Well, on paper sounds and looks amazing. The D800E for me is even more promising, a low pass filter, no antialising! 

I am still not sure. A moderate increase of pixel count to 16-18 MP would have made much more sense for me. I was planning to upgrade to full frame from my current D300s, but now I still don't know if an old D700 or the new D800 is the way to go.

I am sure there is a setting to record your photos at 18MP - even a Nikon would have that feature :-)

Yes, it seems there is... A 20 MP and 9 MP setting in FF and many more in other formats.

Nice, but that 36MP sensor would be no match for my cheap, scratched and sloppy Sigma lenses so I better keep my cash in my pocket.

JP

Ken Rockwell again hits the nail (he may be slightly cynical?)

I am more of a Thom guy, so I am looking forward to his reaction as well. Would not be surprised if that would go along the same lines. To be honest, I don't quite understand the 36 MP. The 16 MPs of the D4 seem to make much more sense to me... Not that I am considering spending that amount of money or willing to carry the extra 340 grams...

Just read Jim Brandenburg's comment after using D800 for a month. It is in the pdf brochure. We can discuss that over a beer tonight

Sounds like a plan ;-)

BTW, anybody else in Bergen tonight?

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikonD800/

Around 250,000 people, I would guess... ;-)

;-)) men stort sett Bergensere... (sorry anbout the language)

I really don't understand that 36mp thing.. Everything else seems to be great in that camera, but I just don't get it.
Does someone think that it would improve his/her photos? why? 

I can understand Nikon's thinking.

It is aimed at studio and landscape photographers wanting or requiring very large resolution files that match medium format backs.

At £2300 for a full frame 36MP camera that is 1/3 or 1/4 the cost of a £9000 40MP Pentax 645D for example, this camera will sell by the shed load I predict.

I think there is more disposable income out there than generally known. I know of many amateur photographers that have spent £3500 on a D3 for taking hobby photos, imagine the lure of full frame, 36MP in a light and compact body for less cost than a D3 or D4.

Whether 36MP is actually needed by the majority of photographers buying or wanting it is a different matter I think, I don't suppose Nikon care too much if folk need 36MP, just that they can successfully sell the idea.

And here is Thom's article: http://www.bythom.com/d800intro.htm

Totally agree John; and with the next generation of DSLR sensors life will become even more difficult for the MF makers

If you think about it from a marketing stand point, it's brilliant. They built 2 cameras for 2 very different markets. They built the D4 for those professionals and the rare enthusiasts who understand their needs enough to buy it. AND, they built the D800 for the masses of enthusiasts and money foolish snappers who think they understand their needs enough to buy it.

Personally I have been planning to buy a full frame Nikon this year, was last year before the problems in Asia. I'm enough concerned about video quality to probably go for the D800 after I see some real world video results. I'm personally not afraid of the megapixel thing and I understand why the did it. It just does seem a bit over kill to me.

Well, I´ve seen the news now and I gotta admit that I´m very tempted to upgrade (you all know that I was very reluctanct when I read the rumors). If when reviews come out, the D800 performs in low light at least like my D700 does, then I will probably upgrade.

I think they made the right hooks. I do hate the 36MP (a 14-bit NEF will be about 76 f ****g Megabytes!!!!!! ) but I´m sure we´ll have the option to use less.
What I am amazed about is that they managed to keep the price down to $2999  (Thom has long been expecting a 3500 to 4000 price range and that was already putting me off). When I saw it´s the same price as the D700, I was shocked. It is also lighter and smaller and I still can sell my D700 for a good price 

So, if it is what it says it is....Nikon will have hooked me once again. It really does look like a mind blowing camera :)  

A sneak preview by one of my favourite photographers, Jim Brandenburg: http://networkedblogs.com/tG1Fr

Kind of defeats the point of 36MP sensors does it not my good learned friend.

Another reason for me not to trouble my bank balance is the fact that my decrepid computer would fry a chip if I tried uploading several 76MB files.

yeah, absolutely John, but my point is that I never wanted them at all, I wish it was only 16-18MP and 36MP would be the very last reason why I would upgrade, but since it´s not possible, at least we will have an option to work with lighter files. I´ll probably end up using 36MP anyway....except for casual shooting. 

I would then stick some black tape over part of the sensor with superglue then you will be content in the fact that you wouldn't be able to use 36MP no matter if you tried. This would be a sure fire resolution to Nikon's absurd development in higher MP sensors.

I might try and patent my obvious but so simple solution.

:-)

hahahah. I have some duct tape I use in my trips, will try that (patent pending)

36MP is insane. I couldn't handle those files, unless I upgrade my already slowing system. Imagine wedding, event or pro shooters filling up their 2t Drives in a few months time... if they use tiff format... that's another story.

Me... all I wanted was a few more megapix up from the 12. 14-16mp would have been fine.

What happened to you, Clyde? No more fights analog vs. digital any more?

Wolfgang, I have never "fought" over analog vs. digital. I have always been honest and said that I shoot both film and digital. I have a visual bias for film and even recently had success here with a series where I mixed both but favored the look of the film ones. i.e. I made the digital entries look like the film ones.

I carry a digital camera with me at all times in my backback, the LX5. I have a D90 that I use in certain settings. I am mostly interested in the D800 for video work. I'm really hoping that it proves out to be a competitor w/ the 5D in that area.

I'm already used to working with large files, my scanner produces NEF files that are roughly 23 megapixels. Now 36 is still a jump from there but my computer can probably handle them with little extra wait time. The new Lightroom 4 beta seems a bit chunky even on LX5 raw files. I assume that is something they will sort out. And hard disk space even in light of recent Asian events is still dirt cheap.

Overall I'm looking forward to it. Not sure if I will carry it around on hikes but we'll see. AND I'll have to wait and see what the buzz is about the video capabilities when the industry gets their hands on a few.

I probably won't be actually buying one till much later in the year. Certainly not going to get into the whole pre-order thing. Don't even except to seem them in the stores until late Spring.

I'm not a fan of video on my DSLR, but it is interesting to look at this movie made with the D800:

http://vimeo.com/36326055

They must have had a dozen of the bodies and who knows how many lenses!  Money makes the world go round...

Hi all

For those holding a DX camera with some DX lenses and want to upgrade to the D800, it will give a 15Mpx file
Much better than the D700 that was giving a 5Mpx file
So DX lenses might find an interesting use here

Would be interested to see how these DX lenses will react in terms of optical quality on the D800

Sure, they want to tease the D7000 users... for aditional 2000 bucks you do not lose ground on mp count (15-16mp) for DX glass, the option to use FX and a heavier (more robust) body. But, and thats the other side of the medal, most users already settled in certain (weight, price, robustness) ranges, call it FX, DX, 4/3, CX etc.

I only have 2 DX lenses all the rest of mine can shine. All my primes are FX, most are Ai-S, a couple are AF-D. I'm really looking forward to seeing some results both still and video. But probably later in the year for me.

Clyde I wanted to ask you this question last night about the large mega pixel file size...is it related to producing better quality video? I ask because this camera seems to have great video capacity ...and I am wondering since I know nothing about video and resolution if that is at least in part the reason?

I have to say I was surprised by the quality...it looks like it was made in Hollywood. :))""

Comparing the 36 mp on a 35mm sensor doesn't work with the Pentax 645d sensor. Again MF to 35mm comparison. The buckets are a lot bigger and the MF cam and will produce so much more detail IMO. 36 mpx on a small sensor won't really enhance detail IMO. The buckets just aren't big enough. 

Not technical enough to really answer that, but I really don't think so. I'm pretty sure it was mostly a marketing thing. They have to really make it "better" and a big step "up" so the very large enthusiast market will buy it, including most of those who already have a D700. The Canon 5d makes very good video without 36 mp.

If 36 mp is what it took to make great photographs or great video the D4 would have it. 36 mp is there because the "public" wants it and they think it will sell more cameras.

You can actually tell that they had to soften the shit out of the data coming off the sensor because of the D800E. You have to pay even more to get an image that hasn't been anti-aliased to death. They warn you that if you REALLY don't know how to take good photographs you will not like what comes out of the D800E. It's basically the same camera with 2 filters that sit on top of the sensor removed. So you pay more for less

They actually have to dumb down the 36 million pixels of info coming off the sensor to get a quality image that most of us will think is high quality. SO they bulk up the mp count for marketing and then aa the image down to what would be considered a very fine image if it was out of a 18 or 21 mp camera.

Stupid really if you think about it. But SMART if it works from a marketing perspective.

Thats very cynical of you Clyde. It would be a bit depressing if you were right. 

Oh, believe me I wasn't criticizing the result. I'm totally convinced that the resulting picture will be super. The "dumb it down" comment is accurate but does not mean a "worse" image. Just means that the image coming right off the sensor is soooooo sharp that it would appear "worse" without the filters that perform the anti-alasiing and other filtering. Pretty much all dslr's have these filters it's just as the sensor density increases their need quickly becomes much more poignant. Check out Nikon's disclaimer language about the D800E and you will get a glimpse of what I'm talking about.

I know. I shouldn't have said it, sorry.

I think this camera will sell in the shed load as folk will be getting 36MP in 35mm format and they might think it a viable alternative compared to a digital back considering that it will be a third or a quarter of the price and further considering that I think Nikon have aimed it at landscape and studio photography but secretely hoping that many folk with disposable incomes will be tempted to buy it as an upgrade to a D700 or as an alternative to Canon's offerings.

Yes, there is a Medium setting with 20 MPs and a Small one with 9 MPs. So, there you go. No duck tape required ;-)Same here... Would require an instant upgrade of CPU and RAM as well.I think I have the video option once on my D300s. Just to see how and if it was working. But, I have to admit that it produces some nice stuff in skilled hands.Nothing wrong with good marketing ;-) There is a lot of "loose money" around, of people that don't have to think one second to get a D4 or a D800. Just to have it, and show it off, and perhaps make some kitty pictures. I don't have a problem with that, as a healthy economical situation for the system provider that you have bought into (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus, ...) is beneficial for all us others as well. I don't mind if the companies can recover a large part of their investment by tapping into these deep pockets.

Thank you Clyde.  I have not read all the details in the reviews.I just had a quick look.

You are a bit out here Phyllis, your D200 will only produce about 11 or 12MB NEF files and perhaps 25MB TIFFs, my 12MP D300 produces 14MB 14bit NEFs and 36MB TIFFs. The 36MP D800 will produce perhaps 75MB NEFs and I don't know but 120MB TIFFs. I don't know if or how you are working with 200MB files, these are huge and not from single exposures.Your math is wrong on two counts, firstly its maths not math, you Americans!! and secondly your figures are out, see above..  :-))

Oh John...okay I should have explained better. I work with layers. So I just looked at some NEF files..they were all about 15 to 16 mb. Now I convert the RAW to PSD and they are maybe 27mg. 

I think you're both talking different things, apart from the language difference... 

OK I get your working style now.

You can do either of three things:

1. Flatten your layers and save as master TIFF or JPG file, I suspect you won't do this though for your own reasons.

2. Stick with the D200 and forget about the D800, poor advise as only you'll know if you really need a 36MP camera.

3. Buy a ton of RAM and giga-mega-tera-bytes storage before everyone else has bought it before you and reserves run out.

I'm not actually geeky enough to work out what a 36MP sensor produces in terms of your workflow but it will surely be big and besides I need my math to be plural to calculate more than two numbers....

:-)

I was hoping I was very wrong. Thanks for the bad news confirmation. :)))

All very good advice. I actually do flatten layers - at least some of them - but if not then I would keep a file with layers..merge another..and convert that..but it does not solve the space problem....as you can see now I have two files. Truth is I often have three or four (ie first draft (the fixer upper) , working in progress(adding adding on), final, Final two. :)) I wish I was joking.

Not quite sure how this solves the problems you all seem to be having with the superb D800 but, in the good old days Phyllis, the UK only had two sources of TV channels...the BBC and the commercial station. ITV.  

You're logical next purchase would not be the D800 anyway, it would be the D7000.  I'm somewhat puzzled by Nikon's new lineup, actually.  The D4 I get--it's the camera for pro staff and those who have the dough.  The D7000 is a great upgrade for the midrange, and I've been very pleased with mine.  I get plenty of FPS for sports, I get very good low ISO performance, I've got plenty of resolution, and all the legendary Nikon controls are perfectly placed.  The D800, though, doesn't make sense to me.  I'd rather have the option of better low-noise/low light performance if the trade off is pixels versus performance.  Has Nikon somehow upended the principal that jamming more pixels into the same size sensor reduces low light performance and increases noise?  And, what's with four frames per second?  That's useless for sports and action, though understandable given the pixel count.

My point is that there isn't a clean upgrade path anymore.  The D800 would not replace my D7000 (if I could afford it!) because it would actually be a step backwards in some respects.  There's also damned little chance of me jumping to a D4 from my D7000 based on the price.  So, what is the path?  Is the last shoe to drop the D400?

I have actually placed an order for a D800. I have had a D3 since they were released. I rarely need the low light capability, 1000 ISO seems to be my max requirement. The fps is way beyond what I would use, 2 fps is ample.

Not sure if it has been answered yet cuz i did not ready everything. To answer Phyllis, the answer is: No.

Infact, it might even be a problem. Full HD has the resolution of 1920 x 1080 wich is 2.0736 MegaPixel. Now your sensor is 36 MP meaning it gets way to much information. What any dslr does in movie mode is trowing information away. It saves an x amount of lines and skips a x amount of lines and repeats this all over the sensor, so a given example: your sensor is 5 times to big in megapixel. It saves 1 line to your output, the movie and then skips 4 and it will save 1 again and then skips another 4. Repeating this will leave you with a a 2mp full HD video. So, the resolution has no effect on the quality of the movie, just the quality of the sensor itself.


or,         not

It would have been to easy if this would be all dont you think? The problem with the line skipping thing is that it is missing blocks wich result in aliasing and moire, what this is and how affects your video can be found on google easily since it is about the biggest problem on a dslr.

Interesting comments. I have a D300 and have been waiting for the D800 for a possible (not definite) option to upgrade to full frame. I agree that 36mp is massive and probably overkill but at least you get the option to crop with that size file without losing any real quality in resizing. Though I will need some massive memor cards gthe way I snap away. The problem for me, and loads of others I suspect, is that it's not just the camera that has to get changed. I have three lenses I use/carry around all the time and two of them are ( I think) specific DX based so do I have an issue using them on a full frame camera? The blurb in the releases to date suggests that I can still use my DX lenses and still get 15mp. Great if that's the case. I get a higher pixel count, with a better cropping option if required, hopefully better quality/resolution images (if I take the shot right that is) and I get to keep my lenses until I can afford FX ones. Have I got this right?

Yes you have it right, AND it will only cost you $3000. You might be better off considering a D7000. It costs 1/3 the amount of the D800 and will give you VERY similar results I suspect.

"Selling stuff people really need may secure your income. Selling stuff people think they need, earns you a fortune" No idea who said this, but he or she was probably right. Anyway, someody needs to fund R&D budgets, right?

From Thom's homepage 8.2.2012 (he did not name the author either, so sorry...):

My head hurts!

Let me explain.

Youv've got it right Tim if you can afford a D800 and eventually want to purchase FF lenses to take advantage of all the 36MP. I personally wouldn't buy a D800 without the intention to use all its MP capability though, you are paying for pixels so you might as well use all of them.

I know you asked me my personal views in private but I'll answer here. I do use a D300 and it still meets my requirements, for me I don't have a need to upgrade and also I don't see either the D7000 or D800 as a natural upgrade. The D7000 being too similar in spec, the D800 being FF and too many MP for my needs without having to buy new lenses and computer.

If I had a lot of spare cash I would buy a D800, new Nikon lenses from 14mm to 200mm and a new computer man enough to handle the larger files but seeing as I don't, I remain more than content with my current equipment.

In the past 24 hours I've actually had a couple of conversations that are making me think strongly about the D7000. Coming from a D90, it WOULD be a pretty significant upgrade AND it's 1/3 the cost AND it's available right now...

Ready, discuss...

I have a D90 Clyde and love it; when my sister was buying a camera though I advised her to get the D7000. Of course it's great, but I really don't think the value is there is paying for d7000 when you already have the d90, unless the money doesn't mean as much to you as it would to me! Thom Hogan wrote a nice piece on upgrading a while ago, out of date with these new releases coming, but worth reading anyway I think. 

Nothing but a D4 for you my friend, why scrimp when life is too short.........

Don't discuss, just do.

:-)

John, I'll buy the one you buy for half price after you get tired of hauling it around in your pack...should take about a week, maybe two at the most.

Thanks John. What camera did you upgrade from to go to the D7000?

when I read this today at Thom's site I thought to myself....only Wolfgang will understand this  ;) 

Oh, we have one, it's our fellow member Colmar Wocke! But I'm convinced he does not read this Nikon related stuff. I'm sure he would decide to use some Olympus devices to build into his satellites.

Peter

I need to upgrade, my D200 needs major repair! Having problems with the focus and the mirror gets stuck sometimes. It is stress when doing a photo shoot and all of a suden it stops working.Need to invest in a new camera, i enjoy doing Portrait and people in general. I am looking to try and improve the detail in my images. I print sizes A4 and A3 at the moment but would like to go bigger. I think if i could i would go for phase one but it's to expensive for me. I was thinking between ?2000 and ?3000. Do you have a tip for me?

D7000 now or D400 if you can wait a few more months? The feasibility for going full frame depends on the lenses you have (DX or FF) and/or the amount of money you're able or willing to spend.

Is a D400 really on it's way? If so that's probably the way to go for me then I use my current lenses ans just upgrade the body, assuming this model would have a better image quality and slightly higher MP count.

It's just rumors of course, but this is a quote from a Dec 19, 2011 posting by Thom Hogan (http://bythom.com/2011%20Nikon%20News.htm)

going full frame depends on the lenses you have (DX or FF) I use the 50mm 1.4D

I read Jim's comments on the D800, and the decision was done. I just ordered it! I had a discussion with the importer and landed on the standard model, not the E.

Not a problem to print much bigger than that from a D200. I've printed 2.2 meters from D200, and 3.2 from D300. Genuine Fractals, now Perfect Resize does the trick. And you need some printing software as Photoshop stop at around 2 meters length. And with no warning! It just stops printing.

You really think it's coming? The 7000 has got the metal body and the weather seals. So the only improvement would be more speed, IMO. And many of the D300 customers have gone FX

From the D200 to D 800, does that make sence?

Makes sense. But I'm upgrading from the D700. I will probably not sell the 700 as it is a lot faster. I use the battery grip with the D3 battery, so it gives 7-8 frames a sec. Nice for action, and very fast bracketing if the contrast is high. I still have all the others, the D100, D200, D300. The D100 is never used, my soon 7 years old son use the D200, and the D300 is parked in the underwater housing.

I have no looking-glass and my fortune-telling abilities are non existent. That's why I've used the quote (with reference) from someone I have learned to respect. But, the short answer is: I honestly don't know. 

I'll develop my skinny running legs into tree-trunk muscles to lug it around. I'll then sell it to you for twice the price as it will be a desirable collector's item considering the masterpieces I no doubt will have taken with it.

:-)

...technical masterpieces, perhaps, given that you wouldn't deign to create an artistic masterpiece.  :>)

My old body (which I still have) is the D90, which has been a great camera too.  My brother-in-law has the D300, and I found the image quality between the D90 and D300 to be almost identical in most situations.  The D7000, though, is unquestionably an improvement in image quality over both of those.  When I shoot the D90 and D7000 side by side at a wedding or event or at a sports game, the images I get from the D7000 are noticeably better in terms of resolution, color and dynamic range.   I shoot in RAW even at events with lots of pictures, and I can pull far more information out of my D7000 images than I can from my D90.

I frequently shoot under lighting conditions that are awful--low light, ugly color light, etc.  With the D90 I need to use Noise Ninja to correct for luminance noise even after processing the RAW file whenever the ISO is 1600 or above.  With the D7000, I can usually shoot ISO 3200 and all I need to do is process the RAW file carefully and I'm fine.  I hardly use noise ninja anymore.  Even when there is luminance noise, the D7000's higher resolution renders that noise with a finer grain than the D90, and I find that I can live with it as is.  The RAW files out of the D7000 tend to be in the 17-20Mb range. 

As far as durability, the D7000 doesn't have the weather sealing that the higher end bodies do, but it really is a non-issue.  One night I shot a football game for two hours under continuous and torrential downpours.  Both my D90 and D7000 were covered by plastic bags tied with elastic bands, but the protection was limited.  About an hour into the game my D90 started wigging out, giving me error messages, etc., and I had to shut it down.  The D7000 never skipped a beat.  Another day I shot a football game with my D7000 in blizzard conditions with wet, driving snow and, again, no issues.  I'm not really convinced I need better weather sealing.

As far as big lenses and the mounts, I use the Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AF-D, which is a heavy lens.  I shoot handheld, believe it or not, and I carry around the body/lens by the camera handle when not in use.  Often I run with the unit too.  I've never had any issues on the D90 or the D7000 as far as mount strength.

The handling and controls of the D7000 are AMAZING.  Now I fumble with My D90 because the D7000 controls are better placed.  The D7000 has two card slots, which is awesome either for more capacity or for backup purposes.  You can even put RAW files on one card and JPGs on the other for each image you record.  The menu on the D7000 has more options, and the D7000 has more focus points and options.  Battery life on the D7000 is tremendous.  I can shoot 400 images over a couple of hours, using the camera to drive the focus on my lenses, and the battery meter will be one tick below full.  It's a non-issue. 

The difference between your D200 and the D7000 is more than dramatic.  If you shot the D7000 for three minutes you would find yourself giggling and shaking with excitement and you'd probably leave your D200 wherever you put it down last.  I'm just guessing, but I would bet that your D200 output at 800 or 1000 ISO is what I can get from my D7000 at 2500 or 3200 ISO.  I mean, I regularly shoot at 3200 ISO for football games, basketball games, fencing meets, stage and musical performances, indoor events, etc.  I'm not afraid anymore!

Next time you have an event to shoot--you can rent a D7000 for under $100.  Give it a try.

FX means full frame digital, sensor is equivalent to 35mm film dimensions. FX lenses compatible with this.

DX means APS-C size digital. DX lenses compatible with this.

Its just Nikon's differentiation between their two sensor sizes in their DSLR cameras.

I don't know what Nikon term their 35mm film cameras.

No idea about the resolution bit though. I'm not that tecnically adept....

Thanks, John.  That helps.

I think so, the more pixels you have on a defined size sensor the more resolution is available, there is more potential resolution on an APS-C sensor with 18MP than the same size sensor with 6MP, more dense in pixels. I think the sensor is better able to resolve the light coming in.Where is Wolfgang when you need him, I'm struggling here......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_resolution Wikipedia is always there..

Well, resolution may increase with pixel count - given the lens is able to follow. I run the 18-200 most of the time, which was perfect on D40, but kind of loses in the corners on D7000 :-) So you definitely will not gain 100% clean pixels, for sure. Downside is low (lower!) ISO performance: the Nikon D3s (and D4 now) with 12mp has tremendous low light performance and high speed, something you just cannot reach with 35mp FX or 16mp DX. But thats life. Bottom line: Real pros were 100% happy with 12mp - check out my posting #54... Wolfgang

As I understand it, on a given size sensor the bigger the "light buckets" or pixels gathering light, the better low light capability you will have, all else being equal.  So, on the same size sensor a 10MP arrangement will allow for better low light capability design than a 16MP arrangement because you can have bigger buckets.  However, the 16MP design would have the capability of finer resolution.  So, the theoretical trade-off is between resolution and low light performance.  However, there are MANY other factors that go into real-life performance of a sensor, not the least of which is the software and circuitry that feed on the sensor's light collecting ability.  So, it's probably silly for the likes of us to try to figure it all out!  Bottom line:  Nikon and Canon both are doing an amazing job of stuffing both resolution and low-light performance into each new generation of bodies.

Yes, and there is also plain physics that plays a role:

this is 100% accurate and I´m not even a real pro!

Well, it depends on what kind of pro.. You think the ones using the 80Mp Phase One will go back to 12Mp?

sure, my statement was simplified (no problem with that)... there are pros that really need mp, definitely. Studio/ad market/products and probably landscape, and some more. Gursky would probably take the D800 as his P&S upgrade...

Technically challenging but yes, interesting.  I also followed the provided link to an interesting presentation on Luminous Landscape with the title, "Do Sensors Outresolve Lenses?"

Here's the link if anybody is interested  http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml

Excellent links, Lars. Thanks for sharing.. 

Read the new commentary on Thom Hogan's website about the different FX options with Nikon: "D3, D3s, D3x, D4, D700, D800, D800E, or Wait?" 

I guess he is "quoting me"... :-)

Sure... ;-)

You're just envious.. :-))

I see no contradiction - you definitely thought twice :-) You'll enjoy it, for sure. Wolfgang

So we discussed last week over a pint of beer ;-) Was good to see you, and good to meet some of the other 1x-members living in Bergen. As far as I am concerned, we can repeat this next time you're traveling through Bergen.

Sounds good. It's just that sometimes I come straight from nightshift and getting 2 to 3 hours of sleep before travel, so I'm not always worth much in the evening. Often I plan to crash for 1- 2 hours at arrival, and not able to get out of bed again.

Please keep your eyes open for the first D800 image selected on 1x, so that we can all pixel peep.

A 950 pixels wide file do not tell us much about the camera ...  :)

I love to see a sample picture of this D800 camera in full 38Mpix, if someone found it online, please tell me :)

By the way, there is already available lenses with enough resolution for this camera ?

I once read somewhere that 35mm Kodachrome equated to about 32 Mpix, so any Nikon lens made in the last 60 years should be ok.

There are some high res(7,360px × 4,912px) pix here:
http://cdn.gottabemobile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/nikon-d800-sample-photo-bride.jpg
http://cdn.gottabemobile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/nikon-d800-sample-library.jpg

Pretty remarkable.  Guess I'd have to put myself in the "would like to have one" camp.

Never heard of a film having an equivalent to digital resolution, maybe. But film scans do. My Nikon Coolscan creates files that are roughly 23 Megapixel in resolution.

From some years ago someone stated that fine grain film contained 50+ mp of data when drum scanned. So if that is true dig is just coming of age.

As a matter of fact, noise contains most information compared to more regular patterns. Compare a mp3 for a regular song versus heavy metal - you need a lot more resolution to resolve the latter properly.

Very interesting post, Wolfgang, and would love to discuss this topic with you in person.I do not consider film grain to be equivalent to digital noise, although I can understand the willingness of digital photographers to make the analogy.Not quite.  Film emulsions are exposed and developed as clumps of grain. Unlike pixels, the exposure and development of a clump of grain is not binary (or digital).  That is, it is not a case of all or none: just a part of a clump of grain can be exposed and developed which enables film, even grainy film properly exposed and developed, to contain more information (information that is not noise) than pixels when all other things are kept constant.  I'm open to be proved mistaken in this.Except that in my case I think that film grain can be beautiful, highly aesthetic and not in the least bit disturbing.

Me, too...but then I'd have to figure out a way to start making money with photography again, and that might ruin it for me.  And I don't have a rich uncle.

Just join our meeting in Copenhagen :-)

See: http://1x.com/#!/forum/offtopic/travelling/31120/meeting-in-copenhagen-visi

Hmmm...as I work for American Airlines, I can get a cheap ride to Helsinki.  Is it a long drive from Helsinki to Copenhagen?  Brussels might be better than Helsinki.  Actually, I think I'm already obligated here during your get together.  Best wishes, however!

here you go:

Yes he does!

I miss the lower part in the 1st image ;-)

Hi everyone.

Kevin, for landscape work I can't image that the D800 would be that big a step up from the D700 you already have. UNLESS, you need to print REALLY big prints. Then maybe. As for the D800E, I'd be careful w/ that, especially until some get out there in the field and folks have a chance to report their experiences. The disclaimer on the Nikon site would be enough to give me pause.

Yep you must have control of the light and that can be iffy at times. I will stick with my D700 but if the cash were available I might give it more thought (might)

Hi Clyde, Will.

Cheers for your comments, think I will wait a while for some reviews to be aired and its given the chance to prove itself.

Cheers for now.

?Technical Guide? for the D800 & D800E

At the high resolutions offered by the D800/D800E, even the slightest camera motion can result in blur. The technique re- vealed in this section minimizes blur through a combination of live view photography and a tripod.

http://www.nikonusa.com/en_US/o/Y6wrkA9OU_z04IreazIXl_22UII/PDF/D800_TechnicalGuide_En.pdf
what are your views?

You really need right technique, check out Thom:

I just wonder why the high resolution became an issue???

Thanks for the link Wolfgang!

Is the D800 the Johnson of  Big Cameras for weekend shooters, And then there is the d800E.  Will this be a post camera from Hell, and will we wish we just forked out the money for a D 4..Kah Ching? I just got the Nikon 1 V1. Lots of fun. At first  the camera made feel I was in combat over the pacific in a zero. After that feeling you step up to putting a saddle on a German V1 Rocket. Get it Nikon V1. Once you learn the rips, crash and burn then you are ready. A hood man card is a smart way to go so there's no buffer back up at 10-30- and 60 frames a second. It won't place any camera that can run at 2000 iso, like the d700, but anything less on the iso.. its like everyone is going backwards.

You must be one of those young and enthusiastic chaps that perhaps wears a hoodie Glenn, are you speaking an alien language? I didn't understand anything.........

:-)

I fully got the "Johnson of Big Camera" one, although it's a picture I didn't need in my head...

And Glenn has a built in hoodie!

ROTFLMAO!

Why can't anyone speak the Queen's English around here....


What does ROTFLMAO mean... ???

:-(

ROTFLMAO. Rolling on the floor laughing my ass off , i do think it was indeed the queen who invented it. Capers rarely makes sense.

No, it was the Queen Mother.

Well, it certainly will give you some advantages out on the street and there's no discussion over which is the better camera when working in studio (D4 or D800); however, I'm still shooting with a D3000 and the shitty kit lens, so who am I to say.

...and which might that be?  Really.  I want to know. 

Pretty sure he's saying the D4 for studio...Alvaro can speak for himself.

Alvaro, where are you in Cali? If in LA, stop buy, I'll buy you a hot dog!! If interested in the desert, I'll be in Joshua Tree National Park this weekend and would be happy to show you around a bit. I go there a lot and can help out.

Now, consider your usual studio will have controlled lighting (which means light won't be an issue because you will always have plenty) and the D800E doesn't come with the low-pass filter, which means that (due to some physics magic I don't really know) you can upscale your photos without losing much in terms of IQ. This also means you will get some visible aliasing and moiré, which you must get rid of while postprocessing. All this plus the 36MP sensor make the D800 the better camera, just because you can get a lot of detail in a single shot and also a pretty large print without pixelation.Wish I were in California, man, the hot dog idea sounds fantastic; unfortunately, right now I'm in Santiago de Cali, Colombia, lol.

I feel for you, Alvaro...you are missing a memorable outing with my friend, Clyde. 

Well, I'm just like 2 plane tickets, a hotel room and some directions away.

Skip the hotel, stay w/ me, or here:

http://www.thedesertlily.com/

If you do stay at The Desert Lily, be sure to complement Carrie on all the wonderful photography on her website...

In all seriousness, I'll make plans to go as soon as I see it's feasible; maybe not this year, but hopefully next if the world doesn't end in December.

You only serve beer in bottles with beetles or bug lavae or chillies down there don't you or is that Mexico......?

Now if you were to do a good stout, pale ale or cask conditioned bitter then I might be tempted.

:-))

For your consideration:

Nikon D800 vs. Nikon D700 high ISO comparison

No way. I find it very puzzling how can most people from all over the world think all Latin America is like Mexico.

Well, Alvaro.....US Americans and British are all the same too, right?  ;)

Ooooh, I won't answer that! :-P

hahahaha... 

Good news for D700 lovers:

Huh?

I am sorry Clyde... I was distracted, this is the link:

hi, saw the question about the problem with many pixel on a sensor, but not the answer, sorry if i missed it. the problem is, that there is a line between each pixel, this little space does reduce the available amount of light receiving space, so the overall performance of the sensor is decreasing when the pixel count on the sensor is higher (same sensor size) so they have to do some tricks to counter this effect so more pixel can mean less image quality, higher noise and other ugly effects but this we have to see :) hope this helps sascha

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/03/02/nikon-d800-criticisms-refuted.aspx/#more-34714

Another Nikon D700 vs. Nikon D800 high ISO comparison

Read more on NikonRumors.com: http://nikonrumors.com/2012/03/05/another-nikon-d700-vs-nikon-d800-high-iso-comparison.aspx/#ixzz1oI2ZNMUo 

Sensor development continues in leaps and bounds. The space between pixels has been reduced and then reduced further with the adoption of the bucket and the micro lens. You are using old technology to evaluate modern technology. Noise levels are increasingly less due to pixel density. Just look at the noise levels when comparing a D200 and a D3

So you mean the D800 should be at least as good as the D700 as regards noise level ?

If it's not significantly better then Nikon HAS failed. And I seriously doubt that. The "noise" comparisons I've seen, 2 I think, do show noticeable improvement, especially at higher ISO. At more normal ISO levels there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of difference.

I would expect so. Nikon tends to go forward rather than backwards. I would also expect to see a significant increase in dynamic range.

Thanks a lot for your answer Clyde, I agree with you.

I have ordered it, and it seems like I have managed to get up on the priority list too (there have been some waiting list for the new Nikons). I'm going to test it out as soon as I have it, and I have the D700 to compare with.

It seems like Nikon has done a good job. Here is a comparison between D700 and D800 at different ISO-values.

There is an old but very good article about long term trends in noise performance: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Insights/SNR-evolution-over-time I hope they update this with recent cameras, but bottom line - do not expect unrealistic increases. It is mostly software improvements already, which makes the pictures look better. You cannot beat physical laws, unfortunately... Wolfgang

Interesting, Wolfgang. I've had to check where the one "outlier" @ 39 dB came from, but I am reassured ;-) And, I agree, it would be good to have this one updated with the current generation.

Well, not necessarily true my friend. Some of us do believe in the metaphysical and/or supernatural you know...

I don't know any physical laws describing noise in digital photography.

Actually quite a few of the physical laws in history has been proved wrong. And some have been proved to be quite in-complete..

Well, this is only true above 23megapixels, so yes true for the D800 but not true for almost all other FF digital slr's with a 35mm sensor.  My Nikon Coolscan scans at @23 mp resolution.And I'm pretty sure this is just not true at all. Not exactly sure how "slide film" compares to other films. But film is generally considered to have much wider dynamic range than even the most modern digital sensors. Some of my recent reading seems to indicate @ a 3 stop advantage to film on average.

I'd go along with that

Lars, there is a physical limit here that comes from the wave-particle duality of light. We think of light as waves, but they're also photons. These photons are discrete packets of light. In low-light conditions, you will get noise related to the photon statistics, i.e. fluctuations of photon counts due to the random arrival of these packets. Smaller sensor elements have a reduced "capturing surface" for these photons and will make you bump faster into this limit.

It is probably easiest to compare a sensor to the function of a guitar amplifier. ISO numbers are increased by increasing the gain of a few million small amplifiers that amplify the analogue signal. All electronic circuits have electronic background noise and as you turn up the volume/gain on a guitar amplifier, so you increase the humm, crackles and pops. Guitarist use noise gates to surpress this noise and camera sensors use software to surpress these unwanted noises. If through development, you develope a sensor that is more light sensitive at its lowest setting, then you don't need to ramp up the gain in order to achieve the high ISO numbers with correspondingly lower noise. In fact you end up having to introduce electronic and software measures to de-sensitise the sensor in order to achieve low ISO numbers.I suspect that 'digital noise' is mis-named and should really be called 'analogue noise'.

Now my head really hurts!!

We know who to ask any tech questions now when Wolfgang is on holiday....

:-)

I know that Wolfgang is much better in statistics. I hold a PhD in Applied Physics, Exploration Geophysics, so more acoustics / elastic wave theory, not directly optics or quantum physics...

Yes, I know, but I just don't think we have passed the limits yet. (still didn't know which law..)

You're right, Lars, pixel pitch on the D800 seems to be comparable (even slightly less) to that on the D7000; 4.88 microns vs 4.78 microns. 

The D300 is an excellent camera. I will continue using it, even after I get UW housing for the D800. I've made 3.2 meter prints from D300 files.

Slide film has much less dynamic range than negative film, not to mention b&w. I've never measured in any way, but I feel quite confident regarding digital vs slides.

Much, much, much, much smaller, theoretically, I believe.

Not at all. Digital files prints much better.

But you digitize your film images before printing.  What's the difference?  I think you are talking about images taken with the the digital camera and not digital files per se.

Yes, I am. Files from digital cameras prints better.

Thats tough...

Then do you have any 35mm film lying around?  I'll pay shipping charges.

Shop talk, Lars.  I bet that you might get better results using this technique:

Sorry, not much of that. I gave away a load of 35mm and 120 film a few years ago. I'll check when I come home, I might have some b&w. I still used that in a Leica at that time. Then it will be Ilford 100 and 400. Will be happy to give it away. Remind me in 2 weeks time if you don't hear from me.

Could work. But that project is finished. A large pull up banner. 3.2m x 2.25m, the largest (in sq.meters) I have made. Was used at a stand in some fishing expo, now shop decoration in a fishing net and gear shop. They're proud of it, so it must have been good enough even with the murky fishes..

I think no one get any advantage of a 36 Mpix sensor related a normal one like the D700, except if one use the D800 in a very stable tripod, mirror lock and a remote cable, and of course, with no wind shacking the camera.

If D800 are handeld, i think there is no diference at all, except in D800 file you have much more blured pixels, and in that case is better save money and upscale the D700 file in post processing.

Just my toughts ...  :)
 

Me to ... 35mm film is history for me.

It was just an idea for discussion...not a suggestion.  :>)

I don't think that was Rui's point. I assume he was comparing the risk of blurring on pixel level between D700 (12 MP) and D800 (36 MP), and the increase importance of shot discipline.

This is actually on aspect of the "criticism" of the D800 that I can't quite get my head around. It would seem to me that the more pixels you have, the more likely you will have a "sharper" image. I really don't understand the concern of camera stability vs. higher pixel density. Can someone explain please. AND in layman's terms...I DON'T have a PhD in anything much less Physics!!

If I had the spare cash I would opt for the D800, and camera shake is just that.Cannot speak for Rui but I think he is referring to getting the most out of the D800 and even with the best lens and sensor/film movement of the camera is bad. That said for truly large prints (over all and price wise) film is still KING. Think 4X5, 5X7 and 8X10 with fine grain slide film. With 4X5 you can cover a large (I mean large) poster or billboard. Dig large format for now is for now not an answer (Is there a reasonable one out there?)

Yes, their are digital back with live view for view cameras.  I might be able to trade my house for one.

Do you think you would have to leave Paula and the dog inside?

Hi Clyde,

;-) Yep, and how many would carry it out in the field? I know there are some who would ;-)

This is not a great example but is a very heavy crop (over 100%) shot as a pano on 4X5.

http://1x.com/#!/photo/9699/portfolio/2314

King, the principle is the same. If one decide use large format or medium format, is because needs more resolution and detail, if you do not things in right way, like a stable and heavy tripod and do everything to avoid camera shake during exposure, you dont take advantage of medium/large format resolution power.

If i decide to buy a D800, is because i need the most resolution power and definition, not to use it handeld, use it with correct high resolution and definition lenses good enough for a 38 Mpix sensor. Is lense resolution is lower than sensor resolution, so, we just hang in neck a expensive gadget.

But King, you know this better than me and shure with you english can explain this better than me :)

For me, there is nothing digital that compares to a well done photograph taken in 6x7 or 6x9 . and i think in next few years, nothing in digital can be better than a well done 4x5" photograph.

About 8x10 ???? forget digital !

But of course i talk about large format film well exposed, well developed, well scanned (with nice colour profiles) ! Not large format amateurish snapshots or large format amateur tests in next corner.

->
http://www.petapixel.com/2012/03/06/oops-nikon-uses-stolen-canon-5d-mark-ii-footage-for-d800-promo-video/#more-47652

:D

And everybody can do a test :

Use a Nikon 300 in a stable tripod, mirror locked, no wind, nice lense, take a shoot, upscale file to 38 mpix  and do a 1,5 meters wide print.

Use a D800 handeld, and do a 1,5 meters wide print.

When you receive prints, you look at it and shure Nikon D300 print is better in terms of resolution !

I wouldn't leave without Paula.  Paula wouldn't leave without the dog.  So I may not be able to trade for that digital back after all. 

It's a beautiful shot, Will, but I don't understand.  Are you saying this was shot with a digital back?  If it is not, then how is it a example?  Just being dense.  I must be hungry.

Neither do I, I need it explaining to me as well please.No, sorry it didn't cover the above Frederic.Still don't get the relationship Rui, I do however understand the use for a tripod. Is it because large format dictates very small apertures and slow shutter speeds hence the need for a tripod and shake free. This doesn't explain the pixel density v shake free though.

Anyone else want to try and educate me?

:-)

If you want deep tech articles i can get some books to you, about optical, lenses and photography.

But maybe Ken Rockwell explain you better than me :

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

Sorry King, this was shot on Fuji Velvia and is an example of what can be done with film. John the advantage of more pix can only be gained by #1 having a lens that can equal that, #2 having the technique to keep camera/lens movement to a min. If you have a slight movement with the camera you are now using, that movement will still be there with the D800 and you may not notice much of an improvement. If you are rock solid and have the the right/sharp lens, then  you will most probably see the change/ improvement. 

John, Rui, et al.

True, Will. Many people do not know that lenses have also resolution limits (measured in lines/mm) and most lenses developed for medium range digital sensors have not enough power resolution for this new high resolution sensors.

This part I totally get. What I don't get is if you use a 50mm lens on a D700 and shoot a scene hand held with nice light, say f5.6 @125th sec. and then you shoot exactly the same lens, same scene, same settings but w/ D800 why you now need to keep the camera steadier to get the same or better sharpness. Just can't seem to get my head around that part. My old brain wants to think that the higher pixel density would only tend to make the same image shot with everything else the same (including relative camera stability) sharper.I shot with a telephone lens once. Man!! It kept me busy all afternoon and the sun WAS very bright that day. The worst part was the damn cord kept getting tangles in the bushes.

Not realy, Clyde. In D800 you just get same blur in more pixels and in a larger file.

Shure you only note that in a big print.

So the D800 would NOT expose more "motion blur", just that if you looked at the file at 100% or printed it big it might be more noticeable>???

Clyde, dificult to me explain this in english, i try to put here a article about. Give me some time

I think I get it now.  To see if the D800 is an improvement over the D700, it helps if the D800 image is not FUBAR and, of course, the D700 image shouldn't be FUBAR either.  Both images have to be of optimal quality before comparing them.

Let me up.

Yes, if both images have been taken in optimal quality, shure D800 have much more resolution.

If both images have taken with less quality, camera handeld, some blur, in D800 you just get a bigger blured picture.

So, what i try to sayd is if one want to spend huge money in a D800, better think a D700 can do the same except if you use D800 in optimal quality in order to take advantage of the 36mpixels.

At end, in street, sports, documentary or in other situations where you are shoot moving objects, you dont take advantage of 36mpixels camera in terms of resolution.

The only "problem" I can see is that D800 will be able to show more of the photographers errors, and lens quality issues. But that will be at larger prints (or extreme crops that I never make anyway).

http://cheapnikond800.com/nikon-d800-sample-images/

Yesterday, Thom Hogan also published a commentary on the proliferation of the sample images and assessments on the D4 and D800...  http://www.bythom.com/ > "What people see" (March 20, commentary)

I like his preliminary conclusion. The dynamic range is far more important to me than high ISO. I've grown up with film, and ISO 3200 b&w was for newspaper use only, while ISO 1000 on color was for extreme grain effect.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/News/DxOMark-news/The-Nikon-D800-is-the-new-king-of-DxOMark-with-a-score-of-95

Very good early review of the D800 sensor here http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Nikon-D800-Review/Sensor-performance which puts it ahead of the D4!

well
http://www.kentyuphotography.com/blog/2012/03/is-the-nikon-d800-really-the-best-camera/

Well, I have had it for two days now, and I can tell you - whatever you have read, it's no hype... I'm fairly impressed with the camera however it does have one downside - the files are really big, I'll have to spend a fair amount of money on a new computer...

Good to see it is actually available now. Mine is ordered, but have no idea when I will get it.

I was lucky, I didn't preorder the camera, the shop got one and I bought it. It was just one of those moments when everything goes unexpectedly well... hope you get your camera soon!

I got the D 800 yesterday and made some photos between ISO 800- 1600, Lens Nikkor 35, 1,4 G. I´m also suprised and impressed about the results. Never thought that this could be possible with a highres sensor. For sharp handheld captures you had to choose longer aperture times than usual to avoid blur effects. I also like the short and " discreet " Klick" when releasing the shutter. I can´t await the weekend for further testing. 

GRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!! Don't have one yet!!!

 Lars, i feel the same!!!

Had a chat with a dealer yesterday. They also had loads on order, and expected to get just a few. No problem really, I can live with the D700 for a while. Just hope I get mine until May as I an planning a very big panorama print. I need the resolution as there will be too much movement to do it with a lot of shots.

@ Lars: I shoot a small dog out of my office ( using 35mm, distance was about 20m)  When zooming into the picture I was able to read his name on the collar:  Duke :)  Accordingly a big panorama should be no problem ;) But don´t sell your D 700, the D 800 can´t replace the D 700  for meeting alll requirements of photography. 

No, it can't, but just for the frame rate it seems.

Hi friends, Right now at Amsterdam airport, there is sitting a D800 on the shelves, for euro 2800... i am not in the market, but if anybody is close by? Good luck, Wolfgang

And they probably even call it duty free?

it can't replace it at high ISO performance, right?  what has been your experience so far?  I just so wanted the D800 to be a smaller D4 and not this super massive megapixel count camera.... i still can't get over it :S  

With a friend of mine we made some comparisons between the D800 and the D700, and it seems that the D800 has less noise than the D700... anyway here is a review by Mansurovs: http://mansurovs.com/nikon-d800-review

Oh, yes, it can! It seems like it is even better

i really hope so Lars! :)  i've been keeping track of samples all over Dpreview and DxO mark and some others but at 6400 it seems the D700 still much better.... let alone something like a D4 at 12800..... :S 
But true, one always wants more, especially me that I always shoot in low light places...

Nicolas,

the review shows indeed impressive results, however, and this is something that Thom always points out when evaluating other reviews, is that it is really not a fair comparison downsizing to 12MP. 
I'm not saying that results aren't good, but I think a more realistic approach is to see those high ISO photos at 36MP because ultimately that's what we'll be shooting and we shouldn't be thinking that we'll shoot at 36MP having in mind that that we still have room because we can downsample to 12MP. you know what I mean?

But yes, it is an amazing camera for sure and I am still pondering whether I should go for it or not....

Sorry, I don't agree. The final result is what counts. So for comparing, downsizing is perfectly good for me. I agree with you on that the real resolution is what we will use, and even there it is impressive. I need that resolution! I would be happy with less too, but 36Mp sounds very good to me.

Lars, you will not be disappointed... I agree with you regarding the downsizing, but even without it the D800 files compared to the D700 looked better... no scientific method, we just used the two bodies with the same lens on the same scene. Anyway, the image quality of the D800 is stunning. The D700 is a great camera without any doubts, but the D800 is a league of it's own with it's 36MP... hope you will get your cameras soon!

I have my fingers crossed for you Lars, looking forward to seeing some images from you and your new baby (when it comes in) ;-)

i have been using the D800 now for 2 days, it is very impressive for me! I used the D200 before, so you can imagine how it is for me. Got the 85mm 1.8G and 24-70mm 2.8, i will need some time getting used it. 

Nico, here you can see a direct comparison between the two cameras at ISO 6400.

My first question is who needs 36 MP? Of course landscaper and studio portrait photographer. But you need a quite hand or a tripod. With such pixel density it is easy to have unsharp pictures. The high ISO capability is much better with D700 or D4. On the D800 you also need high class pro lens to get the full capabilities for the quality of 36 MP.
For me the camera seems not finished in development and more a punch to Canon in regard of MP.

At the end you will pay the same if you do not have pro lenses! The D800 body and a pro lens cost the same like a D4. If you have pro lenses better get the D4!:-)

Robert

Can you explain to me the reason for this Robert, many people have said it but haven't been able to explain or give a technical reason.

Would be interested to learn.

JP

Because the camera will register even the smallest movements; however, that completely depends on the shutter speed.

Every Camera has a filter to remove the Alias Effect. That means that this filter blur the edges. It is in all cameras! Now for the D800 there are two models one is with this filter and one without filter. The one without filter (E) gives more sharp results but the alias effect is stronger for pattern. Now photographing with a sensor and such high pixel density like the D3x (24MP) or the D800 will bring out unsharp pictures for a little movement on the camera. Photographing with high shutter speed will minimize this but at the end the detail sharpness will suffer. This is born by the alias effect. The pixel throw shadows on each other which will cause blur. For a studio lighting and high speed it is no problem but for slower photography or for street when you need a fast camera than D800 is not the best choice. In addition in case you use non Nikon lenses all the bad site effects from non Nikon lenses or non pro lenses will be worse as the resolution is 3 times higher as our well known cameras.

With unsharp pictures i mean detail sharpness which will suffer and such you will see on high resolution prints. If you like high end quality for prints i would wait for some time buying the D800 till the camera or and its software is more developed.

Ken R. gives a really nice review for both cameras even he did not have one of them but he explained it well at the end:-)
At the end in all reviews i have read they compare a D4 with D7000 which is fully nonsense as this cameras cannot really be compared. After long experience now with pro equipment of course i value my high end cameras very much and never will miss them in regard of quality.
D800 has limits and you will reach them fast. A D700 is a more full convinced camera for outdoor use but at the end for the studio purpose in 35 mm sector i would choose of course a D800:-) even the D4 is much much more better!

Robert

When Kodachrome was introduced (not disimilar when it comes to density), was there similar concern that the increased density would cause blurring of detail?  With regard to pixel shadows, hasn't this largely been eliminated with bucket shapes and improvements in microlens design?

Its a development! I will wait one or two years and see what comes:-)

Well, that sounds safe. Then wait another few years more for something better again. It could end up in lots of waiting, and I'm turning 56 this year...

I still don't understand the correlation between more pixels and camera movement/unsharpness but not to worry as I don't intend to buy a D800 and shall therefore reside in ignorant bliss.....

:-)

This is a premise that neither you or the others who have made it here in these forums have managed to explain or support to my satisfaction. And apparently, not to John or Lars's either...

The D800 has almost the same pixel size and density as the D7000 and nobody has ever complained about the D7000 taking less sharp pictures because of pixel density. I recommend the following article by Mansurovs:
http://mansurovs.com/the-benefits-of-a-high-resolution-sensor

I suspect the argument goes as follows:
A silver wire (1 wire thick) runs from top to bottom of your image.
The pixels on your sensor are 2 wires wide and both record the silver line.
Vibrate the string + and - half the wires thickness.
The sensor would not record the vibration since no additional pixels are affected.

Take a camera where the pixels are only 1/2 wire wide (greater pixel density).
Vibrate the string + and - half the wires thickness.
Now adjoining pixels are affected (but to a lesser extent than the central 2). A total of 4 pixels are affected now
This would create a slightly blurred effect.

Now instead of plucking the string, vibrate the camera (camera shake) and you get the same effect. This effect would not be confined to thin lines, but all edges in the image.

Hope trhat makes sense.

i dont know how to explain it technically, i read it somewhere and it was similar to what Robert said. But technicalities aside, it is a fact that hand holding a camera with such pixel density and resolution is definitely more difficult than with less. You can already read all over the geeky forums like Dpreview and also Thom Hogan has confirmed that one needs to be more careful and develop a better technique. 

That being said, it is quite stretch to say that without a tripod you won't get sharp images, that's of course not right. You just need to pay extra attention and everybody will be fine.

On the other hand, if you don't upgrade to a super computer together with your new D800, editing will be a painful and sometimes impossible experience.....imagine those 50-70MB raws..... geez, it gives me the goose bumps

Actually this is not accurate Velian. People did complain about the difference they perceived with the D7000 and its pixel density. I remembered this and also in that same article I mentioned by THom he correlates the care one needs to have with the D800 to the one D7000 had to have when they moved to it. 

Well, it is possible... I almost always use a tripod and for my handheld shots either a monopod or a shoulder support, so I agree with you :) However, despite the pixel density it is possible to get good results with careful technique as Thom has mentioned... anyway I'm quite happy with my camera although the super-computer thing is a real life problem!

Perhaps the difficult part of all this for me is that coming from a film background, good technique has always been important to me. I just don't really see how shooting with a D700 vs. a D800 would be much if any different in this regard. The pixel density doesn't seem to me to make much difference. In fact, I would assume that the exact same shot, with the exact same degree of camera stability would actually be sharper w/ the D800. This is true in film. The exact same shot w/ the exact same stability will appear to be "sharper" w/ a finer grain film not less.

Pixel density indeed makes a difference, certainly when comparing at pixel level. Images taken with high density sensors will be more prone to blurring at pixel level compared to low density sensors. The problem is not so much translation of the camera, but much more a slight rotating of the optical axis of the camera. This becomes even more of a problem at a distance and/or using a long lens. 

Yes Ken, I get this concept now.

...and if you were using a D7000 (which has the same pixel size as a D800)? Nobody appears to have raised this issue when the D7000 was launched.

There is a difference between film and digital for sure as the old film resolution target is a killer for dig due to the lines. That said if smaller denser pixels would be more susceptible to blur then the old panatomic X,   Fuji Velvia and other super fine grain films should be doing the same (clusters of emulsion for film grain vs pixels) The only reason these films tended to blurr more was the very slow ISO speed. If you have a given amounth of camera and lens movement (longer lens or higher magnification) will translate more movement of the light striking the film or sensor and that movement of the photons striking either plane should be the same. Images captured with a movement of .1 mm (.003937 Inch) will produce that much blur and IMO no more or less. Higher res is higher res. Again my standard 2cents ;-) will

My friend Clyde, please explain us this in a way we can understand! Since you are the absolute master and most experienced photographer it should be easy for you!

BTW, have you had a shoot with D700/800 or D4?

In the U.S.A., we call that "cruisin' for a bruisin'."

is that, when You beg to be beaten?

My request is a serious one King! The topic is about the D800 and perhaps some constructive from Clyde will be good!

Don't be an ass Robert, it gains you nothing...

I did try to explain a bit more in my second post.

And no I haven't shot with any of those cameras. Have you shot with a 3HP?

Long ago my friend:-)

Yes.  It is a figure of speech.  You could also say, "begging for a hostile argument."

Which is mostly what I've been trying to do too. I offered no opinion about the suggestion that camera stability would be more important w/ a D800, I just said I have so far failed to see a convincing argument as to why folks like Robert seem so convinced that it would. Just saying that it would and that others think it would doesn't seem to convince inquiring minds like mine and others too.

I have always believed that good camera technique was very important to sharp images. I just never really connected the relative "resolution" to the relative importance of holding the camera still. Shutter speed, yes, finer grain film or larger pixel count, no, wouldn't enter my mind really. But I keep reading and asking to see if I can get my head around it.

Fine, what about the points I made up there in post #256?

As I said above Ken, this was actually raised several times by many, but in the geeky forums, not here. 

Hi Ken,

I think that Clyde is right. Without proper camera technique the eventual pixel density impact is irrelevant.

So please read post 257:-)

I have contacted Nikon for my question and asked clearly. I also did shoot with both! The D700 is my very best friend in regard of photography and i never will miss her. I also have shoot the D800 and monitoring the quality and of course compare the D4 especially in high ISO range delivers the much sharper picture. One time more, what i mean is the detail sharpness!

And please you really cannot compare a digital sensor with an analogue film! Especially in middle or full frame format. Such quality never will be reached in regard of printing. Also the reproduction of film will result in a much higher quality than images from digital sensors. But we need wait as the stair of what is possible digital wise is not climbed till the end. We do not know what will come next.

Clyde, i believe i was the last dinosaur who give up film shooting (still do a lot on film) for a digital camera but seeing now detailed what all is possible with such i will never miss my digi cam. Also seeing what all is possible with the new generation of view finder cameras i am impressed.

Now back to the original topic the D800/800E, is just as requested gave my impression after i shoot with them and get all information i needed to make the decision not to buy it. Perhaps after some time and a newer development 35 mm cameras with such high resolution will be mine.

I still think and feel after reading the designers statement from Nikon and their decision to bring up 3 models in one row and looking of the bad luck for the Japanese and the money loss due the consequences of the atomic disaster it is logic that Nikon now needs a market hammer to keep the company running and therefore a camera with flaws also will bring money and drive for new developments. The D4 for example was planned to come to the consumer last year same time but it was impossible. Now Nikon put more effort in it and the D800 was original planned for this year but the money bags are empty and the market goes on. So why holding back and still the variety of cameras for each taste is there and more than ever.

Not at all:-) Please do not forget the lens!

Ok, ok, actually that's the main flaw of the D800... you do have to use the best lenses and a monster computer... not to mention the extra-size memory cards... but it has it's rewards, the files are really something (besides being big) !

And we have a saying here : the difference between gown-ups and children is only in the price of the toys!

File size of more then 50 MB are not much a thing now a days. Shooting in .*tif for example will give you with a D700 more then 35 MB per picture.  A digital back on a 645 Mamyia with 50 MP will give over 100 MB. Of course a normal windows computer will have problems handling data`s that size but also only a low budget model. If you go for a pro or a semi pro such should not be an issue. Having the money for a pro equipment means also having the money for the upkeeps. Same like driving a Porsche. The one who can effort to buy one also should have the money for the upkeeps.

The sophistication of the technique is important and the matching lenses!

Perhaps I have missed a link above and if so let me apologize early. # 1 has a scientific test been done with controlled movement with results shown at 100% (hopefully apples to apples) It would not be impossible to do but perhaps difficult. #2 Would a company like Nikon and or Canon have considered this to be a problem? I feel comfortable that most camera manufactures have well qualified engineers.The real proof will be in the shooting under "very" controlled conditions.....  I suspect they (Nikon engineers) has had the same questions, or did they? ;-)

Indeed, my children have enough expensive toys and gadgets to embarrass a NASA rocket scientist leaving this impoverished grown up to work all hours funding their obsessions leaving no money to upgrade my D300, hence why I'm not allowed a D800...!!

:-)

Never intended to explain something that does not happen. Same as with that Santa Claus..

Happened a lot here while I was away.. Have to read it when I come back..again..

King, I quoted you just to get you into the discussion.. because you know about real resolution.I guess we basically agree. It's just that when the pixel covers less than the wire thickness it won't be able to show it sharp either.. 

The D800 is a great camera but then again...
http://mansurovs.com/is-nikon-d700-obsolete

some interesting info here http://www.btobey.com/nikon/d800-review.php

Yes, perhaps, but the digital sensor argument still eludes me.  I like kenp's explanation, though.No problem at all.  The main issue is that where I might be using a 50mm lens on my 35mm SLR, or an 80mm lens on my Hasselblad, I'll probably have the 210mm lens on my 4x5 or my 300mm lens on my 8x10.  Camera movement is more evident every time the focal length is increased, but that is compensated for to some degree because of the lesser degree of enlargement necessary in the larger formats. 

I also like that explanation, down to earth, very well explained. Just need to add the "less than pixel width" detail.

I seriously doubt this. I would actually expect the opposite. One of the main reasons that digital never really look like film IMO is the micro contrast created by the large pixel density and the AA filters.

The film/grain structure creates a bit of diffusion that adds "softness" to the image by my eye, the digital sensors and filters add detail and "sharpness". Thus the more of that there is, the chances are that the images will look less and less like film, especially when printed.

I have not seen much by the D800 and nothing printed. But the online images I have seen bear little resemblance to film imo.

No matter how hard the manufacturers tried there is always a measure of randomness with grain in film. The silver halide particels differed slightly in size, shape, sensitivity, distribution and level in the emulsion and they are certainly not aligned in a grid pattern (which might contribute to the moire problems with digital sensors).
This randomness is further magnified by distributing the grain amongst three superimposed layers in the case of colour, rather than sitting on the same plane as is the case with digital.

I wrote a very long reply on this, then I got funny messade "something went wrong etc".. I'll try again..

You said a lot there.  Very high-resolution film images can look soft, because resolution differs from accutance, which for this argument I will define as edge contrast.