D800

[Don Libby]

B&H Photo just sent me (I'm an affiant) links to their pre-order pages. If you're thinking of getting one of these please use my blog. Heck, even as a long time Canon user both Sandy and I find this very interesting. Maybe.....

Don

 

[doc4x5]

I'm glad I own some Nikon stock right now and not Phase or Hasselblad. Realistically, I suspect these cameras will be taking a huge chunk of their business. I have already ordered a D800E. After a workshop last fall where I saw work done with P45+ backs, I started actively drooling over a 40MP back for my Hasselblad V camera. Now, for at least the time being, especially given the huge amounts of money I earn with my work , the D800E has apparently solved my problem at a huge saving. That money can go toward travel, paper, and ink. I am fortunate to own both "Holy Trinities," the 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200 as well as the 24-45-85 PCE's. So I have a decent investment in what should be pretty usable lenses for the D800. Now all I need is the camera.

 

[Stefan Steib]

I am using my 5D MK2 without AA filter since over a year now. No Problems at all with significantly better IQ. Moiree happens nearly never - and - as I can take a lifeview check if I suspect something, moving forward or backwards sometimes on centimeters removes it. You just have to be careful and take a look. In exchange the files have about 20-30 % better sharpeness, more details in Highlights and structure in shadows.
I strongly suspect this will be the same with the D800E.

A word about the pricing: Actually the D800E should be cheaper about 50 $ as this is what the AA filter may cost Nikon. To price it higher for leaving off a part that was never wanted by many is just marketing , but I´m sure most people will pay these 300 $ more without complaining............

regards
Stefan

 

[jonoslack]

I watched the London launch video and they showed a pixel level comparison between the D800 and D800e. There was quite a difference in micro detail, with the clear advantage going to the no AA filter 800e, unsurprisingly.

It also appears the D800 uses a Sony sourced sensor which makes one wonder why Sony won't be releasing their own camera based on this sensor until early 2013.

Well - if Alpha rumours are to be believed . . . . but maybe they have a 'hold off' agreement with Nikon? I'd like to wait and see - what Sony do, but also what Leica may choose to do - I'm willing to swap systems again (i.e from Sony to Nikon) but the reasons will have to be pretty good! One thing is for sure, I'd rather use Zeiss lenses than Nikon . . . So I don't really see how they're going to be that good!

 

[Double Negative]

^ Stefan, technically Nikon didn't "leave a part out" of the E variant. That's why they use the term "cancel" rather than "omit" as only the first low pass filter is different. It's still there, but it cancels itself out further towards the sensor. But I totally agree; charging more over the D800 is lame on Nikon's part. It should be the same price if anything.

FWIW, no moire in this (huge) sample image.

 

[Lars]

Just because the sensor is manufactured by Sony doesn't mean its a Sony design, or that Sony inherits the rights to use or resell the design. Nikon seems to claim it's their design but I haven't seen any clear statements either way.

Re higher price without AA filter - first, some of us obviously are willing to pay more so why not price it higher? second, 800E might be produced in significantly lower volume which often means higher cost.

 

[Stefan Steib]

Lars

I take any bet: the D800E will be the standard body once people will find out that the moiree story is mostly an old castle ghost not to bee seen to often....

I do not blame Nikon doing this, actually Kudos for doing it ! I wished Canon had done it also and much earlier ! I paid 500 € to have my 5D MK2 converted, but of course I´d be much happier if it came from the factory like it is now for 50 $ less.............

Regards
Stefan

 

[Double Negative]

I would agree, most folks will probably opt for the D800E version. I know I would. As far as Canon, indeed - their AA filter is a real turn-off. It needs to go.

 

[Shashin]

Yea pretty funny you pay more for ripping out a part of the camera. Lol

Actually, there is a two low-pass filters that compensate for each other eliminating the AA. Because of focus, Nikon has to put something in the light path to preserve the optical path distance. Imaging resource has a good description.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d800/nikon-d800A.HTM

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Lars

Just because the sensor is manufactured by Sony doesn't mean its a Sony design, or that Sony inherits the rights to use or resell the design. Nikon seems to claim it's their design but I haven't seen any clear statements either way.

Certainly - but recent history would suggest that these sensors are first designed by Sony and then (substantially) tweaked by the second company.

This sensor seems to be a modified and FF version of the excellent APSc sensor in the:
D7000
Pentax K5 (possibly they did the best job with it - DxO certainly thing so)
Sony A55, NEX 5n etc.
Great DXO mark etc.

The sensor in the D3x was substantially the same as that in the A900 A850 . . etc. etc.

There is already much talk of a Sony A99 with a 36mp full frame sensor.

Re higher price without AA filter - first, some of us obviously are willing to pay more so why not price it higher? second, 800E might be produced in significantly lower volume which often means higher cost.

I quite agree - but it seems that rather than removing it, they've cancelled it!

 

[Stefan Steib]

Hi Shashin

sure they put a plain piece of glass where the AA filter was, should have the same diffraction index and thickness. This is how my 5D MK2 was converted.
But..... if I think of it, if the camera designers have actually known that they will build an AA less version for better performance it would be superior if there is just the UV/IR cut reducing the additional air-glass-air passes.
This could mean if they designed it like an MF back this would make much more sense. The antialiasing version can have this additional glass, so it actually would mean it would be really more expensive to make the AA version.

Regards
Stefan

 

[Jan Brittenson]

I think it's a very smart move to offer it in two flavours as well (although why you have to pay more for less is an interesting point - AA filters are not cheap things as far as I'm aware).

They probably don't expect the D800E to be made in quite the same volume, and it requires somewhat specialized training for the factory calibration.

 

[Double Negative]

They probably don't expect the D800E to be made in quite the same volume, and it requires somewhat specialized training for the factory calibration.

It's discussed in the Imaging-Resource link up above, and actually makes some sense that it might cost more. I still think it should cost the same, but whatever... $300 ain't a deal killer for what you get.

 

[Jan Brittenson]

I downloaded the jpgs from their site including the samples from the D800E, still think the Leaf Aptus II 28/33/40 megapixel RAW files I've been playing with have more detail/sharpness

Those files look a little overprocessed, but there's also no raw support for the camera yet - and they were made in July 2011. So you're probably looking at early in-camera JPEG results, and those tend to not be so great. The files in particular have had way too much NR and some bad form of sharpening applied. The gamut looks a little off. Like with most cameras, I don't give too much weight to the various early JPEG samples.

 

[Jan Brittenson]

If color rendering is the same as the D7000 ..you will get much improved landscapes but skin tones will be just OK . I expect they will be better as some of the beta testers were fashion photographers and this should be nikon s offering for fashion. (unless a D4X is coming which I doubt).

I don't think the D7000 is particularly good for skin hues. But this is a function of the color filtration, which if you order a million imagers can be customized to your liking. The D7000 is clearly targeted to an audience that wants to point it at something not very colorful and get a colorful image. But point it at something colorful and it goes overboard, starting with clipping the red channel. Point it at something with a mix, like a person wearing colorful fabrics and jewelry, and it's unable to differentiate. It just punches everything up no matter what - clearly this is a design goal for the target market. This is often accomplished by minimizing spectral overlap between channels; this results in increased saturation and contrast, but loss of differentiation of subtle hues and poor neutrals. The D700 looks completely different from the D7000, as does the D3S. I expect the D800 to perceive color more like the D700 than the D7000 since it's aimed at a completely different kind of buyer. (But apart from its color response the D7000 is a sweet camera; I absolutely love using it.)

 

[Stefan Steib]

Jan

did you take a look at the channels in Photoshop ?
I have to say if this is the preproduction "bad" sample with a beta raw codec then I have to say - WOW ! The bluechannel looks super clean especially if you take a look at the dark skinned womans portrait, dark brow is about one of the worst things to throw at digital, I think this one is superb !

http://chsv.nikon-image.com/products/camera/slr/digital/d800/img/sample01/img_06_l.jpg

exif says it was shot with a 200mm at F10/ 1/200 sec at 100 asa.
I cannot see much diffraction there, this looks pinsharp to me !

regards
Stefan

 

[Stefan Steib]

Cool link - from robvanpetten.com

Nikon D800 | Rob Van Petten

And as always the photographer makes the images not the camera.
this guy can photograph and because of this the images look good.
It´s not because of the 36Mpix.

Read what he writes:

".......The screen images look like a medium format camera but the body handles smoothly and effortlessly like a D700. My Medium Format dreams are answered......."

This is about the central sentence I´d say : it´s got the handling and the workflow of a 35mm with the maybe 90-95 % quality of a medium format machine.
This will do for most of us.

regards
Stefan

 

[Shashin]

I was looking at the Nikon samples (most of which were shoot at f/8) and I am not really certain there is a difference between the models with and without the AA filter.

 

[Jan Brittenson]

I think what's so exceptional about the D800E (and even D800) is 14-bit MF like file sizes with the usability of a top-flight 35mm DSLR. The latter includes lenses like fisheyes and 500/4's, VR, exceptionally good AF, and flash control. Both are compromised of course - the files aren't going to be mistaken for a P45+ or IQ back to those in the know, and it's not going to shoot like a D4. But the crossover territory is still extremely interesting in its own.

I also think the lens stuff is a little overstated. I'm confident the 24-70, 70-200, and maybe 14-24 will do just fine. As will many primes, including AI-S classics. It's only 50% more real estate over the A900, which does just fine - with an AA filter no less. DxO Labs is going to have a field day with the D800E producing lens modules for DOP!

 

[ecsh]

I am too invested in the Sony stuff to think about this. I like the CZ lens better than the Nikon lens anyway.