Shared publicly  - 
 
Join me on Tech News Today about 2:45 PM PT: http://live.twit.tv

I'll be talking about the new Nikon D800 with +Tom Merritt +Sarah Lane and +iyaz akhtar. What do you think of the camera so far?

For videophiles, it looks pretty amazing (but just catching up with Canon)... have you seen this new video that was just released by Sandro that was made with a the D800?
75
18
Peter Adams's profile photoJohan Peijnenburg's profile photoJohn Chandler's profile photoMike Keller's profile photo
31 comments
 
Pre-ordered mine already. Looking forward to everyone's thoughts. Love my D700, but would like to shoot some video too. 
 
OK, totally surprised at 3:30
 
I hate to be one of the nay-sayers, but i don't see anything there that I need in my bag right now. :)
 
I don't see anything I need either. ;-)
 
Would be an awesome upgrade from my D3100!
 
+kevin krewell Without having tried both yet, it looks like: D4 for photojournalists (low light, low noise, speed at high ISO) so you'll likely see the D4 at the Olympics, D800 for studio photos and landscapes (megapixels at the sacrifice of high-ISO noise apparently).

Wildcard for both is video. I haven't seen good input on whether the cropping/ cum zoom is exciting. Uncompressed video out (stored outside the camera) is probably good at the highest end, although I have no idea if the 20 minute limit preempts that sector so its irrelevant (tax reasons, but I digress).
.
 
36 megapixel in fx and 15 megapixel in dx mode
sd card as well as cf?
does anybody know how it handles in low light situations?
 
+Jim Fawcette Thanks. That's what I needed to know. It's a good talking point for Trey to address on TNT.
 
As I was shopping to perhaps get a D700 I welcome the upgrades for the D800. It will be my first DSLR. I have an old N75 somewhere that I ditched once pixels got to be around 3mp. Things sure have changed in the past decade. My only curiousity is the bracketing for HDR. It looks as if it has the 2-shot "HDR" like the 5100 but can do bracketing like the D7000.

That said, I'm looking forward to Trey's opinion of it. He does seem to be the expert on HDR. :)
 
"Just catching up to Canon"...Stop with the N vs C! Im happy I'll be able to pick up a D700 for a 2nd body on the cheap soon!
 
im a d200 user and i love it but recently purchased a 14-24mm lens and I'm eager to switch to full frame so I'm now hoping to jump in and get a cheap d700 body! ;D
 
I can say that camera is really sharp in terms on quality image. Is getting close to the Mamiya and PhaseOne..Def. I will get one. For me work find. The video is ok. No interesting in that at all. Some people just want to shoot a good quality pictures. This suppose have to be a camera not a camera film.Video take too much space memory and mostly photographers are photographers and that's it!. No a filmmakers.. sorry that's my opinion. Who want to films exist others video camera films much better and what is really are making for. Only I saw for those who use continuos shooting like sport is kinda slow fort the type of camera.... 5 fps? They have to be a less 10 fps. like the new D4 and my question is : How much memory you need in your computer to download that huge files ? Hope don't crash a lot of people computers . they will need to have a 2 or 4 TB of memory is you want to storage a lot of pictures.
 
Still has a long way to go to approach medium format IMHO butI'll wait to see the raws to decide. Remember, it's not all about mega-pixels...sensor size has a lot to do with medium format's resolving power. The lack of D800 sample images above ISO 640 is also telling. I'm betting that it's fairly noisy above ISO 800 and can see shadow noise in the ISO 100 files.
 
Its amazing the analysis done on a product not released yet and on a very few sample photos on the Internet. One thing is for certain it has a long way to go in approaching medium format in price but beats the hell out of it in video quality. Its good that TNT could get Trey to come on to bash the D800 the way they did the D4.
 
I've already ordered mine, along with a couple new FX lenses, to replace my aging D80. I've been waiting for this for two years, now.

+Inigo Maeztu, I personally don't recommend the "E" unless you really know what you're doing. Most lenses aren't going to be sharp enough at 36Mpx for any improvement to be noticeable anyway, but if a moire pattern appears, that will be noticeable.
 
This is certainly a great camera. But having to deal with 36mpx RAW files at 100+MB each would literally bring my workflow to a halt. Stitching a 15-shot HDR vertorama would produce images that would not fit into the main memory anymore. And you would not buy a D800 and then switch to a 16mpx resolution, would you?
 
+Klaus Herrmann, my D80 (10Mpx) NEF files are about 10MB so the D800 should be around 40MB using "compressed raw" which, as I understand it, is more like a 9 or 10-bit floating-point number than an absolute 14-bit number. Realistically, while you want to capture as many bits as possible to have a huge dynamic range over the entire image, having more than 10 significant bits at any one pixel gains nothing.

A cheap 2TB drive will hold about 50,000 such images.

Of course, you don't have to keep the NEF files except for those images that you feel you'll actually want to do full processing on. Even a "basic" jpeg at 36Mpx will have plenty of information for adjustments and printing at reasonable sizes.
 
+Klaus Herrmann - I heard 75Mb on average for the RAW files. Still a lot. I see your point for not getting a 36 mbpx camera to shoot in 16, but that still has some advantages. I think - of course, this is speculation at this point - that they have improved pixel quality over the d7000 (I expect at least half a stop gain in low light performance). The ability to downsample to the still respectable 16mbpx gives you another stop. I could live with 1.5-2 stops better low light performance compared to the d7000, especially when you have to bump the ISO for shutter speed for hand-held HDR. I don't do that very often (almost always use a tripod) - but I don't shoot places where tripod is a problem. And it's not a very big camera either.
 
+Csaba Molnár, it's 75MB for uncompressed raw files. Assuming you're not going to increase the exposure of any particular region of the image by more than 2 stops, you only need 10 bits (D800 has 14) of data to still have a full 8 bits for printing or display. I haven't yet seen details on the compression options. "Lossy" is fine if you're reasonably sure you'll never need the lost information.
 
I hear ya +Brian White - unfortunately, I need every bit I can get due to my work. I shoot interiours (apartments, hotels, restaurants, etc), and sometimes can't change the time of shooting. Sometimes I have to be there at noon, and I've been to places where the interiour lighting wasn't enough to balance the light coming from the outside. Could use flash, but it's a hassle, and I usually have limited time (and there are places where you simply can't hide it anywhere). So I do bracketed shots for this reason, usually only 1-1.7 EV apart, and I use fill-light and exposure sliders heavily in LR :)

It's gonna be 75mb for me (I saw this figure for losslessly compressed 14 bit NEFs). I guess for HDR folks who shoot 9 frames 1EV apart, there is so much overlap there that perhaps increasing compression, lowering the bits wouldn't be a problem.You gotta ask people who do more HDR than I do (HDR is not suitable for my work).
 
Think of it as removing leading zeros from the number and leaving only 9 or 10 siginificant bits of information. Bright areas would use bits 0-9 while dark areas would have bits 6-14. You don't lose anything except bits off the end that you can't use anyway (unless you're trying to do a huge detail enhancement of a solid-white surface or similar).
 
+Brian White - so you're saying it makes no difference? My intuition was that losslessly compressed 14 bit would give me more data than say 12 bits compressed. I thought - and I still think (though I don't have the technical knowledge to back it up) that I can pull out more details in shadow areas without loosing too much dynamic range in 14 bit uncompressed. Why would people use it if it didn't give more post-processing leeway? Or are you saying that this leeway is so insignificant, that it's not worth the trouble of dealing with the extra megabytes?
 
I know I'm looking forward to using it. For those asking about the low light performance, there are some high ISO examples on this site... http://www.ferra.ru/ru/digiphoto/review/Nikon-D800-preview/print/ Visit with a browser that lets you translate... Mid way down the page there is a link to a 137mb sample zipfile with some JPEGS. The ISO 6400 examples I've seen looked very usable.
 
To me the D800e sound very promising. My major question at the moment is whether I should blindly trade in a D3x for it. Will I get more detail and better image quality?
 
if we missed the live twit show....how do we go back and watch it? i could not find a link to it, just live twit feed. I'd like to know what he said about the d800 as i'm planning to get one.
Add a comment...