Just checking NR to see if anything more has developed on the D800 and of course, the one I really am waiting for the D400. And the answer is there are glaciers receding faster than Nikon is moving here. I'd be happier with my D700 if it had say D7000 quality video.
There are those who don't want or need video and the D90 proved to me that I did want it. DSLR video does have its utility and charm. But there is a quality difference from say D7000 and Nikon's other DX cameras. I have never shot with the D3S and I am sure I'd be impressed. As to size in the field the D90 or the D7000 sure is workable. I do hear there is a goal of small, light, and packed with power. On the other my son who thinks we will be doing a fair amount of video with D7000 (or D400) also is thinking of adding motion stabilizers and special microphones which seem will quickly supersize the package. I myself lean to a D400 and a trim add on microphone and the right lens. All things considered......maybe the title D800 at last seems like still wishful thinking.

Hi,

"it will have huge file sizes and not the best high iso. it will also be far too high res to translate into good 1080 HD footage."

I think, regardless of the _still_ resolution, the 1080p or 1080i output will be 1080 output. Arguably, it would be good to have a high-ish bit rate for higher quality video, but I doubt that will be a problem either.

Some clarity as to end size improvement from the D800's 36MP output would be greatly appreciated if indeed there is some.

As for video, I do anticipate smoother handling of CMOS reading, probably and audio monitoring capability, and some sort of visual live histogram or other RGB/visual curve cue to ameliorate professional a need for IRE control. There are other needs, but those are dire.

My best, and thanks in advance for the help on understanding the pixel output.

Mike

nofai said:
@Gareth
I sold my D700 because i shoot about 10 wedding per year. And my partner does video. So i want a machine that can capture some video too. cause 2 angles always give a better feeling in trailer.
I always think just use D7000 to shoot wedding and i know it is more than enough. But with my experience , customers always ask what kind of camera we use. blalbla. So an updated camera is always better.
btw I sold it 2 weeks ago at 2k CAD , i think i let it go at a good price ....

what you say makes sense, except the fact that you are now without a camera. what if someone wants you to take some wedding pics. you just have to say no.

video does seem to be becoming more and more important for weddings, but the d800 doesn't look like a good option for weddings, or video.

it will have huge file sizes and not the best high iso. it will also be far too high res to translate into good 1080 HD footage.

from what you have described you will need to compromise , but i feel selling your camera too soon was a really bad idea.

i think from a simplicity standpoint, consolidating their lines so that the D4 line remains full-sized, high ISO and D800 lines remains FF, normal sized, and tolerable ISO is an separation of price points and features.

Pierre said:
Then you rumor a 36 MP... Canon goes crazy in trying to beat that... and blang, you dump a backlid 24 MP with high ISO on the market just to screw them... et voila!

I bet it doesn't happen this time around. On everything else, it will be interesting to see where technology flows from and too. Samsung always is playing with new tech and they push out new (behind the scenes) tech before other companies in other industries. Maybe they will become a bellwether company for the photo industry since Kodak sensor division is now with another company.

Something does seem odd with the release of the D800. Flash out first? Something seems to be going on. Maybe they will throw out the D4/D400 too?

Admin - have you heard anything?

@Gareth
I sold my D700 because i shoot about 10 wedding per year. And my partner does video. So i want a machine that can capture some video too. cause 2 angles always give a better feeling in trailer.
I always think just use D7000 to shoot wedding and i know it is more than enough. But with my experience , customers always ask what kind of camera we use. blalbla. So an updated camera is always better.
btw I sold it 2 weeks ago at 2k CAD , i think i let it go at a good price ....

TaoTeJared said:
... I think it is interesting on the direction Canon seems to be choosing....

Then you rumor a 36 MP... Canon goes crazy in trying to beat that... and blang, you dump a backlid 24 MP with high ISO on the market just to screw them... et voila!

What if you make lenses with other material than glass, e.g. crystal, quarts, nano tube? Or borrow techniques from the nanolithography.

ISO can also be beaten with advanced noise reduction algorithms (given enough processing power). Scientist are upgrading telescopes with this and they can create sensors that can literally see in the dark. Apparently, it is possible to decipher every single photon out of electronic and heat noise.

I have seen a video made in pitch darkness with a camera (the size of a small desktop PC) that was equipped with special nitrogen-cooled processors.

Probably not for the near future... but there is room to grow...

Pierre said:
If the new sensor was a backlit, the pixel-count could go up (to a point) without reducing the photon-receiver area of each pixel and avoiding some of the diffraction limit issue. Surely going backlit doesn't explain a triple gain of area but still.

On the diffraction limit front, a goggle brings a few articles claiming it can be beaten, for what it’s worth.

I still don't believe in any diffraction or limits of glass resolving for DSLR systems are of any concern. I do understand and believe the physics, but there are ways around it that companies have been using for years.

Gareth said:
you seem to be saying you WONT buy it no matter what. why do you feel the need to put all of your eggs in one basket with the D800?

I'm just making an observation at this point and I think it is interesting on the direction Canon seems to be choosing. Like it or not, they are the biggest and hear back from more photographers as a result and it appears the high ISO has won. Nikon and Canon match each other in offerings. Nikon has tried to match the 5D line and this time it looks like Canon is changing the direction.

I am disappointed from what I have seen as the specs; that high of a resolution is not needed for most, most are waiting for the ISO performance and if it is only at a D7000 level it will be very disappointing, price is really high and that abandons the gap that the D700 filled. This line of body was purchased with many who have a large investment in glass and are not going to change brands, but the pro bodies cost outside a comfort level. If the performance equals basically a DX line, why spend $4,000.

I'm still hoping to be in astonishment what Nikon can pull off. I would like to upgrade but if it matches the ISO of the D7000 (1-stop iso) is not worth it for me. At this point I've decided I'm going to wait to see the D400 before I make a decision for sure and may just look for a used D3s. Lots of + & -'s to balance out. Resolution doesn't mean much if it isn't clean or blurry due to the ISO limitations.

If the new sensor was a backlit, the pixel-count could go up (to a point) without reducing the photon-receiver area of each pixel and avoiding some of the diffraction limit issue. Surely going backlit doesn't explain a triple gain of area but still.

On the diffraction limit front, a goggle brings a few articles claiming it can be beaten, for what it’s worth.

what you said makes sense, but the D7000 also has a pixel pitch of 4.78µm.

i am not saying i WILL buy it, I'm saying I MIGHT buy it if it suits my need and has good quality images up to say ISO800. you seem to be saying you WONT buy it no matter what. why do you feel the need to put all of your eggs in one basket with the D800?

there will be other models released at some stage. this is just one, not the death or rebirth of nikon.

I'm not concerned with the marketing #'s game. That game will be played by everyone.

Few companies ever go backwards on their specs and own marketing hype and only do so for the performance advantage.

One thing has been rather evident from every manufacture, the best cameras to date have had a pixel pitch of about 6 µm or larger.
D3s FX 12mp = 8.4 µm - D3x FX 24mp = 5.9 µm - 5D mkII 21mp FX = 6.39 µm -**Leica M9 18mp FX = 6.9 µm - Hasselblad H3DII 50 51mp MF = 5.93 µm - Pentax 645D 41mp MF = 5.93 µm - Phase One P65Plus 60mp MF = 6 µm.

A 36mp will be about 4.7 µm and set intentions of use at lower ISOs.

I'm just starting to wonder if Nikon saw a lower than expected D3x sales and is going to pull a Canon and put the High MP sensors into the smaller body and leave a D4 (line) for the high iso king. While it looks like Canon is abandoning that model focusing on high ISO and video. Just interesting I think.

TaoTeJared said:
I'm not sure if anyone else follows other companies camera rumors but this came through for the 5d mk III:

The 1D-x came out with 18mp (& did away with aps-h) giving up on the Higher mp going backwards. Anyone else think this is significant and rather telling? Better Low ISO over resolution?

Not completely. Canon did this a while ago with the G (G9 to G10 to G11) series but I think they are worried about Nikon and Sony. The D3 was a big punch and the D7000 confirmed that Nikon's cameras still over qualify their own bodies. Up to the 1Dx, all of their newer cameras only outspeced nikon in megapixels and video. With the 1Dx they outspeced the D3s in almost every category on paper and a field test may prove it to be a winner. However they were keen that the D3s & D3x were better than the 1D mk4 and the 1ds mk3 (and the 5dmk2 wasn't helping) so they pulled their pro bodies out of the way of their 5D series to focus on competing with Nikon's stable.

Sony hasn't played a full card but the a900 and a77 prove that they are capable of coming out with a winning pro body. Their problem would be getting rentalhouses and ad agencies to accept them. Canon realizes that they need to rethink how they sell pro gear and they are giving it a shot. There is too much at stake for them as competition is getting increasingly competitive in the pro and advanced amateur market. (My personal 2 cents though)

I'm not sure if anyone else follows other companies camera rumors but this came through for the 5d mk III:

[T]he 5D2 replacement will be aimed at ‘cleaning up’ in the DSLR video market, complementing the video specific 1 series mentioned at the recent Hollywood announcement. It was also suggested that it would not be any more than 18MP, and that any higher MP camera was ‘quite some time off’.

The 1D-x came out with 18mp (& did away with aps-h) giving up on the Higher mp going backwards. Anyone else think this is significant and rather telling? Better Low ISO over resolution?

^^^^ you sold your camera and now have no camera?

what made you think that was a good idea?

you wont get any sympathy here.

I sold my D700 last month and prepare for the D800 . SO i think I may need to get a used d7000 now. Getting tired come here to check D800 release date everyday .. I know rumors is trying their best to give us update. But this time is really disappointing.. Big hope on the 30th and big disappointing now .

splash said:
The question that I want to know most is when the D800 will release, is there any strong guess?

Not before Sept 2012, that's my strongest guess... he! you asked for it ;^)

After

The P7100
The D5100
The SB 910

Any one else think the next full frame camera will be a D710
main difference, hidden battery contacts

splash said:
The question that I want to know most is when the D800 will release, is there any strong guess?

Some are saying it's possible in a few days (Nov. 30th). NR Admin/Peter is reporting that several new products will possibly be announced on this date. We are not sure if the D800 is one of them. Let's hope so.

The question that I want to know most is when the D800 will release, is there any strong guess?

bjrichus said:
As for file size, you are correct that those with 10 year old computers will have trouble. Even my main office PC is only two years old and the 1Tb disk is mostly full and the dual core CPU needs updating.

A tip for everyone I give is you can never have enough RAM... My 8Gb is about right to avoid issues with editing large files in CS5, but anything over 4Gb also requires a 64bit O/S. If any of that gives anyone problems, then they are not serious about it!! ;-)

The key is to remember that in digital image making, the camera is part of a system, of which the computer is also a part. A decent PC is probably cheaper than the camera is now and is just as important. If you get a larger format camera, get a larger format computer and be done with it.

I suspect you are correct about the IQ comparisons. I'll leave the debates about the validity of them until we get to be able to compare enough decent medium format images and the results of a few shoots using the Nikon 36MP body. I'm not going to speculate more at this stage except to say, that it might be a close run race.

Fun times ahead....

Well said, Sir! This is going to be interesting, to say the least.

donaldejose said:
I think the valid comparison with large MP Hasselblads and a 36 MP D800 is the file size.

[...]

If the D800 really does have a 36MP sensor I would expect to see articles titled something like "Has Nikon moved the DSLR into medium format territory?" and "Does a D800 give you medium format image quality for a fraction of the cost?" I suspect we will see some DSLR = medium format? comparisons.

As for file size, you are correct that those with 10 year old computers will have trouble. Even my main office PC is only two years old and the 1Tb disk is mostly full and the dual core CPU needs updating.

A tip for everyone I give is you can never have enough RAM... My 8Gb is about right to avoid issues with editing large files in CS5, but anything over 4Gb also requires a 64bit O/S. If any of that gives anyone problems, then they are not serious about it!! ;-)

The key is to remember that in digital image making, the camera is part of a system, of which the computer is also a part. A decent PC is probably cheaper than the camera is now and is just as important. If you get a larger format camera, get a larger format computer and be done with it.

I suspect you are correct about the IQ comparisons. I'll leave the debates about the validity of them until we get to be able to compare enough decent medium format images and the results of a few shoots using the Nikon 36MP body. I'm not going to speculate more at this stage except to say, that it might be a close run race.

Fun times ahead....

Thank you all for your inputs and point out the difference between the 35mm FX and the medium form factor of the Hasselblad/Phase one. Kinda over looked that when making the comparison. As they say "my bad!"

I have spend the past few days watching videos of how those individual that own and use "medium form factor cameras" and I must stay they do NOT all shoot in "in-door" studios. Many are out in some jungles, rivers, nature setting shooting all kinds of actions. Hell I saw one photographer with a 300mm lens on his Hasselblad H-body neck deep in a jungle river shooting some models.

But back to my question; as donaldejose (+1 for you) pointed out, the argument that the "files" are going to be to big and my computer and hard drive cannot handle it...I find that to be so rubbish...given dollar/per megabyte of disk storage and the modern CPU's is todays computers. I mean after all, If you are going to be getting any camera in these categories then you also better have the right computer to do your post processing...yes?

I trust in Nikon. I do not believe that they would bring to market a new camera body, for those of us in the DX/FX DSLR world, we would not have a use for. After all look at what they gave us with the D7000. Personally I'm looking forward in seeing what their answer is towards the new "bad boy" in the block: the Canon 1D X.

I think the valid comparison with large MP Hasselblads and a 36 MP D800 is the file size. So many people complain the file sizes will be too large for their computer processor, RAM and hard drive. But how do the Hasselblad shooters do it? They surely work with larger file sizes? Yes, the Hasselblads are studio cameras and don't serve the same function as DSLRs, but that wasn't the point of the comparison. The poster was not comparing high ISO noise between the two camera sensor. He was comparing IQ from a higher MP sensor (which whatever limitations) and file size. If a 40 MP Hasselblad is desirable (for its limited function) why wouldn't a 36 MP D800 be just as desirable (for the same limited function)? If computers can handle the 40 MP Hasselblad sensor's file size why cannot they also handle the 36 MP D800 file size? I think the answer is that if used in the same way as a Hasselblad a D800 would be highly desirable and offer a very inexpensive (in comparison) path to the same IQ. Most complaints about the D800 being "unsuited" to a particular use really relate to uses for which a Hasselblad would be even more unsuited.

If the D800 really does have a 36MP sensor I would expect to see articles titled something like "Has Nikon moved the DSLR into medium format territory?" and "Does a D800 give you medium format image quality for a fraction of the cost?" I suspect we will see some DSLR = medium format? comparisons.

what is the argument here?

is MF better than 35mm, well in terms of dynamic range and clarity. of course. who said otherwise?

in terms of functionlity in a wider range of aplications, well, this is where the dslrs fit in.

the dslr price, the AF, shutter speed, physical size, ISO and "longer" lenses are all major advantages to a high MP dslr full 35mm system.

I too would love a leica or phase one, but I'm not gonna get one. I WILL get a high MP dslr if it performs like I need it to.

And i will buy more lower MP dslrs if they perform like I need them to.