< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

What to expect from Nikon at the CP+ show in Japan next month

New Nikon Coolpix cameras announcement before the CP+ show in Japan is guaranteed. There is a high probability that the Nikon D800 will be released as well, but I am not 100% sure yet. The website digicame-info reports that the D800 without the AA filter will cost around ¥300,000 in Japan (around $3,900) and will start shipping in mid-March 2012. The price of the D800 version with the AA filter is reported to be around $3000.

What else?

It will be a bonus if any of the lenses mentioned in this post gets introduced next month. Besides those products, I do not expect any other surprises in the next 30-60 days. I believe the D300s replacement is at least few months away and it will not be announced for the CP+ show in Japan.

Here are some crazy rumors I received recently - I have no reason to believe any of them, at least not at that point of time:

  • Nikon full frame 4k video camera with a F mount
  • New video light accessory that will be  launched with the D800
  • Nikon 3D camera that will be a part of the Nikon 1 system
  • Nikon AF Reflex Nikkor 800mm f/8 ED VR lens - this may actually materialize for Photokina
This entry was posted in Nikon D800, Nikon Lenses, Nikon Point and Shoot and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Paul

    So removing the AA filter costs $900. Sounds about right.

    • Markus

      There is some more changes needed, but it will be explained during release demonstration and press meetings.

      • http://www.del-uks.com Del-uks

        Why don’t you try to explain us ?…

        • tbbsl

          Maybe it’s to cover the added cost of return service for cleaning the bare sensor frequently. Someone also mentioned the labor of making two different cameras.

          • dave

            The sensor will still have a protective UVIR filter in front of it, so the sensor will not be exposed. No need for extra cleanings.

            • Markus

              Indeed, the sensor cannot be exposed directly.

              The changes which have to be made have more to do with the sensor data processing.
              I do not have the technical details, it will be explained during the presentations and promotional meetings.

        • R!

          …the higher price is for the cost in the 2 different chains of construction they need to develop , I think It’s smart not to charge the consumer that want the regular model.

        • Chris Ni
          • GeoffK

            TY for the link.

    • http://cuccaresephotography.com/blog phosgene

      Yeah I found that really odd. It makes me wonder if Nikon is not just removing the filter, but adding some other kind of moiré-prevention. I have no idea what this could be other than software, which wouldn’t justify the $900 difference. Also of note, Lightroom 4 beta includes a moiré-removal tool. I wonder if adobe is anticipating AA-less cameras/MF backs to get more popular?

      • WoutK89

        Wasnt Moiré removal always part of Camera RAW?

      • http://micahmedia.com Micah

        Yeah, tried it out–it’s great! Fixed up some old D70 images perfectly!

        It would be even better if there was an automated version. I wonder how the M9 does it? I have yet to see a shot from one with bad moire…

        • http://www.robertash.com Robert Ash

          M9′s are often if not usually used for street photography, travel, photojournalism and the like. That’s what they’re famous for. Those aren’t the kinds of subjects/fabrics/etc. that exhibit moire (subjects wear lots of natural materials, etc.).

          Photographing things like weddings, architecture and fashion shoots involving man-made materials like fancy polyesters, etc. are where you see moire a lot.

          • http://www.robertash.com Robert Ash

            Not saying that explains it 100% but it’s a big part of it I’d guess.

      • http://www.del-uks.com Del-Uks

        There is already a Moiré adjustment in Apple Aperture.

    • Mikycoud

      Who knows, maybe they’re actually adding something, like a mechanism to activate/desactivate the AA filter at the flip of a switch/push of a button. Now, that would be something well worth an extra grand…

      • Gareth

        LOL, desactivate, seems a bit drastic.

    • http://mike.heller.ca/blog Mike

      Agreed, how can you sell something with less parts for more money? I can’t see it being the cost of production or less units made, you likely just skip a step or two in the build process. It’s not like there will be some different assembly line only making a few of these and thus jacking up the cost.

      Alternatively, Nikon may be thinking they will sell way more of the models without the filter so they are jacking the price. Not cool either way if you ask me. I would assume they would be the same price, just pick which one you want to go with.

      • R!

        because you pay the difference with the regular model that is fair I think!!!!!

    • Landscape Photo

      Why something less would cost more? It will be some king of glass instead of more expensive AA filter. So rather opposite, huh !

      One question: Which one costs more:
      a) A car with ABS
      b) Same car without ABS

      • wublili

        If the car comes with ABS by default then the model without ABS is for sure more expensive. To produce ABSless car would require change in manufacture and production line which means higher production costs. Especially if there is only limited number of ABSless cars made.

        • AM

          Really? You just need to remove that step from the same process. Less material, one less operator, etc. By any means, it should be cheaper.

          • http://AdairCreativeGroup.com Ron Adair

            That isn’t necessarily true, and seems a bit naïve to jump to this as your first conclusion.

          • PJS

            Wrong on the ABS scenario. To remove ABS would require a complete rework of the entire braking system from the pedal to the shoes. Change in computer chips, line pressures, design of the wheel (which contains the strobe lines for ABS), etc. MUCH more expensive to do less.

      • R!

        why a Lamborghini superlegera cost more!!???? people are dumb doh!!!!!!!!!

      • AXV

        What costs more a Lamborghini Gallardo or a Lamborghini Gallardo Superleggera (it weighs 100kg less).

        You guessed wrong, the superleggera is more expensive, and it doesn’t even have a carpet! Dumbass. Is not parts or weight you are buying.

    • http://www.russbarnes.co.uk RussB

      So 300,000 yen in GBP is about £2500 + 20% VAT makes it a £3k camera. I knew Nikon couldn’t help themselves… that’s nearly twice the price of the D700 in the UK.

      • Calibrator

        Well, it has three times as much pixels!
        That must count for something, doesn’t it? ;-)

      • danpe

        We’ve yet to see what the street price will be, besides, the D700 is a couple of years old.

      • Ad Ronair

        More expensive means less competition means shorter queue means less number of Joes/Janes have one on the street trying to show off. Great strategy!

    • nikhtwey

      Guess they’re charging the ingenuity of removing AA filter and still avoid artifacts and moire with a new 7×7 randomized Bayer like matrix.

      • alvix

        what if…kinda fujifilm…

        • Ken Elliott

          Yeah – that’s what I’m wondering. The non-AA-filter model may be more expensive because the sensor made a visit to FujiFilm for their CFA. That might be worth the extra cost.

  • Mike_Suzy

    Hope the D800 is announced as I have been waiting so long for this camera to replace my trusty old D200

    • KT

      I’m still on D100. Waited too long, and very excited.

  • Shaolynx

    Why would leaving out the AA filter make it so much more expensive?

    • broxibear

      Hi Shaolynx,
      It’s because they’re not really making two different bodies. They’re making one D800 with AA filter, while one goes off to be packed the other that’s been ordered without AA filter is sent down a different production line to have the filter removed…this means more labour costs and time, for which Nikon charge you.
      Someone’s bound to do a side by side test of the D800 bodies after they come out, we’ll find out then if the extra money for no AA filter is worth it.
      Personally I don’t think there’s any need for this, if they’re that confident about the camera without AA filter then just have that…or offer the AA removal as a seperate service from Nikon.

      • WoutK89

        I think Nikon is just trying if there is a want for the AA-removal, if it proves popular we will see more of this in the future.

      • GeofFx

        I’m sort of feeling the same way. I mean if the difference in image quality is so much better to justify a $900 price increase, then why not just leave it off in the first place?

        I mean think about it? The ONLY difference between the cameras is sharpness? That must be a pretty huge improvement in sharpness to justify a $900 increase.

        I guess it’s just a rumor at this point, so we’ll have to see what’s announced. Maybe there is more to it, or maybe the price difference is wrong.

        • Sylvesterii

          I don’t know, have you seen the comparison images of D700 and D300 cameras with the AA filter removed? I think the difference is pretty significant, and would be welcome. I’ve considered having the AA removed on my D300.

          • GeofFx

            I totally agree Sylvester. I too would be in favour of having the AA filter removed. However, a $900 premium? That is asking A LOT (IMO). That $900, if I even had it, could go a long way towards a very nice lens or even a low end back up body. I mean, think about what $900 can buy you in the camera world and all of the labour that would go into those products. To have the AA filter removed for $900 seems extremely excessive to me.
            If this $900 premium turns out to be true, it will be yet another piece of news, among many recently, that make me question if I want to continue supporting Nikon.

        • Nathan

          I know I’ll be buying the AA-less version. After seeing and living with the ultra-terrible AA filter on the D700 I’ll be happy to use a camera without. If I need an AA filter on a camera then I’ll use my D700.

      • Zeke

        None of those things. Retail prices aren’t some fixed percentage of production costs.

        It’s about what the market will bear. If Nikon’s going to make a special version for camera geeks, they can, and likely will, charge more.

        Back in the old days, they used to charge a premium for the black-painted versions of their film cameras. It wasn’t because there was an additional $50 of paint in the thing. Eventually black got more popular and they stopped.

        • PJS

          RE: “Back in the old days, they used to charge a premium for the black-painted versions of their film cameras.”

          And just think – now we can get PINK for free! Is this really progress?

      • R!

        thank you ,at least some understand!I ‘m thinking of some, by the way, It mi’ght be better with the filter for filming!!!!but I’m not sure!?…

  • fab

    Will the mentioned 300s replacement will be a FF cam?

    • WoutK89

      A D300s replacement needs to be DX, or it is not a replacement.

      • twoomy

        Well not necessarily. The D3 was a replacement of sorts for the D2h (flagship fast camera) and the D3X was a replacement of sorts for the D2X (flagship high-MP camera).

        The D300 line is now awkwardly placed between the D700 line and the D7000 line. If the D300 is replaced by a lower-MP FX camera, it wouldn’t shock me in the least. But a 24mp DX camera like the Sony a77 wouldn’t surprise me either. We’ll see.

        • mwooty

          You just made the ultimate comment, dude!

          Well, there are two options – A and B. If it’s A, it wouldn’t shock me in the least. But if it’s B, wouldn’t surprise me either.

          You could at least say which one you would prefer. This way your comment would have any value.

        • Rob Ueberfeldt

          Too many professionals now like DX. They will get a professional DX. The D7000 is close but Nikon knows it can milk a bit more cash by adding fully pro features to it. It will be interesting to see the price comparison between a D400 and a D700. It might end up that buying a full frame is cheaper than a DX yet.

        • DR

          Yep! D4 is flagship. D800 to kind of compete with 5D, also for hires studio and outdoor shoots. D400 will be the D700 sucessor – not gripped body with FX inside. Nikon have already admitted to back off with pro DX. They will stick with the pattern: FX for pros, DX for consumers.

          • WoutK89

            “Nikon have already admitted to back off with pro DX.

            Link with your source please?

          • Rob Ueberfeldt

            What pattern?
            A bit of a dream, the fabled budget consumer FX Nikon which will be affordable to the masses like a Box Brownie, sorry isn’t going to happen.
            FX is Nikons flagship loss leader. IE it costs more to make than it does to sell. The D400 (DX) will benefit cost wise from sharing a chip that will be shared by at least two other cameras that will sell in large volumes, bringing the sensor cost down to the point where Nikon can make a buck. Even then cost wise Nikon make more from their coolpix per camera than any SLR.
            DX has cost, weight and lens advantages that will keep pros coming back.
            FX, at least from Nikon will always be a rich mans sport, they have no reason to undercut their FX lineup, if you can’t afford FX you’ll buy DX.

    • jonson

      so, the rumored d800 won’t be the replacement of the d700 – cause of the 34mp.
      the d4 is to expensive. what will be the high iso ‘lower budget’ cam for a d90-user, waiting to upgrade to FF.

      • WoutK89

        The D700? Or wait 1 year, and maybe the D800 will get a smaller brother with the D4 sensor.

        • nobody

          SonyAlphaRumors (which seem to be closely related to the Sony Imaging marketing department, IMO) are reporting two new Sony FX sensors for this year. One is supposed to have 36mp which seems to end up in the D800.

          The other one is expected to have 24mp. I would not be very much surprised to see it appear in a D7000 type body in 2013.

          Voilà, the D9000, Nikon’s entry level FX camera.

          Just my speculation :)

        • http://brandondoranphotography.com Brandon

          Jonson, I’m in the same boat as you, D90 owner who shoots a bit of everything, chomping at the bit for FX. D4 is too expensive for and if the D800 is as rumored, it doesn’t really fit my needs. It seems like we are left out for the time being. I’ve waited long enough and can’t imagine waiting another year. I’m hoping the cheaper D800 (without the AA filter) will be lower MP and faster FPS.

  • T.I.M

    So, the D800 WITHOUT the AA filter cost $900 MORE than the D800 WITH AA filter !
    LOL !
    I’ll buy hundreds of D800 with AA filters, take the filter out and sell them back for more money !
    Thank you Nikon, I’ll be rich soon……
    :)

    • Victor Hassleblood

      Only problem is: no one will see you. I still recall what T.I.M means.

    • Ant

      Good luck selling products with an invalidated warranty.

      • Rob

        You’d pay $700 for Nikon USA’s almost worthless 1 year warranty (assuming he charged you $200 to remove the filter)? You are not a wise consumer. People buy grey market to save like 5%, and this situation saves you almost 18%. Pretty much everyone would buy the one without the warranty.

        • Ren Kockwell

          I would.

    • Anonymus Maximus 1st

      conspiracy theory mode on:

      Because that would be a valid business model, they are already clamping down on repair shops.

      conspiracy theory mode off.

    • choop

      You can’t just take out the filter, you have to replace it withvery high quality clear glass. google maxmax and see the process

  • Zeb

    Re: Nikon AF Reflex Nikkor 800mm f/8 ED VR lens – AF only for use with the D4?

    • WoutK89

      I am wondering, but does the AF REFLEX mean it will be a mirror lens? If so, big disappointment from Nikon. I think mirror lenses are not of this age for a brand as Nikon.

      • Scurvy Hesh

        I’m glad Nikon doesn’t listen the the comments on here. Such limited perspectives sometimes. I really doubt this will be a reality but lets pretend like it is…How is it disappointing? Its likely not going to cost a whole lot and will suit the needs for many amateurs. And before you start going on about how crappy Catadioptric Lenses are let me remind you that the same people are buying F5.6 zooms and attaching 2X+ converters on them. Do you really think these people really care about absolute clarity? They want more “zoom’!

        • WoutK89

          I think it is more a disappoint as the people with money prefer to see a 800/5.6VR AF-s because Canon has a similar lens. I am not saying it is a bad thing, and dont take my comment as “NO ONE wants to see this lens”, I am just telling my opinion as I see it.

          But you are correct, seeing how many people are crying for a poor man’s D4, this lens could sell like hotcakes. And to add to that, only the D4 is possible to AF with f/8 lenses properly, so we should see a cheaper camera with the same soon or this cheap solution (AF with VR??) will be DOA.

          • WoutK89

            I just realized, this might be something to show off, the first REFLEX lens with VR.

            • nobody

              You can buy a Sony 500mm f8 reflex lens for less than 800 Euro and have VR with a Sony camera that has an IBIS system. Just saying :)

            • WoutK89

              But this VR is not in the lens… So Sony has many more lenses with VR if you want to play it like that.

      • http://www.zinchuk.ca Zinchuk

        I have a now-broken 600 mm f/8 Sigma lens. I am seriously considering repairing it, but if Nikon will be making a new version, I would rather save the $300 repair job on an old lens and buy a new lens with VR and AF. Having shot with something like this, WITH a 2x vivitar teleconverter, I can tell you VR is absolutely necessary for handheld. If you are shooting on a tripod, 600mm is pretty sweet, donuts and all.

        Since I am getting a D4 next month (got confirmation from NPS yesterday I am on the list) I actually would make use of such a lens. Consider this: with the DX crop enabled, you are shooting at the effective angular view of a 1200 mm lens. I can see plenty of applications for that, from “big moon” shots to lines of oilfield pumpjacks to baseball outfielders. If the autofocus was at all snappy, it would be a no-brainer, and an awful lot cheaper than a 200-400 f4. If you’ve got a 2x teleconverter on the 200-400, you’re at f8 anyhow, but with the additional, image-degrading teleconverter. Count me in.

        If you were a birder, this would be a cheap, optimal lens, by far the best focal length bang for your buck, assuming you already have a D4 of D800 that can focus at f8.

        It would be nice to see this on display when I’m at WPPI in Vegas two weeks before Photokina, but I doubt that would happen. Maybe with the D800 announcement?

  • Souvik

    Can someone please tell me what significance of the AA filter? thanks

    • T.I.M

      @Souvik
      AA filter it’s better if you shoot alot of zebras or brick walls.
      :o)

    • Ruben

      Google “moiré” or “moiree”
      It’s to avoid that thing. But it has the drawback of slightly reducing the image sharpness.

    • Ken Elliott

      This company offers a service where they remove the AA filter. Scroll to the bottom and check out the D200 shots made with and without the AA filter.

      http://www.maxmax.com/hot_rod_visible.htm

  • http://www.ilophoto.ca Nik

    I too am interested to learn more about the AA filter (without doing all the research myself! haha)
    Also OT, anyone else having trouble opening nikon.ca?

  • http://jimpattersonphotography.com Jim Patterson

    These guys charge $450 + S&H USD for removing the AA filter on a D700 (and other models). Might be worth asking them if they think they can do it on the D800.

    http://www.maxmax.com/

    • http://jimpattersonphotography.com Jim Patterson

      Btw, that site shows you some really nice examples of the pros and cons of removing the AA filter.

      • broxibear

        oops, sorry Jim your post didn’t show up when I posted the same link.

        • http://jimpattersonphotography.com Jim Patterson

          No problem! Minutes apart. :) And yes, as a landscape / nature photographer who uses mostly low ISOs on a tripod, 36MP and no AA filter certainly is intriguing. Just wish I could swap in a D4 sensor for those static star night images! If only! :)

      • http://www.russbarnes.co.uk RussB

        Thanks Jim – I’ve been waiting for someone to pipe up with some side by side comparisons. The decision’s now been made from my point of view – without it is!

      • http://nikonrumors Ed

        Would this AA filter option be considered for the D4 as well? OR not a possibility.

        • WoutK89

          I think you would have seen it at the announcement already. And I dont think it is that much effective at 16MP, it is in general for high resolution cameras.

          • http://nikonrumors Ed

            Thanks WoutK89

    • Anand

      Thanx….great site for what AA does. Now I want AA off my cameras too! :(

    • Dan

      You will be voiding your warranty.

      • ISP

        so what….

  • Mike

    Would there be any performance distinction between Nikon’s removal of the AA filter and a third party’s?

    • broxibear

      Hi Mike,
      I don’t see why there would…it would void your Nikon warranty though.

      • St.

        There could be some kind of tweaking in the camera – color rendering, focus, WB, etc. I believe it will be a better choice to get the AA filter removed by Nikon, than third parties (where it would probably cost about $150-$250).
        More, it won’t be just removed, it will be designed to be that way.

  • http://www.andershelgor.com anders helgor

    Thats it.. 900$ more expensive without AA filter..
    -I´ve always hoped for a 36mp without AA, AND a 16mp version with AA filter..
    -That would be the perfect explanation for the price difference.. AA filter alone should´t be that much expensive/cheaper.

    -it is of course the 16mp one i´m interested in;)

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

      Agree, see my post below.

  • Milos

    I simply love this year since we will get at least 4 dSLRs from Nikon :) D4, D800, D400 (or some other number maybe D9000 who knows) and D7100 and maybe even D3200. Awesome

    • WoutK89

      Cameras change, but lenses are forever (sort of, until the electronics break down :D )

      • WoutK89

        I have to add, I look more forward to the new lenses, but am also interested in the D400/D9000 and D7100 :)

  • d800

    Regardleess of exchange rate, usd3000, or at Max usd3500,
    Is the ceiling of what most pplai would be willing to pay

  • Dweeb

    Other than the MP count the D800 will only be a progressive camera embodying many of the features the D700 should have shipped with (dual slots 100% finder). We’ll all be obn the hook for new batteries and chargers even though Jap laws don’t apply to other continents, we’ll be forced to pay the price. And say goodbye to you D700 grip as well.

    And since NO ONE one the site has figured it out, a new lense will be announced with the D800. That’s been Nikon’s practice even if the lens and body are a mismatch in quality. It just won’t be a 300 F4 VRII though. They’l dick us around another 5 years on that. The 80-400 would be possible though.

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

    Hmm. So, besides the drawback of having possible moiré, what are the added advantages of AA filter-less? It definitely seems to add quite a bit of detail to the images, but also changes the colors/WB a bit. I’m sure, since the camera will be announced without one, the D800 will control the color/contrast/wb shift, though.

    So what does everyone else think? I mean, there’s been alot of talk about it not having a AA filter to begin with, but nothing about if anyone likes this or not..

    Mark

    • St.

      I think the one without AA filter will be designed to compensate the differences in WB, etc. That’s why you’ll pay for the extra tuning, instead of paying MaxMax to do that and then to have issues with the WB, also voiding the warranty. So depending on your style of shooting you can choose with or without AA.
      Anyone – thoughts on M9′s performance without the AA? I don’t think they have any problems with colors, etc. It’s the opposite.

    • Ken Elliott

      My experience has been that you only see moiré patterns on man-made objects. So shooters of architecture (brick patterns) and fashion (fabric patterns) want an AA filter. Landscape shooters usually don’t.

      I’m pretty happy with my D700′s but I want a D800 for landscape shots (large prints) and will choose the non-AA version. Usually moiré patterns have been painful to remove, but the LightRoom 4 beta has a moiré removal brush.

  • http://galleries.gorji.com/ Gorji

    I find interesting that the D3s and D700 are now available on Amazon and B&H. Has Nikon increased production or has production stayed the same but demand has fallen because of the new ones on the horizon.

    • broxibear

      Hi Gorji,
      I think it’s a backlog of stock that’s filtering through to various retailers…I’d be very surprised if Nikon are still making the D3 series and D700 bodies anymore.
      I noticed here in the UK that once the D4 was announced D3s stock went down across retailers, I think some saw the D3s as a better option for them…I think the same will happen with the D700 when the D800 is announced. For example a D3s with 24mm-70mm f/2.8G for cheaper than a D4 body makes far more sense if you don’t shooot video ?

  • Randy

    Nothing would put a bigger smile on my face than to see the D400 announced before the D800. I just don’t know where my entertainment will come from when the D800 is announced.

    • わからない

      If the D800 comes first, you can still get plenty of entertainment from people arguing that the D400 will be either DX or FX…… based solely on their own assumptions or desires.

  • T.I.M

    So, the D800 WITH AA filter is only about 24MP when the D800 WITHOUT AA filter is a real 36MP ?

    • http://www.russbarnes.co.uk RussB

      I love the concept of having “only” 24MP. Tell that to a D3X owner :)

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

    Yay, new Coolpix! Who cares about FX, LOL.

    US prices are likely to be 10% to 15% less than Japanese prices when Yen are converted to US dollars. They have been in the past and besides US prices do not include sales tax.

    If the body with the AA filter costs less than the one without an AA filter, it must have a significantly lower MP count because AA filters are expensive. My guess is this will be the sensor from the D4, but backed by a less exotic set of electronics. Perhaps a max ISO one EV lower, perhaps 1db more noise the rest of the way until the low ISO ranges are reached. Frame rates will be lower too. Video is not my thing, so I will not even guess on that one.

    I don’t think we will see a modified Sony 24mp FX sensor this time around, nor will there be a successor to the D300S. We are more likely to see a D8000 later, that is more like a fancied up D7000.

    • chris

      sounds to good to be true. lets hope, you are right

    • Anonymous

      Ron,

      I was about to say the same thing as you. Maybe we are both day dreaming, but I am really hoping that the different MP size sensor is what accounts for the cost difference.

      Thanks.

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

        Daydreaming, or possibly substance abuse. Expectation is I will keep my D700 for a while. I wouldn’t mind a 24mm lens of f/2 or f/1.8 for $500, with reasonable size and weight. That’s about it.

        • BartyL

          Mmm…substance abuse….Yaay!

    • わからない

      +1 to US prices being less than Japanese prices after exchange rate. Japanese big box retailers like Bic Camera had prices almost always above 115% of B&H/Adorama prices. Most egregious offender was the Nikon 70-300VR for ¥75,000 IIRC, or US $1000 for a lens whose B&H USA price is $590 and whose use/refurb ebay price is $300.

      That being said, $3000 is what the D700 debuted for IIRC, so such a price and then some accounting for inflation/exchange rate would not be out of line for the Nikon USA MSRP. I doubt anyone will offer significant discounts from this until at least 5-6 months after the D800′s introduction.

      And while the Japanese companies and retailers screw their home market price-wise, I did not get the impression that there were shortages, i.e. a D7000, x100 or other hot item was a lot more expensive at Bic, but Bic had them in November while all over the US there were IIRC for such things.

      • わからない

        errr… “there were shortages of such things.”. %€%€}^#^ing iPad keyboard….. ;)

  • JJBerea

    So, the man that constructs the AA filter for the Canon 5D and asks for 300 US must gives us money if we want to take his filter in a Canon 5D…

  • zep

    If there is really a $900 difference between the AA and non-AA versions then I suspect that there will be some slight differences in features as well. This makes sense as it would allow Nikon to fine tune these two models into two different market segments. I wouldn’t expect the features to be radically different though (ie difference sensors) as that would increase Nikon’s costs.

  • http://brandonburtner.com/ Brandon Burtner

    Admin, is there any word of Nikon making tweeks to their line-up? With the D800 nearly $4,000 and the D4 about $6,000 – Nikon now officially has no affordable FX camera. The D800 honestly seems more like a replacement of the D3x than the D700. Any news that we will see something along the lines of an FX D800, DX D400, and then maybe some FX D8000 (or any other number)? Once the D800 overtakes the D700, it just seems like price-wise and MP-wise we just won’t have an FX body that makes sense for folks like me.

    • http://vandaelefotografie.be glenn

      I think you represent a lot of people, I’m also looking for an affordable FX.
      But if you read the article and if its true we will be looking at a D800 with AA for like 3000$ that surely is much more affordable than the 4000$.
      Everything below 3500$ is a big plus for me (considering it actually is 36MP)

    • cosmic

      Correction: Nikon will not have any affordable NEW camera. Once the D800 comes out, you’ll be able to buy the D700 for 1700-1800 used. The D700 is a perfectly fine FF camera.

      • Rob

        D700 has been 1700-1800 used for like a year. It spiked after the tsunami, but unless you want to pay $300 more for it to have under 10k actuations, you can almost always find one in that price range. It was that price before the tsunami, and is now.

    • Ken Elliott

      > “Nikon now officially has no affordable FX camera.”

      Well, this is a RUMOR, so it is not official at all. We don’t know the price, and the rumored price with the AA filter is $3000 – not that much higher than the D700.

      Nikon could choose to continue producing the D700 (doubtful) or introduce a D700S (hopeful) with the D3s sensor as the entry level FX. The combination of a D800 and D700s would be troublesome for Canon. Call it a D400 with a < $2000 price tag and you'd have a best seller.

      Or maybe I'm wrong again…

      • http://AdairCreativeGroup.com Ron Adair

        “the rumored price with the AA filter is $3000 – not that much higher than the D700.”

        5¢ more to be exact.

  • http://frisianphotography.wordpress.com FrisianPhotography

    To those complaining about a (potential) higher price of the model without the AA filter:

    Don’t forget that a large portion (if not most) of the progress in camera performance (of the current generation) of models is made by improving software, not hardware. So even if cameras look very similar in hardware, they are not necessarily priced evenly – the development of software has to be paid for just as much as hardware.

    I could imagine that the removal of the AA filter is accompanied by additional software that deals with issues arising from this (e.g. moiree might still be an issue at 36mp).

    Either way, let’s first see what will actually be announced – I’m sure Nikon marketing will tell us exactly why we pay xk$ for their new products ;). After that we can decide if there is still reason to complain.

  • JLM

    Someone please educate me. First, what does the AA filter do, why is it there. Second, what would be the benefit to the images without the filter, would it affect the stills and the video the same.

    • http://www.seanmolin.com Sean Molin

      There are several comments above that address your question.

      • toad

        Yes, there are. And they all seem sort of one-sided. If the AA filter is such a bad idea for most people why is it standard? This makes no sense.

  • Ken N.

    D400

    -16.2 megapixel
    -51-point AF
    -3.2″ LCD with improved aspect ratio
    -EXPEED 3 processing
    -10fps with “near” never-ending buffer
    -bulit-in battery grip
    -Full HD D-Movie 1080p 30/24fps 720p 60/30/24fps movie crop mode 640×480 100/80/60/24fps
    -iso 100-6400 expandable to 25600

    • Bob The Builder

      Mostly correct. The senor is from Nikon and has low light capabilities approaching the D700. I expect this senor will also be used in the D7100 when it is released

  • Megapixelized

    D7000 replacement, D400 and new quality lens with affordable prices.

    • enesunkie

      Make that quality DX lenses.

  • longzoom

    My old D3x is already killed most of my lenses. So I am not able to understand – 36 MP without AA filter? What lens on the Earth one gonna use on such the sensor? Today?

  • Joe

    Thom Hogan reported that there’d be surprises from Nikon in Feb. He said there’d be something beyond D800 and Coolpix.

    Anybody has a clue of what that could be?

    • sgts

      it will be a special appearance by blues traveller

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

      I do not expect any surprises – maybe he considers one of the lenses as a surprise? Not sure what’s the purpose of such statement – you either say what’s coming or you don’t.

      • Ken Elliott

        If they announce a AF Reflex Nikkor 800mm, the surprise might be the on-board OOF donut correction that nobody knew about.

        As an old guy, I remember when all zooms were crap. Reflex lenses still are, so maybe Nikon has some creative tricks in store.

      • Rob

        It wouldn’t be a surprise if he knew what it was. That’s what the word means.

        • WoutK89

          Haha, he is just “covering his behind” to say, see there was a surprise I told you all about, and NikonRumors didnt know :D (just like psychic tellers)

  • Trevbot

    Maybe the AA-less and AA versions will have diff MP counts and one will be D800x and other D800/S

  • Ralph

    I had my D700 done for $550 (after the freight) and its brilliant. Nikon better put more in the AA free version than just leaving out the filter else I will just be getting it done by the same people.

    As Nikon Australia are so convinced of their own self importance that they want 30% more for a camera here than in the US, I will be importing mine as a grey unit anyway. So warranty means nothing. I’ve never returned anything to Nikon under warranty.

    • Rob Ueberfeldt

      So the price for a D700 is NZ$3360 and NZ$10,150 for a D3x (best price I could quickly find for a non grey market Nikon in NZ). How much for those in Aus?

  • St.

    I found this site:
    http://diglloyd.com and today’s article is Nikon’s D800 without AA filter:
    http://diglloyd.com/blog/2011/20111219_1-NIkon36.html
    There is an older article, where the author shows Nikon D700 images, with and without anti-aliasing filter:
    http://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/20120112_3-FujiXPro1-sensor.html

  • RailDog

    Once again, it seems like [NR] folks care only about the bodies. Affordable lenses (even 2 to 4k) with some reach would make folks who are on the Canon fence stay with Nikon.

    I’ve been a Nikon user for 25+ years and I think they are tailoring to the elite and wealthy. :-( Both I am not.

    • Chris

      I totally agree. Nikon’s lens prices are ridiculous. They’re leaving a massive “prosumer” market with no options… we don’t want crappy kit zooms, but we can’t afford their “gold ring” glass either. Canon has it right with lenses like their 70-200mm f/4 IS, and all-around cheaper lens prices. Is Nikon glass better quality? Sure. That doesn’t matter if I can never afford it though.

      I personally won’t switch from Nikon just because I hated Canon’s AF, and always found it to be wildly inconsistent, and their current crop sensor cams have waaaaay too much shadow noise even at base iso. However, it really does suck seeing Canon’s 24-70mm L, 17-55mm IS, 70-200mm f/4, 85mm f/1.8, and other goodies go for $200-$600 less than the Nikon equivalent. That’s not even mentioning all the sales Canon regularly has.

      Nikon’s going to price itself out of an entire market if they keep it up like this.

  • http://www.seandackermann.com Sean Dackermann

    If you’ve kept tabs on the release of the New Fuji X1Pro camera and it’s removal of an AA filter, you’ll see the benefits of having it removed and why it costs more. Check out the posts on the explanation of the new system and you’ll find all the right answers.

    • Earl

      Why don’t you just give it to us the brief?

  • califano

    at the cp sony is going to buy nikon so we must trow away all nikkor lenses

    • chris

      if it is like that, the nikon stuff going to be prohibitively expensive :)

      btw, sony, isn´t that the company that put more things between sensor and lens instead of less

  • AM

    This is dumb. AA should be able to be disabled in the menu.

    • cosmic

      AA filters are hardware filters, not software. The only way to remove them is physically.

      • AM

        Hardware is run by software. There should be a way to disable it. We have the technology.

        • Ken Elliott

          I’m laughing so hard, I can’t come up with a witty remark.

          • BartyL

            It’s pretty funny.

        • Anonymous Maximus

          Ok, than let’s make a 12mp sensor 36mp just by software :)

          • GeoffK

            They have that dont they ? upressing software

  • Earl

    I think it will be the D800 without the AA filter for $3,900 USD, and then the D700s for $3,000 USD.
    Thus, the $900 showed its value.

  • kevin pan

    AA filter removed – 36mp d800
    AA filter stays on – 16mp d800

    maybe thats would justify the price difference!

    • http://www.seanmolin.com Sean Molin

      Negative, Ghost Rider. That doesn’t make any sense.

      “Let’s increase the resolution on the already-higher-resolution version… but soften the lower one.”

      Besides, the price difference between 16mp and 36mp would be more than $900.

      • nobody

        Actually exactly this is the case. The higher the mp number the less need there is for an AA filter.

  • Nikonsniper

    Does anyone know if Nikon is going to have a new Battery Grip for the D800 or will it take the D300/700 one?

    • WoutK89

      new grip, 100% sure.

  • EBLIS

    It’s like for the customized Leica Mp or M7, or à la carte if you prefer French, when you remove serial options, you pay more. As in the car industry, you remove things that are build for the mass, you pay more.

  • Danyyyel

    I find no one talks about the $ 3000 price. If it is true, I will be first in the line.

    • chris

      So am I :)

    • feAnk

      I will have to see the comparison first before I decide, maybe the AA filter remove doesn’t match up the expectation.

  • UncleDusty

    Perhaps the AA filterless version will have an Ostrich Leather exterior. Nikon Pro lenses are expensive? Really?

    • http://www.zinchuk.ca Zinchuk

      14 years ago I did a news story on an ostrich farmer in Rosetown, Saskatchewan, Canada. A partner in the business is currently the federal agriculture minister for all of Canada.

      It went belly up, I understand.

      But I got a really great front page photo. It was a portfolio shot. Barbecuing ostrich neck, however, was a total failure. Next to impossible to do, I found. Looked like you were eating the private parts of a bull elephant, and just as inedible.

      Here’s a recent media reference:

      This afternoon in animal references

      By Aaron Wherry – Tuesday, October 25, 2011 at 8:45 PM – 1 Comment

      Picking up where the House left off last Wednesday, Gerry Ritz suggested this afternoon, in response to a question from the NDP MP, that Pat Martin had a “lingering case of beaver fever.”

      Mr. Martin then suggested that Mr. Ritz probably didn’t know much about beaver fever because he was a “failed ostrich jockey.”

      Mr. Ritz then observed that farming ostrich allowed him “the opportunity to get used to working with lesser life forms” much like he sees “sometimes on the floor of the House of Commons.”

      The Speaker deemed all of this “unhelpful.”

      Zinchuk

  • http://ckbren.com CKbren

    People were already sold on a $4000 d800 but now that they find out it **might** be $1k cheaper, they are upset that the filterless version will be a bit more expensive.

    If this is true, it is still better than the previous reports we were getting, a $4k D800 and a special ordered filterless version for more than that.

  • J0rge

    I just found a good explanation of the AA filter removal advantages on the Fuji x-pro 1.here:
    http://www.dpreview.com/previews/fujifilmxpro1/page3.asp
    Humm… but the D3x has the AA filter and its resolution is amazing, right? Now the D800 with the AA filter will have at least the same image quality as the D3x and probably better because of the extra mp count. If all this is correct I’m not sure that it makes sense to pay $900 more to have the AA filterless version. Hopefully Nikon will come out with a good explanation so we can make a better decision.

  • ukj

    What ever happened to the rumour of the 16-85mm f4 lens? is this thing just dead in the water.

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

      this lens will be released, I just don’t know when

    • Anonymous Maximus

      I wish it is an FX lens. 16-85mm FX. Wow!

    • WoutK89

      Clicking links in Admins post would have helped you:

      “It will be a bonus if any of the lenses mentioned in this post [used to be a link, scroll up to see it] gets introduced next month.”

      *clicked link and sees*

      “A refresh of the 16-85mm lens (it may even have a fixed f/4 aperture)”

      Is what is still expected.

  • per

    Regarding the filter: It is a question of price discrimination. There are two groups of people: those who want the filter and those who don’t . Production costs for the camera with or without the filter is more or less the same, so the price policy will be determined by how the willingness to pay differs between the two groups. Since Nikon has determined that those who do not want the filter have a greater willingness to pay for the camera it will cost to have the filter “removed”. By contrast, If those who want the filter would have had a greater willingness to pay, the pricing model would have been: “Camera without the filter $3000 and camera with filter “added” $3900.”

    • feAnk

      Thanks to the poker players in the room, we need to pay for higher price now…..

      • per

        Actually I think this is a clever move by Nikon. By “removing” the filter they present the successor camera to the D3X and accordingly priced. By “keeping” the filter they have the successor of the D700. Two cameras in one!

        • Andrew

          No, I don’t agree. The D800 can never succeed the D700. The people who bought the D700 want high ISO, not high Mega Pixel.

    • EnPassant

      For general photography and especially video the standard D800 with the AA-filter is really the best option. With 36 MP most images will be downsized anyway and look very sharp. No AA-filter mostly make sense for still photography that will be used for very big enlargements and other critical applications. By pricing the special, non-AA-filter camera much higher Nikon actually help ordinary amateurs making the correct choice while they at the same time make some extra cash from pro’s and advanced amateurs.

      • Danyyyel

        How can people say a 36 megapixel camera in a d700 body with the latest Af is an amateur camera. This camera will be superior for high resolution than the almighty 24 megapixel $ 8000 d3x full frame champion. WTF

        • EnPassant

          I never said D800 is an amateur camera! But amateurs with enough money will buy it just as they already bought D3 and D3x, not to speak of Leica M9 and Noctilux… I guess we will soon read how owners of the D800 without AA-filter complain about moiré!

    • Andrew

      Per, I agree…

      I think Nikon knows that if the filter is removed and the camera is priced at $3,000, no one will want to pay $3,900 for the camera with the filter on. Isn’t a sharper image more alluring?

  • the visible man

    wheres the 135 replacement?!

  • neversink

    I have no choice…
    My D700 has 300,000 plus shots on it.
    My D7000, not even a year old has 100,000 shots (and yes, I use it for pro work and for fun….)
    Just sold my D3s for a reasonable price. It had 250,000 shots on it. It will be paying, in part for my new D4 that I have on pre order.
    I will also purchase a D800, probably without AA filter…
    I am thinking of getting rid of AA filter on D700…. not sure…
    I am even going to get the nikon v1 for the versatility… I am sure I will use that little bugger on assignment also… However, I want to get the housing for it and just take it kayaking and diving with me…..
    Will be selling my 150 -500 sigma… POS lens (good optics, crappy electronics) and replace my old manual Nikon 600 mm with a Nikon f4 – 500 mm (it weighs so much less than the 600m) and with tele convertors I have the reach with excellent optics…

    Then there are new printers (thank goodness I have recently updated most of my computer equipment, though I need to find out more about thunderbolt drives…) What idiot said digital was cheaper than film….

    I MISS FILM…. It was easier… No moire issues, no AA filter debate, no software to deal with. And film was a lot more relaxing, and allowed breathing room between the shoot and the final product being delivered to the client. The instant gratification of digital is great, but it makes clients impatient.

    • http://nikonrumors Ed

      Quick question for ya. Why a D4 and a D800? Is there something the D4 can’t do that the D800 can? I can only get 1. Which would you suggest. Thanks for your input.

      • neversink

        If yo can only afford one, I would probably wait for the D800 to come out… read the reviews and save the extra money for glass. I need these cameras because they are my b&b bread and butter)….

        • DG

          I need back up when I am in Kenya or the Arctic… i can’t afford to have a body go down. so I travel with three bodies. And sometimes I shoot with two ready. A different lens on each. I have been using the DX D7000 as a backup lately and find myself picking it up more and more. I love it.

          Yes the cameras are different… but as long as I can get the photo with any of them they are all good. They definitely have different niches.

          When I was shooting film, not only did I travel with two or three slr bodies , I often had a Leica M6 with me, a Mamiya 7 ii, sometime a Hassie or a RZ Pro….

          So… In some way though i bitch about the loss of film, it has freed me up. I have no interest in medium format digital. I still shoot medium format with film.

          • Dr Motmot

            DG – have you had any issue with skin tones on the D7000? Skin tones on mine have a pinkish hue, especially if overexposed. I have tried shooting on vivid, portrait and landscape picture settings but still the same problem.

            • DG

              I thought that on the D7000 I was getting a slightly greenish hue, in some shadow areas, but these were only on really high iso’s; and then I realized they were reflections off of grass or leaves .

              First thing I would do, I would take some raw + jpeg photos and then compare them on the computer screen, preferably a monitor that has been calibrated, but you will see the differences right away.

              I have heard some people having hue problems on some D7000 bodies. Have you tried resetting the default settings?

              Not sure if the newest firmware solves it or your camera needs its sensor to be checked…. Unfortunately, not seeing your images, I can’t tell you what is wrong. However, I am suspecting that you might have to send it in if there is no difference between the raw and jpeg images. Hope your warranty is still good…. Let me know what happens here. I will check the follow-up comments….

              Good luck!

            • Dr Motmot

              DG – thanks for that, I usually shoot in RAW + low res jpg but my computer really doesn’t like the RAW files from the D7000, especially my old Nikon View which crashes when it sees one, so I have switched to high res jpg until I get my head around Lightroom (I can’t get on with the NX software that came with the camera). I installed the latest firmware update but no difference. I will take some test shots and compare.

  • http://www.bobcooleyphoto.com bob cooley

    They won’t release the D800 so soon after the D4. That doesn’t fit with their traditional product release cycle.

    expect a 4-6 mo wait.

    • BenS

      The D800 with 36 mp is a diff monster compared to the D4 and thus serve a diff type of user.

      I dont see it clashing with D4 sales. I also dont see it as a replacement for the d700 either, it is not a junior d4.

      I think its a win-win situation if Nikon released it soon.

      Just my opinion though :)

  • Earl

    Canonrumor said the new 5D mark III will have the eye control focus system like they had on the EOS3.

    That was an awsome focusing system, we will see how it would stack up with Nikon’s 51 point matrix focus system.

    • QQMoar

      Imagine you look at the focus point, then you recompose and look around in the view finder…oops you just lost your focus

  • http://www.alldigi.com/ Geoff

    If the new camera does not have an AA filter then it will need some other cover or filter over the Sensor.
    In respect to the additional cost without the filter, don’t we all want more money for less work.

    • http://nikonrumors Ed

      Forgive me for asking but……On the AA filter options, Would we consider this on the D4 as well? I’m just not understanding which camera we would or would not want this on. Please advise. P.S sorry if this posted twice.

      • http://nikonrumors O)=

        ………..

  • Back to top