New Nikon D800s... Why?

[9VIII]

That's just the it, Canon had to put a plastic top plate on the 6D to get a wireless signal through, and *** isn't magic, the same will apply. The only reason to include one and not the other is to sell a stupid plug-in adapter.

 

[gshocked]

It may also be that Nikon wants to consolidate the current D800 and D800E into one camera. It really did not make sense for Nikon to have both the 800 and 800E and perhaps by coming out with a "new" D800S instead of producing two separate but almost identical bodies is cheaper and a better business decision.

Very few people who currently have the D800 or D800 will be buying this new D800S unless they were already planning on getting another one. It just does not seem to be a good upgrade worth the money. Now if someone wants to move from a crop to a FF camera, going directly to the D800S makes sense.

ONe of the biggest differences is the incorporation of Wi-Fi which is of interest to some photographers but not to others. It will be interesting to see how well the WiFi works pushing out 41mb data files. Thats a lotta data!

+1

It never made sense to me why Nikon made a D800 and an D800e.
From a consumers point of view it doesn't inspire confidence in the brand. Considering this If you just purchased a new D800 at the start of the year, it makes you wonder why your top of the line camera was replaced.
Is there something wrong with the current D800, is this like the D600 being replaced by the D610?

Or from a different perspective - it might put the D800 one up from the 5D3, as the the "newer"must have item.
It then repositions Nikon, to some consumers, as being the innovative company. While to others it screams new money machine.

 

[ahsanford]

It never made sense to me why Nikon made a D800 and an D800e.
From a consumers point of view it doesn't inspire confidence in the brand. Considering this If you just purchased a new D800 at the start of the year, it makes you wonder why your top of the line camera was replaced.
Is there something wrong with the current D800, is this like the D600 being replaced by the D610?

Or from a different perspective - it might put the D800 one up from the 5D3, as the the "newer"must have item.
It then repositions Nikon, to some consumers, as being the innovative company. While to others it screams new money machine.

Or, maybe, Nikon is taking the iPhone approach of:

iPhone 4 = New body, new design, new screen
iPhone 4S = Same body, same design, same screen, better speed / better battery / Siri
iPhone 5 = New body, new design, new screen
iPhone 5S = Same body, same design, same screen, better speed / better battery / thumbprint ID feature

I say that as it's easy for us to tune out a new release with the same sensor as an older design, but if the 'mid-generation refresh' offers a ton of value, people might bite at the offer.

What if, in some alternate universe, Canon took on a similar approach:

5D3 released at time zero: new sensor, new body, headphone jack, etc. but had the old 5D2 AF system
5D4 released at 12 months with everything the same but now offering the 1DX AF system
5D5 released at 24 months with everything the same as the 5D4 but now with WiFi *** built-in
5D6 released at 36 months with everything the same as the 5D5 but now with a much faster processor and much larger buffer for burst shooting, or a special/improved uncompressed video output
5D7 released at 48 months with a fundamentally new body design and new sensor.

I imagine less people would have opted in for the 5D3 if Canon did this, but everyone would have one by the end of the 5D3-5D6 body lifecycle.

Neither Canon nor Nikon's methods are right or wrong, they are just different approaches to commercialization. My gut is that Canon prefers making many more of the exact same body for a longer period of time for the following reasons:

• Smaller excess/obsolescence than if they had a boatload of regular upgraded offerings
• Total marketing dollars are smaller as they only have to launch the system once
• The chance to upcharge folks with bolt-on upgrades for Wifi, ***, etc.

While Nikon -- at least in the higher end bodies -- would rather sprinkle a mix of new bodies and upgraded bodies with the same sensor. Again, I don't think either is right or wrong -- I just find the strategies fascinating.

- A

 

[Sella174]

I don't think the D800s is meant to be a new camera design, but rather (as some have said) an update model with new features added. You know, like we used to get with cars ...

 

[rs]

It looks like it's going to be announced imminently, and named the D810:

http://nikonrumors.com/2014/06/24/nikon-d810-announcement-this-week.aspx/

Without meaning to repeat a question from earlier on in this thread - why?

 

[AcutancePhotography]

It never made sense to me why Nikon made a D800 and an D800e.

I don't think Nikon thought they would sell as many D800E's as they did. I think they expected the majority of the D800 buyers to buy the D800 and only a relatively few buy the D800E. I still think that Nikon sold more D800's than D800E's, but I also think the sales of the D800E was higher than expected.

 

[ahsanford]

It never made sense to me why Nikon made a D800 and an D800e.

I don't think Nikon thought they would sell as many D800E's as they did. I think they expected the majority of the D800 buyers to buy the D800 and only a relatively few buy the D800E. I still think that Nikon sold more D800's than D800E's, but I also think the sales of the D800E was higher than expected.

So was this representative of the mix of still vs. video shooters they have, i.e. is Nikon's user base more concerned about sharpness than moire? Do they simply lack a large video user base?

I wonder if a 5D3E -- a 5D3 without an AA filter -- was offered by Canon on day one alongside the 5D3, would we see all the videographers take the vanilla 5D3 and the still shooters all take the 5D3E?

Is it that simple a call? Are there downsides to pulling the AA filter other than moire? (Forgive me: the role of the AA filter is lost on me.)

- A

 

[Bruce Photography]

New Nikon D800s... Why (in a forum named EOS Bodies)?

It's a development pipeline discussion, not a Nikon discussion.
- A

I would love it to be about a Canon release for a new high MP body (I do landscapes and seascapes), but from what I've read, 2015 will be the earliest that we can have that discussion. So I'm interested in the 810 because of the newer processor. I'm hoping for a larger buffer so I can finally get continuous shooting at the top frame rate of 6 fps. I know that doesn't mean much in the Canon lineup but to have 6 fps (with battery grip) and 36mp, that is a 50% improvement over what I have today. I don't use it very often at the top speed (birds), but then speed of shooting is important sometimes. Since the specs really haven't been released I suppose this is a premature discussion, but I like to have a general knowledge of what both (all) sides for upper end cameras are doing because that will be where the industry is heading. More dynamic range also seems to be the trend that I welcome even though I am quite pleased with what the D800 and D800E already have. The elimination of the AA filter on high MP cameras seems to be another trend that we'll see in future cameras. I have shot extensively with both the D800 and the D800E. I do see the difference in my large prints when I do everything right. Elimination of the AA filter on high MP cameras does seem like a good thing (be sure to do capture sharpening to see the effect, otherwise you'll miss it). If Canon comes up with this new 54 mp camera rumored to be a new Sony sensor this fall in Germany, then we can all talk about that.

 

[Zv]

It never made sense to me why Nikon made a D800 and an D800e.

I don't think Nikon thought they would sell as many D800E's as they did. I think they expected the majority of the D800 buyers to buy the D800 and only a relatively few buy the D800E. I still think that Nikon sold more D800's than D800E's, but I also think the sales of the D800E was higher than expected.

So was this representative of the mix of still vs. video shooters they have, i.e. is Nikon's user base more concerned about sharpness than moire? Do they simply lack a large video user base?

I wonder if a 5D3E -- a 5D3 without an AA filter -- was offered by Canon on day one alongside the 5D3, would we see all the videographers take the vanilla 5D3 and the still shooters all take the 5D3E?

Is it that simple a call? Are there downsides to pulling the AA filter other than moire? (Forgive me: the role of the AA filter is lost on me.)

- A

Moire can be found in various architechtural detail, certain clothing and in animal fur and feathers. It's not just video. It affects stills too. Although it's possible to reduce moire in post it can be tricky at best (well I certainly don't find it easy). It has to be removed selectively using a brush tool. Takes ages if all you want is a standard shot of say a brick house. Imagine de-moire-ing a hundred architectural shots. Two words. F--- that!

It's much easier to simply crank up the sharpness in post to compensate for the blurriness of the AA filter. RAW shooters do that anyway as part of their workflow.

 

[MLfan3]

it will be called D810, not D800s. it has the same sensor without AA filter. Native ISO range of 64-12800.
it shoots 6f/s and has the same AF used in the D4s. it is about 120g lighter than the current D800E. priced at US3200 or 312800yen. Oh and it will be more cheap plasticky , so I do not think it is a big enough update to the current D800E. In fact, it is an insult to us who have the D800E. this is just some nasty devious marketing decision to get back some lost money on the D610.

 

[SiliconVoid]

Purely from a financial perspective it would make sense for Nikon to consolidate the line, as there is almost no functional difference between the two, and they have not sold anywhere close to the numbers anticipated to meet financial projections.

In that regard however, the proposed 'upgrades' would not be of of the significance many consumers would expect for a 'consolidated' model (ala 1Dx and D4). The upgrades are basically software and a badge, sans the processor - which in the end is technically still a software upgrade.. The new processor will provide the muscle needed for a different AF algorithm, noise reduction algorithm (the alleged ISO improvement), moire suppression algorithm, and sRAW (which if based on the D4 implementation will be a waste of processor cycles anyway..) oh, and let us not forget the crucial addition of ***! (sic).
No.. What I see in this consolidation is simply an attempt to restore faith in the Nikon brand. Showing their base that when they see something wrong, or lacking in tangible benefit, they react - and decisively - to trim the fat and produce the lean mean product they should have released initially. (queue the I AM xxxxxxx theme music)

As for the 'new' model.. In my opinion they could gain back their D700 base (the ~790k they thought would upgrade) if they would take current tech in a lower mp sensor (akin to the D4) yielding better overall ISO, DR across the ISO range, color and tone across the ISO range (all without the unnecessary processing) faster fps, robust AF, 1080p video, and stuff it all into a body that is more comfortable to hold (they still have the D700 castings, heh) with truly needed ergonomic changes like moving ISO and AF mode selection to the right side so you do not have to transfer perch of the camera back and forth between your right and left hands. There is already a large hole in the body due to the flash for wireless communication, but not important either way there.
If they want to run a body like that along with a high-mp body that fewer people need/want, that would make multiple bodies more feasible all around.