D800 official announcement in 3 ... 2 ...

[chrisk]

Gary, I don't disagree with almost everything you said. I dont even have a problem that nikon has produced a 36mp studio camera. My issue is that as a Nikon system owner, Nikon have effectively eliminated my replacement path. I don't think the d800 will suit me cos I think the iso performance will be squishy and on par with if not worse than the d700. I also lose the flexibility of the frame rate when I need it. And in fact, i would suggest that I am in the majority, not the minority of the market. The pros are shooting d3/4 models, it is typically the prosumers that are buying the smaller body fx cameras and Nikon are going to alienate a massive portion of the market. I don't think the strategy makes sense and I don't see the logic behind having the only small body fx model to be so specialized. To me this is a d3x replacement, not a d700 replacement.

IMHO, there will be a d800s or d600 or whatever you want to call it within the next 6-12 months which will be the practical evolution of the d700. 16-24mp, 6fps expandable to 8 with the grip etc etc

And no, I still don't buy the argument that if you want better low light and frame rate improvements you need to buy a d4. I think that's an unrealistic and inpracticle expectation.

[Reschsmooth]

Gary, I don't disagree with almost everything you said. I dont even have a problem that nikon has produced a 36mp studio camera. My issue is that as a Nikon system owner, Nikon have effectively eliminated my replacement path.

No they haven't, they just haven't extended your path with this camera. When will the true extension of the D700 come out? I have no idea and have no basis to make a forecast, but, as I said, there is the potential for a multi-option upgrade path at the pro-sumer level.

At some point in the future (however near or far that maybe), the D4 features will trickle down to those with the D700. But not with the D800.

[radar]

let us not forget that the D300 replacement is still pending. I certainly see the D400 to have a better fps probably the same sensor as the D7000 but with the Expeed 3 processor so you may gain an extra stop or more in low light situations.

Sure, it's not FX but to a lot of people that won't matter. A lot of people that want to shoot at high fps, they want more reach so shooting with a DX body will suit them just fine. When shooting wildlife, football/cricket/rugby game, you want the reach.

That is basically what Canon has done as well. You have the 7D crop sensor that is good for sports, you have the 5D MkII and 5D MkIII that will compete against the D800 (maybe not ) and you have the 1Dx to go head to head with the D4.

Just my take on it so far.

I feel that the D800 will suit the bill for a lot of pros and enthusiasts. For my landscape work, I'm really excited with the camera. I always wanted a D3x but never really could justify the money or the extra weight I would have had to carry in my pack. As a bonus, the D800 is even lighter then my D700 . I'll be keeping my D700 with battery grip to do wildlife so I still have the fast fps and low-light capability.

Cheers,

André

[chrisk]

No they haven't, they just haven't extended your path with this camera. When will the true extension of the D700 come out? I have no idea and have no basis to make a forecast, but, as I said, there is the potential for a multi-option upgrade path at the pro-sumer level.

At some point in the future (however near or far that maybe), the D4 features will trickle down to those with the D700. But not with the D800.

It is of not much use to me extending a path I don't really want to travel down.

We are almost arguing across each other here cos you say there is the potential of the multi upgrade path. Now, I see that as a reasonable outcome which is what i said from my very first post. I dont have an ibjection to the d800 as much as i have an issue with the absense of another version. Which is exactly why I'm saying there should be a d800s. There is nothing "multi" about one small body specialist fx option.

There isn't any need for a trickle down of anything. The sensor of the d4 can be inserted into the d800 body and voila you have a d800s. This worked fine for the d3/ d700. Then you have a faster multi purpose body and a specialist hi res body. The technology and the pieces are there, Nikon just haven't made it available.

[ATJ]

Nikon just haven't made it available.

...yet...

[gstark]

Ok, Chris, I'll play.

My issue is that as a Nikon system owner, Nikon have effectively eliminated my replacement path.

As Patrick says, you really don't (yet) know this. They've announced two FX bodies, both very high performance, but in very different ways. There's been no DX bodies announced for about a year, but, based upon what we've seen in the last 12 months (D3100, D700, N1, D4 and D800) there's been a hell of a lot of sensor and engine technology development.

Why do you see the D800 as the end of the road?

And - more importantly - why are you feeling a need to upgrade from the D700? In what ways is the D700 failing you? It already has exemplary high ISO performance, and up to 8fps with the battery grip, runs all of your existing glass, and reuses your existing stock of memory cards.

Just because there's a new body that's been announced, it doesn't mean that (a) it's for you, or (b) you need to get it.

I don't think the d800 will suit me cos I think the iso performance will be squishy

We don't know this.

ISO ratings don't necessarily relate to real world performance. In a discussion with Jasin Boland the other day, he was saying that he's getting two stops better performance from the D4 than with the D3 (non specific). Part of what I'm seeing with current sensor technology is a significant improvement in the dynamic range available. That can mean that an extra stop or two performance gain at any given ISO rating, simply because of better light gathering and processing algorithms.

And in fact, i would suggest that I am in the majority, not the minority of the market. The pros are shooting d3/4 models, it is typically the prosumers that are buying the smaller body fx cameras and Nikon are going to alienate a massive portion of the market.

Let's see ... FX body, 36MP sensor, compact body, half the price of a D4.

Which part of that equation do you not see the Hardly Normal salespeople jumping all over? They're probably having wet dreams over that.

But more seriously, while yes, the volume sales are in the lower end of the market (and we're talking bodies <= D7000, really) the profit margin there is really pitiful. Maybe measured in $10s. By way of contrast, the D4 is hand built, and enjoys a quite high profit margin: which would you rather do: sell a camera with a $20 margin, or one with a $1000 margin?

I have no idea of what the margins actually are, but (and cars are the same) the high performance models are very profitable for the manufacturers.

As to alienating a large portion of the market, and taking your example, the largest portion of the market are actually buying D3000 and D3100 models. The D40 was, for quite a while - the top selling camera of any kind in Japan. Most of those buyers wouldn't give a damn about the D300, D700, D3, D4, or D800. They just want to shoot happy snaps, using something better than a PHD.

So they're in no danger whatsoever of being alienated, but they're also only contributing a poofteenth of a PP to Nikon's bottom line.

I'm not entirely sure I share your concern for Nikon's continued profitability.

IMHO, there will be a d800s or d600 or whatever you want to call it within the next 6-12 months which will be the practical evolution of the d700. 16-24mp, 6fps expandable to 8 with the grip etc etc

I agree; I don't believe that we've seen the end of the current development cycle.

I think we need to see an extension of the D7000, which will replace the D300, and a downsized model of the D4, which will be (in your terms) the replacement for the D700.

[gstark]

There isn't any need for a trickle down of anything. The sensor of the d4 can be inserted into the d800 body and voila you have a d800s.

Er, no.

The sensors will actually be of a different physical size, and their connection busses will be very different. That needs to be accommodated on both a physical as well as a logical level.

Different feature sets need to be accounted for: the D4 does not have an embedded flash unit; the D300/D700/D800 bodies do. That affects the physical and logical sides of the development processes.

Menus need to be programmed, installed, tested, reworked, etc.

Chips need to be designed, flexible circuit boards will be very diverse across the disparate models ...

[tommyg]

it is an interesting question, is the 'upgrade' from D700 to D800 a good one?

Firstly, the possible negatives..

• Noise - with the smaller photosites on the D800, will noise be more of an issue?
• Image size - triple the RAW image size, means 1 Terabyte drives only hold 2,500 odd images
• Processing time - what will the speed be like processing files of this size, stitching a panoramic together, or creating a HDR
• slower framerate - I already hae my D700 permanently set to High frame rate, never used the slow setting
• How many cards are we going to need to carry for a reasonable shoot?

then some (hopeful) positives...

• Printing up to A1 withou having to go past 100% will be interesting
• Able to still take a reasonable image in DX mode, the D700 images were around 6mp, so not as usable
• Better scene recognition and D-lighting etc. etc.
• Dual slots finally! (although why not use the XQD..?), and putting in an SD card with limited speed will be a problem
• Video - I guess if there might use sometimes, but will see
• finally some mvement at the low ISO end, only improved from 200 to 100, but it's a start
•  AA filter option - have no idea which in the real-world will work better
• face detection - again, will be interesting to see some real-world examples

hopefully there are some discussion points in there somewhere

[ATJ]

This is cool. The D800 can do in camera time-lapse and convert straight to video.

[chrisk]

Ok, Chris, I'll play.

Thank you, I was hoping you would. Lol

As Patrick says, you really don't (yet) know this. They've announced two FX bodies, both very high performance, but in very different ways. There's been no DX bodies announced for about a year, but, based upon what we've seen in the last 12 months (D3100, D700, N1, D4 and D800) there's been a hell of a lot of sensor and engine technology development.

Well, as I had mentioned very early in this thread. There should be a d800s. I didn't get much agreement at that point. So glad you have all come around to my way of thinking and agree to it now. lol

Why do you see the D800 as the end of the road?

Cos that's all Nikon have offered to me right now and again, as isolated in my prior posts. I think this signals a d800s coming and again, I didn't seem to get much agreement then. And again, thanks for coming around ! You seem to have a different view now to what you had before which was, if it doesn't meet my needs then get a d4. This is not a feasible alternative. A d800s is a feasible alternative.

And - more importantly - why are you feeling a need to upgrade from the D700? In what ways is the D700 failing you? It already has exemplary high ISO performance, and up to 8fps with the battery grip, runs all of your existing glass, and reuses your existing stock of memory cards.

Kinda rehashing old ground here and I think I already answered pat on this. But let me elaborate even further cos I want to address this on a couple of levels;

Firstly, I'm not new to photography or dslr, so don't really need the "it's not the equipt it's you pep talk. lol the reasons or motivations behind my decision to buy or not buy don't make one iota of difference to the discussion anyway to be honest. The Cruz of this debate is; is it reasonable for Nikon to produce a d800 without an alternative for low light fast shooting. It would appear to me that now you all agree, this is not feasible and its likely a new model would be coming...or at the very least, seem a logical progression. It wouldn't make. Difference if all I wanted it for was. Of I loved new toys and that's the only reason I wanted it, the premise of this discussion remains the same.

Secondly, my d700 aperture ring does not work as a result of its swim so I can't use it for my zf glass. The video is crippled on the d700. And as with a none, you could always do with slightly better at and iso performance. That's a given. So if my d700 dies of cancer soon, I don't see a viable alternative from Nikon

Thirdly, this gets back to the point about it not being a logical decision to have a single semi pro fx dslr on the market that alienates a large group of shooters. The d3x and d3 are great examples where Nikon recognizes that different shooters have different needs. I would argue that the semi pro area is far more needing a jack of all trades than the top level so this doesn't make sense to me.

We don't know this.

No, we don't. But given the native iso setting peak at iso6400 and it's a 36 mp dslr, I'm gonna be betting that it's not gonna be that flash in low light. Would you disagree with that prediction ? I don't know how you would cos all of the leading evidence points to that. Now maybe Nikon can pull a rabbit out of the hat and redefine the parameters of sensor design and pixel pitch to produce a whopping improvement in low light despite all of the sensor characteristics...but I would suggest to you, this is unlikely.

ISO ratings don't necessarily relate to real world performance. In a discussion with Jasin Boland the other day, he was saying that he's getting two stops better performance from the D4 than with the D3 (non specific). Part of what I'm seeing with current sensor technology is a significant improvement in the dynamic range available. That can mean that an extra stop or two performance gain at any given ISO rating, simply because of better light gathering and processing algorithms.

Lol...come on Gary. You know as well as I do that it is highly likely, In fact almost certain that a 36mp sensor is gonna be noisier than a 16mp sensor. Let's just think about this in terms of relativity...look at the d3x vs the d3. Technology was roughly the same for these cameras and the differences are stark.

I also think this goes to my point, which you now agree with, that there is even more reason to release another version of the smaller fx body with better low light capability.

But more seriously, while yes, the volume sales are in the lower end of the market (and we're talking bodies <= D7000, really) the profit margin there is really pitiful. Maybe measured in $10s. By way of contrast, the D4 is hand built, and enjoys a quite high profit margin: which would you rather do: sell a camera with a $20 margin, or one with a $1000 margin?

I have no idea of what the margins actually are, but (and cars are the same) the high performance models are very profitable for the manufacturers.

If they alienate the market they aren't gonna get any margin. Going from purchasing a d800 to a d4 is not a logical progression for most people. To use your car analogy, I doubt many people walk into a Toyota dealer to buy a corolla drive out with a top of the range Camry. Budgets dictate much of our decision making.

And besides which, this is almost a redundant point really. Are you suggesting now that it IS logical for there to be only one model and people not happy with the d800 need to spend double and go to a d4 ? Or are you saying that there is more to come, so that decision is highly unlikely to be relevant in the future ?

As to alienating a large portion of the market, and taking your example, the largest portion of the market are actually buying D3000 and D3100 models. The D40 was, for quite a while - the top selling camera of any kind in Japan. Most of those buyers wouldn't give a damn about the D300, D700, D3, D4, or D800. They just want to shoot happy snaps, using something better than a PHD.

So they're in no danger whatsoever of being alienated, but they're also only contributing a poofteenth of a PP to Nikon's bottom line.

I'm referring to a large part of the market in context of the market the d800 is in. Which is a small body fx dslr.

I agree; I don't believe that we've seen the end of the current development cycle.

I think we need to see an extension of the D7000, which will replace the D300, and a downsized model of the D4, which will be (in your terms) the replacement for the D700.

Good. Glad we agree, the d800 on its own is retarded. lol

[Reschsmooth]

The d3x and d3 are great examples where Nikon recognizes that different shooters have different needs.

Hang on a sec - you can't discredit the D800 because it's lowlight/fast FPS cousin hasn't been released and use the D3/D3X sibling as an example. There were 15 months between the D3 and the D3X.

Looking at the D800 on the basis that that's it doesn't make sense.

[Alpha_7]

This is cool. The D800 can do in camera time-lapse and convert straight to video.

I liked the startfish too!

The built in time lapse saves a lot of PP and storage if you happy with the exposure etc in camera. (seems to handle changes in exposure pretty well in this short tests.

[ATJ]

I liked the startfish too!

Yes, Craig, that is very cool - very BBC Nature. I very much doubt it was a D800, though, as there wouldn't be any housings available as yet. Also, he used flash to keep the exposures consistent.

[chrisk]

The d3x and d3 are great examples where Nikon recognizes that different shooters have different needs.

Hang on a sec - you can't discredit the D800 because it's lowlight/fast FPS cousin hasn't been released and use the D3/D3X sibling as an example. There were 15 months between the D3 and the D3X.

Looking at the D800 on the basis that that's it doesn't make sense.

Patrick, I think I've made it clear that I'm not discrediting the d800 per se. It isnt appealing to me personally cos of the highly specialized nature of it but I absolutely recognize its place. I'm discrediting nikons strategy in releasing it without having the cousin you speak of. And in fact there is nothing to suggest that there is in fact a cousin at all. This is just our speculation.

Now, lets look at the comparison you made with the d3x/d3. If nikon had released the d3x first without any knowledge of the d3, do you think people would have been satisfied ? I dont think so. There would have been hell to pay cos they would have seriously alienated a market.

And again, judging from everyone's current frame of mind, I wasn't out of line to suggest that they needed this cousin to begin with. Or at the very least, a roadmap of its release.

[Steffen]

Lol...come on Gary. You know as well as I do that it is highly likely, In fact almost certain that a 36mp sensor is gonna be noisier than a 16mp sensor. Let's just think about this in terms of relativity...look at the d3x vs the d3. Technology was roughly the same for these cameras and the differences are stark.

Yet there are 16MP sensors today that are far less noisy than 4MP sensors used to be. My trusty old D2H had one pixel where the D7000 has four, yet is was noisier at ISO800 than the D7000 is at ISO6400. Mysterious? Impossible? Of course not, sensor technology moves on. So does in-camera noise reduction. Do you think technology has stood still since the D700 was introduced?

Cheers
Steffen.

[Mr Darcy]

Perhaps it would be a good camera for a wedding photographer. Is 4 fps suitable for shooting weddings? (Serious question and I have no idea of the answer).

Who else is the camera targeted at?

If you look at the brochure, the featured 'togs are:
Benjamin Monn (Fine Art/Architecture)
Cliff Mautner (Wedding)
Jim Brandenburg (Nature)
Rob Petten (Fashion)
Oh and not a single sport photo in the brochure.
I think that pretty much sums up their target market.

Rooz, When I compare my photos @ISO800 from my D200 with the D800 samples @ISO6400 the D800 blows the D200 away. This despite about a 2x increase in pixel density. (10Mp Vs 40Mp in only double the area and yes I know I have rounded the numbers) Maybe. Just maybe they have improved the technology. Certainly since the D200. Probably since the D700. If you are happy with the D700, why not simply buy another when you break it once and for all? Or just get it fixed?

So they haven't brought out your "perfect" camera. Big deal. Get over it. I am sure they haven't sent redundancy packages to their R&D department just yet.

[gstark]

Ok, Chris, I'll play.

Thank you, I was hoping you would. Lol

As Patrick says, you really don't (yet) know this. They've announced two FX bodies, both very high performance, but in very different ways. There's been no DX bodies announced for about a year, but, based upon what we've seen in the last 12 months (D3100, D700, N1, D4 and D800) there's been a hell of a lot of sensor and engine technology development.

Well, as I had mentioned very early in this thread. There should be a d800s. I didn't get much agreement at that point. So glad you have all come around to my way of thinking and agree to it now. lol

Well, yes, and no.

I'm agreeing that the D800 is not the end of the line. I'm agreeing that there should - and will - be other models.

I'm unconvinced that they'll be in the D800 lineage. They may be. Or perhaps not.

36MP is not the end of the line, and nor are the incremental improvements that we've seen brought in with the D4.

And nor are those similar improvements that we're also seeing in the N1.

I think that you need to go back and review the N1 specs a little more closely: sensor resolution closely matches that of the D800, with good low light performance and high speed shutter operation.

I think that Nikon has been doing a lot of paddling in the sensor development duck pond, and we are yet to see the fruits of all of their labours.

Whether we see a D7100, D700s, D301, D400 or D800s is anyone's guess, but but there's lots of scope for lots of things to occur.

Why do you see the D800 as the end of the road?

Cos that's all Nikon have offered to me right now and again, as isolated in my prior posts. I think this signals a d800s

Why?

Why D800s?

Why not a D4x? D4s?

Or any of the other potential model names I've noted above?

And just because there's nothing offered today is not an indication that there won't be something tomorrow or next week. Hell, two days ago, the D800 announcement didn't exist, and thus it also wasn't an option for you.

The Cruz of this debate is; is it reasonable for Nikon to produce a d800 without an alternative for low light fast shooting.

Well, they have that alternative. Several, in fact. D700. D3. D4 can all play in that ballpark. Each of them will do a fine job.

And we have yet to see how the D800 performs in low light situations.

Your gripe seems to be that there's not yet a smaller version of the D4. When the D3 came out, it was accompanied by the D300. The D700 - the smaller version of the D3 - followed a year later. Maybe that's the expected timing? I don't know.

So if my d700 dies of cancer soon, I don't see a viable alternative from Nikon

Let's go back a step here.

You don't see a viable new model alternative from Nikon. But you've failed to tell us what is wrong with the D700 as a model. Yes, you've told us that your camera has suffered some abnormal wear and tear, but does that make the model - a new instance of the same camera model - no longer viable for you?

In other words, what, in a new D700 body, would make it not a viable proposition for you?

Thirdly, this gets back to the point about it not being a logical decision to have a single semi pro fx dslr on the market that alienates a large group of shooters. The d3x and d3 are great examples where Nikon recognizes that different shooters have different needs. I would argue that the semi pro area is far more needing a jack of all trades than the top level so this doesn't make sense to me.

As Chris has already pointed out, pros are unlikely to want jack-of-all-trades bodies. They would rather grab the body that suits the needs of each job they undertake on a job by job basis. That's certainly how I operate: I grab the body (and glass) that I think will best perform the tasks that I need done.

And with the D3/D3x point that you raise, consider that the two bodies in question are now known as the D4 and D800. Your point holds water; only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

Well, the names, and some significant functionality points too.

We don't know this.

No, we don't. But given the native iso setting peak at iso6400 and it's a 36 mp dslr, I'm gonna be betting that it's not gonna be that flash in low light. Would you disagree with that prediction ?

As a prediction? You betcha!

The sensor technology has come a long way; the D3 is several generations old now, and although the photosites are smaller, they will be more efficient and they're accompanied by a newer, faster processing engine with greater capabilities too.

I have yet to handle either the D4 or the D800, but I do know that each time I handle a new generation of this technology, I am (again and again) blown away by what I'm seeing.

As a prediction, I'm again expecting to be impressed by what I see.

Now maybe Nikon can pull a rabbit out of the hat and redefine the parameters of sensor design and pixel pitch to produce a whopping improvement in low light despite all of the sensor characteristics...but I would suggest to you, this is unlikely.

But yet they do this every two or three years.

I reckon we'll see a couple more rabbits.

Lol...come on Gary. You know as well as I do that it is highly likely, In fact almost certain that a 36mp sensor is gonna be noisier than a 16mp sensor.

The problem with your line of discussion is that there's an inherent assumption that then underlying tech doesn't change.

That is simply not the case.

As soon as the underlying tech changes, so too do all of the other parameters move.

If they alienate the market they aren't gonna get any margin. Going from purchasing a d800 to a d4 is not a logical progression for most people.

But neither the D800 nor the D4 are targeted towards "most people".

To use your car analogy, I doubt many people walk into a Toyota dealer to buy a corolla drive out with a top of the range Camry.

There is no such thing as a top of the range Camry. But I digress.

Those who will walk into a camera store to buy a D800 or a D4 will be well aware, before they set foot anywhere near that store, what they're going to be buying.

Moreover, the total annual number of D4 sales that you'd see from your Hardly Normal stores, would be able to be counted on zero fingers.

Hardly Normal, being your Toyota dealer equivalent, would not be trusted by the camera buyers to sell them this sort of gear.

Budgets dictate much of our decision making.

As far as enthusiasts go, yes, this is true.

If you're a pro, it's a tool. You go and just buy the tools that you need. Budget plays a part, but if the camera is paying its way, it's not actually a budgetary item, but an asset that's used to earn income.

I'm referring to a large part of the market in context of the market the d800 is in. Which is a small body fx dslr.

But it's still just a very small part of the total market

[ATJ]

If you look at the brochure, the featured 'togs are:
Benjamin Monn (Fine Art/Architecture)
Cliff Mautner (Wedding)
Jim Brandenburg (Nature)
Rob Petten (Fashion)
Oh and not a single sport photo in the brochure.
I think that pretty much sums up their target market.

I'll ask my question again, how many of them need "Advanced Scene Recognition"?

[Steffen]

If you look at the brochure, the featured 'togs are:
Benjamin Monn (Fine Art/Architecture)
Cliff Mautner (Wedding)
Jim Brandenburg (Nature)
Rob Petten (Fashion)
Oh and not a single sport photo in the brochure.
I think that pretty much sums up their target market.

I'll ask my question again, how many of them need "Advanced Scene Recognition"?

I believe it would be a marketing mistake to leave out a modern automation feature just because the target photographers are supposed to know what they're doing. Under pressure anyone can use a little help.

Cheers
Steffen.

[chrisk]

Rooz, When I compare my photos @ISO800 from my D200 with the D800 samples @ISO6400 the D800 blows the D200 away. This despite about a 2x increase in pixel density. (10Mp Vs 40Mp in only double the area and yes I know I have rounded the numbers) Maybe. Just maybe they have improved the technology. Certainly since the D200.

oh brother. Cme on Greg. Comparing a d200 ? Not a realistic comparison is it and hardly in the context of this discussion.

Probably since the D700. If you are happy with the D700, why not simply buy another when you break it once and for all? Or just get it fixed?

It can't be fixed cos it's rusting inside. And I do not intend to buy another d700 for the reasons I outlined. It has crippled video and if I'm going to lay down my hard earned cash then I want to do it with the best option available with the latest possible technology.

So they haven't brought out your "perfect" camera. Big deal. Get over it. I am sure they haven't sent redundancy packages to their R&D department just yet.

lol ahhhh...I, not making it a big deal greg and there's nothing for me to get over. Im underwhelmed by the offering and i cant understand why there is no d800s announced. Ahhh...so what ? Am I not allowed to express disappointment and articulate a critical view of Nikon and their strategy here as it relates to me and in my opinion ? I have not been disrespectful or abusive to any member. And as far as I can see I am presenting logical arguments regardless of whether you agree with them or not. Do I have to sugar coat it for you ?

This is a discussion board of which i have been a member for a small while and feel comfortable expressing opinions, both positive and negative, without having to hold my tongue. I would have considered this forum to be thick skinned enough to engage in the occasional vigorous disagreement. Over the years gary and i have had many exchanges and i have enjoyed every one cos, at least from my end, they are done in good spirit regardless of the heat in the individual debate.

I would suggest that all this is, is a robust debate, I actually enjoy the freedom to be able to do that. If you can't handle it and/or dont like it, then with all due respect, "get over it" and don't reply.

[Mr Darcy]

I'm sorry. I thought your question was

wedding photographer <snip> Who else is the camera targeted at?

As for

how many of them need "Advanced Scene Recognition"?

This question rather reminds me of all the people who asked "Who needs a graphic interface?" when Windows 3.0 came out. I wonder how many people are still using DOS.
They have the technology and as a software thing, it costs nothing to add it to the camera & it may tempt a few well heeled amateurs to part with their cash, so why not?

oh brother. Cme on Greg. Comparing a d200 ? Not a realistic comparison is it and hardly in the context of this discussion.

I disagree. You claimed that cramming more sensors into the space would inevitably lead to higher noise. My point (And Radar's and Gary's) is that the technology has moved on. So it ain't necessarily so.
Now go have a cup of tea, a Bex and a good lie down.

[radar]

Always good to have a robust debate. This is actually rare on a lot of forums.

[Wink]

Cliff Mautner talks a little about some of the D800 features... http://cliffmautner.typepad.com/

The face recognition seems like a handy feature.

[ATJ]

Here's a comment from Alex Mustard, who had one of the prototypes for at least a week:

I'd like to be able to open my RAW files before commenting definitely on noise. But as a general comment both the noise and frame rate significantly exceeded what I thought would be possible with 36MP.

[chrisk]

I disagree. You claimed that cramming more sensors into the space would inevitably lead to higher noise. My point (And Radar's and Gary's) is that the technology has moved on. So it ain't necessarily so.

like for like technology, absolutely. cramming more pixels onto a sensor will lead to greater noise. d3x vs d3. same generation cameras and a vast difference. a 24mp camera with todays technology will yied a better result than a 36mp sensor with todays technology when it comes to iso performance. i would prefer the former than the latter. and i bet if i dig up any old threads about mp vs noise, before nikon announced a 36mp sensor most, if not all, in here would say the EXACT same thing.

Now go have a cup of tea, a Bex and a good lie down.

i dont know what your going for here greg. you seem to want to engage me in a childish flaming war which i wont do. if you cant handle having a heated debate without this kind of condescending nonsense aswell as not being able to articulate a coherent argument then you're of no use to me. consider yourself dismissed.

[chrisk]

Well, yes, and no. I'm agreeing that the D800 is not the end of the line. I'm agreeing that there should - and will - be other models. I'm unconvinced that they'll be in the D800 lineage. They may be. Or perhaps not.

i just want a smaller bodied FX camera that is in the same kinda vein as the d700 was for its time. whether its a "new" line of cameras ala the d7000 vs the d300 i dont really care.

36MP is not the end of the line, and nor are the incremental improvements that we've seen brought in with the D4.

no disagreement there.

Why?

Why D800s?

Why not a D4x? D4s?

Or any of the other potential model names I've noted above?

i dont care if its a d800s, a d800p, a d800n, a d600, a d650, a d900. couldnt give a rats to be honest. as said above, i just want, and i believe its absolutely logical for nikon to have, a camera with less pixel density, a higher frame rate and better iso performance than the d800 will offer.

And just because there's nothing offered today is not an indication that there won't be something tomorrow or next week.

well, if it is offered, i'll be very happy. but i can only go on evidence i have in front of me.

Hell, two days ago, the D800 announcement didn't exist, and thus it also wasn't an option for you.

no it wasnt, but the d700 was about ready for an update so i naturally thought it would be an evolution of the d700, not an evolution of the d3x.

Well, they have that alternative. Several, in fact. D700. D3. D4 can all play in that ballpark. Each of them will do a fine job.

this is going around in circles. they are not small bodied FX cameras and they are too expensive. it doesn't address the situation and they are not realistic alternatives. hence the reason i do believe that nikon will release a d800s, (or whatever you want to call it.)

And we have yet to see how the D800 performs in low light situations.

no we havent. but again, it is a no brainer that the the d4 has far better low light capability than the d800 does. thats all im asking for. its not that much to ask for. they just used that business model with great success with the d3 and d700.

Your gripe seems to be that there's not yet a smaller version of the D4. When the D3 came out, it was accompanied by the D300. The D700 - the smaller version of the D3 - followed a year later. Maybe that's the expected timing? I don't know.

could be. in which case, again, as i stated, i'd be happy.

You don't see a viable new model alternative from Nikon. But you've failed to tell us what is wrong with the D700 as a model. Yes, you've told us that your camera has suffered some abnormal wear and tear, but does that make the model - a new instance of the same camera model - no longer viable for you?

In other words, what, in a new D700 body, would make it not a viable proposition for you?

i answered this above. if im going to lay down my cash i want to make sure i have the opportunity to take advantage of the best technology and the best option of the day. that is my choice is it not ?

As Chris has already pointed out, pros are unlikely to want jack-of-all-trades bodies. They would rather grab the body that suits the needs of each job they undertake on a job by job basis. That's certainly how I operate: I grab the body (and glass) that I think will best perform the tasks that I need done.

and as i answered, pros can pick up a d4.

And with the D3/D3x point that you raise, consider that the two bodies in question are now known as the D4 and D800. Your point holds water; only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

Well, the names, and some significant functionality points too.

sure if we assume that is the case, again, where is the alternative ? the d3/ d3x had an fx alternative...the d700. so all im asking for is the same alternative.

As a prediction? You betcha!

The sensor technology has come a long way; the D3 is several generations old now, and although the photosites are smaller, they will be more efficient and they're accompanied by a newer, faster processing engine with greater capabilities too.

i'll make a prediction then...the d800 will be nowhere near the d4 and will struggle to come within 2 stops of a d3s. i think we'll be very fortunate if it holds water to the d700.

I have yet to handle either the D4 or the D800, but I do know that each time I handle a new generation of this technology, I am (again and again) blown away by what I'm seeing.

i dont disagree, but logic commands that the same technology applied to a 24mp sensor will exceed the 36mp sensor in low light.

As a prediction, I'm again expecting to be impressed by what I see.

in the context of a 36mp sensor i agree. it will likely be very good. we shall see.

The problem with your line of discussion is that there's an inherent assumption that then underlying tech doesn't change.

That is simply not the case.

As soon as the underlying tech changes, so too do all of the other parameters move.

i believe i have answered this a couple of times. it is not a problem cos its a fact. a 16mp sensor with todays technology will have better low light performance than a 36mp sensor with todays technology. you are assuming that i am comparing a camera released TODAY with a camera released years ago. why would i do that ? im saying that if nikon DID produce a d800s that was 24mp it would not only have better iso performance but it would also be capable of a faster frame rate.

But neither the D800 nor the D4 are targeted towards "most people".

us the context gary. not the mass market. there is a broad market, and there is a market for people wanting a prosumer fx body. this is the market i'm talking about. not a bloke who wants to spend $600 on a camera and kit lens.

Those who will walk into a camera store to buy a D800 or a D4 will be well aware, before they set foot anywhere near that store, what they're going to be buying. Moreover, the total annual number of D4 sales that you'd see from your Hardly Normal stores, would be able to be counted on zero fingers.

Hardly Normal, being your Toyota dealer equivalent, would not be trusted by the camera buyers to sell them this sort of gear.

hmm...i dont know why walking thru any physical doors even entered this discussion, nor did i raise HN. a bit of a straw man there. my point here is that if you save up your cash for an fx dslr...around the $3k mark, and the option isnt great, you are highly unlikely to step up to a d4 to get a camera to match your needs. its not a viable option. nor is it realistic.

As far as enthusiasts go, yes, this is true.

If you're a pro, it's a tool. You go and just buy the tools that you need. Budget plays a part, but if the camera is paying its way, it's not actually a budgetary item, but an asset that's used to earn income.

and again, if your a pro, then you can buy a d4. the d700 is not just a pro camera. id suggest to you that most d700 owners are NOT pros. they are enthusiasts or guys that do a bit on the side. and ARE budget conscious.

But it's still just a very small part of the total market

yes it is...so how does that make a difference ?

[Steffen]

I think you should stop digging.

So Nikon didn't release a D4x at a D800 price, big deal. They didn't have to because their competition isn't doing it either. There is no need to blow a gasket over that. Over time all of your (today's) dreams will come true, but when they do I'm sure you'll be upset again...

Cheers
Steffen.

[gstark]

A little bit of housekeeping, people.

This is a discussion board of which i have been a member for a small while and feel comfortable expressing opinions, both positive and negative, without having to hold my tongue. I would have considered this forum to be thick skinned enough to engage in the occasional vigorous disagreement. Over the years gary and i have had many exchanges and i have enjoyed every one cos, at least from my end, they are done in good spirit regardless of the heat in the individual debate.

I would suggest that all this is, is a robust debate, I actually enjoy the freedom to be able to do that.

What Chris is saying here is very important.

I love - and actively encourage - robust debate. It's fun, and as does Chris, I enjoy it. That we don't all share the same points of view is wonderful, but we do need to remember that we must treat everyone else here with an appropriate level of respect.

So please, all, let's keep to the topics at hand, and let's not get involved in any personal references and the like.

[gstark]

Well, yes, and no. I'm agreeing that the D800 is not the end of the line. I'm agreeing that there should - and will - be other models. I'm unconvinced that they'll be in the D800 lineage. They may be. Or perhaps not.

i just want a smaller bodied FX camera that is in the same kinda vein as the d700 was for its time. whether its a "new" line of cameras ala the d7000 vs the d300 i dont really care.

And as I said, that's probably going to be a trickle-down affair, from the D4, and in about a year.

i dont care if its a d800s, a d800p, a d800n, a d600, a d650, a d900. couldnt give a rats to be honest. as said above, i just want, and i believe its absolutely logical for nikon to have, a camera with less pixel density, a higher frame rate and better iso performance than the d800 will offer.

Except that you don't know what the D800's high ISO performance is, and you're speculating that it's not going to be good.

As I've said, Jasin Boland is already using a D4, and is reporting a two stop improvement over D3 performance. While it's not the same sensor, the N1 is also offering excellent hi ISO processing.

If, given the pixel density, the D800 offered an extra two stops (effective performance) over the D700, would that work for you? Remember that the battery grip gives you 6fps.

And just because there's nothing offered today is not an indication that there won't be something tomorrow or next week.

well, if it is offered, i'll be very happy. but i can only go on evidence i have in front of me.

Well, a part of that evidence, surely, is the fact that there was a 12 month delay between the D3 and D700 releases?

Likewise, there was a similar delay between the D3 and D3x releases.

So the cycle you're waiting on has, roughly, another year to run.

Hell, two days ago, the D800 announcement didn't exist, and thus it also wasn't an option for you.

no it wasnt, but the d700 was about ready for an update so i naturally thought it would be an evolution of the d700, not an evolution of the d3x.

Well, no. That's not how it's been in the past; there's no evidence that would suggest that:

D1 -> (a long time) -> D100 -> (more time) -> D70

D2 -> (time passes ) -> various D2 offshoots.

D3/D300 ->(12 months) -> D3x/D700 -> (gee, the view is nice) -> D3100/D7000

D4/D800/N1 -> (let's stand around and see what happens)

I've thrown the N1 in there because I think that it's going to be a part of this mix. I think that a lot of what we're seeing is going to be shared technology across the three sensor platforms ...

And we have yet to see how the D800 performs in low light situations.

no we havent. but again, it is a no brainer that the the d4 has far better low light capability than the d800 does. thats all im asking for. its not that much to ask for. they just used that business model with great success with the d3 and d700.

But with the 12 month gap between release dates.

Your gripe seems to be that there's not yet a smaller version of the D4. When the D3 came out, it was accompanied by the D300. The D700 - the smaller version of the D3 - followed a year later. Maybe that's the expected timing? I don't know.

could be. in which case, again, as i stated, i'd be happy.

Cool.

My work here is complete. Where's my coffee?

As Chris has already pointed out, pros are unlikely to want jack-of-all-trades bodies. They would rather grab the body that suits the needs of each job they undertake on a job by job basis. That's certainly how I operate: I grab the body (and glass) that I think will best perform the tasks that I need done.

and as i answered, pros can pick up a d4.

If they want/need a high performance (ie, fast) body. Or one with a high level of remote control options. (It was interesting listening to Jasin the other week, talking about how he sets up shots for, for instance, explosions on movie sets. The options available on the D4 have given him a better ans safer working environment.)

But many of those same pros will also want the D800 without the AA filter because of the high level of fine detail that body will be offering them.

And with the D3/D3x point that you raise, consider that the two bodies in question are now known as the D4 and D800. Your point holds water; only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

Well, the names, and some significant functionality points too.

sure if we assume that is the case, again, where is the alternative ? the d3/ d3x had an fx alternative...the d700. so all im asking for is the same alternative.

But that's where you may need some patience.

Rome wasn't built in a day, and as we've agreed, there were roughly 365 of those days within which Rome was failed to have been built between when the D3 and the D700 were respectively announced.

As a prediction? You betcha!

The sensor technology has come a long way; the D3 is several generations old now, and although the photosites are smaller, they will be more efficient and they're accompanied by a newer, faster processing engine with greater capabilities too.

i'll make a prediction then...the d800 will be nowhere near the d4 and will struggle to come within 2 stops of a d3s. i think we'll be very fortunate if it holds water to the d700.

I think your on a losing bet there. It will be interesting to see.

im saying that if nikon DID produce a d800s that was 24mp it would not only have better iso performance but it would also be capable of a faster frame rate.

But, in going down the 36MP path, Nikon have clearly chosen the high (resolution) road for this sensor, leaving the high (ISO) road, for now, to the D4.

FWIW, the D800 has a variety of frame rates, tied to its various resoltion options.

my point here is that if you save up your cash for an fx dslr...

And my point here is that for most D800 purchasers, the concept of saving up the cash to buy it doesn't even enter the equation. Most will be pros: they'll see the benefits of the specs, and just buy the damn thing.

The enthusiast market will either lap up the high resolution, or see what you're seeing, and maybe delay their purchase. That's fine too.

[Alpha_7]

Cliff Mautner one of the road testers of the D800 has posted an update here.

http://cmphotography.com/blog.cfm

One of the things that stood out for me was the following

ISO. In my opinion, from the results I achieved, the ISO performance is about equal to a D3. It is in no way a D4, and wasn’t intended to be. It’s not a D3S either. You should expect it to perform close to the D700 and D3 with respect to ISO

I'd be well and truly happy with the ISO performance if it's close to the D700 if it can do that, but at the significantly higher pixel density that is mighty impressive. Obviously many of us waiting for some high ISO samples but should be interesting when they start to materialise.

And I spoke too soon.. he's posted some high iso samples...including some 100% crops. 3200 doesn't seem to bad all things considered but 6400 is going beyond what most would feel comfortable with..(least for weddings, for bands perhaps not).


Excuse the other lanuage but at the bottom of this page some more High ISO test shots.

http://www.ferra.ru/ru/digiphoto/review ... iew/print/

[aim54x]

One of the things that stood out for me was the following

ISO. In my opinion, from the results I achieved, the ISO performance is about equal to a D3. It is in no way a D4, and wasn’t intended to be. It’s not a D3S either. You should expect it to perform close to the D700 and D3 with respect to ISO

I'd be well and truly happy with the ISO performance if it's close to the D700 if it can do that, but at the significantly higher pixel density that is mighty impressive. Obviously many of us waiting for some high ISO samples but should be interesting when they start to materialise.

And I spoke too soon.. he's posted some high iso samples...including some 100% crops. 3200 doesn't seem to bad all things considered but 6400 is going beyond what most would feel comfortable with..(least for weddings, for bands perhaps not).

You had my hopes up for a moment!

[radar]

Thanks for that Craig,

ISO. In my opinion, from the results I achieved, the ISO performance is about equal to a D3. It is in no way a D4, and wasn’t intended to be. It’s not a D3S either. You should expect it to perform close to the D700 and D3 with respect to ISO

and that makes me happy. On my D700, it is very rare that I need above 1600ISO, so that's fine. When and if my D700 fails, a second-hand D3s will do me just fine to get my high ISO and fast frame rate that I like to have when photographing wildlife.

cheers

André

[chrisk]

And as I said, that's probably going to be a trickle-down affair, from the D4, and in about a year.

which is annoying but understandable and its what i have said from very early on in this thread. that there should be a d800s. the crux of this debate was that the answer people had to my issue with the d800 was "get a d4." it was not wait until the d800s, its very likely to come. and thats what i take exception to, that its somehow logical to say that if you want something other than the d800, then spend double. i see no sense in that at all.

Except that you don't know what the D800's high ISO performance is, and you're speculating that it's not going to be good. As I've said, Jasin Boland is already using a D4, and is reporting a two stop improvement over D3 performance. While it's not the same sensor, the N1 is also offering excellent hi ISO processing.

what i know for a fact is that the d800 will not touch the d4 for low light. and like i said, i would be surprised if it even matched the d700 in really low light. not iso6400, f5 1/2000s iso tests. im talking LOW light. f2, iso6400, 1/60th.

If, given the pixel density, the D800 offered an extra two stops (effective performance) over the D700, would that work for you? Remember that the battery grip gives you 6fps.

define effective performance. if your talking downsampling the image, then i would have to assess that if it came to that. i dont know enough about downsampling to make that assessment. what im talking about is simple...what does the final image look like at iso6400.

6fps with the grip is only in DX mode. not for me.

Well, a part of that evidence, surely, is the fact that there was a 12 month delay between the D3 and D700 releases?

Likewise, there was a similar delay between the D3 and D3x releases.

So the cycle you're waiting on has, roughly, another year to run.

true.

Well, no. That's not how it's been in the past; there's no evidence that would suggest that:

D1 -> (a long time) -> D100 -> (more time) -> D70

D2 -> (time passes ) -> various D2 offshoots.

D3/D300 ->(12 months) -> D3x/D700 -> (gee, the view is nice) -> D3100/D7000

D4/D800/N1 -> (let's stand around and see what happens)

I've thrown the N1 in there because I think that it's going to be a part of this mix. I think that a lot of what we're seeing is going to be shared technology across the three sensor platforms ...

i see where you're going with it and it makes some sense. but its semantics to me.

My work here is complete. Where's my coffee?

lol you would always be welcome to a shout of coffee. in this case though...lets be clear that i dont agree with the d4 being an alternative to a d800 which is what was suggested to me earlier in this thread. your last few posts have more been about waiting for a d800s...this makes sense.

I think your on a losing bet there. It will be interesting to see.

so you are suggesting that the camera will produce images equal to a d3s or d4 ? wont happen.

FWIW, the D800 has a variety of frame rates, tied to its various resoltion options.

it does ? sorry, i didnt see that. what is this about ? are you suggesting that you can reduce the res of the camera in FX and get a faster frame rate ? i didnt read that anywhere. i read that you switch to dx and you get the 6fps. but still, same pixel pitch so it wont address the iso issue if its 16mp on DX size.

[gstark]

FWIW, the D800 has a variety of frame rates, tied to its various resoltion options.

it does ? sorry, i didnt see that. what is this about ? are you suggesting that you can reduce the res of the camera in FX and get a faster frame rate ? i didnt read that anywhere. i read that you switch to dx and you get the 6fps. but still, same pixel pitch so it wont address the iso issue if its 16mp on DX size.

Approximate frame advance rate

With EN-EL15 batteries - Image area: FX/5 : 4; CL: 1-4 fps, CH: 4 fps - Image area: DX/1.2x; CL: 1-5 fps, CH: 5 fpsOther power sources - Image area: FX/5 : 4; CL: 1-4 fps, CH: 4 fps - Image area: 1.2x; CL: 1-5 fps, CH: 5 fps - Image area: DX; CL: 1-5 fps, CH: 6 fps

[chrisk]

Yeah, so max frame rate for fx is 4fps though right ?

[Reschsmooth]

Yeah, so max frame rate for fx is 4fps though right ?

Yes, should be fast enough for your twins, right?

[chrisk]

lol i cant keep up with them with a d4 on steroids.

[gstark]

lol i cant keep up with them with a d4 on steroids.

Lay down some tar to slow them down. I'm sure your wife won't object to a layer or two throughout the house.

[Reschsmooth]

lol i cant keep up with them with a d4 on steroids.

1 finger of scotch, but not the good stuff.

[aim54x]

Guess what I played with yesterday?



Unfortunately it was a late Pre-Production so I cannot judge image quality....I have to admit that I prefer the D700's handling nuances. I do love the 100% viewfinder and the dual card slots (better if it was dual CF!!)

[tasadam]

If I can ask a question on what people think about this...
I've been reading that 36Mp is likely to push the Nikon lenses to their limits.
I mainly shoot with Nikon 24-70 and Nikon 17-35
Other lenses used are the 106 macro (non VR) and 50mm f1.4
Wishlist is 70-200 II.

With 36Mp, would I be better served getting a few prime lenses? Much difference in quality?

Upgrade choice, D800 36Mp at ~$3300
or
Medium format, at >$40,000
Seriously considering both options, the problem being I really don't know what impact 36Mp is going to have on the glass I currently own.

[aim54x]

If I can ask a question on what people think about this...
I've been reading that 36Mp is likely to push the Nikon lenses to their limits.
I mainly shoot with Nikon 24-70 and Nikon 17-35
Other lenses used are the 106 macro (non VR) and 50mm f1.4
Wishlist is 70-200 II.

With 36Mp, would I be better served getting a few prime lenses? Much difference in quality?

Upgrade choice, D800 36Mp at ~$3300
or
Medium format, at >$40,000
Seriously considering both options, the problem being I really don't know what impact 36Mp is going to have on the glass I currently own.

Realisically, 36MP is still slightly less densely packed than a 16MP APS-C. Most (if not all) of Nikon's lineup works fine on the 16MP D7000, so it is a relatively safe assumption that centre resolution is fine on the D800. On the extreme edge and border....well that will be seen soon enough.

The 24-70 should be a fine lens on the D800, but the 17-35 may be weak on the edge/corner. Your 105VR and 50mm f/1.4(G?) shouldnt be troubled, and the desired 70-200 VR II shouldn't be either. As for buying some more prime glass...this may not be a bad move

[radar]

Adam,

from all that I have read, the lenses you have would be just fine on the new D800.

If I was considering MF, I would still get the D800. It will be easy to sell in a few months if you do decide to go the MF route.

As for using primes, look at maybe getting the 24mm PC-E, for the type of photography you do, I suspect you would love it. I certainly love mine

cheers,

André

[Steffen]

Those pixels are getting damn small at 36MP, only about 5 micron. Considering the Bayer array and interpolation your maximum allowable circle of confusion for making full use of the sensor's resolution would be around 12 or 13 microns.

Firstly, this means you want to be shooting faster than f/8 or else you will be wasting resolution due to diffraction, regardless of lens. Then, you want a lens that can resolve detail down to 12 microns. Incidentally, among the set of MTF specs published by Nikon are those for a spacial frequency of 30/mm, which corresponds to 60 alternating black and white lines per mm. This means those lines are 17 microns wide, not too far from the 12 microns the sensor can resolve. Seeing that the 24-70 performs quite well (except far from the centre) at 17 microns, it should be doing sufficiently well at 12 microns to make good use of the sensor.

Cheers
Steffen.

[Willy wombat]

First $AU price

$3800 at TEDS

http://www.teds.com.au/new-releases-feb-2012

[tasadam]

I was just looking at http://www.cameras.net.au/
$3425, or $3695 for the E

[tasadam]

Interesting pricing... http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/cat ... %7D-D800E/
$2,999.95 / $3,399.00
Are they importers? EDIT. Yes they are - Link, question 5.

Edit.
You pay for it, then they tell you how long you have to wait before you can get it...

[tasadam]

Here's opposite ends of the scale...
D800 at $3999
D800 at $2841.33

[radar]

at L&P, for the D800 $3899 and D800E at $4199!! Note that is the Nikon Australia RRP, ouch. ECS prices certainly are slightly more palatable, just

We certainly have to pay quite the premium for Australian warranty.

[gstark]

Interesting pricing... http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/cat ... %7D-D800E/
$2,999.95 / $3,399.00
Are they importers? EDIT. Yes they are - Link, question 5.

Edit.
You pay for it, then they tell you how long you have to wait before you can get it...

That may not be legal in Oz ...