[Macworld]

Post your comments for Nikon D800 full-frame DSLR packs 36 megapixels here

[pdbreske]

What I find most impressive about this camera is the price. $3300 for a full-frame camera with these capabilities is a bargain and will drive the competitors to follow suit.

I do wish the manufacturers would stop pursuing higher and higher megapixel ratings in favor of higher and cleaner ISO sensitivities. Sadly, the average consumer is too stupid to realize that all these pixels translate to fewer images per memory card and require larger hard drive capacities to store these images.

And, yes, I do realize this isn't targeted at the "average consumer," but you KNOW there will be a few soccer-dads on the sidelines with these cameras trying to impress the other dads with: "Look what I got! Thirty-six megapixels, baby! Now I'm a better photographer than you!"

[leicaman]

Big disappointment from Nikon. This does not replace the D700. It's leaving a big whopping hole in the line that Canon is going to fill with the 5D Mark III, which will share the same sensor as the DX, at 18.3 megapixels. And thus will blow away wedding photographers using the Nikon D800 because of its clearly superior low light performance.

I was waiting and hoping Nikon would not lose their minds and continue on the march to ever-increasing megapixels and give us a real photographer's camera that can shoot clean images up to 12,800. You'll be lucky to get clean images at ISO 1,600 with this camera. Sony failed at 24 megapixels, this will fail too I'm willing to wager.

Big mistake Nikon. You will regret not coming out with a D800 with the D4's sensor like you did with the D700 and D3.

[fstop808]

In my use, there is generally plenty of light, so resolution is what is needed. Need to know more about the D800E.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

leicaman, on 07 February 2012 - 08:13 AM, said:

Big disappointment from Nikon. This does not replace the D700. It's leaving a big whopping hole in the line that Canon is going to fill with the 5D Mark III, which will share the same sensor as the DX, at 18.3 megapixels. And thus will blow away wedding photographers using the Nikon D800 because of its clearly superior low light performance.

I was waiting and hoping Nikon would not lose their minds and continue on the march to ever-increasing megapixels and give us a real photographer's camera that can shoot clean images up to 12,800. You'll be lucky to get clean images at ISO 1,600 with this camera. Sony failed at 24 megapixels, this will fail too I'm willing to wager.

Big mistake Nikon. You will regret not coming out with a D800 with the D4's sensor like you did with the D700 and D3.

Not everyone needs super high ISOs and there is definitely a market that needs higher image resolution. With current technology you have to pick one or the other. Nikon seems to be saying the D4 is for those who care more about ISO and the D800 is for those who need resolution. Seems like a sensible approach to me.

This post has been edited by Stewsburntmonkey: 07 February 2012 - 10:43 AM

[Rugby]

Stewsburntmonkey, on 07 February 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

leicaman, on 07 February 2012 - 08:13 AM, said:

Big disappointment from Nikon. This does not replace the D700. It's leaving a big whopping hole in the line that Canon is going to fill with the 5D Mark III, which will share the same sensor as the DX, at 18.3 megapixels. And thus will blow away wedding photographers using the Nikon D800 because of its clearly superior low light performance.

I was waiting and hoping Nikon would not lose their minds and continue on the march to ever-increasing megapixels and give us a real photographer's camera that can shoot clean images up to 12,800. You'll be lucky to get clean images at ISO 1,600 with this camera. Sony failed at 24 megapixels, this will fail too I'm willing to wager.

Big mistake Nikon. You will regret not coming out with a D800 with the D4's sensor like you did with the D700 and D3.

Not everyone needs super high ISOs and there is definitely a market that needs higher image resolution. With current technology you have to pick one or the other. Nikon seems to be saying the D4 is for those who care more about ISO and the D800 is for those who need resolution. Seems like a sensible approach to me.

yeah well D3, D3s and D4 are great cameras but bulky, one of the things I like with my D700 is size (body), I can attach grip when necessary. Have to read review but like the ISO the D700 have and would like to have seen that part improved

This post has been edited by Rugby: 07 February 2012 - 10:49 AM

[charles Wood]

Amazing. All the whining about this and that. One camera does not work for all shooting requirements. Serious/professional photographers typically have multiple bodies/lenses covering several needs within the sphere their work takes them. I still own a medium format film system as well as my medium format digital system and my APS-C DSLR. Each system fills a need. One size does not fit all.

[AaronShep]

The Nikon D800 is rated at the same low-light capability as the D700, and it is 10% smaller and lighter.

If you can't store all the megapixels, just shoot medium or small size JPEGs.

I don't know why people spout misinformation instead of getting the facts.

[CatOne]

AaronShep, on 07 February 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

The Nikon D800 is rated at the same low-light capability as the D700, and it is 10% smaller and lighter.

If you can't store all the megapixels, just shoot medium or small size JPEGs.

I don't know why people spout misinformation instead of getting the facts.

I disagree on the "Just shoot medium or small size JPEGs." RAW is critically important, and now we're talking about RAW files that are each 50+ MB in size. Which will create TIFFs that start in the 200 MB range. For a single photo. It's going to triple the storage per shot over the D700. That's a lot.

I guess the Nikon D4 went with the "larger pixel" route… for me personally I would be vastly more likely to buy a D4 (and pay the extra $3K) over the D800 which is great if you have good light, a tripod, and are looking to print everything at 20x30 or larger. Because, really, printing anything smaller than 16x24 you will not see any differences between this and a 15 MP image, if you started with any modicum of quality and know how to render for print.

Blecch.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

CatOne, on 07 February 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

AaronShep, on 07 February 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

The Nikon D800 is rated at the same low-light capability as the D700, and it is 10% smaller and lighter.

If you can't store all the megapixels, just shoot medium or small size JPEGs.

I don't know why people spout misinformation instead of getting the facts.

I disagree on the "Just shoot medium or small size JPEGs." RAW is critically important, and now we're talking about RAW files that are each 50+ MB in size. Which will create TIFFs that start in the 200 MB range. For a single photo. It's going to triple the storage per shot over the D700. That's a lot.

I guess the Nikon D4 went with the "larger pixel" route… for me personally I would be vastly more likely to buy a D4 (and pay the extra $3K) over the D800 which is great if you have good light, a tripod, and are looking to print everything at 20x30 or larger. Because, really, printing anything smaller than 16x24 you will not see any differences between this and a 15 MP image, if you started with any modicum of quality and know how to render for print.

Blecch.

From what I understand there is at least one crop mode which shrinks the active area of the sensor to reduce the file size while still offering RAW output. So that's a decent option if there are times where storage is an issue, but you still want RAW. But again, this is a camera targeted at a particular market, which may just not be you.

[chrishutcheson]

leicaman, on 07 February 2012 - 08:13 AM, said:

Big disappointment from Nikon. This does not replace the D700. It's leaving a big whopping hole in the line that Canon is going to fill with the 5D Mark III, which will share the same sensor as the DX, at 18.3 megapixels. And thus will blow away wedding photographers using the Nikon D800 because of its clearly superior low light performance.

I was waiting and hoping Nikon would not lose their minds and continue on the march to ever-increasing megapixels and give us a real photographer's camera that can shoot clean images up to 12,800. You'll be lucky to get clean images at ISO 1,600 with this camera. Sony failed at 24 megapixels, this will fail too I'm willing to wager.

Big mistake Nikon. You will regret not coming out with a D800 with the D4's sensor like you did with the D700 and D3.

They did. It's called the D4.

[IanGosso8n5]

So, a camera with a part removed (800E) is 10% more expensive?

[Ezgi]

I liked this camera. I will buy.