# D800?



## PDP (Jan 15, 2012)

How many are thinking of upgrading to the D800 when it arrives (assuming the rumored spec is correct)?


----------



## Patrice (Jan 15, 2012)

Not me.


----------



## ann (Jan 15, 2012)

nope, and i am hoping the 36mp is urban myth for sure.


----------



## SCraig (Jan 15, 2012)

You should have added a "Maybe" choice to your poll.

I might, I haven't decided yet.  I don't really want an FX camera but having 36mp would be nice.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 15, 2012)

I was going to.. but ordered a D4 instead!


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 15, 2012)

I'm hoping for an 18mp sensor, 5fps, good high ISO noise, similar D4 video features, and sub 3k.


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Jan 15, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> I was going to.. *but ordered a D4 instead!*



Yes you did and I am still jealous of you!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 15, 2012)

Nikon_Josh said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > I was going to.. *but ordered a D4 instead!*
> ...



Well... I will send you a picture of it! Just don't drool too much! lol!  

I am looking forward to it!


----------



## Trever1t (Jan 15, 2012)

Yes, I need a back up equal to or better than the D700...hoping I'm not let down with the D800. Don't care about video, don't need it, just hoping for better DR, high ISO


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jan 15, 2012)

I'll stick with my D700 for now, but will eventually upgrade to the D3s or D800.  I voted no, since I'm not in the 'Can't wait' camp.


----------



## xyphoto (Jan 15, 2012)

While most D700 owners would tell you that they do not have a plan to upgrade, the truth is that they will be very tempted to be the first few to own it when D800 comes out. I could be one of them.

But who came up with the model D800? Was there a D600 before? It could very well be D700s or D900.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 15, 2012)

I merely waiting for the dust to settle twixt the D4/d800 brouhaha.   If zillions of people jump onto the D4/D800 bandwagon, I should be able to snag a good used D3 or D700 fairly cheap.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 15, 2012)

xyphoto said:


> While most D700 owners would tell you that they do not have a plan to upgrade, the truth is that they will be very tempted to be the first few to own it when D800 comes out. I could be one of them.
> 
> But who came up with the model D800? Was there a D600 before? It could very well be D700s or D900.



and would it really matter?  Ever heard of Thom Hogan.. major pro with MAJOR Nikon ties..  he says D800 for one!


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Jan 15, 2012)

Trever1t said:


> Don't care about video, don't need it, just hoping for better DR, high ISO



Good luck on no video.  The accountants at Nikon are demanding that every DSLR they make from now on be capable of HD video, just so the Best Buy customers don't think that Canon is "better".

The D800 will be 36MP, low FPS and much lower ISO capabilities than the D4.

And, in response to your poll, PDP, I'm not buying the D800.  However, I am going to buy a gently used D700 from someone who is!


----------



## ann (Jan 15, 2012)

I do have a d700 and still have no intention of up grading. Have no interest in video and 36mp reeks of too much pixel density. Something has to go at some point.

Marketing has too much say these days! IMHO


----------



## DorkSterr (Jan 15, 2012)

Yes. If its NOT 36MP.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 15, 2012)

What D800?


----------



## spacefuzz (Jan 15, 2012)

Tempting, I really want a 14-24 so will end up getting a D800 or something used.


----------



## JyuRoku (Jan 18, 2012)

Should the value of the D700 fall once the D800 is released? I sure hope so.


----------



## BlairWright (Jan 18, 2012)

No but I did order a couple of D4's.


----------



## Patrice (Jan 18, 2012)

spacefuzz said:


> Tempting, I really want a 14-24 so will end up getting a D800 or something used.




I can almost guarantee that the images you produce with a real 14-24 nikon zoom will be better than those coming out of a camera that only exists in the rumor mills. Get the lens.


----------



## skieur (Jan 18, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> > Don't care about video, don't need it, just hoping for better DR, high ISO
> ...



The Sony A99 will be a better bet for those that do video as well as photography with full time phase detection autofocus and Zeiss lenses.

skieur


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 18, 2012)

skieur said:


> jamesbjenkins said:
> 
> 
> > Trever1t said:
> ...



That is only an opinion... and impossible to substantiate. Especially since the D800 is not even out yet, and we have no idea what it's capabilities will be.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jan 18, 2012)

If the new stuff is "all that and a must have" my D700 will be a backup body and my D80 will be for sale.


----------



## skieur (Jan 18, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > jamesbjenkins said:
> ...



No it isn't.  Full time phase detection autofocus is not possible in the D800 unless they copy the Sony A99 technology which is not very likely.

skieur


----------



## MLeeK (Jan 18, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> I was going to.. but ordered a D4 instead!


OH, Charlie! I am a bit on the jealous side! LOL!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 18, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > I was going to.. but ordered a D4 instead!
> ...



It should be nice! Of course, who knows when it will be delivered! lol! I also ordered a 85mm 1.4 for it also.. Nikon. Really looking forward to pairing those up!


----------



## argieramos (Jan 18, 2012)

ann said:
			
		

> I do have a d700 and still have no intention of up grading. Have no interest in video and 36mp reeks of too much pixel density. Something has to go at some point.
> 
> Marketing has too much say these days! IMHO



16mp DX sensor has the pixel density same as the 36mp FX if we use the sensor size as a reference.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 18, 2012)

I was going to... but the rumors seem "reasonably confirmed" that it will be 36 MP... so for the moment I have ordered the D4.  If the D800 winds up being significantly different than advertised there is a CHANCE I'll cancel my D4 and go D800.. We'll see.


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Jan 18, 2012)

skieur said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



Sorry, is this thread about Sony??? Or are you trolling for a reason Skieur???


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Jan 19, 2012)

ann said:


> I do have a d700 and still have no intention of up grading. Have no interest in video and 36mp reeks of too much pixel density. Something has to go at some point.
> 
> Marketing has too much say these days! IMHO



So you are saying the D7000's pixel density is too much too?


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Jan 19, 2012)

And even if you realise that the noise performance is not as good, you could always downsize (post and bicubic) it 16.2 megapixel to get the same noise performance as D4 if the technology in both sensors are at the same level.


----------



## baturn (Jan 19, 2012)

i voted "no" because I don't aspire to full frame.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 19, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:
			
		

> And even if you realise that the noise performance is not as good, you could always downsize (post and bicubic) it 16.2 megapixel to get the same noise performance as D4 if the technology in both sensors are at the same level.



That's not going to happen unless the individual sensors (pixels) are the same size and have ample breathing room for heat dissipation and such.  Given the 3x count in sensors I highly doubt it.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Jan 19, 2012)

manaheim said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hmm.... Good point. Maybe someone should do a test when both of them are out.


----------



## molested_cow (Jan 19, 2012)

I'm waiting for the rumored D900.


----------



## pashabelman (Jan 19, 2012)

I think we just might upgrade....


----------



## manaheim (Jan 19, 2012)

molested_cow said:


> I'm waiting for the rumored D900.



  You may be waiting a long time.


----------



## Rosy (Jan 19, 2012)

congrats, please share your images


----------



## greybeard (Jan 20, 2012)

It really depends on the features the D800 brings to the table.  36MP?  I will believe it when I see it.  If Nikon does come out with a FF 36MP body having the kind of low light, low noise, and high ISO capabilities we have come to expect from Nikon, I will be all over it.


----------



## BlairWright (Jan 20, 2012)

Why are you all knocking 36MP?


----------



## greybeard (Jan 20, 2012)

argieramos said:


> ann said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Help me out here, I'm no mathematician so I'm thinking that a 16mp DX sensor has a crop factor of 1.5.  To calculate focal length equivalence you multiply the DX focal length x 1.5 (right).  Wouldn't you multiply 16 x 1.5 to calculate the pixel density for a FF sensor with the same pixel density as a DX 16 mp sensor?  1.5x16=24  Is my logic to simplistic?


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Jan 20, 2012)

greybeard said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> > ann said:
> ...



Nope, 16.2 megapixels times 1.5 square = 16.2 megapixels x 2.25 = 36 megapixels.


----------



## greybeard (Jan 20, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > argieramos said:
> ...



I figured that I needed to square something somewhere in my calculations.  So you are saying that if Nikon can pull off 16.2 in a DX format then 36 in a FX should be no problem.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Jan 20, 2012)

greybeard said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > greybeard said:
> ...



Yes that is what I am trying to say.


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Jan 20, 2012)

BlairWright said:


> Why are you all knocking 36MP?



Because with all due respect Blair...:thumbup:

It may well have average low light performance due to an over crammed sensor, it may suffer from diffraction issues, it will take up huge amounts of space on peoples memory cards and hard drives when shooting RAW, 36MP could potentially out resolve many lenses, camera shake will be more visible in photos potentially. 

Why they can't go to something like 24MP?? I really don't know. 24MP will offer great high resolution images while remaining a reasonable amount of pixels. Yes I know, 36MP on FX is the same density as 16MP on DX. But who needs 36MP apart from studio and pro landscape photographers? I think 36MP makes the D800 a studio camera that is also being marketed to consumers? This is where this whole episode becomes confusing to me. I guess, Nikon are trying to steal Canons 5D Mark II market back a bit.

Nonetheless, It will be interesting to see the detail levels produced by the D800. At the same time, I am hoping this love session with Sony will not begin to hinder Nikon. 36MP seems to be overkill, I don't think Nikon needs to go the heavy marketing based route that Sony always take things with higher and higher megapixel figures. 

And before Skieur comes on here, thinking I am flaming Sony. For once, I am not flaming Sony at all! I may dislike the company that is Sony, but Sony are doing amazing things with sensor production. Nikon then take the sensor and develop it more to get optimum performance, Pentax did the same with the K5 sensor.


----------



## greybeard (Jan 20, 2012)

Nikon_Josh said:


> BlairWright said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you all knocking 36MP?
> ...


One thing for sure, it would be a total waste to use anything other than the very best glass.


----------



## Heitz (Jan 20, 2012)

I'm probably wrong here, but I thought that the 36MP stuff was because they were going to use the Foveon system?  i.e., 3 sensors, 1 for each channel?  Which would be 3 12MP sensors, each of which would not be 'crammed'.  Has no one else heard this?


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Jan 20, 2012)

Heitz said:


> I'm probably wrong here, but I thought that the 36MP stuff was because they were going to use the Foveon system?  i.e., 3 sensors, 1 for each channel?  Which would be 3 12MP sensors, each of which would not be 'crammed'.  Has no one else heard this?



Not that I have heard myself, but would be interesting if Nikon did do that. I haven't heard of Sony are developing anything like this??


----------



## greybeard (Jan 20, 2012)

I have can't see Nikon putting out anything that doesn't work well in low light.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 20, 2012)

Heitz said:
			
		

> I'm probably wrong here, but I thought that the 36MP stuff was because they were going to use the Foveon system?  i.e., 3 sensors, 1 for each channel?  Which would be 3 12MP sensors, each of which would not be 'crammed'.  Has no one else heard this?



Never heard of this but if it's still 35mm size the surface area would still be the same and this still crammed, no?


----------



## KmH (Jan 20, 2012)

No, not really because the Foveon sensor pixels are essentially  stacked on top of each other.

Foveon X3 sensor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> It uses an array of photosites, each of which consists of three vertically stacked photodiodes, organized in a two-dimensional grid. Each of the three stacked photodiodes responds to different wavelengths of light, i.e., each has a different spectral sensitivity curve. This difference is due to that fact that different wavelengths of light penetrate silicon to different depths.[SUP][4][/SUP] The signals from the three photodiodes are then processed, resulting in data that provides the three additive primary colors, red, green, and blue.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 20, 2012)

Wow wild.


----------



## spicyTuna (Jan 20, 2012)

I was hoping the d800 would be the poor man's d4 using the same sensor because i would love to have the super low light capabilities of the d4. Perhaps the d700 took away too many sales from the d3. I think I'll wait for now.


----------



## Heitz (Jan 20, 2012)

Right KMH -- I was thinking that the whole '36MP' thing is sort of a marketing strategy.  Its really a 12MP image, but with 3 times the data because of independent channels. If that IS in fact what they plan on doing.


----------



## greybeard (Jan 20, 2012)

That doesn't make much sense, 12 mp resolution with 36 mp file size.  What would be the advantage of that?


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Jan 21, 2012)

greybeard said:


> That doesn't make much sense, 12 mp resolution with 36 mp file size.  What would be the advantage of that?



3 times better noise performance for red and blue channel and 1 time better noise performance for green channel.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jan 21, 2012)

Was told that my D700 is beyond economical repair yesterday. I'll be calling State Farm as soon as they open again after the snow to let them know and advance the claim I made last week. Considering that I barely shoot digital to begin with nowadays, I think I can wait till next month to see when it's announced.  

I probably wouldn't pay $3500 straight out for it...but considering insurance is involved, it will be a cheap upgrade.

The difference between 12 and 36MP is pretty big. I'll enjoy printing 20x30's with minimal enlargement of the file. What i'm REALLY hoping for is the long exposure performance. I mostly use digital for night time exposures...I'd hate for them to be compromised with hot pixels. This is one thing the D700 is stellar in. 

We'll see though!


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Jan 21, 2012)

Nikon_Josh said:


> BlairWright said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you all knocking 36MP?
> ...



Average low light performance? This sensor is expected to be not as good the D700, but better than D7000 (one generation newer with the same pixel size). So it won't really be worse than D700 very much, maybe just a bit. When you downsize and combine those pixels, you are likely to get better low light performance than the D700, maybe even better than D3s. Diffraction issue and camera shake issue is not a problem, if you don't mind you could downsize the image with better image quality without camera shake and diffraction. You can always downsize pictures without reduction is quality but you'll never get better quality upsizing. So, the only penalty in a 36MP sensor is lower FPS, larger files and slightly worse low light performance.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Jan 21, 2012)

greybeard said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> > BlairWright said:
> ...



It's not really correct, if D800 uses the same AA filter in D7000, then 36MP is not a waste. Because the AA filter in D7000 is so strong, anything better than the 50mm 1.8G wouldn't even get any better performance.


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Jan 21, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> > BlairWright said:
> ...



Can you explain to me why diffraction and camera shake will not be issues? I'm afraid Michael, Thom Hogan disagrees with you strongly on this statement.

Better than the D3S at High ISO's? When you downsize these files??

Can you perhaps explain what you mean by that aswell?? If an image is blurred through camera shake, I don't quite see how downsizing the file will cure it. I may be wrong on this.. so if I am enlighten me.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Jan 21, 2012)

Nikon_Josh said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon_Josh said:
> ...



When you downsize pictures, you can't see the blur caused by camera shake. Noise are noise - they are random, if you downsize a super noisy neutral grey shot to a 1x1 picture, the pixel will become neutral grey. Which means, they more you downsize, the less the noise, or just less visible (which is the same as low ISO shots, noise are there, just invisible.)


----------



## greybeard (Jan 21, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> > EchoingWhisper said:
> ...


pardon my ignorance but how does one "down size" a picture?


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Jan 21, 2012)

greybeard said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon_Josh said:
> ...



By decreasing the resolution.


----------



## greybeard (Jan 21, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > EchoingWhisper said:
> ...


Oh, I see, so you trade visible noise for pixelation.


----------



## argieramos (Jan 21, 2012)

Nikon_Josh said:
			
		

> Why they can't go to something like 24MP?? I really don't know. 24MP will offer great high resolution images while remaining a reasonable amount of pixels. Yes I know, 36MP on FX is the same density as 16MP on DX. But who needs 36MP apart from studio and pro landscape photographers? I think 36MP makes the D800 a studio camera that is also being marketed to consumers? This is where this whole episode becomes confusing to me. I guess, Nikon are trying to steal Canons 5D Mark II market back a bit.
> 
> Nonetheless, It will be interesting to see the detail levels produced by the D800. At the same time, I am hoping this love session with Sony will not begin to hinder Nikon. 36MP seems to be overkill, I don't think Nikon needs to go the heavy marketing based route that Sony always take things with higher and higher megapixel figures.



That is why there is D4 and D800 which targets different martket. One with average FF IQ, but superb in low light performance, and one with average low light performance, but has great resolving power. As for that 24mp that you are talking about, Sony is developing a new 24mp sensor for the purpose of being good in low light, But Nikon decided to use something else for their low light camera (D4).



> And before Skieur comes on here, thinking I am flaming Sony. For once, I am not flaming Sony at all! I may dislike the company that is Sony, but Sony are doing amazing things with sensor production. Nikon then take the sensor and develop it more to get optimum performance, Pentax did the same with the K5 sensor.



Nikon d7000 and Pentax K-5 Sony sensors uses the same sensor core. The surroundings outer layer and processor of Nikon and Pentax that what makes the minute difference.


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Jan 21, 2012)

argieramos said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ah really? Sony are developing a 24MP full frame sensor?? I had no idea, here's to hoping this is the one the D800 gets! 

You have actually educated me a bit here Argie, I thought it was sensor development that Nikon and Pentax carried out, the noise performance differences lie in the processing power then. I guess this explains why the 7D has better High ISO performance than the 60D which uses the same sensor, more processing power.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Jan 22, 2012)

greybeard said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > greybeard said:
> ...



You get pixelation by increasing resolution, when you're decreasing resolution there won't be pixelation unless you're 'smart' enough to use nearest neighbor.


----------



## skieur (Jan 23, 2012)

Nikon_Josh said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



Hey, if you can troll, then so can I.:lmao:

skieur


----------



## Derrel (Jan 23, 2012)

Sony already HAS MADE a 24.6 MP full-frame sensor: it was used in the Sony in the A850 and A900 bodies, and is currently still in the Nikon D3x. Interestingly, the noise and overall color response,dynamic range, saturation,and resolution of the SAME "sensel" (the light-sensitive part that SOny made and sold to Nikon for the D3x) was quite a bit different between the Sony cameras and the Nikon D3x. Nikon spent a ton of engineering, design, and manufacturing effort to improve the electronics and probably the entire filter array of the D3x--and the camera's $7995 price tag allowed them to do that. Sony, OTOH, sold the A900 at a really LOW price point, and the A850 even lower, at $1899 on the A850, and around $2200 or so (depending on region,time of lifespan,etc). The Sony A900's high-ISO performance and color responses were not the same as those of the D3x; the D3x did a lot better at higher ISO's, but the final cost of the D3x has made it a pretty rare beast.

We've gotta remember: Sony has already gained the lead over Canon on mid-level sensors and noise performance: the Canon 7D's sensor is well,well beneath the Sony sensor the Pentax K5 and Nikon D7000 are using. Canon cut down the MP count in its G10 from 14.7 to a 10 MP sensor in the G11; for Canon, the 18.2 MP sensor, 17.8 or so effective in the 7D has issues with color depth and dynamic range, and it seems that they need to TOTALLY RE-WORK the electronics...which is what Nikon learned going on five years ago now; the sensel, the light-sensitive part that they buy from Sony isn't a complete sensor until Nikon pairs it up with read electronic, Noise Reduction capability,Nikon's proprietary color matrix demosaic routines, and the AA filter array...the sensor is part of the equation---but one of the real KEYS people keep overlooking is how LOW READ NOISE electronics can take a fine, basic sensor, and then with the right camera-maker skills, the performance can be elevated to superb CAMERA performance.

*We need to step back just a bit and look at the final "camera" performance, not the sensor specifications!!!!* The A900 and D3x comparisons showed this conclusively. Same with the Canon 7D versus the Pentax K5 and Nikon D7000. I have a feeling that, just maybe, the "36 megapixel" specification is indeed true. But----and this is the biggie---what Nikon does with that data is going to be the result of NIKON engineering, not Sony engineering. Nikon might do what they did with the older D1-series cameras--those were called "2.7 megapixel" cameras, but Nikon revealed years later they were using a 10-million photosite sensor, and were in effect "binning" the data...using basically three data points to create one data point. This is a good way to reduce noise. It's probably more cost-effective to do that that other approaches. I think with a 36 MP pixel count, Nikon's engineering could figure out a way to apply Noise Reduction, as needed, to produce very good, usable files, EVEN AT HIGH ISO values...

This ain't 1999, or even 2006, any longer...the old idea that too many MP automatically lead to "objectionable noise"...well, that idea has been made one heck of a lot less valid with the advances in noise reduction through better electronics. A camera is not just a sensor--the camera part of the equation is critical. Nikon, and Pentax, are now using Sony sensors that can capture an image with the exposure set wayyyyyyy too brief (as in say, proper for ISO 50,000), and then the sensor exposed with an exposure properly set for ISO 200, and then the resulting BLACK raw file can be opened up, and a quite decent image made out of the data. I have seen the demonstrations of this from the Pentax K-5...ISO 50,000 at gain setting of 200 in-camera, then the file rescued....the results were what I would describe as "miraculous".

I have not seen anything even comparable with any other sensors...so...whatever the new Sony sensors bring, and whatever the electronics, demosaic routines, and image processing Nikon adds to the equation, I really do think the new "D800" will make good images. If it has a higher number than the 700, the core capabilities will be higher and better; that is the way Nikon iterates products. An updated product gets a letter added....an entirely new level of core capabilities gets an entirely new model number. Sorry for the length of the post, but just had to lay out my thoughts.


----------



## argieramos (Jan 23, 2012)

Derrel said:
			
		

> Sony already HAS MADE a 24.6 MP full-frame sensor: it was used in the Sony in the A850 and A900 bodies, and is currently still in the Nikon D3x. Interestingly, the noise and overall color response,dynamic range, saturation,and resolution of the SAME "sensel" (the light-sensitive part that SOny made and sold to Nikon for the D3x) was quite a bit different between the Sony cameras and the Nikon D3x. Nikon spent a ton of engineering, design, and manufacturing effort to improve the electronics and probably the entire filter array of the D3x--and the camera's $7995 price tag allowed them to do that. Sony, OTOH, sold the A900 at a really LOW price point, and the A850 even lower, at $1899 on the A850, and around $2200 or so (depending on region,time of lifespan,etc). The Sony A900's high-ISO performance and color responses were not the same as those of the D3x; the D3x did a lot better at higher ISO's, but the final cost of the D3x has made it a pretty rare beast.
> 
> We've gotta remember: Sony has already gained the lead over Canon on mid-level sensors and noise performance: the Canon 7D's sensor is well,well beneath the Sony sensor the Pentax K5 and Nikon D7000 are using. Canon cut down the MP count in its G10 from 14.7 to a 10 MP sensor in the G11; for Canon, the 18.2 MP sensor, 17.8 or so effective in the 7D has issues with color depth and dynamic range, and it seems that they need to TOTALLY RE-WORK the electronics...which is what Nikon learned going on five years ago now; the sensel, the light-sensitive part that they buy from Sony isn't a complete sensor until Nikon pairs it up with read electronic, Noise Reduction capability,Nikon's proprietary color matrix demosaic routines, and the AA filter array...the sensor is part of the equation---but one of the real KEYS people keep overlooking is how LOW READ NOISE electronics can take a fine, basic sensor, and then with the right camera-maker skills, the performance can be elevated to superb CAMERA performance.
> 
> ...



Uhmmm, what's up with this Derrel? What are you trying to prove?


----------



## greybeard (Jan 24, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Sony already HAS MADE a 24.6 MP full-frame sensor: it was used in the Sony in the A850 and A900 bodies, and is currently still in the Nikon D3x. Interestingly, the noise and overall color response,dynamic range, saturation,and resolution of the SAME "sensel" (the light-sensitive part that SOny made and sold to Nikon for the D3x) was quite a bit different between the Sony cameras and the Nikon D3x. Nikon spent a ton of engineering, design, and manufacturing effort to improve the electronics and probably the entire filter array of the D3x--and the camera's $7995 price tag allowed them to do that. Sony, OTOH, sold the A900 at a really LOW price point, and the A850 even lower, at $1899 on the A850, and around $2200 or so (depending on region,time of lifespan,etc). The Sony A900's high-ISO performance and color responses were not the same as those of the D3x; the D3x did a lot better at higher ISO's, but the final cost of the D3x has made it a pretty rare beast.
> 
> We've gotta remember: Sony has already gained the lead over Canon on mid-level sensors and noise performance: the Canon 7D's sensor is well,well beneath the Sony sensor the Pentax K5 and Nikon D7000 are using. Canon cut down the MP count in its G10 from 14.7 to a 10 MP sensor in the G11; for Canon, the 18.2 MP sensor, 17.8 or so effective in the 7D has issues with color depth and dynamic range, and it seems that they need to TOTALLY RE-WORK the electronics...which is what Nikon learned going on five years ago now; the sensel, the light-sensitive part that they buy from Sony isn't a complete sensor until Nikon pairs it up with read electronic, Noise Reduction capability,Nikon's proprietary color matrix demosaic routines, and the AA filter array...the sensor is part of the equation---but one of the real KEYS people keep overlooking is how LOW READ NOISE electronics can take a fine, basic sensor, and then with the right camera-maker skills, the performance can be elevated to superb CAMERA performance.
> 
> ...




What I get from this is that Sony really has it going on when it comes to developing sensors and Nikon really has it going on with implementing Sony's sensors.  Maybe Sony should just stick to making sensors..........LOL


----------



## Trever1t (Jan 24, 2012)

Derrel's very detailed post simply put says don't judge a camera (system) by it's sensor lone, that it's only a part of the equation. 2 brands utilizing the same sensor will potentially have 2 totally different capabilities. Was it that hard to understand?


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Jan 24, 2012)

And Derrel mentioned pixel binning - which is very similar to downsizing the pixels in post, both gets better high ISO capabilities when more data are combined.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 24, 2012)

I still consider the D800 a possibility. I do have a D4 on order.. but if the D800 does demonstrate good high ISO capability with the increase in MP, I might consider saving $3k to be worthwhile! It will be interesting to see what it is capable of.


----------



## argieramos (Jan 24, 2012)

Trever1t said:
			
		

> Derrel's very detailed post simply put says don't judge a camera (system) by it's sensor lone, that it's only a part of the equation. 2 brands utilizing the same sensor will potentially have 2 totally different capabilities. Was it that hard to understand?



Ofcourse is not all about the sensor. That's why Canon still popular. It's all about the whole package. I was questioning him the need of that long explanation. Nobody is saying something bad about Nikon.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 24, 2012)

argieramos said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Explaining a rather complex issue, sometimes takes a paragraph or three. Hence, the long explanation.. explained as simply as possible.


----------



## argieramos (Jan 24, 2012)

Derrel said:
			
		

> Sony already HAS MADE a 24.6 MP full-frame sensor: it was used in the Sony in the A850 and A900 bodies, and is currently still in the Nikon D3x. Interestingly, the noise and overall color response,dynamic range, saturation,and resolution of the SAME "sensel" (the light-sensitive part that SOny made and sold to Nikon for the D3x) was quite a bit different between the Sony cameras and the Nikon D3x. Nikon spent a ton of engineering, design, and manufacturing effort to improve the electronics and probably the entire filter array of the D3x--and the camera's $7995 price tag allowed them to do that. Sony, OTOH, sold the A900 at a really LOW price point, and the A850 even lower, at $1899 on the A850, and around $2200 or so (depending on region,time of lifespan,etc). The Sony A900's high-ISO performance and color responses were not the same as those of the D3x; the D3x did a lot better at higher ISO's, but the final cost of the D3x has made it a pretty rare beast.
> 
> We've gotta remember: Sony has already gained the lead over Canon on mid-level sensors and noise performance: the Canon 7D's sensor is well,well beneath the Sony sensor the Pentax K5 and Nikon D7000 are using. Canon cut down the MP count in its G10 from 14.7 to a 10 MP sensor in the G11; for Canon, the 18.2 MP sensor, 17.8 or so effective in the 7D has issues with color depth and dynamic range, and it seems that they need to TOTALLY RE-WORK the electronics...which is what Nikon learned going on five years ago now; the sensel, the light-sensitive part that they buy from Sony isn't a complete sensor until Nikon pairs it up with read electronic, Noise Reduction capability,Nikon's proprietary color matrix demosaic routines, and the AA filter array...the sensor is part of the equation---but one of the real KEYS people keep overlooking is how LOW READ NOISE electronics can take a fine, basic sensor, and then with the right camera-maker skills, the performance can be elevated to superb CAMERA performance.
> 
> ...



The 24mp in Sony's upcoming SLT will not be the using the same sensor as the a900. True that D3x uses the same sensor found in a900 but the results are much better than Sony. Why? Because that sensor has been tweaked, modified, improved by the Nikon engineers and pass that cost to consumers. It's barely a Sony sensor after the process. You're not trying to compare a low budget FF to an expensive professional FF, right? 

Ofcourse the sensor that Nikon is getting from Sony is not finished. Final touch up is needed to fit the other companies desired flavor, but the core engineering and structure of the sensor is already built.
Camera maker skills has nothing to do with this. Remember, Canon make their own sensors. Nikon always rely on third parties. If I make a homemade boost controller to gain a bit more PSI from the turbo and put it in Toyota Supra to make it faster, that will not make me better than Toyota. Nikon is just being smart about their camera strategy.  Nikon is aware that Sony,the company of where most of their sensor is coming from is also in the camera market and they always make their camera few steps ahead of Sony's camera counterpart even though it will make it more expensive. Compare the Sony a580 to D7000. Both mid-level, same sensors and both scored 80 in DXoMark lab test. But the d7000 takes the cake with its prism, built quality, etc. People see the D7000 as better camera ignoring the fact that it is almost 2x more expensive compare to the camera that can give you same IQ.

I don't believe in better camera. Just better photographer.


----------



## jake337 (Jan 24, 2012)

Considering how many D3, D3s and D3x are popping up on KEH, I can't wait till it fills with D700's!


----------



## IgsEMT (Jan 24, 2012)

I got D700 about 6months, so as far as IQ goes, I don't have a need to upgrade. Since I'm a photographer and not a videographer, (but do use video for personal use - my D300s and D90 does the job  ).
In the near future, I'll look into D800 but not any time soon.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 24, 2012)

argieramos said:
			
		

> Uhmmm, what's up with this Derrel? What are you trying to prove?



I was not trying to "prove" anything. Just to bring up some topics, like pixel binning (which Nikon basically admitted eight years after the end of production of the old "2.7MP" D1h), the importance of low-noise read electronics; the value of proprietary engineering knowledge; the fact that two identical sensels can be fitted with the right AA filters, and electronics, and only then put into cameras, and the results will be dramatically different, based upon what the CAMERA MAKER DOES. I pointed to the A900 nd D3x with the same sensel, and how much money Nikon poured into the D3x to decrease the noise level and boost the color response.

I also wanted to point out that there has been an almost unobserved paradigm shift between the pixel count of sensors and what can no be done with VASTLY IMPROVED electronics and image processing, and finally to make the point that all this talk about the "sensor's MP count" is not what we need to focus on. I pointed to Canon's G10 14.7 MP retreat to only 10MP in their follow-up G11, and I mentioned that Canon's newer sensors in 1.6x segment are already behind the newer Sony 16.2 MP models; I was contrasting Canon's simple approach of just lowering the MP count, and contrasting it with Nikon's EXHAUSTIVE R&D efforts to wring the UTMOST out of a sensor--at great cost to the user...and for those following along, how the newer D7000 and Pentax K-5 have achieved even BETTER imaging capabilities through better electronics paired with Sony-made sensors. 

And finally, I was trying to get people to focus on the Nikon naming strategy: a NEW LEVEL of core capabilities earns an entirely new name and model number from Nikon--which is not the way Canon does things; the D700's follow-up people are waiting for COULD be a D700s--with the better High-ISO sensor and electronics of the D3s migrated downward--we do not know for sure, just yet!  I wanted to assure people that if it says D800, it will be a camera that has a new level of core capabilities, and it will be a good CAMERA. No matter if it has a "36 Megapixel" sensor. Why? pixel binning perhaps. The engineering and R&S knowledge from the D3s and D3x applied to a lower-tiered camera. Better read-electronics than Nikon had in 2007 or 2008. Better demosaic routines. Nikon's camera-making abilities. The advance of time, and the shifting of emphasis to _the electronics _as a way to wring better images out of sensors.


----------



## argieramos (Jan 25, 2012)

Derrel said:
			
		

> I was not trying to "prove" anything. Just to bring up some topics, like pixel binning (which Nikon basically admitted eight years after the end of production of the old "2.7MP" D1h), the importance of low-noise read electronics; the value of proprietary engineering knowledge; the fact that two identical sensels can be fitted with the right AA filters, and electronics, and only then put into cameras, and the results will be dramatically different, based upon what the CAMERA MAKER DOES. I pointed to the A900 nd D3x with the same sensel, and how much money Nikon poured into the D3x to decrease the noise level and boost the color response.
> 
> I also wanted to point out that there has been an almost unobserved paradigm shift between the pixel count of sensors and what can no be done with VASTLY IMPROVED electronics and image processing, and finally to make the point that all this talk about the "sensor's MP count" is not what we need to focus on. I pointed to Canon's G10 14.7 MP retreat to only 10MP in their follow-up G11, and I mentioned that Canon's newer sensors in 1.6x segment are already behind the newer Sony 16.2 MP models; I was contrasting Canon's simple approach of just lowering the MP count, and contrasting it with Nikon's EXHAUSTIVE R&D efforts to wring the UTMOST out of a sensor--at great cost to the user...and for those following along, how the newer D7000 and Pentax K-5 have achieved even BETTER imaging capabilities through better electronics paired with Sony-made sensors.
> 
> And finally, I was trying to get people to focus on the Nikon naming strategy: a NEW LEVEL of core capabilities earns an entirely new name and model number from Nikon--which is not the way Canon does things; the D700's follow-up people are waiting for COULD be a D700s--with the better High-ISO sensor and electronics of the D3s migrated downward--we do not know for sure, just yet!  I wanted to assure people that if it says D800, it will be a camera that has a new level of core capabilities, and it will be a good CAMERA. No matter if it has a "36 Megapixel" sensor. Why? pixel binning perhaps. The engineering and R&S knowledge from the D3s and D3x applied to a lower-tiered camera. Better read-electronics than Nikon had in 2007 or 2008. Better demosaic routines. Nikon's camera-making abilities. The advance of time, and the shifting of emphasis to the electronics as a way to wring better images out of sensors.



With all these better electronics reading thingy, means more cost to the consumers. It does not mean that particular company has better technology. Pentax K-5 being better than the Nikon D7000 in terms of IQ does not mean Pentax technology is better. According to Pentax, they almost have no profit in every K-5 they sold even though it's a bit more expensive than the D7000. That's not the case with the D7000 I believe. You said Canon new sensor is already behind Sony 16mp, but I am pretty sure Canon can make a better sensor if they don't mind more production cost. I think Canon not trying that hard because they still making a lot of money out of those new cameras using old sensor. It maximized the profit. Most consumers don't really look at the numbers of test result.  When they go to stores, their eyes see that the IQ of Nikon and Canon cameras are about the same. Even the IQ difference of 60D and D7000 is huge according to DXoMark and imagingresource, that is something people wouldnt be able to see when testing these cameras at store. Some actually think Canon is superior because of better video when they do the testing. That is something Nikon is working on, to improve the video so that people wouldn't think that way.


----------



## Balmiesgirl (Jan 28, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:
			
		

> Yes that is what I am trying to say.



I have compared the d7000 (16mp DX) and d3 ( 12 mp FX) and the larger pixels on my d3 are amazing! I think it affects image quality to put more pixels on a sensor.... Makes me concerned about upgrading to the d4....
Even with my commercial work I haven't needed bigger files so far....


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Jan 29, 2012)

Balmiesgirl said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That won't happen, in fact, the image quality will become better.


----------



## slackercruster (Jan 30, 2012)

$3300 is what I read the D800 may go for. Too much $ for me. I hope to get a D700 bargain if they come down in $. Can hardly afford that.


----------



## slackercruster (Jan 30, 2012)

argieramos said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How can Canon have a 21mp FF dslr for $2400 and Nikon D700 is priced higher and has much less MP for the $?

Canon Direct Store- EOS 5D Mark II Body


----------



## BlairWright (Jan 30, 2012)

Nikon_Josh said:


> BlairWright said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you all knocking 36MP?
> ...




I assumed immediately that this was a studio camera like the D3X. I'm not quite sure why you think this will be marketed "to consumers", it will be around 3 grand (in USD) which is well past what most consumers will pay for a camera body. Lastly, you should use the best glass with FX format anyways. 

I totally understand that everyone wanted a D3S in a D700 body, I would like to see that too but this is obviously a 5D MkII compedator and not in direct competition with the new Nikon flagship. Of course who knows what will happen with the second version of the D800 when that arrives, it may have lower resolution and higher ISO capabilities. 

I personally think the reality is that Nikon needs to compete with Canon's 5D MKII and grab some mid range market share to stay alive in this economy. The D800 sounds like a winner to me, if the rumors are true it will be a studio version of the D700 and I wouldn't complain about that at all.

Time will tell, this thing is supposed to announce soon.


----------



## PDP (Jan 31, 2012)

88 posts!
Some really interesting points being discussed, thanks.

According to a well known rumor site Nikon has press announcements on 1st & 7th Feb. It is anticipated that the 7th Feb will relate to the successor for the D700.


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Jan 31, 2012)

slackercruster said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> > Trever1t said:
> ...



Wow, your looking at buying a D700? And your asking questions like this?? this is the sort of statement a person with a compact camera makes. Do some reading my friend and learn about photography before buying a D700. You are clearly believing that just because a camera has a higher megapixel count it is BETTER! Which is just plain wrong...


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Jan 31, 2012)

BlairWright said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> > BlairWright said:
> ...



Well, the 5D Mark 2 is a camera designed to appeal to consumers and semi pros alike who want to go FX. It's the lower build quality cheaper version of the PRO spec cameras Canon produces.  And the D700 was produced to compete with the 5D, so I am assuming that the D800 will be aimed at consumers and semi pros aswell. The D3X was the camera designed for studio professionals after all. Yes, it is clear Nikon are doing some rearranging.

But if they do stick with just the one D800 it will be a poor decision in my opinion. I hope you are right about introducing a separate version with lower MP etc..


----------



## slackercruster (Jan 31, 2012)

Nikon_Josh said:


> slackercruster said:
> 
> 
> > argieramos said:
> ...





Are you saying the Nikon will out shoot the Canon?

Yes, I am a newbie to dslr's. (Not to film slr's) 40 years ago I used to have all Nikon equipment, then got out of it. And don't diss the compact cams. I've seen some fabulous photos from them.

As I look around now, I see lots of pro's in the outdoors / adventure mags giving credit to the Canon...very little credit goes to Nikon. So that what I was looking at.

I am not interested in all the BS crap they keep loading the cameras up with. Am interested in taking sharp pictures with good contrast and tonality, reliabilty, ease of use and great glass. Nikon seems to have some of the best glass around. But Canon also has good glass. 

So what distinguishes these 2 cameras at hand beside the MP between cameras of the same size sensor?


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Jan 31, 2012)

slackercruster said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> > slackercruster said:
> ...



Between the two cameras in question.. the D700 and the 5D Mark II.

The D700 has the following advantages which justifies the higher price tag in my opinion-

1- Superior Build quality.. the 5D Mark II has questionable build quality.
2- Superior Pro level autofocus system... the 5D2 has a consumer AF system with one cross type AF point which is rather poor to say the least.
3- Wireless flash support in camera.
4- Better dynamic range.. the Canon famously has banding and noise in shadows even at low ISO's... which seems a bit obscene for a full frame camera which costs as much as it does.
5- Slightly Better High ISO performance.

The Canon does win on more resolution though and detail in photos with it's 21MP sensor and has a decent video mode. But I don't think anyone would feel limited by a 12MP sensor.

Compacts can produce decent photos in good light.. no doubt about it. I still can't stand the tiny sensors they use though, dreadful dynamic range and high ISO performance to name a couple of the major issues with compact cameras. Not to mention the fact that everything is always in focus when using a compact, no chance of a shallow DOF for example. Compacts are completely 'limited' cameras in my opinion and frustrate the hell out of me. To the point, that my S90 (which is pretty decent) gets little to no use whatsoever.


----------



## IgsEMT (Jan 31, 2012)

> Compacts can produce decent photos in good light.. no doubt about it. I  still can't stand the tiny sensors they use though, dreadful dynamic  range and high ISO performance to name a couple of the major issues with  compact cameras. Not to mention the fact that everything is always in  focus when using a compact, no chance of a shallow DOF for example.  Compacts are completely 'limited' cameras in my opinion and frustrate  the hell out of me. To the point, that my S90 (which is pretty decent)  gets little to no use whatsoever.


At least you have a compact camera  I bought Canon G10 or G11, when Circuit City was closing down. Used it for few weeks and sold it: it was a good camera for walking around and snapping away but comfort was with SLRs.


----------



## slackercruster (Jan 31, 2012)

Thanks Nikon Josh for the rundown.


----------



## PDP (Feb 7, 2012)

Nikon has now announced the D800.


----------



## ph0enix (Feb 7, 2012)

*US Price tag: $2,999.95*
 *Lens Mount * 
 Nikon F bayonet mount
 *Effective Pixels * 
 36.3 million
 *Sensor Size * 
 35.9mm x 24mm
 *Image Sensor Format * 
 FX
 *Image Sensor Type * 
 CMOS
 *Total Pixels * 
 36.8 million
 *Dust-reduction system * 
 Image sensor cleaning
 *Dust-Off Reference Photo * 
 Yes
 *Image Area (pixels) * 
 FX-format
(L) 7,360 x 4,912
(M) 5,520 x 3,680
(S) 3,680 x 2,456
1:2 format  (30 x 20)
(L) 6,144 x 4,080
(M) 4,608 x 3,056
(S) 3,072 x 2,040
5:4 format (30 x 24)
(L) 6,144 x 4,912
(M) 4,608 x 3,680
(S) 3,072 x 2,456
DX-format
(L) 4,800 x 3,200
(M) 3,600 x 2,400
(S) 2,400 x 1,600
 *File Format Still Images * 
 JPEG: JPEG-Baseline Compliant with fine (approx 1:4), Normal (approx 1:8) or Basic (approx 1:16) Compression
NEF (RAW): lossless compressed 12 or 14 bit, lossless compressed, compressed or uncompressed 
TIFF (RGB)
JPEG: JPEG-Baseline-Compliant; can be selected from Size Priority and Optimal Quality
 *Picture Control * 
 Landscape
Monochrome
Neutral
Portrait
Standard
User-customizable Settings
Vivid
 *Storage Media * 
 CompactFlash© (CF) (Type I, compliant with UDMA)
SD
SDHC
SDXC
 *Card Slot * 
 1 CompactFlash© (CF) card and 1 Secure Digital (SD) card
 *File System * 
 Compliant with DCF (Design Rule for Camera File System) 2.0
DPOF (Digital Print Order Format)
EXIF 2.3 (Exchangeable Image File Format for Digital Still Cameras)
PictBridge
 *Viewfinder * 
 Eye-level Pentamirror Single-Lens Reflex viewfinder
 *Viewfinder Frame Coverage * 
 FX (36x24):  100% Horizontal and 100% Vertical Approx.
1.2x (30x20):  97% Horizontal and 97% Vertical Approx.
DX (24x16):  97% Horizontal and 97% Vertical Approx.
5:4 (30x24):  97% Horizontal and 97% Vertical Approx.
 *Viewfinder Magnification * 
 0.70x Approx.
 *Viewfinder Eyepoint * 
 19.5 (-1.0¯¹)
 *Viewfinder Diopter Adjustment * 
 Built-in diopter adjustment (-3 to +1 m¯¹)
 *Focusing Screen * 
  Type B BriteView Clear Matte Mark VIII with AF Area Brackets (grid lines can be displayed)
 *Reflex Mirror * 
 Quick-return type
 *Lens Aperture * 
 Instant-return type
 *Depth-of-field Control * 
 Yes
 *Lens Compatibility at a Glance*** * 
 AF-S or AF lenses fully compatible
Metering with AI lenses
 *Compatible Lenses * 
 AF NIKKOR other than type G or D*2: All functions supported except 3D Color Matrix Metering III
AI-P NIKKOR: All functions supported except autofocus and 3D Color Matrix Metering III
DX AF NIKKOR: All Functions Supported Except FX-format (36x24)/5:4 (30x24) Image Size
Non-CPU:  Usable in [A] or [M] mode Center-Weighted or Spot Metering; Electronic  Rangefinder can be used if Maximum Aperture is f/5.6 or Faster
Type G or D AF NIKKOR: All Functions Supported
 *Shutter type * 
 Electronically controlled vertical-travel focal-plane
 *Shutter Speed * 
 1/8000 to 30 sec.
Bulb
 *Fastest Shutter Speed * 
 1/8000 sec.
 *Slowest Shutter Speed * 
 30 sec.
 *Flash Sync Speed * 
 Up to 1/250 sec.
Synchronizes with shutter at 1/320s or slower (flash range drops at speeds between 1/250 and 1/320s)
 *Bulb Shutter Setting * 
 Yes
 *Shutter Release Modes * 
 Continuous low-speed [CL] mode; 1-4 frames per second
Continuous high-speed [CH] mode; 4 frames per second
Mirror-up [Mup] mode
Quiet Shutter Release
Self-timer mode
Single-frame  mode
[*]  *Continuous Shooting Options * 
 FX-format
CH: Up to 4 frames per second
CL: Up to 4 frames per second
5:4 format
CH: Up to 4 frames per second
CL: Up to 4 frames per second
DX-format
CH: Up to 5 frames per second
CL: Up to 5 frames per second
1:2 format
CH: Up to 5 frames per second
CL: Up to 5 frames per second
[*]  *Top Continuous Shooting Speed at full resolution * 
 4 frames per second
[*]  *Self-timer * 
 2, 5, 10, 20 sec. Timer duration electronically controlled
[*]  *Exposure Metering System * 
 TTL exposure metering using 91,000-pixel RGB sensor
[*]  *Metering Method * 
 Center-weighted: Weight of 75% given to 8mm circle in center of frame
Matrix: 3D color matrix metering III (type G and D lenses); color matrix metering III (other CPU lenses)
Spot: Meters 4mm circle (about 1.5% of frame) centered on selected focus point
[*]  *Metering Range * 
 0 to 20 EV (3D color matrix or center-weighted metering)
0 to 20 EV (spot metering)
[*]  *Exposure Meter Coupling * 
 CPU
AI
[*]  *Exposure Modes * 
 Aperture-Priority (A)
Manual (M)
Programmed auto with flexible program (P)
Shutter-Priority  (S)
[*]  *Exposure Compensation * 
 ±5 EV in increments of 1/3, 1/2 or 1 EV
[*]  *Exposure Bracketing * 
 2 to 9 frames in steps of 1/3, 1/2, 2/3 or 1 EV
[*]  *Exposure Lock * 
 Yes
[*]  *Mirror Lock Up * 
 Yes
[*]  *ISO Sensitivity * 
 ISO 100 - 6400
Lo-1 (ISO 50)
Hi-1 (ISO 12,800)
Hi-2 (ISO 25,600)
[*]  *Lowest Standard ISO Sensitivity * 
 100
[*]  *Highest Standard ISO Sensitivity * 
 6400
[*]  *Lowest Expanded ISO Sensitivity * 
 Lo-1 (ISO 50 equivalent)
[*]  *Highest Expanded ISO Sensitivity * 
 HI-2 (ISO 25,600 equivalent)
[*]  *Expanded ISO Sensitivity Options * 
 Lo-1 (ISO-50 equivalent), Hi-1 (ISO-12,800 equivalent), Hi-2 (ISO-25,600 equivalent)
[*]  *Long Exposure Noise Reduction * 
 Yes
[*]  *High ISO Noise Reduction * 
 Low
Normal
High
Off
[*]  *Active D-Lighting * 
 Auto
Extra High
High
Normal
Low
Off
[*]  *D-Lighting Bracketing * 
 2 frames using selected value for one frame
3&#8211;5 frames using preset values for all frames
[*]  *Single-point AF Mode * 
 Yes
[*]  *Dynamic AF Mode * 
 Number of AF points: 9, 21, 51 and 51 (3D-tracking)
[*]  *Auto-area AF Mode * 
 Yes
[*]  *Autofocus System * 
 Nikon Advanced Multi-CAM 3500FX autofocus sensor module with TTL phase detection
[*]  *Detection Range * 
 -1 to 19 EV (ISO 100, 68°F/20°C)
[*]  *Lens Servo * 
 Autofocus  (AF): Single-servo AF (AF-S); Continuous-servo AF (AF-C); auto  AF-S/AF-C selection (AF-A); predictive focus tracking activated  automatically according to subject status
Manual focus (MF): Electronic rangefinder can be used
[*]  *AF-area mode * 
 9, 21 or 51 point Dynamic-area AF
Auto-area AF
Single-point AF
3D-tracking (51 points)
[*]  *Focus Lock * 
 Focus can be locked by pressing AE-L/AF-L button
Focus can be locked by pressing shutter-release button halfway (single-servo AF)
[*]  *Focus Modes * 
 Auto AF-S/AF-C selection (AF-A)
Continuous-servo (AF-C)
Face-Priority AF available in Live View only and D-Movie only
Full-time Servo (AF-A) available in Live View only
Manual (M) with electronic rangefinder
Normal area
Single-servo AF (AF-S)
Wide area
[*]  *Maximum Autofocus Areas/Points * 
 51
[*]  *Autofocus Sensitivity * 
 -2 to +19 EV (ISO 100, 20°C/68°F)
[*]  *Autofocus Fine Tune * 
 Yes
[*]  *Built-in Flash * 
 Yes
[*]  *Flash Bracketing * 
 2 to 9 frames in steps of 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, or 1 EV
[*]  *Built-in Flash Distance * 
 39  ft. (ISO 100)
[*]  *X-Sync Speed * 
 1/250
[*]  *Top FP High Speed Sync * 
 Up to 1/8000
[*]  *Flash Control * 
   TTL: i-TTL flash control using 91,000-pixel RGB sensor are available  with built-in flash and SB-910, SB-900, SB-700, or SB-400; i-TTL  balanced fill-flash for digital SLR is used with matrix and  center-weighting metering, standard i-TTL flash for digital SLR with  spot metering
[*]  *Flash Sync Modes * 
 Front-curtain sync (normal)
Rear-curtain sync
Red-eye reduction
Red-eye reduction with slow sync
Slow sync
[*]  *Flash Compensation * 
 -3 to +1 EV in increments of 1/3, 1/2 or 1 EV
[*]  *Flash-ready indicator * 
 Lights when built-in flash or optional flash unit such as SB-910, SB-900, SB-400, SB-80DX, SB-28DX or SB-50DX is fully charged
[*]  *Accessory Shoe * 
 Yes
[*]  *Nikon Creative Lighting System (CLS) * 
 CLS Supported
[*]  *Flash Sync Terminal * 
 Yes
[*]  *White Balance * 
 Auto (2 types)
Choose color temperature (2500K&#8211;10000K)
Cloudy
Direct Sunlight
Flash
Fluorescent (7 types)
Incandescent
Preset manual (up to 4 values can be stored)
Shade
[*]  *White Balance Bracketing * 
 2 to 9 exposures in increments of 1, 2 or 3 EV
[*]  *Live View Shooting * 
 Photography Live View Mode  
Movie Live View Mode
[*]  *Live View Lens servo * 
 Autofocus (AF): Single-servo AF (AF-S); full-time-servo AF (AF-F)
Manual focus (MF)
[*]  *Live View AF-area mode * 
 Face-priority AF
Wide-area AF
Normal-area AF
Subject-tracking AF
[*]  *Live View Autofocus * 
 Contrast-detect  AF anywhere in frame (camera selects focus point automatically when  face-priority AF or subject-tracking AF is selected)
[*]  *Movie Metering * 
 TTL exposure metering using main image sensor
[*]  *Movie Frame size (pixels) and frame rate * 
 1280 x 720 (30p): 30 fps (29.97 fps)
1280 x 720 (60p): 60 fps (59.94 fps)
1920 x 1080 (24p): 24 fps (23.976 fps)
1920 x 1080 (30p): 30 fps (29.97 fps)
[*]  *Movie Maximum recording time * 
 20 minutes at highest quality
29 minutes 59 seconds at normal quality
[*]  *Movie File Format * 
 MOV
[*]  *Movie Video Compression * 
 H.264/MPEG-4 Advanced Video Coding
[*]  *Movie Audio recording format * 
 Linear PCM
[*]  *Movie Audio recording device * 
 Built-in monaural microphone
External stereo microphone (optional)
[*]  *Movie * 
 HD 1,920x1,080 / 30 fps
HD 1,920x1,080 / 24 fps
HD 1,280x720 / 30 fps
HD 1,280x720 / 24 fps
HD 1,280x720 / 60 fps
[*]  *Movie Audio * 
 Built-in microphone, monaural
External stereo microphone (optional)
[*]  *Monitor Size * 
 3.2 in. diagonal
[*]  *Monitor Resolution * 
 921,000 Dots
[*]  *Monitor Type * 
 Wide Viewing Angle TFT-LCD
[*]  *Monitor Angle of View * 
 170-degree wide-viewing angle
[*]  *Monitor Adjustments * 
 Brightness, 5 levels
[*]  *Virtual Horizon Camera Indicator * 
 Yes
Also visible in LiveView Modes
Also visible in Viewfinder
[*]  *Playback Functions * 
 Auto Image Rotation
Full-Frame and Thumbnail (4, 9, or 72 images or calendar)
Histogram Display
Image Comment 
Movie Playback
Movie Slideshow
Playback with Zoom
Slideshow
Highlights
[*]  *In-Camera Image Editing * 
 Color Outline
Color Sketch
D-Lighting
Distortion Control
Edit Movie
Filter Effects
Fisheye
Image Overlay
Miniature Effect
Monochrome
NEF (RAW) Processing
Perspective Control
Quick Retouch
Red-eye Correction
Resize
Selective Color
Side-by-Side Comparison
Straighten
Trim
Color Balance
[*]  *Image Comment * 
 Yes
[*]  *Interface * 
 HDMI output: Type C mini-pin HDMI connector
Headphone Connector
NTSC
Stereo Microphone Input
Super Speed USB 3.0
[*]  *Wi-Fi Functionality * 
 Eye-Fi Compatible
WT-4A
[*]  *GPS * 
 GP-1 GPS unit
[*]  *Save/Load Camera settings * 
 Yes
[*]  *Total custom Settings * 
 54
[*]  *My Menu * 
 Yes with customization
[*]  *Recent Settings * 
 Yes
[*]  *Supported Languages * 
 Arabic
Chinese (Simplified and Traditional)
Czech
Danish
Dutch
English
Finnish
French
German
Indonesian
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Norweigan
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Thai
Turkish
Ukrainian
[*]  *Date, Time and Daylight Savings Time Settings * 
 Yes
[*]  *World Time Setting * 
 Yes
[*]  *Battery / Batteries * 
 EN-EL15 Lithium-ion Battery
[*]  *Battery Life (shots per charge)  * 
 900 Battery Life (shots per charge) (CIPA)
[*]  *AC Adapter * 
 EH-5b AC Adapter
Requires EP-5B Power Supply Connector
[*]  *Battery Charger * 
 MH-25 Quick Charger
[*]  *Tripod Socket * 
 1/4 in. (ISO 1222)
[*]  *Approx. Dimensions * 
 Width 5.7 in. (144.78mm) 
Height 4.8 in. (121.92mm) 
Depth 3.2 in. (81.28mm)
[*]  *Approx. Weight * 
 31.7 oz. (900g)
_camera body only_
[*]  *Supplied Accessories *

AN-DC6 Strap
EN-EL15 Rechargeable Li-ion Battery
MH-25 Battery Charger
UC-E14 USB Cable
BM-12 LCD Monitor Cover
BF-1B Body Cap
BS-1 Accessory Shoe Cap
DK-17 Viewfinder Eyepiece
NikonView NX2 CD ROM


----------



## Aloicious (Feb 7, 2012)

yup, looks like the 36mp rumors were right. its a monster...but did anyone notice that they were able to squeeze a pixel pitch LARGER than the D7000 out of it? according to B&H here: Just Out
the pixel pitch of the d800's 36mp sensor is 4.88um...the D7000 is 4.78um...I know that's comparing Dx to Fx, but still, impressive.

it looks like a good studio camera for someone on a budget, I'm sure it doesn't compare to medium formats like a hassy, but for for price it probably performs well, especially on well lit, low ISO, shoots.
I gotta say, I'm intrigued, I'd like to try it out someday, it probably won't be anything I'd purchase since I need high ISO/speed more than I need MP, but it would be nice for the product shooting I do on occasion.


----------



## Aloicious (Feb 7, 2012)

here's nikon's pages with some sample images...however the highest ISO sample image is 640.

D800 images: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/sample01.htm

D800E images: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/sample02.htm


----------



## QuadTap (Feb 7, 2012)

sorry if this has already been covered but does the d800 replace the d700.. or will there be a "low" megapixel FX to replace the d700.  I just flat out don't ever need anything more than about 12MP.   Also, will the d700 used prices come down much as a result of the d800 or eventual d700 replacment?

-dreamin d5100 owner


----------



## FearNothing321 (Feb 7, 2012)

QuadTap said:


> sorry if this has already been covered but does the d800 replace the d700.. or will there be a "low" megapixel FX to replace the d700.  I just flat out don't ever need anything more than about 12MP.   Also, will the d700 used prices come down much as a result of the d800 or eventual d700 replacment?-dreamin d5100 owner


the D800 will replace the D700and yes used D700 prices should drop once this hits the market in March


----------



## xyphoto (Feb 7, 2012)

So I checked Amazon last night when the announcement was made, there were 12 D700 for sale. There are 19 now. Seems like people are selling their equipment now to get the most money out of D700.


----------



## mjhoward (Feb 7, 2012)

FearNothing321 said:


> and yes used D700 prices should drop once this hits the market in March



Don't count on it.


----------



## spacefuzz (Feb 8, 2012)

Well I ordered one, good excuse to make the jump to full frame. Cant wait to try it out!


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 8, 2012)

spacefuzz said:


> Well I ordered one, good excuse to make the jump to full frame. Cant wait to try it out!



congrats, did you order the filtered or non-filtered flavor?


----------



## Trever1t (Feb 8, 2012)

me 2... I opted for standard version.


----------



## spacefuzz (Feb 8, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> spacefuzz said:
> 
> 
> > Well I ordered one, good excuse to make the jump to full frame. Cant wait to try it out!
> ...



I opted for the standard version.  Would hate to miss out on the life changing shot because there was moire in it.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 8, 2012)

spacefuzz said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > spacefuzz said:
> ...



right on, congrats again


----------



## Trever1t (Feb 8, 2012)

Naw, from everything I read you can easily edit out the Moire with More editing.


----------



## ghache (Feb 8, 2012)

i saw a d700 with less than a 10 000 clicks today going for 1700 today on local ads, d700s are deff going down


----------



## bs0604 (Feb 8, 2012)

I am curious why SCraig says he would not want an FX camera in his post.  Why not?  I currently have a d90 and I am thinking about trading up to the 800


----------



## gerardo2068 (Feb 8, 2012)

I just hope they come up with a real D700 replacement. I was hoping for the d800 to be in the same market as the d700 to finally start looking in to moving up to FX format. But I like to shoot stuff like motocross and as amazing as the D800 is, for me it's a letdown. I guess I will see what's gonna replace the D300s. I hope they improve the ISO and frame rate. I have never use the video on my DSLR.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 8, 2012)

The D800 is the D700 replacement according to Scott Kelby, and the only thing not replaced yet is the D300s and the D400 will be announced soon. 

I'm not thrilled enough with the D800 yet to trade up from the D700 but that may change after the reviews of people using it


----------



## gerardo2068 (Feb 8, 2012)

I know the D800 its the replacement. But to me it feel its a different category. like the D3x so i hope they come with D800s kind of like D3s


----------



## manaheim (Feb 8, 2012)

I'm pretty dissapointed with Nikon.  The D4 and D800 are both nice cams in their way, but the D4 isn't as earth shattering as it should be and the D800 is too "nichy".  I've been waiting for YEARS to go FF and I'm not about to spend tons of money on old technology, so I'm still pretty close to first in line to get the D4... but I've never spent so much money on something that I wasn't entirely enthused about.


----------



## spacefuzz (Feb 8, 2012)

I guess I missed something, what's old tech about the D4?


----------



## manaheim (Feb 9, 2012)

spacefuzz said:
			
		

> I guess I missed something, what's old tech about the D4?



Nothing.  I meant I'm not gonna buy a d3 or d700.


----------



## spacefuzz (Feb 9, 2012)

manaheim said:


> spacefuzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



haha guess I missed more than I thought   learn to read spacefuzz.


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 9, 2012)

Some high ISO examples at Blog - Cliff Mautner Photography
3200 ISO at 100% crop







6400 ISO 100% crop


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 9, 2012)

Are there any RAW files? And is there any comparison for D800 in DX mode and D7000? Wanna see how much Nikon has improved in two/three years.


----------



## Trever1t (Feb 9, 2012)

I'd expect comparable results at ISO 3200. 6400 at best from my 12mp D700 so to get such results from 36mp is pretty darn promising. Keep in mind these photos are taken with the best of conditions, lighting but still damn impressive.


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Feb 9, 2012)

These technical discussions have been very, very enlightening. Thank you!


----------



## Aloicious (Feb 9, 2012)

those high ISO samples are impressive. thanks for sharing the link.


----------

