D800 is finally here

[nicku]

stock photographers will be happy: they need more megapixels

c'mon, Canon, do smth for stockers too!

Exactly in stock more megapixels is better.

I hpe canon will came with an APS-H (1D4) extended at FF, a 27 MP sensor with 1Dmk4 ISO performance will ''destroy'' the new D800.

 

[caruser]

I'm a happy 5D2 owner, but now it feels like I'm in the wrong camp!

More pixels, more video, and most importantly: much more AF!

5DX, where are you, I don't want to change system for the AF.

 

[kirillica]

yeah and they are to cheap to buy the right tool for the job.
if you need MF quality you better buy a MF camera.

if you don´t make enough money to buy a MF camera for your job you obviously doing something wrong.

"oh finally there is the D800 so i can do my job and earn money" ;D

and of course 80% here, who show medicore flicker websites, need 36 MP..... sure. ;D

MF is a whole another world. for example, Hassel has only 1 focusing point with true focus and you cannot do series with focus shift and etc. So pro photographers require FF body functionality with near to MF picture quality. If Hassel does the same good job Canon/Nikon done with speed, focus and etc, then switching to MF will be massive.

 

[Canon-F1]

MF is a whole another world. for example, Hassel has only 1 focusing point with true focus and you cannot do series with focus shift and etc. So pro photographers require FF body functionality with near to MF picture quality. If Hassel does the same good job Canon/Nikon done with speed, focus and etc, then switching to MF will be massive.

there are other MF cameras then hasselblads.....

 

[kirillica]

MF is a whole another world. for example, Hassel has only 1 focusing point with true focus and you cannot do series with focus shift and etc. So pro photographers require FF body functionality with near to MF picture quality. If Hassel does the same good job Canon/Nikon done with speed, focus and etc, then switching to MF will be massive.

there are other MF cameras then hasselblads.....

Sure. And there are another FF cameras besides Canon. So what? We are talking about market leaders, not niche players

 

[Astro]

MF is a whole another world. for example, Hassel has only 1 focusing point with true focus and you cannot do series with focus shift and etc. So pro photographers require FF body functionality with near to MF picture quality. If Hassel does the same good job Canon/Nikon done with speed, focus and etc, then switching to MF will be massive.

well... people here in this forum say they need more MP because they are "landscape" or "studio" shooter.
ok... but why needs a landscape shooter faster AF or 51 AF points?

im not a studios shooter but i know a few.
they are all very happy with one AF point and they don´t care about ultra fast AF either.
it´s not as if their motives are running away.

 

[kirillica]

MF is a whole another world. for example, Hassel has only 1 focusing point with true focus and you cannot do series with focus shift and etc. So pro photographers require FF body functionality with near to MF picture quality. If Hassel does the same good job Canon/Nikon done with speed, focus and etc, then switching to MF will be massive.

well... people here in this forum say they need more MP because they are "landscape" or "studio" shooter.
ok... but why needs a landscape shooter faster AF or 51 AF points?

im not a studios shooter but i know a few.
they are all very happy with one AF point and they don´t care about ultra fast AF either.
it´s not as if their motives are running away.

I'm studio shooter and I'm sometimes frustrated with this old-century 9 AF my camera has from other hand, 1Ds3 is overpriced.

 

[Astro]

And, pray, what should I compare it with? The wishlists for the 5DX/5D3 that people post here?

you don´t compare a 1980 ford with todays ford or hondas?

i for sure do not complain that i bought the wrong car back in 1980 because today there are better cars.

I'm a happy 5D2 owner, but now it feels like I'm in the wrong camp!

More pixels, more video, and most importantly: much more AF!

what a suprise after 3 years of development in the camera biz....

 

[torger]

Concerning medium format vs 35mm and landscape photography; Digital medium format systems cost a lot more than 35mm systems. The 35mm has so far been under-utilized concerning resolution, it could be much closer to medium format than it has been. Many landscape photographers are of the hiking type and use 35mm despite lower resolution since medium format is just too bulky. On every professional landscape photographer there is probably 1000 serious amateurs that sell a picture now and then but don't make a living from it, and simply cannot afford a medium format technical view camera with Rodenstock lenses and a Phase One IQ160 even if that is "the best tool".

That is --- there is certainly a niche to fill with a high res 35mm system, and Nikon just filled it.

 

[weixing]

Hi,
36MP... 75MB RAW file... storage manufacturer must be very happy now... more high capacity card and hard disk sales...

My 2TB hard disk free space is already running out at a very fast rate with my 18MP only 60D and I only shoot on weekends (mostly photos and some video), can't image how large the hard disk I'll need if I had a 36MP digital camera.

Have a nice day.

 

[Astro]

On every professional landscape photographer there is probably 1000 serious amateurs that sell a picture now and then but don't make a living from it, and simply cannot afford a medium format technical view camera with Rodenstock lenses and a Phase One IQ160 even if that is "the best tool".

that´s the point they don´t NEED it... they just want it. for pixel peeping.
nothing wrong with that!

but that´s not what people tell you here!
most sound if they absolutely need 36 MP or more because they are doing 2.4mx1.2m prints every day. or at least they regularly sell stock images that are printed at billboard size.

on the other side are the "i crop like crazy" people.
ok i get that it´s nice to crop for wildlife shoots.
but i bet most who talk about this don´t NEED it either.

there is a small percentage of PRO photographer who may NEED this to sell more.
but you normaly don´t see them 7/24 on internet forums.
i doubt they have enough spare time to waste it on forums, discussing about camera gear.

i have time, im sitting here in my office with not much to do and i get payed for that..... LOL.

 

[torger]

that´s the point they don´t NEED it...

That argument works all the way down to a mobile phone camera, so it is kind of meaningless. You don't need 16 bit audio either, 8 bit is almost just as good, etc. Take whatever and you can say that you really can satisfy with less.

But -- a quality wall-mounted print of a landscape view you can make use of 36 megapixels on as small as A3+. 360 ppi is visibly better than 200. Walk up close and see all the details and get that wow-feeling, that it is not just a fine composition it is also executed with excellent technique and materials. Some of us like producing the best quality we can. Do you need that quality difference? I generally print larger, but even for A3+ I'd prefer maxing out the printer.

 

[zim]

Bottom line, sales will decide who is right Canon or Nikon.
For me looks like Nikon have just stompt all over Canon and the non is 24-70 is just like salt in the wound. I don’t have a lot of money invested in Canon (although I did once with the F1) but I have been considering upgrading back to FF from a 500D. The spec of D800 is for me the perfect camera. The real problem I have with Canon right now is that it looks like everything they are doing is reactive (perceived) and I don’t think that’s a good place for the company to be. So why don’t I just jump and be done with it well one word, glass. So I’ll wait, if nothing else it’s fun watching this play out and it’s not like I can’t take any pictures in the meantime.

Round 1 to Nikon

 

[Maui5150]

Well. It is an interesting camera for sure.

Will be curious to see how the 36MP plays out in the market. Those are large images... and pretty much cuts storage cards in half, etc. Definitely for some the MP leap is a great improvement.

I think comparing it to the 5D MKII is a little folly, as both the 5D MK II is not only two years old versus a just released camera, but the D800 is also for all intent and purposes 50% more expensive a camera. Better AF and resolution for sure, but will be interested in seeing the ISO comparison. Not really a biggie for me, as I tend to shoot 800 and lower, but still, for the price and 2 years worth of technology, I would expect a much stronger camera

In the end, I hope this pushes Canon a bit. Competition is great for the market. Looks like a sweet camera. Congrats to those who have been waiting, and in the end if Canon does respond in kind with greater gains in their new product releases as well, then we all win.

 

[Gothmoth]

that´s the point they don´t NEED it...

That argument works all the way down to a mobile phone camera, so it is kind of meaningless. You don't need 16 bit audio either, 8 bit is almost just as good, etc. Take whatever and you can say that you really can satisfy with less.

But -- a quality wall-mounted print of a landscape view you can make use of 36 megapixels on as small as A3+. 360 ppi is visibly better than 200. Walk up close and see all the details and get that wow-feeling, that it is not just a fine composition it is also executed with excellent technique and materials. Some of us like producing the best quality we can. Do you need that quality difference? I generally print larger, but even for A3+ I'd prefer maxing out the printer.

you read the link someone posted here about the G10 vs. hasselblad 39MP on A3 print size?

nobody could tell what is G10 and what is hasselbald from that print size.
and that are experts in the field.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

The Results

In every case no one could reliably tell the difference between 13X19" prints shot with the $40,000 Hasselblad and Phase One 39 Megapixel back, and the new $500 Canon G10. In the end no one got more than 60% right, and overall the split was about 50 / 50, with no clear differentiator. In other words, no better than chance.

In fact it was the H2 system's narrower depth of field that occasionally was the only clear give-away. Some viewers eventually figured out that the prints with the narrower depth of field were from medium format, while other photographers chose the G10 images because with its wider depth of field it created an overall impression of greater sharpness.

Needless to say there was much shaking of heads and muttering. Could this be? Could a $500 digicam equal a $40,000 medium format digital system in image quality, at least in prints up to 13X19" (Super A3)?

now compare 21 MP vs. 36 MP images from DSLR cameras on A3 print size.

and for billboard sized prints.. even my not so small house is big enough to mount more then 2 or 3 of them.

 

[kirillica]

you read the link someone posted here about the G10 vs. hasselblad 39MP on A3 print size?

nobody could tell what is G10 and what is hasselbald from that print size.
and that are experts in the field.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

Good point, but real life is full of "BUT's". One of them is: price for 20Mp+ size sold is significantly higher than 20Mp-. And people buying them do check quality with 1:1 reso, no just on A2 prints, because, yes, they may use it someday to make house-wide prints: one picture should satisfy all possible needs.

 

[EYEONE]

I'm a little confused about the differences between this and the D700... The main point is the 36mp sensor. Don't both have 51 point AF, 15 cross (Crusader, ha) types, ISO 100-6400, Weather sealing?

The rest honestly sounds like marketing speak. "Better" this and "improved" that. Don't get me wrong 36mp is pretty incredible (if unnecessary), but I don't find the rest all that impressive.

Wow, you must have some pretty high standards. I take it Canon's going to have to come out with one heck of a 5D3 to impress you

Not really. I'm impressed by 36mp for a technological standpoint. But I'm not drooling over it in regards to photography. Honestly I'd buy a 5DIII that was exactly like the 5DII but with better AF system. Not even a 61 point system. I'd take 9 spread out cross type sensors. Done. High standards? Please, I'd say mine are lower than most.

 

[EYEONE]

Not really. I'm impressed by 36mp for a technological standpoint. But I'm not drooling over it in regards to photography.

you must be one of the very few here who do not print elephants at lifesize...

Yeah, hardly ever. Call me crazy I guess...

 

[WarStreet]

So, we read from Nikon and Canon users being either satisfied or not for the D800 and rumored 5DIII specs. Since these cameras have exchanged their roles, unfortunately some users will be unsatisfied, but we still have to appreciate that these cameras have great value when we compare them to the previous generation high-end cameras.

How many will prefer the D800 from the 1DsIII, with a higher resolution, Nikon's best AF with f8 focusing, 4 fps, and possibly with a good noise and DR capabilities, 100% viewfinder, dual cards, 200K shutter, and high end video? The same goes for the rumored 5DIII, not far away from the great D3s with Canon's best AF, 6.9/7.5 fps, and an expected similar noise capability but with a better resolving power. Ok, they are not as durable like the big cameras, but when we add the price, size and weight factor, I am impressed with the technology improvements and the value for money. Now, I just wish that the 5DIII rumored specs are true and officially announced, so that I can click that pre-order button ;D

 

[Picsfor]

10% of photographers will take a long hard look at the D800. These are pros and they will evaluate, test and retest before coming to a judgement. Some will buy it because it meets a need, others will let it pass. Another 10% are the serious amateurs - they will also evaluate, maybe rent it and try it out and then make a decision on whether to buy it or not. Some will, some won't. The next 10% are those that think their supreme talents are limited by their current camera. They will enthusiastically go out and buy the D800, take some more mediocre photos and then sit around the fireplace telling people how to photograph things and why the D800 limits their talents. Out of the remaining 70%, half the people will read everything about the D800, will perhaps contribute on various forums, and then quietly go do their photography with minimum fuss with their current camera gear. The remainder will rave and rant on every forum, insult disbelievers and generally be a nuisance to forum administrators every where. They will never hold a D800 in their hands let alone buy one, but will still want their opinions heard in a most disagreeable manner!

Bottom line: Some folks will find the D800 exactly meets their needs, others will let it pass and hang on to their current gear...but everyone will get much amusement from the 30% riff-raff that are out on the forums abusing other folks

Nope, not at all.

I comment cos i want to get a 1Dx for free - even if it's only under my name on this forum :