The D800 – What’s All The Fuss About?
Copyright (c) Nikon
Tools, cameras.. indeed life…. different strokes for different folks. We all value different things in life and lust after different features in our cameras. Recently Nikon announced the launch of the D800; a 36.3 Mega Pixel camera that I have heard many people say (or expect), that this will be Nikon’s finest camera. But will it really? Certainly from my point of view, I don’t think so. I really can’t see what all the fuss is about?
Sure, the camera is jam packed full of megapixels, offering a resolution now only matched by the medium and large format digital backs. But for me, you pay far too high a price for this additional resolution. Nikon are now packing 7360 x 4912 (36 million pixels) into the same real estate as the my D3s: 4256 x 2832 (12 million pixels). You get nothing in life for free, so what have they sacrificed for this? Well without having tested the camera, or indeed ever even held it, I can’t say for sure.. but I would guess:
- ISO: A significant decrease in noise performance at high ISO’s? The D3s really and truly excels in this area. I never even have to think or worry about pushing the D3s into 1600 ISO. Beyond that, it would start to come a concern, but it’s certainly possible to get clean prints above that, once you’re considered in how you approach your shot.
- SPEED: I love the high frame rate of the D3s – like REALLY love it. For ambient light shots, even portraits, I would often shoot at the max frame rate. To be honest the 9 frames per second (or 11 fps depending on your shooting mode) sometimes feels like it’s not enough. But now the D800 has to process so much more information due to the increased resolution that they can only push through 4 frames a second.
- OPTICS: Cameras in around 20 MP already place VERY high demands on the optics/lenses. Chances are, moving to 36 megapixels, peoples much loved lenses will turn into far less loved lenses.
- PC Power: I can’t wait to see people’s computers struggle with multiple layered 36 MP images. Not Nikon’s concern of course.
To be honest, I simply don’t buy into the megapixel race. I shoot a 12MP camera and can comfortably print A2 (20″ x 16″), which is larger than most enthusiasts print at the best of times. Of course, more megapixels means more freedom to crop, but the OCD in me kind of says they should have framed the shot correctly in the first place. Sure, some additional resolution would be nice, but not to the point where you have to sacrifice so much for it. Plus by the way (and this has nothing to do with image quality), I simply don’t do cameras that don’t have integrated vertical grips… YUCK
Other gripes I have: (related also to the D3x & D4)
- VIDEO: I appreciate, though don’t understand, that video appears to be the way forward, even for stills photography – with the ability to capture still frames from a moving stream. But I don’t want it and it seems pretty damn unfair that I have to pay for it. I’d much rather Nikon make a stills alternative at a reduced rate. Imagine what they could do if they invested their R&D time and money just into stills rather than “wasting” time on video.
- LOWER ISO: Sure, good noise performance at higher ISO’s is really nice and it’s a feature I avail of often, but how about designing sensors that have lower native ISO’s? As it is now, all Nikon CMOS sensors have a native ISO of 200 and a “boost” of 100. But I’d love ISO 50, or indeed 25. Imagine being able to achieve long exposure times, without the need for ND filters, at any time of day.
- A FULL SCREEN FULL OF FOCUS POINTS: My biggest gripe with the Nikon cameras I have owned (D70, D2x, D3 & D3s) – not one of them has had focus points that fill the screen. And by sods law, the point you always want to focus on, somehow falls beyond these. I’m sure there’s some good engineering reason for this (and I’ve heard a few different theories), but whatever the challenge or reason, I’m pretty sure if they didn’t work on video, they could have solved this?
What about the D4?
Copyright (c) Nikon
I’ll be honest the D4 excites me a lot more than the D800 does. Whilst I have to confess to having one on pre-order (assuming no Irish thieves decide to help themselves again), it is probably the first upgrade that doesn’t REALLY excite me. Leaving video aside (again), Nikon really haven’t made huge strides forward with the D4. They’re all small incremental steps with a pretty large increment in price point. Sadly I don’t think the boys at Nikon read my blog and somehow, I doubt they’d take any heed of my “advice” even if they did.
Agree with the pixel race. I very very rarely use the 18mp of my 7d preferring to use MRaw covering 10mp.
Why buy the D4? I think the improvements are getting smaller in bodies, I presume that’s why the lenses are getting reworked, at least by Canon.
I really hummed and hawed for a while, but in the end it was Joe McNally’s various blogs about it (http://www.joemcnally.com/blog/2012/01/06/shooting-the-d4/) that made me put the deposit down.
Lorraine has been shooting on my old D2x, which is probably 5 (if not 6) years old now, so that was due for an upgrade. So it made sense for me to get the D4 and hand my old D3s off to Lorraine.
That was the theory anyway. The delivery date was due for mid Feb which is now pushed out to mid March. If it’s not delivered then, I’ll be asking for my deposit back and will re-evaluate my purchasing decision at a later date.
.all Nikon CMOS sensors have a native ISO of 200 and a “boost” of 100.
The D800 has a standard ISO range of 100-6400, which can be pushed to ISO 50-25600.
But I’d love ISO 50, or indeed 25. Imagine being able to achieve long exposure times,
Not quite sure why you would want long exposures for your style of work, but you can artificially decrease the ISO speed by overexposing a couplke of clicks and pushing the exposure down by that amount in ARC.
Actually.. just noticed that the native ISO had dropped to 100 just as I saw your comment come in.
For the model work I shoot, the lower ISO really wouldn’t make a difference. But I have dabbled in landscapes and made the rash decision to purchase the Nikon 14-24mm, which unfortunately is very filter unfriendly. I can use the technique of blending multiple exposures in order to “simulate” an ND, but would really like lower ISO on these occasions.
Of course your technique of over exposure is a valid one, but one that could also be applied when you’re shooting at ISO25 or lower, giving you longer shutter speeds again.
You know the delay in the D4 deliveries is only because Nikon are busy ripping the sensors out just to fulfill the orders for the D800 / D800e !
Seriously, Nikon have shot themselves in the foot here. The D800 has it all bar the high (very high) ISO. Pixel pitch as in the D7000 (proven) and noise levels comparable to D3 – sure seems to be a winner ! For me the killer feature in the D4 is the ability to vary ambient and flash exposure separately (not tied as in D3 series). As I use fill in flash regularly this is a very welcome feature indeed. Nearly every other feature carries over to the D800 (apart from FPS). Switch to DX mode and you capture at 15MP – another killer feature ! Remember Joe didn’t seem to test the D800 and it’s also been out for circa 7 months. So, as I can remember with the D3 three months down the line it was sold for €500 less. I swore I would never pre-order another camera….. (honest Ann).
I remain to be convinced Brian
I was careful to point out, a lot of my negatives are all suppositions rather than fact. When you get yours, we can do a like for like comparison.
The fact I don’t shoot CLS means the ambient/flash mix/compensation, really doesn’t excite me either. I’m surprised they wouldn’t make this a feature of all new bodies though.
“I love the high frame rate of the D3s – like REALLY love it. For ambient light shots, even portraits, I would often shoot at the max frame rate. To be honest the 9 frames per second (or 11 fps depending on your shooting mode) sometimes feels like it’s not enough.”
Okay, you have me scratching my head over this one! 9 frames/sec ….for portraits!?? How many frames are you shooting for your typical nude?
Yup… For anything using ambient, I’ll have my camera set to the highest frame rate.
http://www.thewonderoflight.com/?s=Machine+gun
At least one photo will be in focus, isn’t that right Ciaran?
Well… I do it in the hope that at least one will be in focus
Have to agree with all your comments Ciaran. Not
a N user but I am sure canon wil be followng shortly. All playing in to the hands of Hasselblad et al as prices get closer.
R.
Hi Ciaran,
I think you have summed up it well in the title “What’s all the fuss about?”.
For me , the landmark moment was the introduction of the D3 in 2007 with it’s incredible ISO range among other things like the build quality of the camera.
The camera was the first of it’s kind to offer more then just a stupid race in pixel size with Canon.
I do not believe Nikon have produced the same “WOW” factor with the D4. The innovations and emphasis seems to be more towards HD video and connectivity.
Maybe I am wrong as I have only seen previews, no real tests yet. But isn’t the D4 being pitched at photojournalism and sport?
I think if your preferences are still, fashion, portrait or fine art nude, maybe the path is to a medium format like a Mamiya RZ67 with the addition eventually of a good digital back would be a better option?
if you see pics from the D800E you would put your foot in your mouth for your ignorance.
Really? You think? No where did I doubt the image quality wouldn’t be amazing. But that’s not the point. Besides, at my recent workshops there were 5 people using the D800 and most (not all) of them really struggled. It certainly didn’t excel in the conditions.