I feel that the D400 DX is the most important camera that Nikon could produce in this current climate for sales and utility. It should have HD video and a D300s or faster fps.

I was just at a World's Championship Bobsled and Skeleton Championship race. I saw quite a few images by amateur and professional photographers under fairly good conditions to guess at what the results of FX and DX cameras. Obviously no D800 Nikons there. I saw no difference between DX and FX for quality. A number of people who owned DSLR cameras brought their cell phones to use. This event further convinced me that for my my own use I'd rather have DX than FX. Also some considerable difference in terms of photographer style. Lens in use ranged between 12mm to 600mm. I thought the most inclusive and relevant to the speed were on the wider focal lengths. Also fps shooting speed was in my judgement, important.

I used my D300 and D7000 most and the D90 images were also in some cases quite good. As I am involved in GNCC offroad motorcycle racing and Can AM style road racing photography I would rate this mountain sliding sports as somewhat more challenging but both types of action photos usually have way more light than say Arena Cross or indoor stadium motocross events.

I am going to say this topic is quite important in that Nikon needs considerable nudging to get the D400 Expeed 3 and 24 megapixel available. Also many are WAITING for purchase UNTIL that happens. I call this pent up demand and personally feel that Nikon Rumors serves a hugely important planning and perspective function. If we were all very wealthy we'd probably just buy everything Nikon makes and test them ourselves. That would be extremely foolish and wasteful. Much better to buy what we actually need and would most use. The popularity and rating of the D300 and D300s should not be ignored!

donaldejose said:
loon: I don't think we know the answer to either the question you asked me or Tao. Could be some difference in the sensor other than pixel size but that would surely be a minor difference so I would expect the D800 sensor to have almost the same light collection characteristics as the D7000 sensor. Have to wait for a number of independent reviews of it.

One of the attractions of the D800 should be that it gives you a DX inside an FX: two cameras in one body. We will see if that actually proves to be the case.

Now there's an answer I can take to the bank - we don't really know! I will wait for the tests. Thanks to you both Donald & Tao, you've both been wonderful. This forced me to consider what I would do even if it had no better IQ than the D7000, and concluded there are plenty enough other benefits! It is exactly the pixel density I want for cropping/reach in a switchable DX/FX full frame camera, with killer autofocus system, decent buffer, 34MP for landscape which I would love to get more into but felt held back by the DX fov, etc etc... I wants it I needs it, my preciousssssssssss :)

BTW you can check out my stuff at http://www.wildbirdy.com. Many many thanks again! Sue

loon: I don't think we know the answer to either the question you asked me or Tao. Could be some difference in the sensor other than pixel size but that would surely be a minor difference so I would expect the D800 sensor to have almost the same light collection characteristics as the D7000 sensor. Have to wait for a number of independent reviews of it.

One of the attractions of the D800 should be that it gives you a DX inside an FX: two cameras in one body. We will see if that actually proves to be the case.

TaoTeJared said:
Low light gathering/performance is first affected by the size of the pixel (pitch) and then by software. Noise basically is the lack in ability for a particular pixel (or group of pixels) to get enough light to create the correct color. Software utilizes pixels adjacent to help calculate the color.

The D800 pitch is basically the same as the D7000 just that there is twice as many in FX. The better noise performance in the D800 is different than previous versions for one basic attribute, the "noise" from one pixel is smaller in size. So on an 8x10, with a D7000 vs D800, there are twice as many pixels from the D800 compressing the noise into a smaller area, thus appearing to be less "Noisy" even though it is still there. Kind of goes in a theory of twice as many chances to get the correct color from the light. When you Crop in on a D800, your pixels and resolution are now the same size & noise "size" as the D7000 - you have reduced the resolution or cut it in half. The D4 (and previous FX models) are different in that they had the same resolution as the D7000, but the physical pixel pitch/diode size is almost twice as large, having a better chance to gather the light.

The second attribute of software is where noise reduction is added. I'm sure it will be better, but $2,000 better? That is what your pocket book and other needs comes into consideration.

I believe we are at a point (at least with the D800 vs D700)where software is now just as important than the hardware of the pixel pitch. If you cut your sensor in half, the improvement (in sensor terms) is just the software. Obviously there are a ton of added features and updates to justify a D800 if they make a difference to you.

Thanks so much Tao for taking the time to explain all that, very informative. There seems to be 2 schools of thought on the matter, all from those a lot more knowledgeable than me. There are those who think that better physical technology is being used in the D800 enabling the photosites ('sensils?') to utilize more light despite the same pixel pitch as D7000. And there are those such as yourself who expect it to have similar noise levels as D7000 other than that corrected by software in-camera. (As for that I shoot in raw and prefer to do my own NR for more control using Topaz in Photoshop.)

donaldejose said:
looon: you might find this intersting. http://www.examiner.com/photography-in-national/nikon-d800-will-kill-super-telephoto-lenses

Thanks Donald, that's a major part of why I am lusting for the D800 :-) But in that article they are referring to cropping in post processing. As I'm into action I really want the higher fps of dx mode (1 FPS can make a big diff for birds), but not if it means any image degradation versus shooting in FX mode and cropping out the same area in post processing. Is there less light available per pixel in DX mode vs FX mode, or some other reason the IQ would be any different between those 2 modes? (assume viewed at 100% prior to any processing) Thanks!

At 3200 ISO the D800 noise seemed much better than the D700 to me. I thought 3200 and maybe 6400 (depending upon enlargement size) would be entirely usable and about one "stop" better than the D700. Not usable above 6400 ISO. Don't know how others saw it. But remember that was a very rough "test." Interesting, because it gives us hope; but certainly not definitive.

Not to long ago you would have dreamed about being able to use ISO 3200 for sports. I remember film days when ASA 400 and 800 were considered "fast."

Professional sports photographers will want the D4. For most of us the D800 might work well enough for our needs. Lets hope for clean 8x10 (or 11x14)size images at ISO 3200 and maybe 6400. This would allow you to produce basically a full page photo with no evident noise. That should be good enough for newspapers and the internet. We don't shoot for Sports Illustrated anyway, do we?

I think the original poster by now has realized his impression of "not good for sports" was an extreme position.

TaoTeJared said:

The D800 pitch is basically the same as the D7000 just that there is twice as many in FX. The better noise performance in the D800 is different than previous versions for one basic attribute, the "noise" from one pixel is smaller in size. So on an 8x10, with a D7000 vs D800, there are twice as many pixels from the D800 compressing the noise into a smaller area, thus appearing to be less "Noisy" even though it is still there. Kind of goes in a theory of twice as many chances to get the correct color from the light. When you Crop in on a D800, your pixels and resolution are now the same size & noise "size" as the D7000 - you have reduced the resolution or cut it in half. The D4 (and previous FX models) are different in that they had the same resolution as the D7000, but the physical pixel pitch/diode size is almost twice as large, having a better chance to gather the light.

Yebbut is it just me or did the noise in the D700/D800 comparison seem worse on the D800 than the D700?

looon said:
But in DX mode on the D800 which essentially just uses a 16 MP area of the sensor, wouldn't the pixel density and size of the photosites be no different then in full frame mode with 36 MP? So why would the IQ and iso performance be degraded in DX mode?

BTW I don't think I would prefer to have 24MP in a DX sized sensor, they are crammed in enough at 16MP. I can't afford a 400mm f2.8 lens so I need all the low light performance I can get out of slower lenses.

Low light gathering/performance is first affected by the size of the pixel (pitch) and then by software. Noise basically is the lack in ability for a particular pixel (or group of pixels) to get enough light to create the correct color. Software utilizes pixels adjacent to help calculate the color.

The D800 pitch is basically the same as the D7000 just that there is twice as many in FX. The better noise performance in the D800 is different than previous versions for one basic attribute, the "noise" from one pixel is smaller in size. So on an 8x10, with a D7000 vs D800, there are twice as many pixels from the D800 compressing the noise into a smaller area, thus appearing to be less "Noisy" even though it is still there. Kind of goes in a theory of twice as many chances to get the correct color from the light. When you Crop in on a D800, your pixels and resolution are now the same size & noise "size" as the D7000 - you have reduced the resolution or cut it in half. The D4 (and previous FX models) are different in that they had the same resolution as the D7000, but the physical pixel pitch/diode size is almost twice as large, having a better chance to gather the light.

The second attribute of software is where noise reduction is added. I'm sure it will be better, but $2,000 better? That is what your pocket book and other needs comes into consideration.

I believe we are at a point (at least with the D800 vs D700)where software is now just as important than the hardware of the pixel pitch. If you cut your sensor in half, the improvement (in sensor terms) is just the software. Obviously there are a ton of added features and updates to justify a D800 if they make a difference to you.

looon: you might find this intersting. http://www.examiner.com/photography-in-national/nikon-d800-will-kill-super-telephoto-lenses

Hi Tao & thanks for your response. I am fully aware of how cropping from high res gives the appearance of more 'reach'. But in DX mode on the D800 which essentially just uses a 16 MP area of the sensor, wouldn't the pixel density and size of the photosites be no different then in full frame mode with 36 MP? So why would the IQ and iso performance be degraded in DX mode?

BTW I don't think I would prefer to have 24MP in a DX sized sensor, they are crammed in enough at 16MP. I can't afford a 400mm f2.8 lens so I need all the low light performance I can get out of slower lenses.

Basically you are taking a D800 and making a D7000 if you use it in DX mode. Performance of the Image quality will be more or less the same as the D7000. The only performance improvement you would see is if you left the camera in FX mode. If you have "big" glass (400,500,600mm) then this is the camera especially for good light scenes.

For wildlife/birds DX is actually a bit better suited since the pixels are "tighter"/higher density and you get the 1.5x. If the D400 is released with a 24mp DX sensor that most everyone believes it will be, it will capture more detail at the longer lengths with cropping due to the pixel density. This is where DX shines and why many like it over FX yet. Landscapes with a tripod and low ISO, the difference will barley be noticeable.

Hi, I am a seriously obsessed amateur mostly into wildlife/birds but also some landscape, looking to move beyond my D7000 and thinking of the D800 for its far superior autofocus system, low light performance and ability to go into a 16 megapixel DX crop for telephoto work. I can live with the 5 FPS in DX mode. I have a 2-part question that will help me decide whether to go with D800 or wait for D400:

A) When in DX mode on the D800, is the IQ and low light performance diminished compared with when in FX mode? This is using the same decent FX lens in both cases, and comparing raw unprocessed images at 100%.

B) Would the IQ & low light performance of the D800 in 16mp DX mode have any advantage over the IQ & low light performance of a 16mp DX camera, given the same ISO range and latest sensor technology?

In other words, if the size and density of photosites are equal between a full frame and a dx sensor, is there any advantage of full frame vs dx in terms of IQ & low light performance? Please excuse that I have the physics knowledge of common lake trout :/

Thanks!!

Lots of sports are held in indoor arenas requiring higher ISOs, where a D3s or D4 would be better suited.

I don't think many people are saying the D800 is no good for sports, any more than than the D4 is no good for studio or landscapes

It is just that, if you are primarily a professional sports photographer, the D4 is going to be the best camera for you

likewise, if if you only do professional studio or landscapes, the D800E is going to be your best bet

If you are professional who does a bit of everything the D800

if you are a serious amature you are probably going to be happy with a D7000

just want a good DSLR get the D5100

Money no object, just get all 5 and let us know which is best

if none of the above press your button, wait for the D900 the D5 the D400 or the D8000 and stick to an iPhone in the mean time

screenbyte said:
Thanks for the reply.
I would love a D4 but that's never going to happen with that price.

I have a quick PC with USB3 with tons of storage but I still don't understand why people say this isn't the camera for sports.
If the D400 was on sale right now I would buy one but I want a new cameras this year and the D800 looks good to me.

What about a D3s ?

D800! y u no good for sports?

Back in the 1970's, sport photographers were using what?

The D800 is fine but as I mentioned earlier it is the little things that make a camera optimized for sports...

Everyone on this forum can take more than reasonable pix with the gear they have at hand, even if it's not going to cut it for page 1 of the New York Times.

The photo in the link below was from the Australian National Track Cycling championships, held in late January at the Adelaide SuperDrome. And yes, there were great photographers at the meet with high-end Canon and Nikon gear, but we all had the same problems to confront - low, uneven and erratic light, plus cyclists travelling at near 80kph (50mph).

Pan, shoot, check LCD screen, was the regime for everyone, whether me or the AFP photog or the specialist cycling photographers.

I'd simply say that it the same as it ever was - it's the photographer, not the gear.

BTW, this was taken with a D3100 and a hired Sigma 70-200/2.8, non-stabilised.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/68039985@N08/6845194433/in/photostream

Cheers

Michael
Adelaide AUSTRALIA

screenbyte said:
Apart from the FPS why is this camera no good for sports/wildlife in other areas?

I do not see any reason why the D800 would not be a great camera. A D4 is built more for this, for large blow-ups the extra resolution of the D800 will be a huge advancement.

I shoot a lot of sports with chained tricks (surfing, bike riding, gymnastics, skate boarding, etc)...

Each trick, including prep and landing, might take a second and a half. I rapid fire and will capture 7 or 8 pictures through the sequence. If the person chains the trick, i might instantly have to take another 5 or 6 pictures.

The D700 is out of memory by the second group... The D800 will be out of memory by the second group. Once at a event, I had my wife taking the second/chained trick on a separate D700 to give the primary camera a chance to empty.

The D4 solve this..

Yes the size of the files and 4 FPS make the D800 a landscape camera and a product/studio camera. How about a nice used D3 the D3s which has 9 FPS? The D3 should be in the lower 2 grand range now...

Right. Maybe your "sports" shooting is just going to be your kids playing baseball and you won't be shooting more than 30 or 40 images per game. The D800 will serve just fine.

When people say "sports photography" they usually mean photographing professional sports where thousands of images are shot per event at high ISO to freeze very fast action. That is where the D4 will be 100x better than a D800.

For wildlife it will be fine unless you need either very high FPS for birds in flight or very high ISO when shooting through very long telephoto lenses.

its storage, and memory, i believe. processing a bunch of larger images takes more memory as well.

That said, computers upgrade much faster than cameras.

Storage isn't really an issue for me either excluding where to store all of the Drives I have, but why buy a new 2 TB drive every month when you don't need to? 1 terabyte is not tons of storage if you chew through 60 gigabytes a shoot...

+1 tcole1983

Heck I just got a speed graflex to shoot sports with (personal project)...

screenbyte said:
Thanks for the reply.
I would love a D4 but that's never going to happen with that price.

I have a quick PC with USB3 with tons of storage but I still don't understand why people say this isn't the camera for sports.

I don't think anyone means you can't shoot sports with the camera. You can shoot anything with any type of camera. The D4 with fast FPS and it sounds like fast accurate focus is geared toward people that will be shooting sports and/or moving subjects. On the other hand the D800 would be geared toward landscapes and portraits. I have no doubt people will use them interchangeably. I think too many people get worried about what someone else is saying and not to just get out and use the camera however you feel like using it. I see all this more as opinions or suggestions and not rules...therefor nothing has to be followed and as long as you like your results then who cares?

Thanks for the reply.
I would love a D4 but that's never going to happen with that price.

I have a quick PC with USB3 with tons of storage but I still don't understand why people say this isn't the camera for sports.
If the D400 was on sale right now I would buy one but I want a new cameras this year and the D800 looks good to me.