extra option. And a simple one to add !
> 
> Besides it would probably be the only way to get a fast frame rate !



you can crop in photoshop and that´s the same.
your missing the point here.. and that´s the difference between a FF and a APS-C sensor.


----------



## RedEye (Feb 7, 2012)

lbloom said:


> Am I the only person that wasn't very impressed by the D800 sample images?



They're awesome, lets not be silly. Kinda like would you accept a free handout of 1 Billion pennies? Of course any rational person would. Might not come in the form we were expecting or think we want, but the fact is the benefits of all the new features are simply amazing and will be useful to all.


----------



## Kernuak (Feb 7, 2012)

lbloom said:


> Am I the only person that wasn't very impressed by the D800 sample images?



I'm impressed by the portrait images, but not the landscapes, although some of that is down to choices made by the photographers.


----------



## kubelik (Feb 7, 2012)

Kernuak said:


> lbloom said:
> 
> 
> > Am I the only person that wasn't very impressed by the D800 sample images?
> ...



I'm just amused they were scared to shoot anything over ISO 100 for the most part. yes, there's the ISO 640 image in there, but you gotta admit, that's pretty timid.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 7, 2012)

Meh said:


> Cropper said:
> 
> 
> > @Meh :
> ...


there is 1 more benefit tho this technology that people are overlooking and that is the crop mode will meter the scene differently than shooting full frame then cropping in post. It also aids composition to have WYSIWYG


----------



## arioch82 (Feb 8, 2012)

no one has mentioned the in-camera hdr... I'm only an amateur but i think it would be an incredible handy feature in some situations, at least for normal people like me looking to jump to a fullframe camera from a rebel 

I really hope canon will offer it in the 5d successor


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 8, 2012)

arioch82 said:


> no one has mentioned the in-camera hdr... I'm only an amateur but i think it would be an incredible handy feature in some situations, at least for normal people like me looking to jump to a fullframe camera from a rebel
> 
> I really hope canon will offer it in the 5d successor



its jpg only, any in camera post processing is not going to give you anything comparible to what you can achieve in post using the raw files. in camera HDR is 100% gimmick unfortunately. i would rather use the cameras processor to achieve the cleanest Raw files possible. I mean that is the whole proint in shooting with DSLR cameras to shoot in RAW and have complete control. God forbid they implement some sort fo gaudy in camera tone mapping too  that is a scary thought. They could make it a new scene selection mode and call it Fine Art mode...


----------



## Emeyerphoto (Feb 8, 2012)

I don't know where it was mentioned, but isn't the 36mp limited by the quality of the lenses? I believe there is a physical limit by which a digital sensor and lens can handle before diffraction is introduced? This is the reason why medium format cameras have a larger sensor and lenses that cost $3k because they are geared to handle the large amount of light necessary to utilize the MP.

It will still be interesting to see what Canon comes out with. Call me crazy, but I probably won't buy the newest 5dMk3 or whatever, because of budget, would rather buy the 5dMk2 and save some $ then go broke.

Thank you,


----------

