where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Has anybody an idea why Nikon builts the D800 with a 36MP sensor?
Should the images be worser than with the new D4, thereby the D800 does not compete with the D4?
Which Semi-Pro needs 36MP?
I would like a DSLR with Full-Format, but Nikon (and Canon too) does me scare off which such a useless number of pixels.
Maybe somebody may convince me that i'm wrong... :-/
Kind regards,
Roman.
Part of thew problem is that Nikon doesn't want to admit it but many pros use the (D300s class)D7000 and (D700 class cameras) depending on the job. Many pros do need or want 36mpx for large printing, cropping, detail rendition etc and the D800 will fit that pros need. Also amateurs, and wealthy people who really don't know the truth about mpx will be more inclined to buy it because it will be "better" in their eyes.
It also seems to be a jab at the Canon 5Dmk2, sony a900/850, S2. Nikon knows that both the a99 and 5dmk3 will have tons of pixels so they will probably put an astronomical pixel count to top Canon and Sony (although it has a possibility of sharing the same sensor as the a99)
The crop mode should be between 12-16mpx which is perfect for me... So you don't need to use all of the active pixels...
In addition the camera is probably going to not be as good in low light (and the burst does really suck) so it won't be direct competition. These specs aren't verified and announced anyway so they may be different (although NR usually is right)
Wait it out, and if you don't like it get a used D3s...
Who says a semi pro may not need 36mpx. I am a semi pro but my level of work is at an Advanced fulltime pro's level (like many part time photographers)... In my line of work 10 or 12mpx is enough but for another it may not be. How much money you make off your work (or days invested in it per week) should not determine your shooting level or how pro is your line of work.
Exactly Kyoshinikon and clearly weight is also an issue even for pros why else did Nikon even attempt at making the new D4 3 ounces lighter than the D3? Seriously it hurts carrying the D3 around with the 70-200mm VR and even larger lenses. The D700 did almost the same job with far less weight. Even the resolution was the same! It does seem strange why the D800 would have double the megapixels as the new D4 though. Its going to be a landscape and studio camera for sure. Remember the rumor of two bodies being released? One will have no anti aliasing filter? Also quite a strange move I think.
Lastly, I believe the D3 was released in 2007 and the D700 in 2008 so one year apart. Nikon now is supposed to release the D4 and the D800 at the same time months apart? Seems fishy to me...
If the d800 has 36MP, is crisp and sharp, and has a wide dynamic range, I will buy it.
If it does not, I will not.
That is why they are going to release it, to make me buy it.
Otherwise I'll just keep using me D700.
kanuck said:
Nikon now is supposed to release the D4 and the D800 at the same time months apart? Seems fishy to me...
Seems fishy to me too. Makes my theory of a D900 seem more plausible. Maybe they release the D800 this spring and then release a D900 next Christmas thats a lighter version of the D4. At least thats how it looks in my fantasy. ;]
SquamishPhoto said:
Seems fishy to me too. Makes my theory of a D900 seem more plausible. Maybe they release the D800 this spring and then release a D900 next Christmas thats a lighter version of the D4. At least thats how it looks in my fantasy. ;]
I hope Nikon is listening to this. I would much rather have 16 than 36.
36 on FX makes for a 16 MP DX crop, Kyoshi: 36 / 2.25 = 16.
For studio, commercial, art (posters), macro and landscapes, 36mp will be a welcome addition and I think that is who they are going after. Looking at the numbers the D3x probably didn't have the sales expected due to the high price but a lot of people wanted the 24mp. Trow that in a cheaper body, bingo instant maga sales by those who can afford it.
kyoshinikon said:
Part of thew problem is that Nikon doesn't want to admit it but many pros use the (D300s class)D7000 and (D700 class cameras) depending on the job. Many pros do need or want 36mpx for large printing, cropping, detail rendition etc and the D800 will fit that pros need. Also amateurs, and wealthy people who really don't know the truth about mpx will be more inclined to buy it because it will be "better" in their eyes.It also seems to be a jab at the Canon 5Dmk2, sony a900/850, S2. Nikon knows that both the a99 and 5dmk3 will have tons of pixels so they will probably put an astronomical pixel count to top Canon and Sony (although it has a possibility of sharing the same sensor as the a99)
The crop mode should be between 12-16mpx which is perfect for me... So you don't need to use all of the active pixels...
In addition the camera is probably going to not be as good in low light (and the burst does really suck) so it won't be direct competition. These specs aren't verified and announced anyway so they may be different (although NR usually is right)
Wait it out, and if you don't like it get a used D3s...
Who says a semi pro may not need 36mpx. I am a semi pro but my level of work is at an Advanced fulltime pro's level (like many part time photographers)... In my line of work 10 or 12mpx is enough but for another it may not be. How much money you make off your work (or days invested in it per week) should not determine your shooting level or how pro is your line of work.
Yes, yes, I agree, and yes. Well that reply saved my fingers :-)
TaoTeJared said:
For studio, commercial, art (posters), macro and landscapes, 36mp will be a welcome addition and I think that is who they are going after. Looking at the numbers the D3x probably didn't have the sales expected due to the high price but a lot of people wanted the 24mp. Trow that in a cheaper body, bingo instant maga sales by those who can afford it.
+1 I totally agree with your point-of-view.
we already had this discussion before, please use the previous topic to continue
This topic has been closed to new replies.
