< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Updated Nikon D800 specs

Pin It

 

I am now 99% confident that the remaining unconfirmed specs from this Nikon D800 post and the D800 pictures are real. Here is the updated list:

  • 36 MP sensor (7360x4912)
  • 100% viewfinder coverage
  • Improved AF with face recognition – the D800 will still have 51 points AF point
  • CF+SD memory card slots
  • USB 3.0
  • ISO range: 100 – 6400, ISO LO @ 50 and  ISO HI-2 @ 25600
  • The screen will be larger than 3 inches (probably 3.2 in.)
  • The D800 will not have built-in GPS
  • Expeed 3 processor
  • There will be two different D800 versions/models, one with the antialiasing filter removed
  • 4 fps continuous shooting, about 6 fps in DX mode with optional battery pack
  • Video modes: 1080p/30/25/24 and 720p/60/30/25/24
  • Headphone jack, can input from an external device such as a PCM sound recorder
  • 86k pixels RGB sensor
  • 200,000 shutter cycles
  • Uncompressed HDMI video out (just like the Nikon D4)
Still no idea about the exact D800 announcement date.
This entry was posted in Nikon D800. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Hans

    No flip screen????
    Why would Nikon leave out an important feature like that?

    • http://www.davidcohendelara.com David

      Because it adds bulk and the screen has to be smaller for it to flip. The only people who benefit from a split screen are videographers who can’t afford an external screen.

      • http://www.davidcohendelara.com David

        *flip screen, not split.

      • arizonaSteve

        I would love to have a flip out screen so that when I am holding my camera over my head in a crowd, shooting down, I could actually see what I was shooting, instead of shooting at my widest focal length and hoping the shot turns out.

        • sirin

          d800 is clearly a more studio and landscape camera, so no need for an over the head shooting optimization there. it would add more bulk, price and reduce the screen size, which would piss off the studio and landscape crowd.
          i ‘m curious if they’ll put it on D4.

      • Twaddler Belafonte

        That’s crap. The flip-screens are very useful for shooting low or high. If I had a flip-screen on my d300 that would sure save my back some pain, my clothing from stains.

      • DIZEMAN

        Just not true, I have shot professionally since 1973 and much of that time as a photojournalist and there are many times I wish I had a Flip Screen. Versatility and OPTIONS are always a benefit that should be considered.

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

      If these are the real specs for D800, then this is a total let down for me. Really…36mp??? 4fps??? Not to mention this is going to sell for $3000. Nikon Nikon, you are going the wrong way. I can tell you that most people who owns a D700 will not going to upgrade to this camera. Really, for what…36mp and videos? I’m keeping my money and will wait for the D900, or a used D3s. In the meantime, I will continue enjoying my D700.

    • Markus

      One of the most commonly repairs at Nikon are those of broken flip screens, no thanks

      • http://www.lamarfrancoisphoto.co.uk Lamar

        +1 . Flip screens have no place on rugged pro bodies – and for very good reason.

        • Thierry

          Metering, autofocus, top lcd, back lcd, buttons, dials, etc., none of these should be on a pro body because they can all break.
          Or is it that a pro body should as versatile a tool as can be ? Hmmm

      • Thierry

        Are these repairs made on cameras with a metal body frame? No, because currently no camera with a metal frame has a swivelling screen. But if a flip screen pertains to a camera that is precisely one with a metal frame, because the frame can support the hinges of the screen. Problem solved.

    • cpm5280

      I was thinking this, but then thought about how much my dslr’s go through. The floor of a truck, falling from a tripod in a storm, falling out of a bag at the airport, any of a dozen things could have easily damaged the hinge on a flup screen.

      For me, the D800 won’t be my lightweight travel camera (which is when I think I’d find a flipscreen most useful), and I think I’m happy to leave flipscreens for a different class of camera.

  • JonMcG

    Very much feeling better about my recent commitment and purchase of a D7000 purchase now all the time.

    Though I’m sure these spec’s are accurate, it’s not incomprehensible to think Nikon intends to carry the D700 forward and replace sometime mid next year with another model. Something that replaces the D300s with a FX sensor, etc. It just means more waiting frankly, but the equipment and technology is good enough regardless not to hold anybody back from making fantastic images. The tools are here at our disposal and attainable…

  • Question

    What is the point of 1 SD and 1 CF card slot? Why isn’t it two of each type? It seems odd, and now if I want backups going, I have to have two different types of cards. Is there a reason for this?

    • http://thejordancollective.com CaryTheLabelGuy [NR]

      Size constraints.

      • no

        No I mean, why not 2 CF or 2 SD, but not one of each. I meant, what is the point of one of each?

        • Onetrack

          Exactly – Two CF’s are preferred. A mix is dumb.

          • Juergen.

            It seems to me that CF is coming closer to the end of it’s life-cycle for DSLRs so it’s logical to have a second slot with another memory card type (SD).

            Even if you use the CF card slot only you can have up to 128 GB – should be enough for most.

            • sirin

              +1, СА is likely to disappear from the market before the next generation of cameras arrives.

            • http://thejordancollective.com CaryTheLabelGuy [NR]

              Exactly. Also, like I said……Size constraints. Two CF card slows would take up a lot real estate. The d700/d800 class cameras don’t have integrated grips, so there isn’t as much room as the larger bodies like the D3s/D4.

              There is nothing wrong with either format. CF and SD are both great formats now. I use to prefer CF cards. But, now that SD cards have caught up, I have no preference.

        • jodjac

          I don’t understand the plus side to having two kinds of cards either. Sounds like a pain. One or the other, make up your freaking mind!
          So in this set up, you’d buy a big CF and put the raw files on it and the jpegs on the SD?
          What’s wrong with two SD cards, especially if you want to save space? Are the CF card much faster (than, say the Sandisc Extreme SDXC cards)?

          • cpm5280

            Well, you can always pocket the SD card before handing over the camera (and being pepper sprayed?).

      • Richard

        “Definitely not Pro.”

    • Ho-ho-ho

      well, it’s clear, isn’t it

      it’s mean to confuse and frustrate the users.
      if Nikon was producing memory cards I would say they are greedy but …

    • Michael Vincent

      so that it can fit in your purse…. seems like anyways, I am sotired of them trying to make cameras smaller. That’s why I didn’t like the D7000, a lil’ too lady like.

  • T Shah

    So which of the Pro Nikkor Glass will beable to properly resolve 36MP?

    • http://thejordancollective.com CaryTheLabelGuy [NR]

      Anything that can resolve the D7000′s 16.2 DX sensor. They’ll have roughly the same pixel density.

      • ArthurH

        Well that’s something to be afraid of…I used the D700o for one day (with my 24mm f1.4G) and was shocked by the low sharpness at pixel level. Even the 5Mp DX-crop of the D700 showed more detail than the mushy D7000-images. Let’s not hope that’s the way Nikon is going…

        • Bob

          Man… you must have shaky hands…

          • Roger

            Sorry, ArthurH, but I’m with Bob here. ;)
            You either have shaky hands or you misfocused D7000.

            Now everyone repeat after me, if you’re worried about 36mp:
            MY NIKKORS WILL HAVE NO PROBLEM RESOLVING THAT MUCH

            ;)

        • http://www.bauhausphotography.com Chris

          A FX sensor can resolve more lines per inch than a DX sensor. At the same megapixels the bigger sensor will always be sharper, it’s one reason you pay extra for a larger sensor.

          • ArthurH

            True, and that’s why I’m afraid that 36Mp on a FX sensor will have much lower sharpness on pixel level than the 12Mp the D700 has.
            Just like – in my opinion – the D7000 shows that 16Mp is way too much on a DX sensor.
            I personally think 24Mp is the limit for FX, and 12Mp for DX. Cameras with higher Mp’s don’t show more detail, they just give larger files.
            Of course I don’t claim to be a camera technician, but I haven’t seen any camera with a higher MP that still shows sharp images. Look at the 24Mp Sony pictures too – soft!!

            • James S.

              It’s not about the sensor’s resolution (megapixels count). A FX sensor with 36MP and another with 12MP will give the same sharpness if both have the same pixel size or the same pixel pitch – pixels per mm. But a FX sensor will always delivery sharper images than a DX sensor because of its larger pixel size (has fewer pixels/mm) in comparision with a DX sensor. Fewer pixels/mm (pixel pitch) or larger pixel size increases the resolving power of the sensor.
              This is true if you compare the image taken with a FX sensor and another image of the same subject with a DX sensor. The image from the FX sensor will look sharper at 100% crop. DX sensors always have smaller pixel size, therefore, using sharper lenses (FX primes) is useless on DX sensors.

            • ArthurH

              Thanks James S. for your reply, but I had the assumption that higher Mp means smaller individual pixel size, or isn’t that correct? In other words, I thought that the D800′s pixels will be about three times smaller than those of the D700?

        • http://sightbliss.com George

          I consider the Nikkor 24-70mm F2.8 one of my top lenses. Above F16 on D7000 the sharpness is quite bad. Maybe it is just that i have bad experience but i think i have done the test correctly (tripod, remote, focal point, etc). If my test is correct i am really curious what lens will do o.k on the D800.

          • jodjac

            Re: lens sharpness. I think tests can be deceiving. Your lens stopped down to f16 will show a lack of sharpness due to diffraction, which is normal and looks like crap at the 100% pixel level. It’s good to know that that happens and it’s good to know where your lenses are sharpest but it doesnt mean you can’t get a good image at f16. Try printing the image and see how it looks then. You might notice the diferrence at full screen, but I bet it’s a lot harder to tell at smaller sizes, say 5×7 or 8×10″.

            • http://sightbliss@gmail.com George

              Very true about diffraction. But my common sense is telling me that diffraction should be more visible on high density pixel sensor that is why i have some doubts about the D800.

        • http://thejordancollective.com CaryTheLabelGuy [NR]

          Not sure what’s up with that, but I own 2 D7000s and they are amazingly sharp with all of my glass. Even the 18-105 (which I only own for video usage). All my pro FX glass and primes are SUPER sharp on these D7000s.

    • AD

      All of them. Film has a much higher resolution and all current FX lenses work on the F6

      • Spy Black

        “Film has a much higher resolution…”

        Digital surpassed film resolution back around the 12 MP mark. It’s been long over.

        • cosmic

          lol, you are funny.

          Film, by far, has more resolution than digital. See here:

          http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

          PS: I’m not a Rockwell fan. You can read the link just for the information and pictures.

          • Josh

            What’s even funnier is that you are quoting Ken Rockwell. You must be really smart. Duh, duh, duh!

          • http://www.paulbohman.com Paul Bohman

            From my experience, the top resolution for 35mm images is in the 3mp to 8mp range, depending on a number of variables. 645 film is in the 6 to 14mp range. 6×7 film is in the 15 to 27mp range. You can enlarge film a lot beyond these specs, but when you compare the actual resolution, these numbers are pretty good estimates. The ranges are indicative of the variations in lenses, film types, film flatness (which is dependent largely on the camera), scanner technologies, and scanning techniques.

            • Thierry

              Depends of which “film” we’re talking about. Some way outresolve 12 MP

          • D700guy

            You obviously dont shoot with film.
            I own an F6, and a D700.
            I can tell you from my own personal experience that film DOES NOT have higher resolution. Not even close. It’s more like; 6mp compared to digital.
            The color rocks, but not the resolution.

          • preston

            Notice that the Rockwell article is from 2006. In it he says film has better resolution than digital (he knows blanket statements like that are what gives his site the traffic). Ok, maybe if he’s comparing 8×10 film to a 1.5x crop sensor digital from 2006, then sure. But look at Luminous Landscape’s comparison of 8×10 vs digital backs and you’ll see that this doesn’t hold up any longer. I will bite my tongue on all the other “issues” with his article. Wait, no, can’t let this one go! Digital cameras apparently always blow out the whites. He should try exposing properly before making that assumption though. That felt good to get out.

          • enesunkie

            Is that the guy that said the 1/500 Flash sync on his D40 is so important, a $5 camera is just as good as a DSLR, boycotted the D3x, says to shoot JPG because RAW is a waste of time and space, tripods are no longer required, and actually often degrade sharpness ….

        • Anon

          Funniest thing I’ve read all week.

        • chrisq.

          someone doesn’t realize 4×5 and 8×10 exists.

          • Ckbren

            i guess we are comparing our 35mm digitals to 4x5s? So it is like comparing a d3 against 6 hasselblads tied together.. yes.. a good comparison.

            • cosmic

              You guys are hilarious.

              Sure, 35mm film may not have as much resolution as FF DSLR, but since this argument is about LENSES resolving 36mp, please explain why medium format film cameras with crappy lenses can basically resolve 60mp+

              What makes you think that Nikon’s high-end glass would have trouble resolving 36mp? Also, how is resolving 36mp on FF different than resolving 16mp on DX? Sure, the corners may not be as sharp on zoom lenses, but with high-end primes, you’ll get a sharp image across the frame.

            • Brandon

              Woah that doesn’t sound right either. I work with studio photographers who shoot on IQ180 backs, and who still shoot 8×10 chrome and black and white for personal projects. They are extremely confident that the IQ180 (an 80 MP back) will out-resolve 4×5 film, and that it even seems better than 8×10. I know a few people with the new IQ180 backs that say it’s much sharper than 4×5. Medium format film cameras do not resolve anywhere near as much as a 60 mp back.

  • Matt

    The only thing im disappointed by is the continual fps rate. And to be honest, i am disappointed by that.

    • Timo

      Well, what do you expect? You have to consider the file size and the pixel count. Even with lossless compression the file size of the 36MP Sensor for a NEF-14bit file will very likely be somewhere between 35-40MB per image. If you store 4 images per second that makes 140-160MB per second! And if you choose NEF without compression the filesize will be even larger.
      All that consumes processing power and requires adequate memory cards. So, if you want more continuos shots, where do you want to get memory cards that can write more than 200MB per second?

      And for what purpose do you need such high frame rates? If you plan to shoot sports with hundreds of photos in just a few hours, then you should not consider a camera with 36MP (or compromise and shoot JPG). Not to mention that the higher megapixel count also requires more processing power in postprocessing.

      Timo

      • http://haroldellis4444@gmail.com Harold Ellis

        it is called buffer dude. 1GB can hold probably 10 images and costs 20Eur.

        • Travis

          Are you ready then wait for 10 seconds to empty the buffer after each 10 frame burst?

        • Timo

          Of course there is a buffer. But at some point the buffer will be inevitably full, dude! No matter how large you make it, you can’t secify the continious write speed without paying attention to the maximum write speed of the memory card.

          So, even if the camera has an 8GB buffer, and you dream of 6fps continuous speed (estimated data output of let’s say 210MB/s) and your memory card can write 150MB/s, that means after a little more than 2 minutes the buffer will be fully because the memory card cannot empty it fast enough.

          And btw, cameras do offer higher continuous frame rates at the beginnung of a sequence until the buffer is full and the memory card cannot empty it fast enough anymore. That means during the first seconds of a burst you will be able to shoot faster. But, if you are dreaming of higher continous frame rates that are maintained even if the buffer is full, you are neglecting the technical implications.

    • Markus

      Well, you have much more room to crop…it’s one or the other ;-)

  • photdog

    Does anybody know?
    would the one without the antialiasing filter be only good for the studio or also for landscape and architecture photos?

    • fs

      Architecture is where you might see the most negative effects of removing the anti-aliasing filter. I’ve got an M9 which is aa-filerless as well, and the only place I see the moire effects of that is on man-made objects with a tight repeating pattern (wicker was my latest example). I’m guessing it will be an improvement for landscape.

      • Roger

        I see aliasing in every M9 image, landscapes included.

        No AA filter + architecture = photographer crying

    • http://www.davidcohendelara.com David

      Removing the AA filter will give you more sharpness, but also more risk of moiré and other aliasing artifacts. I’d say for landscape and architecture the extra sharpness is worth it. You can always blur in post.

      Here are some example shots of a Nikon D300 with and without the AA filter:
      http://www.maxmax.com/nikon_d300HR.htm

      • arizonaSteve

        thanks for the link, I appreciated the comparisons.

  • http://www.davidcohendelara.com David

    Meh. I’ll buy it, but I would have preferred 24MP over 36.

    Also, I wish the higher resolution studio/fashion body was the bigger body, and the higher speed sports/journalism body was the smaller one. That would just make more sense.

    • Nicolás

      No, it wouldn’t. Why would you need a tank for doing studio work? on the other hand, somebody in a combat zone might benefit from a sturdy body.

      • KT

        “A very merry Christmas and a happy New Year, War is over if you want it, war is over now” John Lennon
        Not everyone who needs high-speed body suitable for photo-journalism is heading to a war zone. Actually a high-speed body in a small package will be great for a majority of pros. The Canon 7D showed you can have a remarkably high FPS in a small body, now if only someone can figure how to get a low-noise sensor into such a body, I’ll buy it without a second thought.

        • Nicolás

          That’s why you see small cameras whenever PJs are around right?

          Maybe paps, but those don’t deserve being called photographers.

  • J S Mitchell

    How can it be that so much info is leaking about about the d800 and D4 but not one peep about the D400 since August? Not even a rumor about why there are no rumors. Makes you wonder if there is some serious problem to be overome before the D400 can be accounced. I susbect I am not the only one trying to decide if my future lies in the FX or DX world . I won’t make any purchases until I see the specs for both.

    • Rob Ueberfeldt

      The D7000 is the D300(S) replacement (unfortunately and only by accident due to disaster and flood). The D7000 is also the new D700 in that it will take forever to be replaced. The earthquake and flood have seen to that. We will see a D400 before the D7000 is replaced. I imagine a real D7000 replacement wont happen for a while. I wonder when the D3100 will get a fresh up?

      Hopefully we’ll see a D400 before 2013…

      • http://www.flickr.com/photos/n1dqu_wlsphoto/ Walter Smith

        SORRY!! But the D7000 WAS the replacement for the D90 not the D700. Even Nikon said as much. But the D90 remained in production because it was SO popular (Nikon’s best seller since it came out). The D90 is due to stop production at end of this year.

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

          Nikon never said that the D7000 replaces the D700.

      • The Fantastic G

        I think you’re wrong. I suspect the D9000 will replace the D300s as Nikon’s pro DX body. I also suspect they’ll use the Sony 24MP DX sensor. Then again, we could all be wrong.

      • Juergen.

        D70 -> D70s -> D80 -> D90 -> D7000
        and
        D100 -> D200 -> D300 -> D300s

        • enesunkie

          D7000 –>D7100
          and
          D300s –> D400 (and still DX)

          • Rob Ueberfeldt

            D7100->D400

            • enesunkie

              I of course don’t know and everybody is just taking a wild stab at this, but the D7000 is $1200 US. If this D800 comes in at $3500 – $4k as suggested by somebody on here, that is an awfully large gap. I’m guessing that there is a market for another body in the $2000 – 2500 range. As feature rich as the D7000 is, people with D300′s were still looking for a couple more controls, larger buffer and a quicker more accurate focusing system.
              Put the D7000 sensor into the D300s body with Expeed 3, the updated RGB sensor, the updated 51 point focus , little faster frame rate at 14 bit, updated video and then add U1 / U2 controls and a LOT of people would buy it! Nobody can read Nikons marketing mind, but this is just one awesome possibility.

  • http://jamri.smugmug.com James Clarke

    My prediction for the announcement is the 11th of January, because it’s a “lucky day” on the Japanese calender and that is normally when Nikon make announcements of major products on such days.

  • venancio

    somewhere in japan, daishins are still arguing if december 22 is an auspicious date to announce the d800… it’s not that the beast is not there, it’s just that there are very few auspicious dates in the year left, if any… the good thing is that these people believe in the ying yang, so if something tragic happened in 2011, something good must happen before the year ends… the problem is what calendar they will choose to follow to determine the end of that particular calendar year… shogun hearts and minds are guided by the spirit of the divine wind…

  • http://Www.affinityseattle.com Sean

    If the AA filter is removed, it’s going to be a b/w camera only where they aren’t doing demosaicing on a Bayer array.

    • Thierry

      AA and bayer filters are two different things. Both are present on current Nikon dSLRs. Some companies offer to remove the AA filter on Nikon (and others) cameras and the modified cameras still take color pictures.

  • Vice

    Ok…
    I think d800 will have 18mp
    D90-12mp replaced by D7000-16mp
    So d800 wil have 18-20mp..
    If its 36mp its not d700 replacement… It would be different camera for completly different stuff…
    Also who would buy 24mp d3x
    When you have 36mp d800?!

    • http://www.davidcohendelara.com David

      Also who would buy 24mp d3x
      When you have 36mp d800?!

      Good point. The flagship D3x is going to lose a lot of its value when a 36mp D800 comes out.

      I personally prefer a larger body and 24mp files, but if the D800 is $4000 and the D3x is $6000 there is no way I’d choose the D3x.

    • http://mike.heller.ca Mike

      You do realize that the Canon 5D MKII is 21MP and the soon to be released MKIII version will likely be higher? Do you honestly think Nikon would throw out a 18MP cam that is behind the previous gen Canon? No chance, the 36MP makes sense to me.

      • mike

        Don’t think so, 5d III is now rumoured to use the same sensor as 1D X: 18 MP…

        • http://www.jpgmag.com/people/markwjr Mark

          Now, why would the 5DIII use the same sensor as the 1Dx, when the 1Dx hasn’t even been released yet? I REALLY can’t see that happening. If it uses the same sensor as the 1Dx, and is released in THE SAME YEAR, why release them both? The 5DIII may use the same sensor, but, if that’s the case, I can’t see it being released for at least another 2-3 years. And that’s simply not the case.

          Mark

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

        Only for megapixel lovers.
        But you can see how many people prefers D700.
        And I know how many people dislike canon’s 20Mp and shoot in sRAW (10Mp).

        • Zim

          I prefer having some video if needed

    • http://jamri.smugmug.com James Clarke

      Hopefully they take a leaf out of Apple’s book “Cannibalise your own market before someone else does.”

  • Bundgee

    Is the speculation that this camera will be weather sealed? Does it look like the D800 will be a smaller camera than the D700? Will this camera fall into the prosumer category or in the professional lineup? Guesses?

  • http://Www.affinityseattle.com Sean

    36 MP at 4fps BUT lower raw res mode at muvh highet fps. Have you guys ever used a dslr? Studio = 36MP low frame rate, lights have slow cycle unless constant lights. Sports? Shoot in something like a 16mp raw. It’s gotta happen.

    • http://schultzphotographic.ca jason

      Sean is exactly right.

    • Ken Elliott

      Bingo! In the studio, I’m often waiting on the lights to recycle. FPS > 2 is good enough.

  • Zim

    When announced it will be the new Coolpix 80,000

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/ilovewalkman/ Abhinav

    Still no date … Duh

  • http://mike.heller.ca Mike

    I’m already on the list to buy one. 36MP, 4FPS and all. Love the spec!

  • Rob

    Any ideas on what codecs are going to be used for video, Uncompressed out of HDMi but will we be able to get 10bit out of it using the external recorders? Most of these features that are avialable on the FS100U and other cameras are all crippled and IM hoping nikon is just going to give us some awesome footage as well as the stills. Its looking like I’ll have to go for the D4 but I really wanted a smaller body with high iso

    • Rob

      if I wanted something BIG I would rather just stitch it together and make it REALLY BIG

  • Mike

    Do we know whether the D800 will still support non-AFS lenses? I’d heard a nasty rumor to the contrary but don’t want to believe it.

    • Travelati

      By tradition as a professional camera body, you will expect built in autofocus motor to support AF and AF-D lenses.

      On the other hand, if we ever going to see a ‘prosumer FX’, it may as well be motorless.

    • broxibear

      Hi Mike,
      That’s an interesting question and one I’ve asked before. Personally I think it’s one generation too early for Nikon to drop the in body AF motor in any D800/D400 and D4 cameras, I don’t think they’ve replaced enough of the AFD lenses to AFS for that to happen just yet…but with Nikon you never know ?

  • iamnomad

    36MP is great if we’ve got sharp resolution, but I’m more interested in dynamic range.

  • CANON

    99% CONFIDENT IN YOUR RUMOR

  • Vice

    I see… Everyone need different stuff from the camera…
    I dont mind even 12mp as lond as I get low noise in low light.
    D3s was and is a bit expensive for me…
    But all the specs I want are there.
    The only thing that is missing in D3s
    is a good video, like Canon dslrs…
    So was hoping to get something similar to d3, d3s, d700 with beter video…
    But 36mp is waaaay too much…
    C’mon Nikon… Make it 18-20mp with iso 500.000
    And video 1080p 60fps.

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

      +10000

      • nuno santacana

        +100000000

    • http://kilpatrick.co.uk jonathan kilpatrick

      D3s video is very good quality Vice 1280 i or ‘p’ is not even a standard all videographers use in prefernce to 720p

      • http://dundermifflin.com dwight shrute

        It’s like with megapixels, people want the higher numbers.

    • Roger

      Sorry son, you dont get ISO 0.5 million by reducing the number of megapixels.

  • frederic

    aw, 4 stops difference with the D4 supposed ISO range… could do with some pixels less and a bit more sensitivity :/

  • L

    well at least we know for sure that the 5d mkII beats the d700 is price and, iso performace, and picture quality.

  • sjms

    Dumb specs. Dumb camera. Not with my money

    • sjones

      Dumb comment

  • http://www.brandonburtner.com/ Brandon Burtner

    I really don’t know who this is designed for… A wedding photographer does not need 36MP, but they sure as shit need more than 4 FPS. Same with a sports photographer. Same with really everyone except for a studio photographer, and they don’t need this sort of noise reduction. I honestly can’t believe this would replace the D700. The D700 fits its market perfectly. These specs do not make sense for any group I can think of. Hopefully the D400 is as awesome as I’m hoping it will be.

    • zack

      That is exactly what I thought about it. Unless it has some amazing video features that will top anything Nikon has in that sense…hm

    • Bill Gates

      I shoot weddings whilst never using continuous mode, except perhaps during the kiss or something magically delicious.

      My friend Henri Cartier-Bresson also *rarely* used continuous-hi @ 14fps. He came up with pretty decent images though.

      • FM-2 fan

        right – the D800 should have a red dot … just in case

        • Anon

          HCB’s Leica didn’t have a red dot.

          Of course it didn’t have autofocus and autoexposure modes and a screen either.

    • http://www.querdenker-gigapixel.de/eng/index.htm Querdenker

      I would love 36MP, when everything fits well together… and I’m no studio photographer… I work professional with gigapixel images for many years… with higher MP I can use a smaller lens and so I need fewer images to be at the edge of physics… that gives me a bigger time frame, so I can develop now things in the field gigapixel…

      36MP is absolutely a great thing…

  • http://kilpatrick.co.uk jonathan kilpatrick

    What would make by this very expensive iso 6400 toy? I thought Nikon were about high quality pro images? It the megapixel argument real or is it just me.?

    Low noise iso 25,000 iso Full frame or even dx, 12 px would blow up to a meter wide and allow 12 fps with a slightly better processor AND Excellent low light focussing please!!!! ….

    BTW even pro video guys are still shooting 730p because 1280i isn’t a ‘standard’… (Plus I suspect theres a very good reason why video cameras do not look like still cameras)

    what am I missing here?

    • zack

      “even pro video guys are still shooting 730p because 1280i isn’t a ‘standard’…”
      What are you talking about? 1920 x 1080 is more than a standard. It’s the minimum.

    • Roger

      Sorry, son, doesnt work that way.

      This will have lower noise than D700, and still you complain.

  • http://www.burcuustuner.com/EN/ Koray Ustuner

    Hope D800 will have D700 iso performance at least.

    • http://wonderfultime.biz ben

      If it says 100-6400 native ISO, then it is in the D700 performance range.

      • tyler durden

        It is not because the iso range of D800 is the same as D700 that the quality of high iso is the same for this 2 body.

    • Roger

      BETTER than d700

  • http://www.inmozartsfootsteps.com Dave in NC

    I think the camera will be great. What great possibilities there will be to crop with 36mp. And I don’t need more than 4fps, most of my work in on a tripod anyway. And with 36mp, it will be so easy to adjust perspective without losing much (if any) resolution. I think Nikon is smart to have the D800 and D4 aimed at two different audiences. I’ll be one of the first to order a D800.

    • Arminia

      +1000

      ..all you wedding-gymnast, you might want to capture divorces?.., another “terra incognita”!!!

  • Bob from Ohio

    Why is no one asking about the VERY IMPORTANT built in flash???

    I certainly hope it has one.

    • FM-2 fan

      unlikely with a 100% viewfinder

      • Bob from Ohio

        Why? What does one have to do with the other?

        It looks like it might have a built in flash… BOY, I HOPE SO!!!

        • BartyL

          What one has to do with the other is that all the experts ‘know’ that it is ‘impossible’ to have a 100% viewfinder AND a built-in flash. They know this because it has never been done before (?) and this leads them to conclude that starting with a 100% viewfinder and then adding a built-in flash violates fundamental engineering principles and possibly the whole of Physics as we currently understand it.

          • Bob from Ohio

            It’s already been done a million times. Just not with a FF sensor. And rather a camera has a FF sensor or not, should make no difference when it comes to having a built in flash.

      • Yagion

        YOu don’t know what you’re talking about. D7000 has 100% + built in flash

        • Nuah

          ugh…. You don’t what you’re talking about.

          D7000 has a much smaller sensor, which only requires a small prism to achieve 100% VF.

          D700 with it’s FF sensor, cannot fit a prism large enough to achieve a 100% VF while maintaining a built-in flash.

          Now that they’ve removed the built-in flash, there’s more room for the larger prism.

          Get it?

          I’d still prefer the built in flash though. Love the CLS and convenient.

          • Bob from Ohio

            I disagree.

            Nikon did not make the D700 with less than a 100% viewfinder because they had insufficient room to do so. They made the D700 with a 95% viewfinder because they needed to lower the specs down from the D3, because they knew that if they did not, that no one would have bought the D3.

            Canon did not have the guts to do it because they new that the a large percentage of the “stuffed shirt professionals” would look down on a full frame with a pop-up flash. (That makes both the professionals and Canon FOOLS!!!)

            I will never believe that Nikon, Sony, Canon, to name a few, are not smart enough to engineer a full frame camera with a 100% viewfinder AND a built-in pop-up flash.

            Child’s Play.

            • Thomas

              RIGHT!
              The 95% vss. 100% has nothing at all to do with the size of the prism, but only with one of two things:
              - artificial procrastination demanded by product marketing to “position” the body
              - need for more precision in positioning the viewfinder-screen
              I personally do hope that the flash from the D700 is still there. Very convenient master!

            • Bob from Ohio

              While nobody wants to talk about this, it’s also a very convenient fill flash when shooting portraits outdoors on a sunny day or grabbing that quick indoor shot that you just could not get otherwise. There are just times that I don’t want to lug a big flash along with me and it’s really nice to have something so convenient.

  • ericnl

    I’ll wait a couple of months to see if there will be a D700s too (a couple of people have claimed to have seen one recently). if not, then I’ll buy a D700. no biggy. I’d like to have video options at full frame, but I could just keep my D7000 for the video part as well I guess…

    • zack

      That’s my reasoning as well. Something tells me that D800 won’t have a better video than D7000 that already has great video.

    • mcg

      +1
      This is what I’m planning also, a refinement of the D700 would be perfect for us – we make our living from lo-light portraits.

    • Roger

      no D700s, son. those people lied to you.

  • jorg

    ok- no new cameras without video. not sure, if i like it.

    still this is good news. following a good high-iso camera (and 8 fps is not slow either) here comes a landscape/studiocamera. i like it and i will get one ASAIC.

    it really looks like a 3Dx follow-up, that chaged lanes. maybe this is also revenge for the 24MP-5DmkII?

  • sflxn

    Come on, build in the fraking GPS. I hate the dangling GPS dongle!

  • John

    So the D800 will be SLOWER at shooting sports than my D700? Even with the extra battery grip?

    • http://dnoonie.smugmug.com/ David N

      but maybe not at lower res settings?!

    • Trolatte

      … yes, without that extra (1, 2) fps you are ready to disappoint your client (or your kid) by your performance.

      • John

        Yes, that extra 1 to 2 FPS will help. Maybe you don’t understand that athletes don’t wait for the photographer before they shoot the basketball or hit the baseball. You also don’t understand the meaning of a newer camera that is slower than its replacement.

        Your post shows complete ignorance.

        • Trolatte

          Without specify with sport you are dealing with, I presume you are pretty pathetic with your skill not capture right moment with first shot. You think the follow up continuous shots will save you from your embarrassment?

          And let’s say you DO have to shoot against speed, why not consider existing D3S, 7D, D300s or D7000 which are excellent fast bodies. D800 rumor spec is pointing toward next level of image dimension for print jobs.

          You are complaining the world is not good enough for you. What are you? 13?

    • Ken Elliott

      I’d expect it to be slower. The D700 is an all-around camera, with sports/PJ capabilities. The specs of the D800 suggest it is a studio/landscape camera, and a slower FPS is normal.

      I’ll keep my two D700 bodies and add a D800 for studio work.

  • http://dnoonie.smugmug.com/ David N

    It likely shoots faster in lower res modes. How much faster? Fast enough to use as an event shooting camera on work days (D700 speed with optional grip)? Being able to use one camera for both landscape shooting and work/event shooting would be fantastic.

  • Miro

    I buy second-hand about the D3, D3S at less than D800.

  • Dweeb

    No brainer on the GPS omission. Nikon want to hose consumers down for another 600 buck$ for their GPS and grip.

  • Axel

    Admin should put out a poll.

    What would you prefer the D800 to be :

    - D3S replacement (low resolution / high ISO / high speed) + good video
    - D3X replacement (high resolution / “low” ISO / low speed) + good video

    This way we could have an idea of what we are all waiting for, instead of having just Nikon answer ;-)

    • Trolatte

      That would be an extremely silly poll since we are already seeing both:

      - D800 seems to be a successor of D3X
      - D4 seems to be a successor of D3S

      And since when does NR represents “all”. It would be naive to think 90+ years old company survive till today by never listens to their clients ;)

    • pabs

      Why not a replacement inbetween those two ranges? Great ISO and resolution but not pushing the extreme or either at the expense of the other, ie, resolution of 18-24 and ISO to 25, 000.

      • Roger

        doesnt work that way, son

        you want 18mp and ISO 25,000
        this has 36mp and ISO 25,000

        nikon is giving you a better camera than you want, and you dont even know it.

        • nobody

          Thank you, father!

  • George

    AAAAAAAAAAAAah LOOOOOOOOOOOVE :)

  • Pierre

    Ridiculous spec !!!

  • chimphappyhour

    OMG! It’s not the D900, total fail! Did I get that whiners?

  • http://wonderfultime.biz ben

    I think keeping the ISO at D700 level is very good considering its a 36mp sensor, because D700 is still an amazing high ISO camera. What is missing for me in the leaked specs, is what will the improvement in Dynamic Range be.

  • M

    i hope this will have some kind of Small-RAW option…
    36MP raw files = 40-50MBytes?

  • adrian

    c’mon Nikon!!!! announce it and get the damn pre-orders going!!!
    Christmas money burning a damn hole in my pocket!

  • Funduro

    Unbelievable! Too much mega pixels and the too little mega pixels drama queens. If I could justify the D800, I would charge and pay it off over two years and own it for 10. But the nattering nabobs of negativism are never satisfied. LOOK the DSLR will come with and with out AA filter, bet some nitpicking A-whole will find that’s not enough choices either.

    • zack

      Chill out dude. We have every right to nitpick. We are the customers who keep that company alive. What you call ‘negativism’ is actually constructive criticism. Don’t be a fanboy. It’s not like Nikon is some dictatorial operation so we must like everything they do at any given time. We DO most of the time, but this has been a long wait, so we are anxious to see this product being right.

  • http://www.russbishop.com Russ Bishop

    Looks perfect – can’t wait! But we must always remember, gear is never a substitute for vision.

  • John

    Looking more and more like the D800 is NOT a D700 replacement . . .

  • http://www.jeffebner.com Jeff

    Uncompressed HDMI out is a godsend to filmmakers. Even the C300 will lack this. Probably the most revolutionary aspect of this camera for me, and I’m glad they didn’t make it a top-end-only feature for only the D4. Definitely puts Canon in a tough spot.

    Definitely will be ordering this one.

  • Paul

    >Admin
    Did you mean headphone jack or microphone jack?
    I ask because having audio monitoring would be excellent in addition to a microphone jack.

  • Hugh Wish

    I wonder, if 4 fps is max under C-Hi, what is C-Lo? 3fps?

    Weird.

  • Back to top