< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Poll: Nikon D800 with 36MP or with 16MP sensor?

Nikon D800 36.3MP CMOS sensor

Nikon D800 36.3MP CMOS sensor

Nikon D800 sensor unit

Nikon D800 sensor unit

Just a quick poll: do you prefer the Nikon D800 the way it is, with a 36.3MP sensor, or you would rather have the D800 with the 16.2MP sensor from the Nikon D4?

This entry was posted in Nikon D4, Nikon D800 and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • http://protanoptic.com Daniel Hoherd

    All I want is good low light performance. I don’t care about the built in grip, the wifi attachment, or any of those other pro features. I just want an inexpensive incredibly great low-light performer. Since I can’t get it, I have to buy the D4 which has a bunch of features I don’t need and the cost to go with it.

    Please please please, Nikon, put the D4 sensor into a cheaper camera. Or even the D3s sensor, for that matter.

    • asdf

      The D3s has absolute fantastic low light performance. When the D4 starts shipping, look for people dumping their D3s. I picked one up for less than half price. You should be able to buy 2 D3s cameras for the price of one D4. If you do not do video, the D3s is starting to become quite a bargain.

    • ter

      Noth’n wrong with the D700. I use it for theatre and Ballet photography. The D800, 36mg will be great for landscapes and architecture.

  • Shannon

    The next one?

    Specs

    ■22mp
    ■61pt AF
    ■100% VF
    ■3.2″ LCD
    ■Dual CF/SD Card Slots
    ■Price: Around $3500 USD
    ■Announcement on February 27 or 28, 2012 ….

    …. nice hmmm?

    sorry it’s a CANON ahahah.

    • hq

      It’s funny. People start talking about the next camera as soon the first one is announced.

    • rs

      you forgot feels like a brick

      • dimalozz

        +10 And this brick is so slooow…

    • http://www.modelmayhem.com/370954 Rich

      Feels like a brick? At least a brick feels solid. Canon, not so much!

  • michele

    To be honest i’d like 24 MP….

  • http://brandonburtner.com/ Brandon Burtner

    I don’t have a use for a 36MP body, so for me, a 16.2 would be better. I will not be buying a D800 due to the MP count. That being said – I recognize that there is a need for a high MP low FPS body for certain customer segments, but I wish Nikon had released a D800 and D800x – one low MP high FPS and then the one they just released. Hopefully the D400 has some great low light performance…

  • http://Nikonrumors.com Joel

    Personally, I think the biggest issue with this camera is the fact that it has to completely motionless in order to insure the results are clear – not blurry. The technical guide Nikon issued suggests that liveview (mirror moves prior to taking the shot) be used because if you use the camera conventionally, the act of the mirror moving out of the way to capture the picture may cause the image to be blurry. To me that makes the camera unusable.

    • Dormant

      It’s all about technique and getting used to the camera and thinking about the image. Digital cameras have made it too easy to just snap lots of shots and hope for a good one.

      I am still embarrassed to say I once wasted a lot of shots – taken under difficult circumstances, I should add – after forgetting I’d switched my lens to MF.

    • ovas

      Joel:
      tru, I have the same issue with my D700, no sharp picktures from 60-250 /sek, even with stabilizer. So need tripod, instead I use A900 from SONY.

      • rs

        I don’t have problems with this and often shoot hand held 70-200mm vr down to 1/60 sometimes less.

        • Viktor

          There were only one time when i made a shot with 70-200 (sigma without vr) handheld at shutter speed 1\30. That was absolutly random and make me feel like HULK)

    • Michael

      Why do everyone think that higher megapixels means higher diffraction or higher motion blur? The same diffraction and motion blur is there no matter how high the megapixel is, just that it’s more visible because of its higher resolution, if you resample it to a lower resolution/printed at a higher DPI, wouldn’t it mean that the diffraction/motion blur would be hidden?

      • Dchino

        Then why buy the higher more expensive MP camera if you have to downsize most of your images?

        • Michael

          Because when motion blur and diffraction is not strong, you don’t need to hide them. That’s where the higher MP is used. You don’t need to compensate your current technique just to make a picture sharper. And there is no bad trying to downsize, you’ll get back the low light ability anyway.

    • hoxton fives

      that is, when the shutter is open for a second or so.

    • jake

      Unusable?!?!?! Hilarious!

      Use photographic lighting or proper shutter speeds.

      • jodjac

        So many assumptions, so little time. I cannot believe how many comments to the effect – this D800 is unusable, OMG! Please, put that thing in my hands and let me show you how it’s done. When people see the IQ, they will be surprised. This camera may put the “magic” back in photography.
        Hey, the number one thing you can do to improve your pictures is use a tripod, no matter what you are shooting.
        I mean, how do people ever manage to take sharp photos with the D7000? Don’t they have similar pixel densities and pitch? Is there some disadvantage to FX that I’m missing?
        I’d venture to say that someone from the other side has successfully planted a seed of doubt regarding Nikon’s new camera. I think we can make do with ISO 6400! I also think this camera will outperform the D700 in terms of IQ, ISO, metering and a bug plus, it does video.
        Stop com

    • Justin Stone

      There is no such thing as a camera that does everything. I intend to use this camera as my landscape and portrait camera. I use m43 for travel and day to day due to its weight/IQ ratio. If I have to use my tripod more, then great, I should be using it anyway for much more deliberate compositions and sharper images.

    • Anonymous Maximus

      Unusable?

      Nikon is warning about motion blur, and giving some advice to avoid. It’s up to you whether using mirror-up. You may double your conventional shutter speed instead if you don’t like it, or use a VR lens, fast lens, or tripod/monopod, etc.

      • Anonymous Maximus

        Sure D800 won’t cause any extra motion blur (bzzz, vibrating parts in the body :) ), but it will be more noticeable.

        With slightest blur, it will be rendered into a D700-equivalent image. A little more, then D70…

    • Zeke

      Pixel-level blur from motion of the camera/cameraman using a D800 with a 50mm lens is the same as a D700 with an 85mm lens.

      We don’t shudder at the thought of using 85mm lenses (without VR, no less) on our D700s.

      • Recent Convert

        Excellent analogy – and mathematically correct, too! (Wherever there were 50 sensor points side by side on a D700, there are now 85 sensor points on a D800)

      • Don

        I thought of something that show you how flawed yor thinking is, no, stupid…sorry. IF what you are saying about the 800 creating blurry photos is true, why not just buy a 1mp camera, then all of your shots would be tack sharp. Right?

        • http://www.amanochocolate.com Art

          Not really. You still have lots of room for error. Probably the only practical sensor that would work would be a 1px camera. Motion blur is at that point irrelevant. (Don’t think it useful? You’d at least be able to tell what color you were looking at on a given day. There could be times it would be useful. In addition, low light sensitivity would be through the roof though at that point, a photo multiplier would be much more useful for b&w.)

    • Don

      Why do people keep thinking this. That’s like saying if I only have a ruler that measures to the nearest cm, my cuts are accurate, but when I get a ruler that measures to the nearest mm, my cuts are now lest accurate. The fact that yoyr old 12mp camera could only differenciat to the nearest cm didn’t make your shots any sharper. Why is this so difficult for people to understand?

      • jodjac

        Don, that is a brilliant analogy. It looks like Nikon’s new tool may out resolve many people’s way of thinking. The tool is ahead of the curve. Hats off to Nikon for being bold enough to make a leap that so many are (apparently) not prepared for.
        It’s the camera you gotta have, but you just don’t know it yet.

  • Hoxton Fives

    It is obvious that Nikon will be doing another camera more like the D700 maybe a year or so from now – a cheap D4. With the D800, they are serving a different market niche (in fact they are creating a new one – a “cheap D3x” so to say); they don’t want to put in danger their D4 sales yet. However, the new Canon 5D Mark III will force them to react sooner than later. Unfortunately, I think that I cannot wait anymore so will just get a D700 body now. And 14-24. and 85 1.4. If you can wait another year, I bet that Nikon will offer a D800s.

    • 700Geek

      I just put a 14-24 on my d700. Very nice results, I can only encourage you to go thir route

    • Ralph

      The 14-24 is a superb lens. The only real issue is the lack of filters, although there are some convoluted systems available now. I’m buying the 16-35f4 when my D800 arrives and if that performs I will sell the 14-24. While a superb lens, lack of easy filtering is a real pain, and its damn heavy.

  • hobbyfotographer

    If Nikon does not move, I hope the Canon 5DMk III will be the D700s that I´m waiting for.

    • ter

      Then get a D700, there are still some around…

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

        I use D700 3 years.
        But now I need video and two memory slots.
        And it must be only Nikon! (but not D4)

        • Anonymous Maximus

          How about the D7000 if you are on budget. Or waiting for 24mp DX D400.

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

            Now I use two cameras: D700 & D7000
            ( D7000 for video and D700 for photo)
            But I need one good FF camera with high ISO, video, two memory cards and normal megapixels.

    • http://www.triophotographic.com Dasbose

      While the rumored 5D mkIII/X spec’s are what I was hoping for, I’m just too invested in some fine Nikon lenses, flashes, etc to jump change brands. I’m sure I could do it, I just don’t think the payoff is worth the effort. The D700 will still be a relevant, productive tool for pros for a few more years to come.

      I’m content to wait to see what Nikon does over the next year or so. In the meantime, I’ve decided to spend that $2999.00 on other Nikon gear: a 35mm 1.4g, and 85mm 1.4g.

      • outkasted

        Ive come to same conclusion and have decided to invest in the same lenses or better yet get a limited edition box set shown here on Nikon rumors sometime ago.

  • http://www.cliqq.co.uk Olly

    As a Hasselblad studio we’re seriously considering changing over to the D800. It’s only a few megapixels less than our H3D39s and the lenses are soooo much cheaper.

    This really is the perfect studio camera, and we can use it for lifestyle pieces on location without any worries. Really quite excited about this release.

    • Mike

      Olly, there is a reason why the Hassy lenses are more expensive – they are much better glass. You are not going to get anywhere near hassy performance from Nikon glass. It’s not that its bad, its as good as any other SLR. Its just not MF glass. Personally I use a D3x with Zeiss glass, from Zeiss and from MF lenses with Nikon mount – Hartblei.de It will also be interesting to see how good the manufacturing tolerances are on the D800. Hassy’s have the back and body aligned. Leica spend a lot of effort on great manufacturing tolerances. I suspect we might be beyond Nikon’s ability with D800 but we will see. @ 36Mp a few microns of alignment matters. If you are giving up Hassy’s for D800 Studio work and you really care about quality then you are going to be disappointed. I am a big Nikon fan but if I was doing Studio work I would use MF. Mike

      • Landscape Photo

        My lower left corner from D700 tend to be softer than the others when focussed by the central point at infinity.

        I first blamed the lenses, but it couldn’t be explained solely by chance after trying several optics. Stopping down will cope for it quite a lot along with any lens aberrations.

        Yes, even on a D700, slightest misalignment of sensor, or the flange… Guess what happens on D800. To see the full benefit of 36mp pixel count, everything must be optically & mechanically perfect . Sharpest optics at optimum aperture, good stabilization, perfect focus, etc… Or it can still better the D700, but not up to full potential of what the sensor may deliver.

      • GrumpyDiver

        With Hassy (and other medium format cameras), people tend to shoot with primes. whereas on DSLRs people will usually shoot zoom lenses. A well built prime will totally smoke a zoom. In fact this is even true for the primes that Nikon and Canon put out. Frankly, that is Leica’s and Zeiss’s dirty little secret; they really specialize in primes. I don’t think Leica has ever built a commercial zoom; instead they either offered third party lenses (Angenieux) or rebadged Japanese lenses (my 80 – 200mm Elmar-R is a Minolta lens that passed Leica QC). Of course, I’m not talking about the Panasonic or Sony built lenses badged as Leica or Zeiss. Then of course, there are the manufacturing tolerances; I seem to remember being told that Leica’s manufacturing tolerance were 1/4 wavelength while Nikon, etc only polished to a tolerance of 1 wavelength.

        The other thing to remember is that you can actually get away with a less sharp lens on medium format, and still get a better picture than on a full frame DSLR simply because the native image is larger and you don’t have to enlarge to the same extent as with a crop or full-frame sensor to get the same size output. Of course these medium format lenses are more expensive; first of all they have to have a larger image circle, so this glass is physically larger than the equivalent DSLR lens, lower production quantities result in higher prices as the manufacturers are hand-building these lenses on optical benches, rather than mass producing them on assembly lines and of course being “pro quality” will drive up the price as well.

    • http://www.triophotographic.com Dasbose

      @Olly

      I’d be very, very interested in hearing your thoughts on the D800 as compared to your Hasselblads – if your studio decides to go that way. I’ve dreamed of getting an “entry-level” h4d-31 or Mamiya 645afd kit for a long time now. Not for the increased mega pixels, but simply for that hyped “MF” look. Perhaps I could use it to break into other photographic verticals…or not…

      At any rate, I’m sure others would love to see a head to head comparison, too. Would you go for the “e” version since – if I am correct – MF cameras lack a AA, too?

  • David Gautreaux

    What I think is most interesting here, coming from the scientific community, is that advances in any technology are always going to have pros and cons as well as a period of time for people to get use to it. Having more MP is a good thing to some but not needed by others, that’s the real truth here. If needed than use that technology, if not than don’t buy it. Innovation is a continual process and ever evolving, with out advances in new technology we will never see 36 MP at 64000 ISO at 10Fps. This is just an example but 10 years ago would we have ever imagined 16mp images at 12800 shooting at 10fps that look amazing, I think not.

  • Nick

    I love the 36Mpx of the D800 pictures and do not think there will be any issue of motion blur for pictures at reasonable shutter speeds but I really can not afford to spend over 3,5k€ in it.

    Any “cheap” Fx body (below 1,5k€) with over 16Mpx will be my choice in the next couple of years. But may be they believe that the profit is in the top cameras and mid level is not worth the effort…

    May be in three years I will have saved enough to get a second hand d800… when ther release the d900…

  • iamnomad

    Wow, it never ceases to amazing me how many people simply can’t be satisfied!

    If Nikon announced tomorrow that the D800 would be offered in a variety of interchangeable sensor sizes: 12 MP, 18 MP, 24 MP, 28 MP, 32 MP, 36 MP, people would complain that they wanted 19.8 MP or 25.3 MP instead. I’m guessing that most of these complainers are really not shooters at all (nor do they ever use Photoshop), they are simply crazy techies who only care about comparing written specifications, bad-mouthing other camera companies, arguing about the frames per second they “need”, the zillion ISO they “need” and will always be itching for the newest, coolest stuff to buy and not use, complain about the price and never make any actual photographs, save for few sunset shots.

  • Michael

    It’s amazing how megapixels increase by 10 times in 10 years and ISO performance increased 10 times in 10 years too. Color depth also increased by 5 times in 10 years and dynamic range increased by 5 times in10 years. Not to say FPS and everything else.

  • Marc

    I just wish the D800 had the Canon 5D’s Small Raw Modes. Raw is my workflow and 36MP is nice to have when you need it but it’s a killer to shoot an event or something else that doesn’t need the resolution in 36MP Raw!

    • Dan

      I totally agree. There are ways to reduce MP with the D800 (crop & DX modes), but they involve compromises I’d rather not deal with.

    • Tom

      Canon’s sRAW is not a true raw file, it’s more like 16bit TIFF. To allow resampling the RAW file has to be demosaiced, which makes it a non-RAW file.

      • CaryTheLabelGuy [NR]

        Exactly, Canon’s sRAW is not really a true RAW file. Canon should be ashamed of even calling it a RAW.

  • http://mattprattphotography.com Matt

    I would have liked a baby D4.

    • Jake

      And I am sure Nikon wants to kill their D4 sales too……..

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

        You know D700 not killed a sales of D3 in 2008.
        So Nikon can produce 16Mp D700s a few mounth after D4
        like it was with D3 and D700 in 2008.

  • David

    So funny that every person routinely shoots at iso6400+

    Personally I’d rather have more dynamic range and better colours.

    Digital cameras still SUCK with dynamic range. Why do I have to blow out the sky when i correctly expose skin? Or why do I have all the wall lights blown out when you correctly expose an indoors shot? My eyes don’t have a problem, yet even the most expensive camera is terrible.

    ISO isn’t the only measure of image quality.

    • Tom

      Guess what, good high iso performance goes hand in hand with wide DR. If sensor has a low read noise and the ISO amplifier and ADC are good enough, the DR will be good.

  • http://Nikonrumors.com Joel

    I certainly agree the advancement in techonology is important. Certainly, nothing is perfect and perhaps Nikon’s target market are those who do studio work – I don’t know. I’m sure there will be future offerings more suitable for multi-purpose use, however, for a variety of reasons (the financial crisis, natural disasters, etc) delayed the release of an upgraded DSLR for so long, that those wanting or in need of new Full Frame Camera, with upgraded technology, will voice disappointment if the camera doesn’t work for them. Sounds like Canon will take a different approach – we will see- offering a more usuable, multi-purpose offering now, and higher resolution option later in the year.

    Nick, perhaps you are correct, however, between the technical bulletin, and one pro, who tested the camera, saying he experienced the problem I am concerned that it’s not a minor issue.

  • T.I.M

    Peter, what a poll….

    What about this one:
    “do you prefer the D800 with 4 frames/seconds or 10 frames/seconds ?”

    D4 and D800 are totally differents cameras that can’t be compared, if someone does not like the D800′s 36mp sensor, there is plenty D700 for sale on Ebay.

  • His

    I am surprised there are quite few who prefer 36Mp to 16Mp!!!
    I am amateur so this D800 if i get it will be the only camera i own, and for that this is too specialised…

    Pros who needs this for specific purpose would have voted for 36Mp sensor
    People who were waiting for D700s(just needed a video) would have voted for 16Mp sensor

    I think thats about right?

    • http://www.triophotographic.com Dasbose

      I’m one of the ones who voted for 36mp. I am also breaking out into shooting full time this year. I’m Not a “pro” yet, but I am ramping up to be one.

      But your observations are correct. at least in my case. I will use this for a very specific purpose – portrait shoots on location during the day, and with controlled lighting thrown into the mix if the lighting isn’t quite cooperating. Also for studio use where I control the lights.

      Where lighting is poor and I cannot use flash or strobes, or I need FPS, I’ll use my D700 with grip.

      If i was only shooting for the pure enjoyment of the artform, I don’t think the D800 would be for me.

  • XAB

    16MP + one (or even two) more ISO steps would’ve been better in my opinion. 36 is focused for big poster markets.

  • Englishfil

    So correct me if I am wrong – the D800 is one full stop slower than D4 on its ‘official’ ISO scale (ignore the HI settings they are always noisy). It will run a 6 fps in DX mode if you use the correct power option. It may show smear (motion blur) at pixel level at shutter speeds faster (sic) than the reciprocal of the focal length if handheld with poor technique; something only likely to be an issue in ‘emergency’ crop situations where you needed a 500 mm lens, but you only had a 50 mm. And all ‘judgments’ thus far have been made on preproduction samples running pre-release firmware. I have handled the D4 – it is a beast designed to take a bashing and it is not aimed at everyday photographers. A smaller one would be nice, yes, but a senior Nikon manager told me the D800 is intended to have low light performance no worse than the D700. Until the advent of the D3s people raved about the D3/D700. If you want low light performance beyond the D700/800 but cannot afford a D4 well D3s are going to be cheaper real soon now. Now moan about something else.

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

    16 MP, probably.

  • ken

    pointless poll, it is what it is and no amount of wishing polling is going to change it! this just looks like a gap filler while we wait for the next rumor? …

    • Jack

      Agreed. The d800 is a perfect camera for a lot of people, and I’m one. If you want fewer MP there are a lot of options, but for industrial photographers who do recreational photography on the side, there are possibilities afforded by the D800 that don’t exist anywhere else in the market. Pricing it the way Nikon did will make his a very successful product.
      I can’t understand why anybody would complain when if they absolutely must have fewer pixels, they have so many options to chose from already.

  • Pierre

    On paper, the D4 seams a better system for me however, so far none of the D4 sample images I have seen have impressed me, contrary to the D800.
    All of the downsampling discussions to reduce noise and crank the ISO are starting to make their ways in my brain.
    I think it is too early to have an exact ISO picture of the D800 but so far, the D800 appear to be a winner for picture quality so I reserve my comments on the 36mp for later.

  • http://www.agniusdigital.com agnius

    It is funny how people “choose” cameras based on spec, rumors and 3rd party images, without ever seeing one.

    • BornOptimist

      No samples needed.
      For me this is not a question about images quality.
      The question is: For my use – Would I want a D800 with a 16MP sensor or a 36MP sensor?
      My answer to this question is easy – I would prefere a 16MP sensor in a D800 body.
      Image quality will always be as as good as Nikon can get it with the given sensor.

  • http://alexandnatalie.com Alex Nelson

    The only thing needed to stop the 36Mp complainers is for Nikon to give us multiple RAW size options. e.g. sRAW as found in the Canon lineup.

    I shoot primarily weddings where my 12MP D700 is just fine, but there are other things I shoot where it could be handy to switch to fullsize RAW and crank out a 36mp file.

    It seems like an easy fix with a firmware update; the hard part is convincing Nikon to do it.

    • Anonymous Maximus

      Hackers may do it ;)

      But will the software recognize Nikon sRAW files?

  • http://www.markusriedt.de Markus R.

    I like the 36 MP Solution. I consider to purchase the D800E in a few months for Studiowork in Addition to my D3 which, i think, is still perfect for the “field”.

    I hope, that the D800 will perform well under studio conditions, so that i can stop renting Digibacks and Hasselblads and increase my profit a little bit ;)

    Well done Nikon !!!

  • burgerman

    >>> All of the downsampling discussions to reduce noise and crank the ISO are starting to make their ways in my brain.
    I think it is too early to have an exact ISO picture of the D800 but so far, the D800 appear to be a winner for picture quality so I reserve my comments on the 36mp for later.
    ____________

    Its got “downsampling” built in!
    Just shoot at 20mp or 9mp instead.
    Result? As good a noise and as small a file as the D3 or even D4.

    Its called choice!!!

    • Levi H

      you can’t downsample in RAW though correct?

      • Michael

        It could be. If Nikon allowed pixel binning like on it’s D1H, then FPS *might* increase.

  • Alex

    I would (like many others) prefer something in the middle at about 24 MP, not so much for better Hi Iso performans but for the less MB on each file.

    Two remarks:

    1. Most people refer to D800 NEFs as 78MB but that is uncompressed, and besides time of process there’s no reason to use it, over lossless wich is about 40-50MB.
    2. If the D800 is as good as it’s supposed and looked so far to be, from the samples we’ve seen, if i wanted smaller files (and smaller prints) i wouldn’t mind to shoot in DX mode (with DX or FF lense) and get 15Mp files wich can be reample to 12 or even 10 Mp (for less visible grain), and still get great print up to A4 letter size.

    so i guess i vote for 36Mp after all…

    • FM2Fan

      thanks – the ability to choose any crop and print letter sized images is the new freeedom

  • burgerman

    And for those that want downsampled raw files to match, WHY?

    The point of raw is to get the best image quality. And this means the most information. So you WANT the 36mp raw! Then AFTER you played with it and used a “noise tool” resize down to your preferred smaller (worse) lower noise image…

  • burgerman

    >>>I would (like many others) prefer something in the middle at about 24 MP, not so much for better Hi Iso performans but for the less MB on each file.
    ____________

    Why? Old PC? Why not shoot at lower resolution. If you want the best quality (raw) you WANT the biggest file/pxel count as it has the most information. Make it small afterwards if you want…

  • C

    From customer point of view, 16M with high ISO on may be appealing.

    However, from the company point of view, Nikon has fallen behind to the mega pixel race. 36M is what the company want to fight for.

    I AM SURE, if D800 has 16M with high ISO at another parallel universe, the NR admin will post a poll. Do you want D800 16M or 36M? I think 80% will want 36M by that time! Customers are crazy!

  • 103David

    The 36 meg capture sounds fun…as in, “Now I don’t have to spend somewhere between 10 to 40 grand on what we used to call a ‘Medium’ format camera and/or back.” It’s amazing what we can achieve at a fraction of the price we paid just a year or two ago.
    However, having seen some of the output from the larger captures displayed on 70″ truely high definition screens, I might suggest it best to remember the (not very) old saying, “There absolutely is such a thing as too much resolution…only puppies, kittens, and babies really look good in true high-definition.”
    To be realistic, I’d much rather have the amazing low-light performance that, all else being equal, larger pixels provide. The key element of that comment is the “all else being equal” part. While I’m sure astonishing improvment has been and will continue to be made in processing and firmware upgrades, these upgrades and improvements apply equally to whatever format one is discussing. The pixel count resolution wars are over. Now it’s how clean an image and how much dynamic range can be delivered. All else being equal, bigger pixels will deliver a better image at lower light levels. In other words, I’d much rather have a clean 16 or 18 meg capture rather than a noisier 36 meg one.
    And by the way, as any wedding photographer already knows, usually you’re working to “soften” the image of your average 19 year old acne-plagued bride. That’s another way of saying “Reducing Resolution.”

    • FM2Fan

      this is one of many perspectives on the subject: for 12-16 MP: go for D3S, D700 and D4 – they are great …

      regarding the subject of your photography: having more raw information provides you more ways to achieve a specific result. Dynamic range is important,
      but is good enough.

      a well balanced image is still ok, even the pixels are a quarter stop less bright … it depends, on how you use that as part of the image composition.

      asking for perfectiong costs money – check the raw files of an S2 or HD4-40 and you see the improvement in dynamic range. Then you need to spend that much more money

  • F-Mounter

    What a useless poll…

  • http://www.natemessarra.com Nate Messarra

    What I’m wondering is that if I want to shoot in RAW format, will I be forced to shoot in 36mp? Or will I still be able to shoot in raw at 12 or 16mp?

    Just wanting to keep my file sizes from being excessive…

  • KitH

    36Mpix. Then use the same techniques to keep it steady from film days shooting PanF and Kodachrome 25. Hold it correctly (left hand underneath lens), breathe out, hold breath, squeeze button gently. Use a monopod or tripod or some other handy support if you can. Use the strap as a tension support if you must.

    Less time waving the camera around at arm’s length trying to get a shot whilst peering at the back panel. That’s for paps and pop vids.

    That’s why there has to be a decent viewfinder with 100% coverage in a BIG window, not the dreadful little peepy window that’s meant to pass for a viewfinder on APS-C, so you can make a steady three point support using two hands and your forehead.

    If those don’t work, then you can help by filling forums like this berating camera makers for a whole generation of camera with appalling ergonomics, compared to past designs. (Yes, that’s Canon, Nikon).

    The best cameras for hand holding were the original OM 1 / OM2 and the old square format Hasselblad. Why can’t someone emulate a proper palm-up grip camera that looks like a baby ‘Blad with an FF sensor and lens mounts, instead of still making shapes that pretend there’s still a roll of 35mm film inside being trundled from one side to the other. It would want to be mirrorless, so there are all sorts of opportunities for screens on the top side so you look down onto it, or tethers so you can just plug in a smartphone or tablet depending on your needs.

    • Jack

      “36Mpix. Then use the same techniques to keep it steady from film days shooting PanF and Kodachrome 25.

      Memories! I spent a few minutes at the camera store being educated on how to shoot with Kodachrome II (ASA 40) after my first set of slides looked like they were taken with gasoline smeared on the lenses. At that time ASA 160 Ektachrome was considered a miracle of low light photography.

      I used to keep my huge Metz flash unit permanently mounted to my F2 to give me better stability when shooting.

      So many people are limiting themselves by thinking they have no use for 36 MP despite the fact that the D800 has no higher pixel pitch than the D7000.

  • http://www.brandondykes.com aetas

    If nikon released something that you don’t like then lets hear about it, but….
    I feel like maybe we should all wait till we see what the d800 can do before complaining.
    Maybe we should even shoot with it ourselves before issuing our complaints to the world.
    God forbid should we like the camera and not complain at all.

    I feel like 36mp is a bit much for me. I have gotten away from landscape work and do more theater work and weddings. So low light is a major plus for me. I will wait till I can shoot the camera before I judge its qualities.

  • http://www.fotografiranje-vjencanja-split.com/ Bare

    It’s quite obvious that both 36MP and 16MP semi-pro FF models have their market place.

    Off course if Nikon introduce 16MP(D4 sensor) semi-pro model that wouldn’t be before this years Photokina.

    Also it’s important to knew that Nikon officially stated that D800 is not a direct replacement for D700.
    ‘On Feb. 8th 2012 Matzshima Shigeo a product manager of Nikon told ‘D800 is a new product not a successor of D700′ and ‘D800 is a new product between D700 and D3X’. He also said (Nikon is) considering another model for D700 market. ‘

  • Boernie

    I wish you had asked if someone would like a D4 with a 36MP sensor like I do…

  • http://www.davechristiephotography.com Dave Christie

    Noticing a lot of comments about downsampling. So maybe a good topic is to discuss the various ways in which people downsample.

    Do most of you simply use the Photoshop image resize and bicubic at 300dpi? Do some of you use 3rd party tools? What about Lightroom? I use the heck out of Lightroom, but its crop tool only really crops. You can “resize” when you export, but I do not think it is quite as good as Photoshop (but I could be wrong).

    So any thoughts? :-)

    Dave

    • Michael

      Another way to do it is to increase DPI, no resolution loss, but better noise performance.

  • jack

    Here is a suggestion for a poll:

    D7000 with 16.2MP or 7.1MP? How many would pick 7.1 MP, which would give you a the same pixel pitch as a D800 at 16MP?

    If you think 36MP is too much, you should stop to consider that there are plenty of cameras available already with fewer pixels for you to choose from, many for a lot less money, and that you can always shoot your D800 in DX mode, where you will end up with a little less pixels than your D7000. Or save money and buy a d7000 if that is what you want. It is cheaper, will have about the same controls on it, and can use less expensive lenses.

    The arguments against the D800 are not compelling,

    • Anonymous Maximus

      All the whining about D800 stems from the idea that D800 doesn’t sound like a D700 upgrade. What I can gather from comments, most people here would be happy with a camera like below:

      Name: D800s, D810 or D850
      Sensor: 16-24mp FX (D4 sensor or a different new one)
      Max. ISO: 25K, ext. to 100K
      Frame Rate: 7 fps ext to 10 fps with grip
      Everything else as D800
      Price: $3000

      Some folks will be happier with such a model as below:

      Name: D9000
      Sensor: 12mp (D3s sensor)
      Frame Rate: 6 fps ext to 9 fps with grip
      Entry level FX with EVF (from V1) based on D7000 body
      Everything else image related as D3s, everything else construction & ergonomics related as D7000
      Price: $2000

  • http://blog.dafyddowen.com Daf

    As much as I’d like a mini-D4 I don’t think it will be coming any time soon.

    Nikon US’ product lifecycle manager has said that the D700 will still be in production “for the foreseeable future,”
    http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-11674-12354
    Mind you – isn’t that the job that just came up in Nikon ?
    http://jobview.monster.com/Product-Life-Cycle-Manager-Job-Melville-NY-106700085.aspx

    I’ve been waiting too long now.
    So as long as the podt release reviews aren’t bad – I’m getting a 800.

    • BornOptimist

      Same was said in Norway. But it is a fact that the EN-EL3 battery is not allowed sold in Japan anymore, and Japan is a very important marked for Nikon. My guess is that the D700 will only be manufactured until available parts are all gone. Then it will formally be discontiuned. Who knows, maybe the remaining units are only old stock that is in the channel now, and manufacturing has already stopped a while ago (before D800/D4 production ramped up).

  • http://500px.com/stephen-nesbitt/photos Stephen Nesbitt

    ENOUGH!!!! Seriously, you tards, and you know who I am talking about, the ones that I will get a reaction from with this comment, need to fing farm the f down. If this camera does not appeal to you MOVE on. Everyone here who moans says something like this: Person 1) All I want is feature A, but not B… Person 2) But I want B, A and no C. Person 3) FCUK, I wanted C, but neither A or B…. You get the point. Nikon CANNOT please everyone. BUT, I know who it can please. Joe McNally, Scott Kelby, and a myriad of other PRO shooters. You know, guys who actually shut the F up and shoot instead of complain. All of you complainers, should show us your samples on 500px or wherever you keep your crap shots hidden. Because, I BET, you can’t shoot for shit. You just complain.
    I will buy the D800, because it suits my needs. If you don’t like it, then buy the D4, or D700 or some other thing. If you don’t like what Nikon offers, go for a company that shoots like shit in dark and can’t focus well. You know, that OTHER company who concentrate on all sorts of goods instead of just cameras.

    • woodway

      “You know, that OTHER company who concentrate on all sorts of goods instead of just cameras.”

      Do you mean the OTHER company who concentrate on all sorts of goods and which incidentally produces Sensors for the D800 Nikon?

      • Stephen Nesbitt

        This close….. NO

    • hobbyfotographer

      If you as a pro wedding shooter (as seen on your website) can use the 36 mp of the D800 its fine for you.
      For me as an amateur there is no need for extreme large raw files and expensive pro glases. I also prefer freehand shooting without tripod. In my opinion, Nikon launched a product for pro shooters but a lot of semi pros would prefer another cam, a D700s. Thats a need of a lot of customers;-)

    • Ripfunk007

      Joe & Scott can afford $6000 or even S25000 cameras … Nikon makes an affordable full frame camera and it is only useful for studio photographers … go read the Nikon D800 technical guide and then open your mouth with your smart a55 comments … good that it is made for you but this is a forum for providing our comments on 36MP or 16Mp so people are going to leave their comments, like it or lump it, you either don’t read those comments or don’t crib like a little nancy that others don’t like what you like.

    • Ripfunk007

      Joe & Scott can afford $6000 or even S25000 cameras … Nikon makes an affordable full frame camera and it is only useful for studio photographers … go read the Nikon D800 technical guide and then open your mouth with your smart a55 comments … good that it is made for you but this is a forum for providing our comments on 36MP or 16Mp so people are going to leave their comments, like it or lump it, you either don’t read those comments or don’t crib like a little nancy that others don’t like what you like.

      Read more on NikonRumors.com: http://nikonrumors.com/2012/02/23/poll-nikon-d800-with-36mp-or-with-16mp-sensor.aspx/#ixzz1nKGNPhlu

  • burgerman

    D700 still available for those with crappy computers that want low resolution, less dynamic range, same or worse noise is still available…

    Or the D800 with 9, 20, 36mp choices, and better focus/metering as well as broadcast quality movies… Ony a fool would prefer the d700.

    And who in their right mind would want a low res raw when more information and a better image can be obtained from the original raw sensor data???

  • jablko

    I voted for the 16 megapixel just because action and events matter more to me, so I’d love to see a smaller, cheaper D4. However, I think the product differentiation was actually a great idea, it just doesn’t fit the photography I do. I’m not going to begrudge the studio and landscape shooters their awesome new gear.

  • Rienz

    When I heard of 36MP camera, I was really excited but after reading the Nikon D800 Technical Guide I am a bit dissappointed … the first thing the technical guide states is: “At the high resolutions offered by Nikon D800/800E, even the slightest camera motion can result in blur” and it says to use tripod and live view and not to use . They make an affordable Full Frame Camera but they freakin make it for only studio photographers … how many photographers are going to carry a tripod and use live view outdoor?

    • http://mike.heller.ca/blog Mike

      That is true of any camera, if it’s not steady you get blur. Just because it’s in the D800 guide doesn’t mean it is specific to the camera. People are getting way too excited about this.

    • http://www.modelmayhem.com/370954 Rich

      Well then apparently this camera is not for you.

      • Ripfunk007

        Really? you figured that out all by yourself?

  • John

    Once you go 36 you never go back!

  • http://mike.heller.ca/blog Mike

    I don’t understand people who say “I want a 16mp sensor in a D800 size body”. We have a D700, with almost that spec. Explain to me what your doing that requires the extra 4mp? The difference is minimal in terms of linear resolution.

    If you need a D4, get a D4.
    If you want a smaller body, get the D800.
    If you are complaining about file size, get a D700.

    We have all the options we need.

    • http://www.fotografiranje-vjencanja-split.com/ Bare

      What about those people who need a ultimate high ISO performance in small body and don’t want to pay premium?

      • http://mike.heller.ca/blog Mike

        If you need the “ultimate” anything then you better be prepared to pay a premium.

        I want a Ferrari but I only want to pay for a Civic…

        • http://www.split.hr/Default.aspx Bare

          Nikon showed with D800 they can offer a ultimate resolution in small format cameras without premium price so I don’t see why the can do the same ultimate high ISO performance.

          • http://mike.heller.ca/blog Mike

            And what is wrong with the D700? Takes great photos at high ISO, costs under $3K, and is a small form factor.

            • http://www.fotografiranje-vjencanja-split.com/ Bare

              Nothing was wrong with D700 3 years ago because at that time D700 offered ultimate high ISO performance(same as D3). Even now D700 is a great camera but with D3s and now with D4 Nikon showed that it can produce sensors with less noise and D4 and D800 have better AF in low light.

      • Moe Jacknally

        why don’t you get an engineer’s degree and build one yourself? :D

    • BornOptimist

      That was not the question in the poll!
      The question is: Would you have preferd the D800 with a 16MP sensor or with a 36MP sensor.
      This has nothing to do with D700 at all.
      In fact a lot of those who did vote for a 16MP sensor might actually have a D700 and is satisfied with that (me included, and I have no intention to buy a D800, nor would I have done if it was a 16MP sensor. I’m satisfied with my present camera).

  • David G

    Some people are never happy…

  • ItsaChris

    I want 12mp – I want 16mp – I want 22mp – I want 24mp – I want 6mp

    Points agents 36mp –
    Raw files take up a lot of space. – solutions – compressed raw 30mb or small jpg or upload the raw then delete after converted to jpegs or demand nikon builds a sRaw file something like 15mb smaller rez. (I shot professionally with only jpeg for 5 years, and still shot some jpeg)
    Camera shake – it was shown that the D2x did show more shake then the D2h – solutions – res down the images and the majority of the blur will be non existence but you can never rez up a D2h to the level you can get from the D2x (same with the D800/d700)

    This debate seems silly 16mp to 36mp is only a jump in a 1/4 of rez (the same thing happened when we went from 6 to 12mp). Pixels size its self has not moved that much, the d1x/h had 10.5mp chips. (just know the bar was set with the a900/5d mk II for MPs over the next few cycles and as there is not a lot of difference between 12 and 16/18/21 in your mind the difference might seem to grow over time.) but i am sure no one will read this as there are 400+ replays.

    • http://www.aaronmphotography.com Aaron M

      ItsaChris,
      You say “pixel size has not moved that much” but you are wrong. To go from 12.1mp to 36mp means that the pixels have to get a LOT smaller. In fact, you go from 71mm^2/pixel in the D700 down to 23mm^2/pixel. That means you have pixels that are 1/3 of the size in the D800. Smaller pixels heat up faster (they can’t dissipate heat as well), and then heat up the pixels next to each other faster … heat is what creates noise. I’m sure Nikon has done many improvements in sensor technology to combat this, but you can’t ignore the fact that smaller pixels are more likely to be noisy.

      There is also a very large difference between 12 and 21mp. Take 2 photos of the same thing (the moon for example), and you’ll see a whole lot of additional detail in the 21mp over the 12mp.

      So no, this debate is not silly.

      • ItsaChris

        I am sorry the example I put out is valid.
        D1x 5.9µm (raw output was full 10.5 mp)
        D2x 5.5µm
        D3x 5.9µm
        D800 4.9µm

        Agree heat can be a problem. Agree between 12 and 21 is noticeable but lets just say I feel its not as large as people make it out to be (and even more true with 12 and 16mp(I know people disagree on this point but sensor size and lens make more of a difference then a small bump in rez)). and I agree if you plot lower pixel counts with in the high pixel count cameras that have come out then the pixel size has gone up and down over time but the high mp camera have stayed rather constant.

        I do believe this rush to say XXmp is to much, or if only we could of gotten 16/21mp (with the same FPS) and some how that would make the camera better is a silly argument. Same silly argument with the NEX-5/7 when the difference is nominal.

  • WengerIsMad

    I cant believe I keep coming back to this site! This about the 20th time since this posting started, can’t make my mind up so i’ve had to vote differently each time :-)
    I’m off to the weather website now, its not very interesting but at least its updated every day.

    • WengerIsMad

      Cloudy across many southern parts of the region, also with a little light rain or drizzle here from time to time.

      Has anybody tried that “speed up you mac” thing above? Mine seems to have slowed down a bit since I installed the ColorEfex Pro PS plug in..

    • DNA

      Surely Nikon will release something like a D800s with the D4 sensor instead of the current whopper-they could give Canon a run for there money with this ‘real’ D700 replacement.

  • Back to top