< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Nikon D800 vs. D700 body and grip comparison plus a poll

Pin It

Just a quick comparison of the Nikon D700 and the D800 pictures from yesterday. I had to publish another post to continue the discussion (yesterday's thread got almost 1k comments).

Many readers are asking me if the picture is real. To the best of my knowledge, it is. Previous polls have always been very accurate when a questionable picture is posted online, let's see what will the results be this time (direct link to poll):

How about the external battery grip? The back view of the D800 grip doesn't look like the current MB-D10 or MB-D11 models:

Front view

Nikon D800 grip

Nikon MB-D10 grip

Nikon MB-D11 grip

Back view

Nikon D800 grip

Nikon MB-D10 grip

Nikon MB-D11 grip

For more side by side comparisons check Ron's blog, Lumenatic and those files: -1- | -2- | -3-.

This entry was posted in Nikon D800 and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Mika

    About the housing vs grip, Could the differences between the grip and housing be that the grip is an earlier production modell? I dont belive that it was ment for a product shooting anyhow…

  • Mark

    Judging from the viewfinder sizes in the not-to-scale side-by-side, I’d say the D800 is considerably smaller than the D700. Looks like roughly D7000 size. Love my D700, but smaller and lighter is definitely better.

    Can’t quite wrap my head around the 36 MP tho. Hopefully Nikon added some smart raw pixel binning options that allow smaller image sizes with lower noise.

    • http://AdairCreativeGroup.com Ron Adair

      See the last links at the bottom of this blog post? Click them. You’ll clearly see that the d800 and D700 are nearly identical in h/w dimensions.

      • Discontinued

        Thanks Ron,

        I checked your roll-over-comparison by using screenshots of both camera’s hot shoes as layers in PS. Your size comparison should be quite accurate (with about 3% tolerance due to the given RES of images).
        Good to know, the D800 will not be as tiny as D7000. That of course applies only if the image is real. I sure hope it is.

        • Discontinued

          P.S.

          I sure hope it is, but have serious doubts. Beside other shortcomings, pointed out by various commenters, of what probably is a PS-job, I noticed the battery grip to be softer than the back of the camera.

          And further more, we all just greatly deserve to be fooled. What fun that is and what a good laugh, to back up a PS-job of a faked D800 by delivering 36MP shots (cropped from MF) with faked EXIF and see what this stirs up not just on NR but SR and CR as well.

          Despite being desperate for a D800 myself, I almost hope it’s fake. Much more fun and the much better laugh and ingeniously too. Especially to give the spec-list more credibility, by some well thought shortcomings, such as low FPS for shooting stills or no 1080/60. This camera is not to good to be true but the pictures of that camera and taken by that camera are probably faked nonetheless.

    • Hom Thogan

      If you take time to notice: they are tilted in different ways thus they have a different perspective and thus can influence in small variations, but pretty much is almost the same body with what it seems a nicer grip in the D800

      • William

        Yes most agreed. The grip looks more ergonomics then the other 2.
        Anyway, already told the dealer to reserve 1 for me once it touchdown.
        As most hoping, in my hands end of this year.

  • http://ronscubadiver.wordpress.com Ron Scubadiver

    Fake. Why the blacked out areas and even the grip for that matter. It is probably a doctored D7000.

    • dchino

      You don’t know what a D7000 looks like, do you?

      • http://ronscubadiver.wordpress.com Ron Scubadiver

        I know what Photoshop looks like.

        • elph

          Soooo you’re saying photoshop made a D7000 look like a D800, when the D700 would’ve been a better choice? Also, can you clarify on which photoshop spots stand out for you?

          • Not Surprised

            Looks fake to me too:

            1. Black out areas (CURVED TEXT is hard to fake on curved surfaces)

            2. CURVED EDGES are VERY limited in depth-of-field — did someone use an f/1.4 lens to secretly get these images?? Or did they photoshop very difficult to photoshop curved edges!

            3. The grip’s LEATHER has a very different (much larger) “skin” pattern than Nikon’s usual “leather” for this size — indicating to me that it was stolen off of a much smaller grip handle for placement. Furthermore they are blurry and lacking in detail. Meanwhile, the leather on the BODY has much more normal sized leather skin patterns.

            I call fake.

    • http://www.modifiedphotographics.com Jason

      Their are ‘features’ on this body that are not on any other Nikon body. For example, the viewfinder looks different than the D3 series and D700 viewfinders. The front grip looks similar to the ‘new’ style of the D5100 but not exactly.

      Also, I assume you are talking about the blacked out square on the front lower corner? That would be the FX logo that they blacked out that only FX bodies have.

  • Anonymous+1

    36MP is barely enough.
    If you imagine a current 27 inch monitor, but with the resolution of the iPhone’s retina display, the D800′s images won’t even fill the screen. Suppose you show your clients your images, and they ask “can you zoom in a little?”.

    • rs

      Where can you buy a monitor like that I want one. I have a 23″ Apple monitor it
      can’t show me full size D700 photos.

      • http://www.facebook.com/dsloanphoto Daniel

        Your sarcasm detector is broken.

        • PHB

          The extra MP are needed for Photoshop inter-generational loss and for cropping.

          The largest display size currently supported by DVI is 2560×1600 which comes in at 4MP. So 36 MP allows for three times the pixel density. Which would easily give 300 dpi on my 30 inch desktop monitor. only the aspect ratios are different so that would mean some cropping and some loss of pixels.

          Th Apple ‘retinal’ display is 326 so arguably the poster is corret that more pixels are needed. But there will be a 48MP Nikon long before there is any similarly priced ‘retinal’ 30″ display.

          Other than directing the output of the camera to a plotter of and looking at the print, that is.

    • http://www.maletic.org dusanmal

      I know people are hungry for MP but you fail to understand the consequences. With present state of technology pixel site of the size needed to have 36mm frame producing 36MP has CONSEQUENCE of poor performance in any light. Less photons are captured just because of limits on the size. Less photons captured – worse signal to noise and pixel depth. Present day technology ability to use that many photons is not good. If you need or want more MP you must move to medium format (there 80MP might have pixel sites as large as they’d be on 5MP 36mm frame – with related excellent S/N and pixel depth). So with 36MP on 36mm frame Nikon is pushing it. It barely allows for 14bit pixel depth. I’d even claim that S/N makes it pointless to go beyond 12bit on such small pixel site. Cut “pixelage” in half and the same technology at 18MP would be on the cutting edge (in pixel depth and S/N). You say – shoot at lower resolution? – would not cut it: pixel sites are still of fixed size and combining few poor S/N sources creates still a poor S/N result. Sad at the new Nikon direction, they held a line vs. MP insanity for a time, still have best material technology behind the pixels but someone dropped the ball vs. MP “wars”.

      • Worminator

        It’s no better and no worse than the D7000, and people are happy enough with that. Only when you push 24 MP on APS-C (48MP on FX) on current technology are people starting to complain.

        • Hhom Togan

          How do you know if you don’t even print? at f/11 diffraction will be affecting image quality in a 8×10 inches print

          • Not Surprised

            18-24MP!! No more. Done. That’s it. Go home and make more ISO. After 24MP I never want anymore megapixels — ever. Leave that to SPECIALTY VERSIONS — not mass-produced consumer versions.

            D3X with D3S ISO & D700 grip + modern video + REAL silent mode + 100% viewfinder with no sacrifices on speed or dynamic range. That’s what we asked for in the consumer D800.

            What do we get? An over-grown D7K @ 4 times the price.

            *SNORE*

            Did Nikon care — nope.

      • Joe

        > you must move to medium format (there 80MP might have pixel sites as large as they’d be on 5MP 36mm frame – with related excellent S/N and pixel depth).

        Where did you get that strange myth from? E.g. a Hasselblad sensor is 40.2 mm x 53.7 mm, that is 2.5 x the surface of a FX sensor. In other words, a FX sensor with the pixel density of a 80 MP Hasselblad would be 32 MP. Not much difference, don’t you think?

        • http://www.modifiedphotographics.com Jason

          The Phase One IQ180 digital back (80mp) uses a 53.7mm x 40.4mm sensor. This results in a 10328×7760 file size. This is roughly 192 pixels per millimeter of sensor in both horizontal and vertical dimensions. And after using one before, I can say that the files are absolutely fantastic image quality despite having considerably higher than a 24mp D3x pixel density.

          For comparison, the Nikon D800 specs assuming a sensor size of 36mm x 24mm and resulting files of 7360×4912 gives us roughly 204 pixels per millimeter of sensor. Only very slightly different (roughly 6% more pixel density).

          Hmm, where’s that huge medium format advantage now?

          Here’s the thing with the whole pixels and photons deal… With increased technology, even if fewer photons are available per photo site on the sensor, with increased sensitivity and reduced light loss at the sensor itself (back illuminated sensor technology for example), technically, fewer photons can give the same or higher output than older, less efficient technology. Obviously we are still limited by physics on how many photons (light) can reach each sensor site during the exposure, but if you reduce the losses in the sensor itself (say, removing the AA filter which is a small loss on it’s own i’m sure), the sensor becomes more efficient at processing whatever light does reach it.

      • Roger

        if more mp means worse s/n, then how come D7000 crushes D300?

        oh cant answer that, can you?

        • Not Surprised

          Software.

          • Roger

            no. care for one more try?

        • BornOptimist

          That one is easy to answer, there are one generation of technology between them. Simple as that.

  • Lev

    I’m thinking that maybe, just maybe, Nikon is trying to use the viewfinder for video? Taking away the need of all external/additional viewfinders?
    Hence, you have the record button near the shutter (easily accessible while using the viewfinder) and you have a button to switch between photo/video mode. Why would there be video/photo mode and a live-view button? Which in the past has separated the features?

    Maybe this is the new revolutionary feature Nikon/video? Does anyone else see this as a possibility?

    • Chris

      That would be amazing. But then that means there would be no mirror? Unless they found a way to store the mirror away in video mode that doesn’t get in the way of the viewfinder.

      • can1uk

        translucent mirror as seen on Sony dslrs would allow that

  • rob

    could it just be the supposed d7100 that has been mentioned a few times?

  • nau

    there is no point in comparing grips, there are plenty of 3rd party ones on a market that look similar to the original but slightly different

    as far as body goes … I believe it when I see it

  • Wublili

    The photo is obviously photoshopped very heavily. So thinking that it is fake is very easy.

    The real question is, what was the photo or model it is based on ? Is it based on some prototype, and prototype of what model exactly ? I very much doubt the production model, whenever it will be out, would look like that.

    If it was supposed to pass as a genuine photo of D800, then why was it so poorly photoshopped ? It’s almost hilaric. I have seen much realistic job done by 10 year old kids.

    The specs don’t sound quite right either. Maybe it will be 36mpix as rumored but no change in AF for example ? You gotta be kidding me. Nikon would never stick to outdated AF when they have better available and with the need CPU even the best can be boosted.

    I sure hope we would get some real facts soon before this gets totally out of hands.

    • http://AdairCreativeGroup.com Ron Adair

      This image is almost 100% likely to pan out as legitimate. It is a crappy photo of a next-generation pre-production camera. It is a completely new design. That combined with the image flaws is making the weak-minded jump to the conclusion that this is a fake.

      Please indicate the list of things you think are so clearly photoshopped.

      • http://www.treehaus.co.nz treehaus

        +1

      • rs

        The photo was probably taken with a cellphone camera or similar. I doubt its a product photo.

        • http://AdairCreativeGroup.com Ron Adair

          LOL. Definitely NOT a product photo. That is 110% guaranteed.

          • Not Surprised

            The depth of field is too limited to be a cell phone camera — and the shot itself is too crappy to be a high-end DSLR. It smacks of photoshop all over the place (especially the crappy edges).

            1. Black out areas (CURVED TEXT is hard to fake on curved surfaces)

            2. CURVED EDGES are VERY limited in depth-of-field — did someone use an f/1.4 lens to secretly get these images?? Or did they photoshop very difficult to photoshop curved edges!

            3. The grip’s LEATHER has a very different (much larger) “skin” pattern than Nikon’s usual “leather” for this size — indicating to me that it was stolen off of a much smaller grip handle for placement. Furthermore they are blurry and lacking in detail. Meanwhile, the leather on the BODY has much more normal sized leather skin patterns.

            I call fake.

            • http://AdairCreativeGroup.com Ron Adair

              So, what of the consistent Nikon noise pattern across the ENTIRE image, without any signs of manipulation?

              What of the natural focus falloff from the in focus areas to the out of focus areas?

              These things are very hard to fake without signs of manipulation. They are the first places I would look, and there are no signs of manipulation in either area.

              The images are real. I’ve laid down the gauntlet and put my pride on the line by calling these fully legitimate images of an actual, physical camera. Will you accept the challenge? Will you prove me wrong?

            • Victor Hassleblood

              Nobody in the entire world needs to prove anything to you.
              And no PS-expert in the entire world is going to perform this job for a lousy storage card. Your arrogance simply knows no limits.

            • http://AdairCreativeGroup.com Ron Adair

              You’re absolutely right. They don’t. Neither do you. And yet you try.

              The world is a mighty big place, full of many PS experts. We’ll let them decide.

              If offering for a free piece of gear and bragging rights to the master of PS who can put their money where their mouth is makes me arrogant, so be it. Or are you afraid you can’t actually do it? ;)

      • Rich

        The vertical grip seems to have more noise than the body as if it’s shot at different ISO. Also it looks like a pop up flash? The red under the shutter looks like its from a d5100. Basically it looks like a bunch of cameras composited together. It just doesn’t seem right?

        • Rich

          Sorry didn’t realize D700 had a pop up flash. I dont know it just seems like a strange image?

      • Ashiyawolf

        This is certainly a fake. Look at the main body edges: there is a beautiful gradient around them, the type of lighting that product photographers work hard to create, a nice soft glowing edge that makes a product seem out of this world.

        Now look at the bottom handle’s edges. Not only are they hard-edged, there is an angular quality to them. This is a tell-tale artifact of using Photoshop’s Lasso tool to select. A more experienced artist would have used the Pen tool, which allows for bezier curve selection. Also, the selection should have been feathered, then lightly deleted to create the glow that matches the rest of the camera.

        I’ve been a graphic designer for 20 years, and have been using Photoshop full time since version 2.0 (back in 1992 or so). Trust me when I say that these are elementary mistakes, and those two pieces do not match one another.

        • http://AdairCreativeGroup.com Ron Adair

          Ashiyawolf -

          There is no doubt this image is isolated from the background, most likely to conceal the identity of the shooter/location of the image.

          But I’m sorry to say you are wrong. This is not a product shot, and this is not a photoshop fake. The camera is a real physical item photographed while attached to a grip.

      • Joe Jarro

        And they forgot to consult me for the design. Calling Canon promptly!

    • EnPassant

      You claim it is photoshopped without presenting any evidence. In fact nobody here have posted a single proof of photoshopping (except the removal of the background and adding the black rectangles) that cannot be explained by focus, lighting etcetera.

      • http://AdairCreativeGroup.com Ron Adair

        Exactly. Thank you, EnPassant. (and that’s because there is none, aside from what you mentioned)

        • http://rearrangedphoto.tumblr.com rearranged

          And as I mentioned before the image would have to be a rendering since it includes completely new design features like the new drive-dial (which is very nice) with 4 buttons on top of it and the new live view switch (which is not so nice). You can’t photoshop things like that out of nothing.

          So at least for me it doesn’t look like a 3d rendering :)

        • Not Surprised

          QUOTE:

          Ashiyawolf
          Posted November 20, 2011 at 11:25 pm | Permalink
          This is certainly a fake. Look at the main body edges: there is a beautiful gradient around them, the type of lighting that product photographers work hard to create, a nice soft glowing edge that makes a product seem out of this world.

          Now look at the bottom handle’s edges. Not only are they hard-edged, there is an angular quality to them. This is a tell-tale artifact of using Photoshop’s Lasso tool to select. A more experienced artist would have used the Pen tool, which allows for bezier curve selection. Also, the selection should have been feathered, then lightly deleted to create the glow that matches the rest of the camera.

          I’ve been a graphic designer for 20 years, and have been using Photoshop full time since version 2.0 (back in 1992 or so). Trust me when I say that these are elementary mistakes, and those two pieces do not match one another.

          Read more on NikonRumors.com: http://nikonrumors.com/2011/11/20/nikon-d800-vs-d700-body-comparison-and-a-poll.aspx/#ixzz1eJPPziaP

          • http://AdairCreativeGroup.com Ron Adair

            I am sorry, but they’re plain wrong.

      • Michael Houghton

        It’s OK, I’ve asked for a list from someone who thinks this line of reason defies logic.

        I’m sure they’ll get right back to me.

        • http://AdairCreativeGroup.com Ron Adair

          Oh sure. Any minute now, no doubt. :)

      • Ryan

        I believe this is a real photo of a pre production D800, but it has been photoshopped!!! If you save the picture file then open it and view the pixels at max zoom in the viewfinder area, you will see that the author clearly and cleverly blacked out his upside down reflection. He or she did a damn good job as it is barely noticeable. The reason why I believe it is authentic is because I fail to see any signature common pixel patterns where items could have been photoshopped. If it is fake then I would certainly recommend that the author get a job in money laundering, he/she would make a killing!

        • PHB

          You mean forging money.

          To get into the money laundering business all you need to do is to reply to one of those work at home ads. Of course the catch being that you will be the one going to jail with a huge $100K confiscation order against you.

    • http://www.impeng.com Chris Russo

      Definitely at least some photoshopping going on… question is was it totally “normal” (like removing a background) or something more “sinister”?

      I would -think- a removal of a background would have been more clean, frankly. If they took a pic of this in controlled lighting (which it looks like they did), then one would have assumed they would also have setup a backdrop… a backdrop would either mean very consistent coloring (easily selected and removed) or no NEED to remove it. However, if you look closely (200% zoom) around the edges you will see where someone “bumped” into the camera itself and removed bits of it by accident… typical when hand-erasing areas around an object…. very sloppy.

      Also worth noting that the body of the camera (particularly the top) doesn’t seem to suffer from this, where the grip does- that implies to me that the grip was edited differently before it was bolted on in PS.

      Also, as someone else noted there is a noticable difference between the grip and the body… I see quality differences in the texture and more noise as noted earlier.

      Plus… why block out bits of it? I don’t see the point of that.

      Anyway… I’d put it as two possibilities:

      - Total fake just to be a fake and mess with us
      - Total fake just to get us all to talk incessantly about it

      :-)

      • javaone

        This looks like a hasty job to cover up the identity of the person taking the picture. Like some on had access to the machine and snapped a picture with his phone but the background and reflections would give away where it was and who took the photo.

        Just a thought.

  • Zeke

    I think this camera makes even more sense than the original D700, and much more sense than the D3x ever did.

    It’s a high-res, non-action, fine arts body. 36MP at full-frame is the same resolution as 14.4MP on a cropped frame, and people aren’t going nuts asking why anybody would “need” that many pixels.

    Would you prefer larger photosites and lower noise? Just 2×2 bin the image. I wouldn’t be surprised if the camera can be set to bin internally.

    $7K is a lot of cash though.

    • Worminator

      Binning isn’t as good as a larger site area, because of the way noise adds in at the different stages. It’s reasonably effective though, because the higher spacial frequency makes up for the deficiencies.

      Anyway, with 24 MP APS-C being the reality, FX is going to have to do something to justify it’s existence. It’s moving towards two separate options 18 MP FX for speed (D4), 36 MP FX for resolution (D800).

  • Jim

    What the heck is this arguing about real picture or not all about? I’m tired of getting just another treat for my hopes and imaginations. NIKON give us a treat for the cameras bag in form of a D700 successor with all the nice things that you got in your development shelves!!!

  • MD

    So when will it arrive ?

  • nfoto

    Here is a joker for you guys: 2 sensors… the videosensor is in the finder.

    • feleris

      that’s a good idea.

      • feleris

        then you’ll have a high resolution EVF. neat!

        • feleris

          maybe a hybrid viewfinder that can automatically switch between EVF and OVF.. (there is a patent for this)

  • Lumenatic

    I imagine a couple of of marketing managers at NIKON HQ in Japan, sitting there reading NR and laughing their asses off.
    “Hai, Sando-San, that was a great idea ! Taking the spare parts from five other camera models and building that mockup everybody now thinks to be the D800…”

    Ok to be honest: On the one hand I think NR has enough experience to tell if something is fake or not, therefore I vote for real. But on the other hand the video/still switch and the picture control symbol just make no sense on a pro body. Oh yes, and the removal of the AF area selector, that does not make sense, too.

    Therefore I am undecided about the whole deal being real or fake.

    We will see. Perhaps we will get a nice christmas present in form of an announcement and an in-store-date at least.

    • Worminator

      It’s real. After you’ve been though a number of these cycles, you can tell. Sometimes it’s hard to spot a fake, but spotting the real thing is easy.

  • EnPassant

    I think all those ignorant naysayers calling for fake should print out their words a thousand times and eat them when proven wrong!

    • Metsatsu

      I would 2nd that

      • Funduro

        +1

    • Johny

      Please do also otherwise, as everything points out that it is FAKE

  • MichelCapture

    Sorry guys, this is the D400.
    The D800 has no flash anymore.

    • Fishnose

      This is something you know for sure? Hmm…
      There is a very good reason for having built-in flash even on a pro body. It gets used for pre-flash for determining settings before sending the settings to remote wireless TTL flashes.
      I use this function on my D90 all the time, I never use the built in flash for the actual exposure.

  • photdog

    After all the Nikon’s advertising concerning the D7000′s and lately about the Nikon 1′s AF I had expected something more than just the same AF like the D700 in a D800!

  • http://www.dimalozz.ho.ua dimalozz

    Now I know that it’s fake image.
    When I made the image brighter I saw some artifacts (photoshoping?) and the difference in detalization of image in different areas. Look at this illustration please: http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/8534/d800fake.jpg

    • THANKS

      THIS IS WHAT I WANTED TO SEE THANKS! I KNEW IT WAS FAKE

    • Pablo

      whats up with the viewfinder?

    • Fishnose

      Lame. Doesn’t prove anything.

    • Ragnarok

      Proves that you can draw circles. Nice.

    • Dchino

      The viewfinder is a bit suspicious, but I really don’t see anything obvious.

    • Morton

      Wow thanks for proving absolutely nothing! It’s embarassing that some here profess themselves to be professional photographers and/or photoshop experts and grasp for straws when trying to discredit the photo. I’ve seen/heard nothing of any credence to make me disbelieve this as a real photo (with a photoshopped out background and an out of focus grip). Keep trying.

    • IanZ28

      If anything this makes me believe that the image is actually real.

      It does appear that there a couple of photoshop marks.

      But, the vast differences in the buttons and over-all shape of the camera would suggest that there should be massive amounts of editing artifacts.

      I’m not seeing the artifacts that I would suspect in a total fake.

  • WHERE

    WHERE ARE THE SAMPLE PICTURES THAT YOU PROMISED?

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

      I did not promise anything, I have them and I cannot post them.

      • shay

        Sure… You expect anyone to believe that? Who would give sample D800 photos to someone who runs the nikon rumors site and then tell you not to show them, oh but you can tell people about them. That makes no sense.

        • Visualiza

          Are you kidding me? Use your head. If he posts the photos then some bloodhound at Nikon can zero in on the photographer based upon where and when they were taken, the exif data, among other things. It’s called not biting the hand that feeds you. If he compromises his source, who is undoubtedly under NDA, then that’s one less source he has to feed him information in the future.

          Some of you need to quit your belly aching and be thankful that you’re hearing even a modicum of information about an unreleased, unannounced camera.

          • NoFunBen

            +1

          • Random Guy

            +1

          • http://rearrangedphoto.tumblr.com rearranged

            Relax, all he’s saying is that if the source doesn’t want NR to publish the images now, he wouldn’t have sent them at all. This is a legitimate question and no trolling.

            • http://fajarnurdiansyah.com fajar

              maybe he would, if only to serve as a proof to his informations

      • Markus

        If you show them, I promise to click one time on an ad! ;-)

      • http://www.amanochocolate.com Art

        I can understand your not being able to post them. I would be interested in any impressions you may have though. Any chance you can enlighten us on what you see with the samples you have? Are any of the photos done in low light? If so, how do they compare with what you would expect from the D700 at the same ISO? Any other impressions?

  • http://www.amanochocolate.com Art

    What I find interesting is how many people consider the photo fake AND how many people consider it real. Clearly there are some amazing photoshop artists on both sides. It makes you wonder about various images in the news that are suspect one way or the other. Determining whether an image is “real” isn’t as cut and dry as one would hope.

  • Mehdi Moeqrie

    It must be the D300s replacement, kind of D9000 or something like that (Pro level APS-C dslr).

    • Worminator

      It’s an FX viewfinder, so…

    • http://www.laurentiuilie.ro/ Laurentiu Ilie

      It could be the consumer level D9000 – full frame.

  • ElSeven

    What I dont get is why are the logos blacked out. everybody knows its a nikon so why cover them.

    • brian

      Maybe there is something about the logo/writing that would identify this particular camera (prototype?) that potentially few people would have access to. So making the photo identifiable might potentially reveal a source to Nikon. Concealing it might help conceal the source.

    • brian

      Or perhaps Nikon put on fake logos to hide the fact that they were testing a D800. ie make it look like a D700 with the logos.

  • BeeGee

    D400!!!!

    • The Fantastic G

      I honestly think the next pro dx body is going to be called the D9000.

  • Mark

    No, I’m right, but thanks for commenting :-). I’ve done my own measurements and that’s all that matters to me!!! I don’t need anybody else to argue with me on something I can plainly see with my own eyes!!! Have a great day.

  • leafster

    Specs aside. It looks just like the poor ergonomics of D7000, though I think is a matter of getting used to it. Now I just hope that this ergonomics better not implement on D4.

  • Judd McKenzie

    When it will available?
    I MUST buy one at day one….
    Definitely this camera fullfil my need….

  • broxibear

    Yeah, I’m not sure about this.
    I don’t think it’s a straight photograph of a camera with an attached grip. I know many of you think it is and that’s cool, to me it’s been manipulated beyond hiding the logos.
    It feels like an image of a prototype, which has then been photoshopped by someone who’s seen the final D800. He or she has changed the prototype image they had to make it look more like the final product.
    I’m probably completely wrong, but this is a blog to air views and seek opinions and this is mine.

    • Bruno laplante

      1+ Broxibear and since it’s a pre-production demo… It explaine the crude looking finish to it…. and also the fact that the red on the gripp is so bad looking…
      This is not a final product… We need to keep this in mind !

    • John

      It looks like it could be a pic of the body and a separate one of the battery grip photoshopped together and the background photoshopped out.

    • TaoTeJared

      Something keeps pulling my eye to the AF/AE-L button. Something on the left side with the spot focusing dot above doesn’t look right. Some of the lighting doesn’t look quite right to me as well.

      Who knows, maybe someone Photoshoped some dust from the glass out.

  • Sam

    The more severe sloping on the top makes it look a bit Canon-ish in design to me, dare I say!

  • Doug

    It is a bad joke to believe that picture shows a real D800 *lol*
    Guys, that’s a Photoshop-fake.
    An by the way, I’m Douglas Heffernan ;)

  • Markus

    We’ve seen some pretty ugly ‘pre’ official camera shots before on this site. How more doubt by the visitors, how bigger the chance the’re real. :-)

    Just from a technical point of view, same AF system as D700…with video, that is not correct.

  • Victor Hassleblood

    To me it looks ugly enough to be real. Just like the D7000 probably means there will be no D400 this could very well be the D800. Oh, and did I mention it doesn’t look ugly enough to scare me off? I would want one.

  • Celine

    When is it going to be out!!!! I am desperate….

  • http://www.tonyanastasi.com tony anastasi

    yes – it’s a fake image.. bloody hell – who can’t tell that ? shit.. you guys are so used to bad photoshop you can’t even tell anymore when its very badly done???

    btw.. screw mp’s .. All I want is 4k video !

    ps: Sold my d3x two months ago for $7k ( it was two years old – brought it for $13k here in Aust. – i will never ever again buy a high end camera for that sort of coins again .. now using a little toy plastic rebel 550d for video and loving it.. will be buying another soon – it’s under $500 and shoots perfectly great HD video and i has nikon glass to canon mount adapter with the little manual f-stop changer for my g-series glass :) – add 4k video to a nikon body and I’ll buy that in a heart beat.. but Im very happy with my D3 images, nothing canon can do for stills that matches the perfect micro-contrast the nikons images have.. nothing.. canon stills, still look like mud. :P

    • http://www.modifiedphotographics.com Jason

      4K video? Forget that, get a Red Scarlet-X and get full 5k video! Project that at your nearest IMAX theater!

      Honestly, with the exception of professional grade digital projection, 4k video output isn’t even available to the consumer market yet. (I lie, Sony recently announced a 4k home theater projector good for up to 200″ screens for a cool $20,000 or so!) Granted, it will eventually filter down to high-end, super large televisions and other projectors, but even that is overkill until you get to extremely large screen sizes.

  • marco

    36 mpx on d800 and 18 on canon 1dx … canon and nikon know problems about high iso ,so nikon simply degrede /step down the past d700 ..and put on market a camera very far from d4.. the age of similarities d700/d3 is end.

    Read more on NikonRumors.com: http://nikonrumors.com/2011/11/19/ladies-and-gentleman-i-present-to-you-the-nikon-d800.aspx/#ixzz1eIYo2o5D

  • Hhom Togan

    I am going to state the obvious but that has been skipped by many of you: the photos aren’t exactly in the same viewing angle thus you may find some discrepancies but for anything else the bodies are pretty much the same thing a beefier grip on the supposedly D800 photo.

    So stop cutting your wrists you band of emos you are messing with the carpets… yeezhh

  • Sianz

    Don’t you guys miss the Nikon trademark red triangle? :D

    It seems that the D5100 red stripe is now the trend for new Nikon design. :(

    • Psycho McCrazy

      The Nikon trademark red triangle you talk about hasn’t been around for that long. My F5 does not have that. It has a big red patch where my fingertips rest.

      http://bythom.com/f5.htm

      Even the D1 or the D100 doesn’t have it. On the pro bodies, the triangle came with the D2 series and the D200. I guess its time for it to go away now!

      The older F4 and F3 have but thin red vertical lines.

  • Andy

    So, who’s coming back on here to either retract their “It’s obviously photoshopped” statement when it is revealed to be a correct photo?
    Or to trumpet their knowledge when it doesn’t?

    I love the ability of the Internet to create such controversy. We’ll see the new camera when it comes out. Until then, life won’t change for those who wait..

  • D800

    Admin,
    I thought you said you have 36mp sample images taken by d800.
    Why don’t you just show us if you really have them. We also would like to see them.

    Thanks

  • TR_T-Rex

    Listen up guys I think I have found something very important!!

    First off:

    - D7K has a combination of video recording button/Live view lever

    - D5100 has a dedicated video recording button in addition to the Lv lever

    In any case you may record a video after two steps: First you need to switch to Lv, and then press on the record button, wherever it is placed. In this respect IMO the former implementation is better because you do not need to find out two separately placed switches.

    So how is this related to D800?

    There must be a reason why Nikon preferred the dedicated video recording button, the inferior option, in such a pro camera, and in my view this is related to a new implementation/technology that D800 brings. Let me explain.

    As you may see this time Live View selection is not made through a lever as in both D7K and D5100. It is a button as in D90 and D3s. But this time, unlike D90 or D3s, next to the button there is the unusual level with the signs of video and photo modes. This should mean that switching the lever does NOT automatically enable the Lv. You must press on the Lv button, and when you press on the button, the Lv of the respective mode already selected through the lever will be enabled.

    At this point you may ask why there would be 2 separate Lv modes as all Nikon HDSLRs’ live view have functioned both for photo and video. It is because by virtue of whichever technology Nikon has developed, D800 allows its users to use the viewfinder while video recording despite the mirror and without resorting to SLT, and in order to do this, Lv functionality had to be separated for video and photo, and hence the unusual selection of the video and photo modes with a lever. The only compromise in this scenario is that you may need to go through a third step for video recording, that is, if you forget to leave the lever on the photo mode, then you first need to change it to video, then press on the live view button, and lastly on the dedicated video recording button to start capturing video.

    As a side note, if you argue that SLT cameras such as Sony A77 are capable of recording video from the viewfinder and therefore D800 might be a SLT camera rather than a DSLR in which the technology I have talked about is employed, then I would say there would not be a need for separating the Lv functionality for the photo and video modes in a SLT camera. Besides if D800 were a SLT, the fps rate would be expected higher than 4fps even for a full-frame camera.

    Other than my above conspiracy theory-like-scenario, I cannot find any other reasoning as to why Nikon would choose the relatively inferior dedicated recording button implementation on a pro body and use a dedicated Lv button right next to a very extraordinary photo/video mode lever, a first time ever.

    Perhaps (99.9999%) I have just made these up with my utter enthusiasm and after reading all the comments of the D800 announcement, spending several hours on them. It might be better that I sleep. But if my scenario is accurate, it would be revolutionary, especially if full-time phase-based AF would be available in both video and photo despite the mirror.

    • TR_T-Rex

      I need to add something to what I said at the last. In this scenerio full-time phase-based AF at the very least will be possible while recording video through the viewfinder. This would alone be revolutionary. If it can also be on LiveView, that would be an extra bonus.

  • http://iphoto.blog.163.com/ Bob

    i think few people need 36M pixels
    what’s the product line of D800? a simplified version of D3x?
    I don’t think it belongs to D700 product line.
    I am wondering what ‘s the price it will sell, if over $4000, it ‘s too expensive..

  • Marcelo Trad

    I think It’s fake or a test housing…the proportions does not match for a larger LCD if you compare proportions with the D700. I think the real one it’s going to be a litle diferent.

  • http://www.alldigi.com/ Geoff

    I want, I want, I want, if it is 36MP (which I do not believe).
    1. Pixel binning,
    2. Lower ISO down to iso50,
    3. Upper ISO at least as good as my D700,
    4. Dynamic Range as good as D700,
    5. GPS built in.

  • Kimaze

    it looks like a canon to me…

  • silmasan

    I voted for real. Though I think (hope) it’s not the final design.

    Many people who claimed it’s fake on the basis of “different level of details” etc perhaps should try to imagine how it’s being shot: distance and focal length used, shooting angle relative to the object, the opening used and the focal plane that ‘sliced’ the body (hint: it is obviously not perpendicular to the camera’s base). It’s sloppily shot and the edges show some/heavy background removal and smoothing, but other than that it looks like a real product to me.

    Relative to the D700, the viewfinder does look a little bigger (or at least the same size). The smaller overall size could also be a plus depending on your hand’s preference. Neutral: LCD looks the same size to me, and it’s no problem.

    Again, I hope there will be refinements in the final design, maybe minor aesthetics but I’m more concerned about the controls layout and how it feels in the hand…

    For admin: there *must be a way* for you to post (part of) the image samples without compromising your source, isn’t there? :P

    Takk!

  • ShowUsSampleImages

    Admin, Pleaseeeee show us the sample images

  • DavidB

    Nikon jumped the shark.

  • Trailshooter

    Seems odd to me that Nikon would delete the focus method switch and replace with a Live view button/switch on a D800. Thoughts on this?

  • pavel

    I think it’s a real camera…
    … but I hope it’s fake! Because I don’t like it a bit.

    1. The AF selector is gone :(
    2. ISO is still on the left side :(
    3. WB is still on the left side :(
    4. The useless Exp. comp. is still on the most prominent spot :(
    5. Play enlargement is still done by the left-side buttons and not by either of the wheels :(
    6. Play button should be on the right side
    7. Still no AE on the vertical grip :(
    8. One of the Fn buttons still not reachable from vertical grip (Nikon, learn from Canon 1Dx!)

    And on the positive note; as oppose to most of the people here, I think the 36Mp is ok. I bought my D700 over Canon 5DII because it had only 12Mp and therefore better ISO (Which was more important for me) but with the level of technology today and with possible binning, and seeing the results from D3x, I believe that Nikon can get pictures at the same quality as D700 even from this sensor. At all ISO levels.
    Would I prefer 12mp with crazy high ISO instead? Yes, ISO quality shifted 2-3 stops compared to D700 would be great and welcome but 36Mp with the same ISO as D700 is probably really more useful overall.

  • Jonny Ray

    Alright, I haven’t seen anyone ask this yet, so I’ve gotta ask:

    To the left of and in between the lock and menu buttons, what is that icon there? It’s to the left of the question mark on the left hand side of the back of the camera. Anyone have any idea? The image looks like it my be implying a file transfer or something, but I don’t know, haven’t given it too much thought yet. I don’t see that little marking on any of the current DSLRs (though I could be wrong)….

    …to me, that’s a good indicator that this is legitimate. Sorry if someone has already discussed this, I just didn’t see it mentioned in this seemingly endless stream of comments.

    • Jonny Ray

      Just read Lumenatic’s blog, looks like maybe it’s “picture control”. I wonder if the D800 will take the user 1 and user 2 presets from the D7000?

  • fred hugehead

    at this point:

    39.6% believe it’s real
    35% believe it’s a fake
    25% can’t say

    even if the image really /is/ real, all it’s saying is “yeah, a D700 replacement is coming, and it’s going to look a lot like the D700″ — which we already knew.

  • Not Surprised

    ITS A COMPLETE FAKE.

    The index finger wheel on the handle is so blurried/photoshopped and is even at the wrong angle that its ridiculous.

    The index finger switch points more down — but somehow nikon made the wheel point more up — than the D700?? No way. + blurriness = complete fake.

    Why? Because the body grip is super sharp — and the wheel could not possibly be that blurry. The whole left side (your left) is messed up in terms of photoshopping. The top of the body grip is nearly pin sharp but the top of the body itself only gets sharp half way back — it makes no damn sense.

    You’ve been had.

    Its fake. Fake fake.

    • Not Surprised

      Not to mention the bottom of the hand grip that juts out does not match AT ALL with the rest of the of the resolution of the body (with lots of weird additional noise), and the color/lighting is really off. The body of the body grip should be about as sharp as the part of the hand grip that juts out — especially considering the angles. And its no where even close. Its almost like the hand-grips leather is being covered up because the “skin” of the grip leather clearly does not match the leather of the body grip.

      FAIL.

  • Back to top