D800 dpreview

[Orion]

It got a favourable score of 82, but the mkIII is still the best all round camera.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/

Overall conclusion

In many ways, the D800 had a difficult act to follow in the 12MP D700, which was (and remains) one of the best all-rounders of any DSLR we've ever used. The demand of some Nikon users for a higher resolution model notwithstanding, there was not a whole lot we'd have wanted to see change in an updated model. Thankfully, Nikon's approach to the D800 has followed a similar mode of thinking.

A majority of the things we liked about the D700; its handling, sensible interface and very impressive high ISO performance have been retained in the D800. Physically, the two cameras appear nearly identical. On the outside at least, the D800 represents a refinement, rather than overhaul of its well-respected predecessor.

We don't mean to imply that Nikon has chosen to rest on its laurels, however. Far from it. The changes on the inside of the camera are hard to overstate, the most obvious of course being its 36.3MP sensor, which offers three times the pixel count of the previous-generation 12MP CMOS chip. Yet there's more. The D800 shares many features and specifications with its big brother, the Nikon D4. Live view now feels like an integral function of the camera, rather than an afterthought, and the D800's video spec is one of the most attractive of any currently-available DSLR. Dual SD/CF card slots provide not only media flexibility but the option of in-camera image backups. The inclusion of a viewfinder with 100% coverage is another welcome upgrade over the D700.

And again, much of what we liked about the D700 remains reassuringly present in the D800. There have been some changes, obviously, but the overwhelming majority are changes for the better, helping you work more efficiently and successfully. The only thing we really wish the D800 had inherited was a slightly faster framerate. Although 4fps will be enough for many photographers, we know from speaking to professionals that higher frame rates would have been very useful.

With the D800 arriving in camera shops alongside its cheif competitor, the Canon EOS 5D Mark III, we have two well built photographic tools that are capable of outstanding images. While the 36MP D800 has the resolution advange over its 22MP rival, it's wise to take note of other differences, like maximum frame rate; here the 5D Mark III takes the edge at 6fps vs 4fps (FX mode). Canon has also managed to take a very complex AF system and ease the learning curve with a well-presented series of presets. The D800 counters with the ability to output uncompressed HD video and a range of useful crop modes, including the APS-C sized DX format. Most notably though, Nikon has provided a high end offering that comes in at a street price that is US$500 less than the 5D Mark III, representing very strong value for the consumer.

[idimoe]

Anyone else catch this? Second paragraph of the introduction portion of the review:

"At the heart of the D800 is a brand new Nikon-developed sensor that boasts 36.8 million pixels in total..."

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e

So much for the myth that Sony developed the sensor.

[Orion]

well Sony manufactures it, but Nikon tweaks and develops the sensor FOR manufacturing. I think that's how it goes. . .

[psolberg]

It got a favourable score of 82, but the mkIII is still the best all round camera.

according to who? I find 14 stops of DR, crop flexibility of 36MP, super clean ISO shadows at ISO100, true 1080p HD video 4:2:2 out uncompressed much more "best all round" camera. If I want to shoot fast at high ISO, I'd get a1DX/D4. That's why I went to the dark side 


"best all round" camera depends on who you ask. Actually I'd say the best camera today for most people is the MKII. priced right. ISO performance that satisfies 90%of all shooters, resolution that satisfies 90% of all shooters and price that is a much greater value than the overpriced D800 or 5DmkIII.

that's the real winner IMO. 36MP or stupid high ISO on the MKIII is a niche market making both cameras equal loosers for the "best all round" camera.

sorry 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Anyone else catch this? Second paragraph of the introduction portion of the review:

"At the heart of the D800 is a brand new Nikon-developed sensor that boasts 36.8 million pixels in total..."

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e

So much for the myth that Sony developed the sensor.

 
That reminds me of the Movie "Young Frankenstein"  The idea and original story came from Gene Wilder.  However, Mel Brooks would not produce it until he had tweaked it and took pretty much full credit.  I believe thats the way with Nikon and Sony.  We will see that sensor in a Sony camera this year or next.

[psolberg]

Anyone else catch this? Second paragraph of the introduction portion of the review:

"At the heart of the D800 is a brand new Nikon-developed sensor that boasts 36.8 million pixels in total..."

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e

So much for the myth that Sony developed the sensor.

 
That reminds me of the Movie "Young Frankenstein"  The idea and original story came from Gene Wilder.  However, Mel Brooks would not produce it until he had tweaked it and took pretty much full credit.  I believe thats the way with Nikon and Sony.  We will see that sensor in a Sony camera this year or next.

besides, whatever the case, what does DPreview even know. they are as clueless as your average blogger. nikon/sony parnetship arrangements and engineering details are beyond the knowledge of a mere english photography review blog/site. Only sony/nikon know which parts were done by who and anybody who even pretends to have an insider knoledge inmediately kills its own credibility unless they offer substantial proof.

sony using a similar sensor says nothing about which company developed it for it may very well be the case nikon agreed to share the design if sony produced it. The fact of the matter is that who cares who did what. The sensor is A+++ 

[KeithR]

The sensor is A+++ 

At low ISO.

In every other respect the 5D Mk III is equal to, and usually better than, the D800, which is why the Canon is the better all rounder.

The D800 really is a one (or being charitable, maybe two - landscape, maybe studio) trick pony.

[sach100]

looks like people tend to patrol CR forum just to re-assure themselves as to what a great decision they made by jumping over the fence to the other side. Get on with it! there are areas where one camera is better than the other - which ever way you look PERIOD

Sure, better tech makes one's life easier (like getting that 'perfect' image at the first instance) BUT it doesn't make one a better photographer instantly. - wait.. did i just say that?

[psolberg]

The sensor is A+++ 

At low ISO.

In every other respect the 5D Mk III is equal to, and usually better than, the D800, which is why the Canon is the better all rounder.

The D800 really is a one (or being charitable, maybe two - landscape, maybe studio) trick pony.

not really. the 5DIII could be called the 1 trick pony as well since all it really has over the D800 is a few very high ISO levels which are mostly too noisy for most people's standards and a mere 2 fps ( and just 1fps over 1.2 cropped mode). that is good for some sport shooters (but it is no 1Dx/D4) but not really state of the art for landscape, studio, portrait and wedding which is a huge market and who the D800 is targeting.

ultimately if you shoot landscapes, wedding, studio, portraits the D800 is the better all rounder because:
-offer far more crop flexibility (big deal for wedding portrait)
-offers far better resolution for large prints (huge deal to wedding/portrait/studio/landscape)
-offers far better dynamic range and cleaner shadows and to preserve whites (big for weddings/landscape)
-offers uncompressed hdmi out which has greater editing latitude (great feature for nature videographers with an eye for broadcast quality)

so as usual, it all depends on what you shoot. if you shoot sports, the 5DIII is ok. But if you're serious it is too slow. The way I see it is that the 5DIII is like  jack of all trades but master of none. Unless you shoots sports and landscape combined (and the market for that is nearly zero) that tradeoffs of the 5DIII just don't make much sense. Nikon selected a more reasonable approach IMO. instead of making a camera that doesn't excel at any one thing beyond the others ( like the 5DIII), they looked at one market (wedding/portrait/studio/landscape) and gave them the best full frame dslr money can buy with acceptable trade offs to yield benefits available nowhere else.  If canon had done that, I'd still shoot canon because that is what the 5DII was. The 5DIII changed the formula and tried to be a D700 which never did that well.

ultimately the 5DIII tries to please everybody but in doing so, it was held back from being the best at any one thing.