Breaking: I have pictures of the Nikon D800

I am still working on the details, please stay tuned.

I also have some samples taken with the Nikon D800... and yes, it is 36MP - here is some of the EXIF data:

The specs are exactly the same as I reported them 2 months ago.

This entry was posted in Nikon D800. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • burak


    • what i told ya?
      yet D700s to complete the set and we are done

    • sorry peter but i am now setting firefox with Reloadevery “1second” plugin.

    • Paul

      Hello indeed. Hopefully Nikon is not going to backtrack on this.
      Let’s see it!

  • hybris

    praise the lord

    • Roger

      Amen, reverend!

  • texajoe

    OMG NR saved the FREAKIN’ YEAR!!!!!!

  • JamesC

    Shit just got real.

    • R R

      I wouldn’t bet on it..

      • fred

        Maybe the new model will be the D8QQ

  • Sean

    OMG Bring it baby!!!

  • Peter, do you realize that if that rumor won’t be true, you will have to make an anti-nuclear shelter to hide in? πŸ™‚

    • T.I.M

      @Slow Gin
      I have his adress…..

  • Sam Rantwell

    36mp?! WHY?! Almost no lenses can handle that shit! Anyway, I’m happy with my D700 for another year or 2…

    • I’m with Sam on this. My D700 is plenty for what I do.

    • Paul

      36mp is higher than most will need. Heck even 24mp is too much.
      I do welcome the other improvements however.

      • R R

        24 is not too much.. is fantastic! once you have it, you dont want to go back.

        a happy D3x owner.

    • Jeff

      “Almost no lenses can handle that shit!”

      Why? No lenses can handle that???!! Why?!

      • Roger

        he was talking out of his ass πŸ˜€

        every half decent lens will handle 36mp without issues

    • sade

      Does it mean Nikon ignored all of us photographers who need better ISO/Dynamic Range/ Image quality and only takes care of those MP lovers who don’t even print in any size larger than 4×6 and a few studio photographers who print A1+ size?!
      That’s really sad to believe! No Nikon! No!

      • JY

        ever heard of d3x/d3s or d2x/d2xs?

      • Roger


        this camera will have better ISO/Dynamic Range/ Image quality than D700.

        • Better ISO? Not likely at 100% crop. Better ISO through downsampling? on par for sure, possibly better.

          Better Dynamic Range? Definitely.

          Better Image Quality? Sharpness: possibly (look at the A77). Organic quality: questionable. The D700 is a formidable foe to the D7k sensor. It is sharper, exhibits significantly lower noise, and produces a more organic, film like image quality. Some of this is due to the FX vs DX issue, since it’s affording the lenses better shallow DOF, more natural/greater bokeh, and less pronounced lens aberrations.

          The final images will tell the full story. I’ll wait until then before I decry or glorify this camera’s sensor.

          • Roger

            Why downsampling? We’re talking image noise, not how 100% crops look like (only if you’re gonna look at 100% crops you should downsample D800 or upsample D700).

            Sharpness, I prefer to talk resolution instead. 36mp will be, no question, better than 12mp. Instead of A77 (some resolution is lost due to pellicle), look at NEX7. it has resolution comparable to D3x, and much better than D7000. cant wait for 54mp full frame sensors.

            Organic quality, well such thing doesnt really exist, Ron.

            • “you should downsample D800 or upsample D700”

              That’s my point. Upressing the D3 files produces images surprisingly close to the sharpness of the D3x. Really fine detail is lost, but overall the 12mp images hold up really REALLY well, and there are some serious advantages to the smaller files.

              “Organic quality, well such thing doesnt really exist, Ron.”

              It does exist, whether or not you can personally see these cues. Granted, it’s exhibited through technical differences in things like noise handling, aberration, color fidelity, shoulder/toe response, skin tones, and more β€” but there is definitely a dramatic difference between the early, very digital-looking DSLRs and film.

              These differences aren’t completely negated, even in today’s cameras. Some are better at producing the natural “film” look than others β€”Β namely Nikon cameras tend to have this more natural look/feel in the images. The Kodak 760 was also ahead of its time. Canon tends to be more heavy handed in luminance noise reduction β€” this is one of the primary trademarks that give away Canon images. Another is skin tones.

            • Roger

              Upresed 12 to 24mp can be only close to native 24mp D3x if the file scene doesnt have any fine details. Try shooting a landscape, 12mp upresed to 24mp will look like crap compared to native 24. Portraits might look almost-acceptable. I tried this, but also used to upres 24mp D3x to 40mp (compare to medium format) and reached the above conclusion. Native high resolution wins.

              Noise is noise, Ron. Its not some organic or not organic quality. Same as color, aberrations etc. Differences you might see in noise may come from raw converters. Canons I’ve tried dont have any heavy handed luminance noise reduction, other than in JPEG.

            • “Noise is noise, Ron.”

              I can only conclude that you are not capable of recognizing the nuances that differentiate the images from different camera makers. Noise is certainly not just noise, as you claim. Look at Nikon vs. Canon to see the differences. Nor is color, aberrations, or the rest. Nikon employed microlenses in their FX sensor to combat the very serious problems of vignetting and diffraction aberration that were clearly apparent in Canon’s full frame cameras to that point.

              In addition, Canons, at least of past, have exhibited significant noise at even the base ISO in the mid and dark tones. There is even banding present. I have seen this phenomenon exhibit itself across various bodies both pro and prosumer. Canon has historically been VERY heavy-handed in their luminance NR at higher ISOs, and the result is loss of fine detail. It is common knowledge that Canon attacks luminance noise, and Nikon focuses on chroma noise.

              “12mp upresed to 24mp will look like crap compared to native 24”

              Your conclusions are flawed. Upres those web-optimized 12mp D3 JPEGs for yourself and compare them to the 24mp D3x images. They are very close in sharpness, enough to make most people question the value of spending almost 3x more of their cash for what amounts to a modest increase in resolving power. A small amount of fine detail is lost, but the differences aren’t nearly what one would expect, and certainly not what you’re claiming. Most people fail to recognize that there are only 30% more horizontal pixels in the D3x file vs the D700/D3/D3s file. This isn’t a massively higher res camera.

              The D3x is the best high-resolution camera on the market. However, there is a price to pay for each of those amazingly clean 24 million pixels, and to the higher 98% of photographers, it isn’t a necessary or cost-effective gain.

    • Sam Rantwell

      24mp would be fine for me! Seems like ideal… 18mp would also be more then enough! I’ve seen magnificent prints of 14mp camera’s which were quite large. People should worry less about how many pixels, iso numbers and frames/ps their camera’s can do…

      • Roger

        24mp is fine, 36 is better

    • Firmus

      Got any hard data on lenses to back up that assertion?

      Remember that 36MPx is twice the linear resolution of … 9PMx. Twice the width, twice the height, four times the megapixels.

    • JED

      Its the same pixel density as a D7000… Of course lenses can handle it.

  • Sigersted

    36MP! … noooooo! ;-(

    • it makes sense. they seen that more megapixels make sense only in lower end bodies to compete with sony and canon while pros will get less mps but nikon flavored yummy high iso

      • Sigersted

        Humm … maybe I should (instead of waiting for the D800) wait for the D4 …

        • Roger

          But D4 will not have 12mp… πŸ˜‰

          How awesome is D800? 36mp, better high iso, better dynamic range than D700…. oh man

  • Fowler

    Yes! It`s cool, man!

  • JerryFish

    I have the weirdest boner right now…

  • Mikycoud

    Any chance to take a look at those pictures, admin?

    • @Admin β€” how do you know the EXIF data is real? Are you actually sitting on sample images from the camera, or were you just supplied that screenshot?

      Without the actual images, it still isn’t certain those numbers are real….

      • meaning….maybe you can post those samples πŸ˜‰

      • I have the full res jpg form the camera, I am not sure I can post them.

        • Psycho McCrazy

          What would you rate the per-pixel quality of the JPEG as? D3x per pixel quality is good. If it can match that (at low ISO), then the camera may well be a landscapers wet dream (lighter and smaller would fit into their hiking ways too, and I wouldn’t mind the smaller body so long as it has all the functions directly accessible – only the AF single, expansion and all points selection seems to be the grey area now).

          • Indeed, and the body looks more like that of a D8000 than a D800. I really hope there is a D700 sized D800 (whatever that may end up being).

            @Admin: please try. They will tell more than 1,000 comments here.

  • The invisible man

    LOL !
    So I was wrong by one day !

    Thank you for your great work Peter !

  • T.I.M

    I just came back from Sam’s club with a bottle of……champagne !

    Well, what about the 3 sensors (RGB) any infos ?

    • Roger

      no info cause it has no such sensor. be thankful, bayer is better

  • JY

    Look like santa has had enough with all the whiners. Get rdy kids, your toy is coming πŸ™‚

  • Everyone just cool down please. This is still a rumor site.

    • D3S Guy

      You didn’t get it. This is a news now! not a rumor anymore! πŸ™‚

      • R R

        news? nah.. rumor only.

  • Jack

    Large megapixel images, as well as exif data are extremely easy to fabricate, until I see it on nikon’s website, I won’t believe it

    • Jack

      Your title is misleading. You don’t have photos of the camera. You supposedly have images taken with the camera. Not the same thing

      • ewafewaf

        It seems as if he actually does have pictures of the camera itself.. since his post says he “ALSO” has samples taken by the camera.

        So we’ll just have to wait and see before we pass judgement!

      • Photos of AND samples from…

      • nuno santacana

        sample photos are a trillion times better than photos of the camera

  • Shkacas

    OMG OMG OMG… I am going to faint… :))

  • Master D

    Post it already. Arrggghhh!!!!

  • Gard G

    Hurray! I’m preparing for a crapload of cheap used D700 bodies.

    • Paul

      Good thing I unloaded my D700 before the price drops.

  • D

    good job man!

  • Mika

    Finally some good nejs, good job

  • Great!!!

  • Good job, makes my day!

  • Solo

    Now I can go shoot some sweet indoor sports with the new D800, oh wait it’s fucking 36MP.. well what a bummer. But hey now I can take great pictures of Mountains and well other stuff that’s flooded with enough light.
    Give me a break, shit just got disappointing. πŸ™
    And NO I’m not going back to DX, nor am I going to buy a 3 year old camera which still costs roughly the same as when it was released!
    There better be another model which emphasizes low noise, great IQ and good colors @ high iso! For fucks sake this can’t be it, I just invested in new glass to go with my switch to FX.
    So the Nikon crowd has gone from “12MP is damn well enough for everything” to “OMG I can’t live without 36MP”?
    I apologize for not bursting out with joy, the D800 will be great and I hope many people find pleasure in using it. Ill just keep waiting and hope Nikon has not forgotten why so many people bought the D700 (no it was not because of the MP).

    • T.I.M

      Wait a minute, did you see the D800, did you try it ?
      And what if it have 3 sensors (3x12mp) that make ISO 1600 as good as ISO 100 ?
      Before you trash the D800, wait for more informations….

      • Solo

        Sure I’ll wait.. may have overreacted a bit. All I can do is wait and hope πŸ˜€

        • Roger

          A bit?

          you wrote a crapload, man, most of it incorrect. read my posts below.

          • Solo

            And where are said posts? Well when I wrote so much crap then enlighten me, you seem to know exactly what I need πŸ˜‰ guy from the internet.

      • Nerd

        I know you are just saying, but what would be the sensor size of the 3 x 12mp sensors? I doubt d800 will be a triple-FX camera. Most likely we will see more pixels cramped on to the same sized FX sensor and ISO performance will not be as good as it could be if d800 is a 18 or 24MP camera.

        • Jabba

          Wouldn’t it be the same pixel density than the D7000 for DX, which is known for its clean high ISO capability? Does realy anybody needs more ISO than 6400?

          • Roger

            this will be a lot better than D7000 and D700 too. pixel density is irrelevant, stop reading dpreview

          • More ISO than 6400? YES!!!

            More ISO than CLEAN 6400? YES!!!

            I could make use of clean 102k. So, yes β€” 1.6 million top ISO in HI-3 mode (and higher) would be used in many shooting situations I find myself in quite often, both with video and stills.

            • Roger

              clean 102k will never be a reality, ron. not enough photons for that.

            • Roger

              though theoretically, we could have usable pics in the millions. usable meaning it will have noise, absolutely, but usable for some things

            • I should clarify: I classify ‘clean’ as the current equivalent of ISO 6,400 on the D3s, not ISO 200. For my type of work, there are acceptable levels of noise.

              That said, claiming we’ll never get to 102k ISO that looks like somewhere in the range of 1000 ISO or less seems a bit premature. I wouldn’t be surprised if we get there. I sure hope we do. Imagine the applications!

            • Roger

              Not premature at all. Most people are not aware, but there are limits to how much better noise can get. 102k that looks like todays ISO1k or less is weeeeell beyond that limit.

            • Balduin

              So what have you done ten years ago in the age of film cameras? That time 6400 with heavy visible grain was the highest ISO and nobody complained

            • @Roger: ’10mp far out-resolves today’s lenses’, and ‘you need 26mp to match 35mm film resolution’, and ‘it’s physically impossible to get a computer that powerful in a size that fits in your pocket’, and ‘there’s no way man will reach the moon’, and…

              The problem is as much (or more) about the noise levels in the electronics as it is about the available photons. 1 photon is enough IF the technology is advanced enough. I’ll wait for 2020, 2030, or 2040. It’ll happen. I’m quite confident.

              At any rate, I’d rather be hopeful and wrong than pessimistic and right.

              @Balduin: People got by before without the amazing reach of high-ISO that we see today, to be sure. However, they did it by making a lot of sacrifices and leaving an infinite number of shots behind. Thankfully, we don’t have nearly as many of those limitations today, and we’re going to have even fewer limitations as each year passes. For example, Canon claims 204,800 ISO on their new 1dx β€” double the light-gathering capabilities of the 1dM4. We’re only 3 stops away from my wish. 3 massive stops, I’ll grant you, but three only.

              For the record, I’m one among many, many others that have found creative uses for high-ISO. Far more than will ever need resolution enough to print wall-sized prints.

      • sade

        3 layered sensor with 36MP in total will never have that kind of exif info!

    • Roger

      Well this will be better than D700 at high iso. and you’re bitchin?

  • henry

    What happened to those cute pictures on the side?
    Here’s a comment, so post the pic already.

  • Chris P

    So that’s the ‘must have high Mp and video’ group satisfied. Now if Nikon want my money lets see a D700 based camera with a 100% viewfinder, no built in flash and the sensor from the D3s, perhaps they could call it the D700s πŸ˜‰

    • ennan

      I’d leave the flash just for a commander. It’s one thing I miss using a D3.

  • Morgan Corgan

    36MP is a serious letdown.

    • andy

      Switch to Canon.

      • Morgan Corgan

        I have a D700 so no need to. I just will be passing on the opportunity to ‘upgrade’. 36MP I’m sure is great for some but for me it’s completely useless.

  • BlackWolf

    It’s a bit early for a April fool’s joke >_>

  • ImageX

    Guys, I bet all of my photography gear that the D800 is NOT meant to replace the D700. We WILL see another model meant to replace that highly successful formula. One would have to be an idiot to think Nikon would just abandon that formula and replace it with high megapixels. The D800 will be amazing but it is not the camera most of are waiting for…. unfortunately.

    • Solo


  • SBP

    Patience and no whining gives you great rewards. Just awesome, can’t wait!


  • Jabs

    OK Administrator – bring it on when you can!

    Way to go Nikon – 36megapixels and new FX series.


  • Bashphoto

    good job man πŸ™‚

    post it pleeeeeeeeeeas πŸ™‚

  • Nithin

    WTF! 3500$ camera ?

  • Banksie

    Hmmm. I just sold my D700 that I bought in 2008 for close to the original MSRP. Should I also sell my D3s now in anticipation of a D4 so I can get a good resale price on it, too?

    12 megapickles is equivalent to a scanned 35mm piece of film in respect to making prints. But 36mp means closer to 2 1/4 x 2 3/4 film sizes, but using lenses built for 35mm resolving power and a packed 35mm size sensor with potential noise. Aside from cost, it makes more sense to use a bigger sensor camera as a medium format camera, no? Not sure who the D800 intended user will be (?)

    • Jabba

      I don’t know which scanner you mean with only 12MP resolution. My Nikon Coolscan has a resolution of about 20MP, and my slides show projected still more detail, than a digital conversion. So at least the lenses I use on my beloved fullframe body have far more resolving power than 20MP, so I can’t understand why so many guys out there have fears that their lenses are not capable to resolve 36MP.
      And even if it is like that, a sensor with 36MP won’t be anymore the bottleneck of the camera like the 12MP sensors had been. And I am quite sure in 4-5 years nobody will speak any more about obsolete old bodys with sensor technique from the past.

      So I think you can just relax and use your new fullframe lenses you bought on a new fullframe body.

      • Banksie

        I’m assuming you misunderstood what I meant, or you are confused about scanning film for print output. A 35mm film scan at a ppi which gets to the grain will print out equivalent sized prints from a digital camera producing around 12 megapixels of info. In other words, the largest you can print w/o visual degradation (given size and viewing distance) from a scanned area of 35mm sized film is equal to that of around a 12 megapixel modern camera sensor. Over-scanning a specific piece of film for a given print dimension gets you nothing in return. I scan on an Aztec Premier drum scanner (basically a Howtek) with a PMT sensor (photo multiplier) and even though it can scan at a max of 64k ppi at 48 bits, that will not give me any more resolution from that given area of film beyond the level of the grain (plus you risk grain noise and artifacts, and you scan in optical step resolutions anyway.) So therefore 35mm film equals a rough equivalent of a 12 megapixels digital camera capture. Hopefully that helps explain what I meant.

        And yes, the current lenses engineered for a given area of resolution: 35mm film or a sensor of equivalent size. The CoC of the lens will be designed differently when covering a larger area of film or a bigger sensor (part of why DX lenses aren’t applicable to FX.) So here we have lenses designed for a specific sensor application on the same sized sensor but now packed with pixels. The answer is really to use a larger sensor instead (i.e., a medium format digital camera body with lenses optimized for that specific sensor area and pixel concentration.)

  • Rob

    ETA on the pics?

  • T.I.M

    I like the shape, but why that large LCD ?
    Are we buying a camera or a camcorder ?
    Dual slot is also cool but I wish it was 2 compactflash, I hate SD cards.

  • venancio

    please give the info on whether a new set of glass is needed to take full advantage of the specs… christmas is for new glasses and april is time to fool around with the new toy when it’s available… thanks admin, i feel and share the desperation caused by the silence, now it’s time to salivate… ‘sup nikon, i felt like a motherless child when canon made the eos 1 dx announcement… good to see you back on your feet….

  • Ooops

    What no ‘It has begun’ comments, I’m really looking forward to seeing what you’ve found, looks like it will be a long night for a few of us in Europe.

  • still working out some small details of my post, sorry for the delay – maybe another 15-30min

    • sade

      Admin! Are your samples in RAW or in JPG? If they are in JPG, still there is possibility that they are enlarged by some software!

    • to-mas

      i envy you for such a post.
      From marketing view, it would be better for you to leave it for tommorow.
      From practical point of view it would be better to dont mind the discussions and just carry on working.
      But, i think, that from this kind of posts we can see that you really care πŸ™‚
      thanks again

  • Peter, post it please. Right here, right now.

  • I know everyone is complaining about the 36MP, but as a commercial shooter, I say bring it on. With current technology, I don’t see sensors getting bigger. Hey Nikon, let me know if you need an architecture shooter to test one for you. I’m sure I can work it in on a shoot for you. πŸ™‚

  • I wish it will has at least D700 ISO performance.

    • T.I.M

      LOL !
      @Koray U
      It will, even better…..much better !

  • Can’t wait to see how this turns out!

  • broxibear

    So someone at Nikon marketing finally realised it might be a good idea to “leak” an image or two lol.

    • Yeah… really… with the Tohoku earthquake in March and the flooding in Thailand, I think most reasonable ppl can put up with a few months of delay; but if the design is almost ready to go, why not let us see it >.>;

    • That’s what they should do half of a year ago.

  • nikon guy

    Great news!!!! Thank you!!

  • The plot thickens… I guess NR admin has to blur out the faces of the guilty ones.

  • I am definitely staying tuned to this channel! πŸ˜€

  • Sexy – 36mp FF, 16mp Dx plus some other bits heaven and should be the final ultimate camera ever one ever need. Hope we see some pixel binning options but probably not – however 36mp and 16mp will do me.

    Throw in a 70-200 AFS F/4 VR and I will be in heaven plus me getting a 200-400 F/4 AFS VR some day…lol

  • Can’t wait to see these! Don’t know if I will jump on the D4 or the D800. Choices choices.

  • Show me show me show me! πŸ˜€

  • Back to top