Updated Nikon D800 specs


I am now 99% confident that the remaining unconfirmed specs from this Nikon D800 post and the D800 pictures are real. Here is the updated list:

  • 36 MP sensor (7360x4912)
  • 100% viewfinder coverage
  • Improved AF with face recognition – the D800 will still have 51 points AF point
  • CF+SD memory card slots
  • USB 3.0
  • ISO range: 100 – 6400, ISO LO @ 50 and  ISO HI-2 @ 25600
  • The screen will be larger than 3 inches (probably 3.2 in.)
  • The D800 will not have built-in GPS
  • Expeed 3 processor
  • There will be two different D800 versions/models, one with the antialiasing filter removed
  • 4 fps continuous shooting, about 6 fps in DX mode with optional battery pack
  • Video modes: 1080p/30/25/24 and 720p/60/30/25/24
  • Headphone jack, can input from an external device such as a PCM sound recorder
  • 86k pixels RGB sensor
  • 200,000 shutter cycles
  • Uncompressed HDMI video out (just like the Nikon D4)
Still no idea about the exact D800 announcement date.
This entry was posted in Nikon D800. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Mark

    Hope this is not considered a stupid question, (uninformed, perhaps), but, if both the D4 and the D800 have FF sensors, and the D800 has twice the number of pixals, which of the two cameras will produce better (sharper, clearer?) photos, all things being equal. I assume that pixals are today’s equivilent to film grain.

    Many thanks,


    • Rich

      I don’t think it’s that simple of an answer. What ISO is the images your comparing shot at. How big are the prints youre going to be looking at? I would say if you were looking at an 8×10 shot with both cameras at 100 ISO, they both would probably look sharp and amazing. The bigger the print I think the d800 is going to look better but if shot at a high ISO the D4 is going to produce cleaner images. There’s alot of variables possible in your question. when big factor would also be what lense are you shooting with?

    • PHB

      If the two cameras had the same sensor technology then more information is better and the 36MP will deliver better 16MP results than the native 16MP would.

      But the D4 clearly does not have the same sensor technology or anything remotely like it.

      • Jan

        Everything else alike: The single pixels on the 16Mp are the double size of the 32Mp and that means the ISOperformance should be better. So You will have to choose between speed and solution. What’s better depends imho upon what kind of photographs You’re going to take.
        The specs from this thread looks to me like an attempt to differ between d800 and D4 in the way that d800 will be a camera for landscapes, studio work and else where You have sufficient control with light and possibility to use tripods and D4 as a camera that delivers fast work under difficult light. I think the d700 (from Nikons point of view) was to alike d3 which meant that a lot of pro choose two d700 instead of one d3.

        • Jennifer

          one pixel of a 16MP sensor ist 4 times the size of that of a 32MP not 2 times.

          • Anders

            No, twice as many pixles on the same area means that each pixle will be half the size. Easy math 🙂

          • Michael

            I thought twice the MP meant half the area of each pixel (not quarter the area) – as in this example:
            a. 16.2MP, square pixels, 3:2 ratio for 36×24 mm FF sensor, gives pixels that are 7.30 microns on a side, about 53.33 microns squared for each pixel
            b. 32.4 MP, square pixels, 3:2 ratio for 36×24 mm FF sensor, gives pixels that are 5.16 microns on a side, about 26.16 microns square for each pixel (which is exactly half of the pixel area for 16.2MP)
            c. therefore, doubling the # MPs (only) halves the pixel area

    • Roger


    • Trolatte

      This is a stupid question, but that’s where you learn 😉

      Assuming you:
      – are able to focus sharp
      – know to choose a correct shutter speed to avoid motion blur

      And the cameras:
      – are able to provide you the ISO you desire
      – are using the same image processor
      – are using the same image sensor

      Then you can safely assume D800 can provide same if not better IQ than D4.

      • if the knowledge isn’t innate, it’s can’t be a stupid question. i bet you don’t know how an airplane engine works, that doesn’t make you stupid…

        • Pikemann Urge

          Yes but the original question could have been provisionally answered deductively (i.e. with logic), and then the OP (Mark) could have checked his provisional answer (D800>D4 in one specific area) with other users’ experiences.

          • David

            It couldn’t have been answered deductively…too many variables. Yes, if everything else is the same then yes, more pixels are better, but that isn’t the case and the original poster was smart enough to realize that may not be the case. I’m not a sensor expert but in addition to the ISO difference, there may be a dynamic range difference as well, so even at a low ISO of 200, the D4 may be able to give a broader dynamic range (I’m not saying it does as I haven’t seen anything that it will, I am just pointing out that there are a lot of variables).

            • Martin

              you are spot on – dynamic range should be better in a larger area sensor. Simply put, it can gather more photons before it overflows. I’m guessing that other things being equal double the area equals double the photos equals one stop more dynamic range.

              Dynamic range is the underappreciated metric in the sensor wars. Manufacturers have long trumpeted spatial resolution, but I have yet to see a manufacturer replace MegaPixel claims with DR claims instead. So we all put up with pictures at stupid resolutions that paradoxically don’t resolve any cloud detail.

            • Martin

              oops – typo – I meant to write “dynamic range should be better in a larger area PIXEL”

  • Tien

    I pray Nikon has a D800s up their sleeve, a high ISO sensor is more what after.

    • Roger

      This is a high ISO sensor

  • Thierry

    These specifications certainly look very plausible. What surprises me is that NR has got a lot of rumors recently regarding the D800 / D4, with details such as type of cards, iso range, etc. But there is nothing about the D400, a part from the speculation about this camera sporting the same 24 MP sensor as the Sony A77. And that was from last August. One has to wonder when the D400 will be announced. I don’t remember Nikon announcing 3 major cameras at once. If the D4 and D800 are round the corner, where does this put the D400 announcement ? Maybe the site owner has some insights he can share ?

    • That’s correct, nothing on the D400.

      • Dj

        Stuff seems to be added when it comes up. Do u really think he d sit on it. Come on

      • My source told me that it will no be a semi-pro DX model (D400) in the future and Nikon is going to fulfill that price segment with mid-range FX body same size as D7000.

        • Richard

          There is one thing about your source I wonder about. It is one thing to be in a position to know about one product’s development and quite another to be in a position to know about multiple product market plans.

          I am certain that a FX body anywhere near the D300S price point would be warmly welcomed, but I have my doubts about making it the size of a D7k. Many people find it too small and light. There is also a lack of space for external controls and then there is the matter of storage media. Is it to be SD, CF, or the new CF form?

          I would be very pleased if Nikon were to introduce such a camera, but I do not think it would satisfy all of the existing users. I would much rather see something based on the D300S or D700 body which could accommodate different sensors. Nikon could, for example, put in a DX sensor for those needing the crop factor for wildlife photography and an FX sensor for those needing it’s capabilities. I note that the current DX bodies are incompatible with the PC-E series of lenses (the flash/pentaprism housing gets in the way).

          The other thing that a camera such as your source suggests is that Nikon must have found a source capable of supplying FX sensors in volume and at a lower cost than previously. There has been a lot of discussion about the source of the D3/D3s/D700 sensors as well as potential other sources, but much of it is speculation based upon limited information. Nikon, and understandably so, prefers that the publicity be focused on them which only has the effect of increasing interest in the question.

          One might suppose that the fab producing these sensors would be using 300mm wafers both because of the ability to produce more sensors and the increase in yield per wafer expected from the larger wafer if for no other reason than there being less waste per wafer from unused space.

          If Nikon produced an updated D700 based upon the D3S sensor I would expect it to be a runaway hit, but few people seem to think this to be likely.

          We shall see.

    • JS

      Maybe Nikon is changing the Lineup for the future: D4, D800 and the D7000 (respectively the successor) as major Lineup plus “smaller” consumer models.

      I’d like to see a D300 successor as pure Reportage Camera (more in the tradition of the D700): FF sensor, no video, usable sensitivities for low light, small body. I think this kind of PHOTOcamera is missing today (with the exception of the D700 from 2008).


      • Eric

        I don’t know Nikon’s business workings, but it does seem plausible that they could, and probably should drop the D300 line of camera. There is so little seperation between the D7000 and D300 I imagine most would just opt for the cheaper option. Then on top of that, most people I know in the market for a D300 would prefer an FX body. Further, with a 36mp FX sensor the D800 will also make a perfectly fine 16mp DX body using crop mode.

        So their thinking might be the D800 will replace the D700, D300, and even the D3x. Of course it willl be a very expensive replacement I’m sure. Based on Nikon’s recent pricing I’ll be shocked of the D800 is under $3k.

        • Thierry

          Nikon would hopefully think twice before making a mistake that would compromise a good partion of its share of the pro market. And dropping the D300 line would just do that.
          The vast majority of pros I know don’t shoot with D700 let alone D3s or D3x. They use a D300 (or D300s). And there are ways to differentiate a D400 from a D7000 just like the D300 was a significant step above the D90.

          • JS

            But what are the main differences between the d7000 and the d300(s) successor? I can only image small changes like framerates for video or a better buffer. Nikon sets high standards for a possible D400.
            And you have to consider the pretty low price for a high comsumer model as the D7000. If you have to pay 1500 instead of 1000 €/$ for a camera with only few differences the possible D400 would be a non-seller.

            • Rich

              The difference is in the body construction of the D300s vs D7000. The D300 line has a magnesium alloy body with some weather sealing and built to take punishment that a pro will give it in the field. I was considering a D7000 to replace my D200, while a wait for the D800 or D400 to come out but I didn’t like the partial plastic body. It doesn’t have all the higher end features such as the focusing system and ergonomic button layout as well. It would be a horrible mistake to get rid of this line.

            • Eric

              Search for D7000 weather seal on YouTube. There is a video of a guy bashing his with snow balls and it keeps on working just fine. The D7000 is as tough of a camera as I imagine most pros need.

              I’m a former D200 owner myself. I personally can’t imagine sticking with that camera after the D7000 was released. True the D200/300 body has a few advantages, but not enough for me to worry about.

              Besides, I actually prefer the smaller size of the D7000 and I still hope Nikon makes an FX camera hat size. It’s small when I prefer that, then simply add a battery grip for when I want something larger. I think a $2000 FX D9000 would be a hot seller.

      • Bernie Yomtov

        I think it would be a major mistake for Nikon to leave a huge gap in its line, and that’s what the current speculation suggests they are doing.

        That’s why I remain a touch skeptical of these reports. It’s Marketing 101 to avoid leaving important price points uncovered. Nikon knows this. They must have at least one option in the US$1800-3000 range, preferably two.

        Another basic rule is not to confuse your customers about your product line. A D4 should be an upgraded D3-type. A D800 should be an upgraded D700, not a variation of the D3 family.

        So I won’t be surprised if we are all a little surprised by Nikon’s announcements.

  • Don

    Mark: Which will produce the best (sharper) picture? Of course, they will be tested and the tests will tell but I suggest a moderate ISO (200 to 400) they will both look the same when enlarged to 11×14 or 20×30. When enlarged to super huge sizes the D800 will be better because it has more pixels. But when you increase the ISO to 3200 or 64oo the D4 should look better because it should have a lower signal to noise ratio. So each one will be “better” under different conditions and that is precisely why Nikon is making to different sensors and not putting the same sensor in both cameras.

    • Mark

      Thanks, Don,

      That was what I thought might be the case. I suspect how ever much I would love more pixels, I’ll be quite happy with my D700. I get the ISO equiv. that lets me take shots in the (almost) dark.


    • The D800 should look noticeably sharper at low ISO, not only because of the resolution difference (which is substantial) but mostly because of the option for no AA filter. This may be the first DSLR which starts to approach the look of medium format digital.

      I’m not sure if you have ever seen a Phase One file up close, but it is obviously superior to any DSLR I’ve ever seen. It’s not just the resolution. 100% views of both files show a lot of difference. A large part of this due to the lack of AA filter.

      I have the option of buying either camera, and I have a D3 now. As a studio photographer, the D800 is the obvious choice.

      Of course, in the real world people are pixel peeping your photos (right?). I don’t think prints will show much difference until over 13×19.

      • Roger

        Medium format look?

        What look is that, Brandon? Horrendous moire I got when I shot with 645D, that look?

        • z

          A look when you doesn’t shoot on bunch of bricks of course. Sigh…peoples these days…

          • suprchunk

            when you doesn’t???

            Sigh…peoples [sic] these days.

      • David

        So is there a good laymen’s explanation that gives the tradeoffs for an AA filter or not. Anti-aliasing filters are there for a reason, so is the theory that doing that in software in post processing with the latest algorithms will be a more optimal solution for some (producing sharper results) than having an AA filter? So the thinking would be that Pros or those that are willing to spend the time for optimal files would go for the option without the AA, but those that don’t want to have to deal with it in post processing would go for the option with it?

        • Art

          Well, doing it in software gives a huge advantage in that if you do it on your computer at home/work then your computer can spend many more clock cycles (with a much faster CPU) than can be done in your camera. That is the great thing about computers. If you want your computer to spend an hour perfecting a photo, it will happily do it. Doing that in-camera could become quite frustrating.

        • Thierry

          The advantage of the AA filter is that it removes moiré. Ideally it would cut off all details corresponding to a frequency so called the Nyquist frequency. And it would remove none below that threshold. In practice that perfect AA filter does not exist. So either manufacturer puts a weak AA filter (like the one in the D70), more geared towards not removing detail, and moiré is going to show up from time to time, or it puts a stronger one, at the expense of detail but photographers don’t have to deal with moiré. Nikon (D70) and Canon (5D) got a lot of heat from users because of the weak filters in these cameras. Most people prefer not to have to deal with removing moiré. So after the D70 Nikon has erred on the side of strong AA filters.
          There is a good rationale for offering a D800 without AA filter, but not have the same option on a D4. The chances of getting moiré may be less in practice with a 36 MP sensor. Thats’ because the likelyhood of photographing a pattern with sufficient fine details interfering with the sensor filter is less. So it is possible that we won’t have a D4 without AA filter option even if it is offered on the D800.

    • Herve

      Another stupid question here… Wouldn’t it be possible to artificially downsize the size of a picture taken with the D800 from from 32Mp to 16Mp on the computer, by assigning the average value of 2 pixels to create one pixel of the 16 Mp image on the computer? Wouldn’t pictures taken at high iso with the D800 be improved that way and look – maybe – almost as good as pictures taken with the D4?

      • Pikemann Urge

        Wouldn’t it be possible to artificially downsize the size of a picture taken with the D800 from from 32Mp to 16Mp

        Well it’s allegedly 36Mpx not 32. 🙂 The answer is ‘yes’ but why do that when you can just keep the 36Mpx and use noise-reduction software? I suppose either option can work especially if the reproduction size isn’t going to be very large.

        Now, you can down-sample to any size you want, but 2 pixels -> 1 pixel isn’t a good way to think about it. If you had in mind to go from (say) 6,000 x 6,000 to 3,000 x 3,000 that is a resolution reduction of 50% but a pixel reduction of 75%. That’s 4px -> 1px exactly.

        You could go from 6,000 x 6,000 to 4,250 x 4,250 and get a 30% reduction in resolution and a pixel reduction of 50%. That’s 2px -> 1px but only overall, not in the sense that exactly 2px made 1px. I hope that made sense.

  • Personally, I’m excited about the camera. I don’t really understand the people around the internet. The same people will hop on every single announcement and whine about WHY the cameras, each and every one of them, don’t have every single thing you want in a camera. Each camera can’t have EVERYTHING you want. There are two main reasons. 1. The price would be through the roof. 2. There would be no need for Nikon to maintain multiple lines of cameras, let alone multiple lines of each sensor size.

    This camera could be a great success. As much as nobody here thinks so, Nikon knows what they’re doing. No one believed Nikon would do well with their 1 line. Look at them now. They’re saying they’ve done well thus far.

    I’m not sure if I fully understand the implications of removing the AA filter. I’ll have to look into this further, but, looking at the comparison link posted earlier in this thread, it looks like it’ll be a great thing for the 98% of photographers who don’t shoot fine-print zebras or the like.

    The 36MP combined with the removal of the AA filter should make for some incredibly sharp images straight from the camera. I can see this being fantastic for portraiture, landscapes, wildlife, macro, and especially VIDEO.

    The 36MP will also be great for wildlife, birding, etc, etc as well because you’ll still get the fantastic (even though it may not be better than the D3s, it’s still fantastic in terms of most photography. Think back to film.) ISO of an FX camera, the 1.5x reach of a DX camera, and the wonderfully blurred background of an FX camera. It’ll be great for wildlife photographers. This, too, is a double-edged sword. You lose the burst rate for wildlife. Which is never a good thing. But, who knows, you could get higher at lower resolutions than the 16-18MP crop mode. And, even with “ONLY” 6FPS, there was a time when people would give anything to even get that. All of this applies to sports as well.

    Really, this is great for everything besides PERHAPS low-light performance. Though, I’ve never heard anyone complain (with any good reason) about the ISO of the D700. If this is AS GOOD, I really don’t think you have anything to complain about as far as ISO is concerned.

    Calm down people. It will be good. Remember when the Nikon D1 was king of the hill? Think about that. We’ve never even seen a single photo taken with this camera, or even have confirmed specs!

    Chill out. Just wait and see.
    Listen to the voices. The answers will come. 😉

    • Hugh Wish

      Completely and utterly agree.

    • Tony5787

      Definitely agree with you. I think everyone is underestimating the D800 if it does in fact have these specs. We already have full frame cameras that are great in low light. The D700 is still fantastic and the D3s can’t be touched in low light. The only thing that’s next is being able to shoot in the complete darkness which defeats the purpose of photography. With 36MP though this camera will give medium format digital a run for it’s money. You won’t get the quality of medium format for sure but for the amount of money you save and the resolution you get, I don’t think many in that market will complain.

    • Roger

      “The 36MP combined with the removal of the AA filter should make for some incredibly sharp images straight from the camera”

      And aliased images and moire too. Removal of AA filter in a 36mp camera is a horrible idea. It will render the camera unusable for exactly the things I need a 36mp camera for. But as long there’s a model with AA filter, not a problem. 😉

      “this is great for everything besides PERHAPS low-light performance.”

      Model without AA filter will be unusable for lots of things. The casual shooter shouldnt care, though.

      Low light performance will be better than D700, so you’ve got that bit wrong too. 😉

      • Dan

        “Model without AA filter will be unusable for lots of things. The casual shooter shouldnt care, though.”

        Pixel pitch of 36MP on FX should normally handle greater than 100 lp/mm of lens resolution. Most of MF digital does not have AA filter and most cannot deal with 100 lp/mm either. And you may say the casual shooters use MF digital, right ?

        • Roger

          “Most of MF digital does not have AA filter”

          Correct. Thats why they have hideous aliasing.

          • kemist


      • Roger,
        You have definitely taken my words out of context. Read the whole post next time.


  • I think this is all part of a shake up of the line up IMHO ->

    D3s -> D4 – FX Low light, high ISO King for PJs/Sports/Wedding
    D3x -> D800 – FX High Res, lightweight body for Landscape, Product, Fashion
    D700 -> D400 – FX entry model, rugged body, D4 sensor with cut feature set
    D300s -> D7000 – DX Flagship for prosumers

    We’ve already seen how the D7000 has cannibalised the D300s sales and for those wanting DX in a D300s body, the D400’s DX mode should e equivalent of 10-12MP so not much under the D7000 but with the low light benefits of FX.

    I think this type of line up makes more sense from a pricing model as well, especially with the crappy economy coming up and the rising JPY…

    D4 $5500 est. with Jan announcement, Mar/Apr availability
    D800 $4000 est. with Jan announcement, Mar/Apr availability
    D400 $2500 est. with Aug announcement, Oct availability
    D7000 $1200 est. already out.

    From a competitor perspective, the D4 will face off the 1Dx, the 5DMkIII will be sandwiched by the D800 and D400 small form bodies with a choice of high res or low light, the 7D will be sandwiched by the D400 and D7000 so buyers can either go FX or DX. Canon will not have a model that will directly compete with the D800 unless they release the much rumoured 3D or they bump the Canon 5D MkIII up from 21MP to 36MP+ to compete with the D800…

    Anyways, interesting times and please note these are my opinions and speculation only… 🙂 Exciting times ahead!

    • Rolf

      I have to admit, your explanation of a possible view/path of things makes a lot of sense, more than any other I’ve seen. It makes me less ambivilant about the D800, because my (eventual) D700 upgrade path would be to a D400…. I bought the D700 for low-light and rugged, and didn’t need to many megapixels, so the D800 didn’t seem like much of an improvement in what I value. Cool. Something upbeat to think about. Thanks.

      • lorenzino

        I must say… if the D400 sensor is the same we see in the Sony alpha 77 / Nex7, it is an excellent sensor, but not better than D700 in low light. Actually one stop worse. Hence the only benefit you would have buying the D400 would be more megapixels (24) but less high iso capacity than your current camera. Better a D800, then, with many more mp, and same level of high iso capacity…
        Anyhow I think we will see a kind of D700s with D3s sensor, sooner or later…

    • Webster

      I do not think the d7000 and the d300s have anything in common or are even on the same caliber. Theyre completely different cameras for completely different types of photography, and the only reason that it has “cannibalised the D300s sales” has to do with the price and features of the d7000 which is more than enough for the typical enthusiast/advanced shooter.
      The d300s was released for semi professionals and I do not think the d7000 was aimed for the same segment, but for the d90 user segment.
      the d400 will be the d300s’ replacement. A pro body on DX format.

      • lorenzino

        And 24mp sony sensor (not bad at all, even in the high iso area, though less excellent than the 16mp sported by the D7000)

    • I like this explanation, but it’not making things easier for me to decide which camera to buy or wait for. At this moment I think the D700 is still the best choice for general purpose FX photography, like journalism, theatre, everyday life etc. If august would be the date for this kind of D400 to be announced, then the D700 is still the best choice imho. The D800 is too expensive, and for me photography in existing light conditions is very important.

  • NR, is there ANY word on an sRAW mode? 36 megapixels is ABSOLUTELY a non-option in my day-to-day work, as much as the landscape photographer in me wouldn’t mind having it every now and then.

    It looks more and more like I’m gonna be saving up for a used D3s…


    • Rob

      I dunno how to say this without sounding mean, but when you sign your posts it gives people the impression you are narcissistic. Your name is already on the top of your post, bold, in blue, underlined, and with your picture next to it. We know you wrote the post even without you signing the bottom, and even without the equals signs highlighting your name.

      I’m not saying you are full of yourself; I’m just letting you know how it comes across to others.

      • Wow. This is one of the most ridiculous posts I’ve read.

        Sign your post. It’s professional, and perfectly sophisticated.


        • Mark

          I agree with Mark.

          It is also polite to end the note with some sort of stop. Reflects that we are living in a civilised society, I supose.

          Mark (the other one)

      • Hey Rob,

        I can see how you would get that impression. It stinks that the internet doesn’t allow for intonation or personality.

        It’s just a habit that I’ve carried over the years. Not that I’m some old geezer who spent half his life writing real letters or something, but I do simply believe in a small amount of linguistic tradition when corresponding with others in a written form.

        Or, if you would prefer- OMG LOL SRY!


        (BTW, I’m REALLY interested in hearing if anyone has any info about Nikon developing an sRAW format. Admin, or anybody? Patents filed? Rumors about the D800? Anything? Or do I just need to wait for Nikon to eventually get around to developing another affordable, mid-res FX body? And hope that they don’t slap it in a beginner / amateur type body?)

      • not sure which “others” rob is referring too (maybe the ones in Lost?) but it doesn’t come off as narcissistic to me.

        • cpm5280

          As with me. This is one of the more absurd things I’ve come across in NR comments recently, and that’s really saying something.

    • I cannot confirm that yet. I received some tips, but do not feel comfortable with the source.

      • KnightPhoto

        Besides, sRAW is just a kludge from those in the know (that I have read). So you are MUCH better off shooting RAW and downsizing in post (after you have completed all your PP using all that the camera delivers).

        sRAW bakes in things that RAW does not from what I have heard.

        So really sRAW is no better than a glorified jpg. Is that what Michael really wants to rely on for professional shooting?

        Once we mentally “get over” the 36mp number, is there really any downside assuming the D800 ISO is as good? I suspect not really and that is why this camera will obsolete the D700. With image downsizing it may even obsolete the D3S.

        And it’s not priced higher than the D700 – 300,000 YEN – same same. So we really can’t complain on price and complaining on image size makes zero sense.

        We D700 owners seemed to be having a very hard time getting past the specs of the D800, but it’s more about our own subjective thinking I believe. If it does everything NRs specs say it will, it should be quite a phenomenon!

        • @ KnightPhoto – I understand that some can “get over” the 36 megapixel number, but I cannot. 36 megapixels would tripple my workflow storage needs, and maybe that’s acceptable for most hobbyists or landscape photographers, but I shoot high volume weddings and portraits, shooting 10,000+ images per week sometimes during peak season. So we’re not just talking about a few extra bucks here and there for more CF and another external hard drive. We’re talking about many thousands of dollars for completely overhauling our network storage, and probably upgrading all our computers so they can handle the throughput. It’s just not a practical option, not when the D700 and D3s give me everything I need.

          I understand that the D800 does have a market. I’m just pointing out that this market certainly is NOT me, and I would go so far as to say that, depending on the price, Nikon is alienating a HUGE chunk of it’s D700-loving market by releasing the D800 before an “affordable version of the D4”.

          BTW, I do agree with you that sRAW is a kludge. Since my full-time job is workflow management, I see thousands of Canon 5D mk2 sRAW images every week and I definitely would agree with anyone who would be so bold as to argue that per-pixel acuity is indeed diminished in sRAW compare to the native resolution.

          So in reality, I guess I was just hoping that Nikon was, as usual, taking their time and doing things “slow and steady wins the race” with a GOOD sRAW image format. But I know that I have my hopes pretty dang high there.

          Like I said many times before, it looks like I’m better off just buying another D700 or a D3s. I know there are plenty of people who will say “so what?” to that, but I’m just voicing my opinion.


          • KnightPhoto

            @ Matthew Saville
            “I understand that the D800 does have a market. I’m just pointing out that this market certainly is NOT me, and I would go so far as to say that, depending on the price, Nikon is alienating a HUGE chunk of it’s D700-loving market by releasing the D800 before an “affordable version of the D4″.”

            That is a fair statement Matthew. In truth my ideal camera is probably pretty similar to yours and is the “affordable D4”. But I’ve wasted two+ years waiting for a D700S and it never came and there must have been a reason for that. Can’t take that chance again, especially since an affordable D4 may never be offered (given all the talk). I’m biting the bullet and ordering a D4 this time. Probably you should too.

            Nikon obviously has me very well trained by now 😉

            • Richard


              I have often wondered whether the unavailability of Nikon FX bodies (and the fact that there never was a D700S) might just be because they were unable to secure adequate volumes of sensors from their supplier, whoever that might be.

              Still, I have to wonder why they continued production of the D3 sensor for the D700 instead of converting that production over to the D3S sensor . It is all very odd.

              Nikon is reportedly “very close to” Renesas. Aptina produces the 1 Series sensor. All this suggests to me that Nikon, as it should be doing, is searching for the best available source for components. Even Sony is adding production capacity so there must be a shortfall of production capacity somewhere in there.

    • Spooky

      So many people want to buy a used or on stock D3s when the D4/D800 is out. I am no exception. Wonder how that effects the prices…..

  • Ralph

    Well I bought a Pentax 645D for landscape coz I got sick of waiting and I don’t regret that but there are times I can’t be bothered lugging it up a hill so I bought a D7000 for those times.

    I will replace my D7000 with the D800, it will reduce my 645 use but it’s the camera I was waiting for. I don’t shoot in the dark and I don’t want to shoot 100 fps so it’s just great. If I did want to shoot fast in the dark I’d get the D4.

  • kit

    I am sure somebody has mentioned it already, but i can’t see the AF-mode selector which is on D300 to D3s. For event photographers this is very important to be able to switch quickly between the different focussing mode. Possibly Nikon think the D800 is for landscape/portraits so this switch is not so critical. Any thoughts anyone.

    Be interesting to see the IQ between the flagship model D4 and the D800 at the same ISO levels.

    I would buy a D800 to replace my D700 backup due to clean and higher native iso.

    • Nikonuser

      It’s there. It’s just blocked by a black rectangle. It appears all the logos–“Nikon”, “D800”, and “FX”–were intentionally blacked out with software.

  • silmasan

    to the ones who claimed the pic was fake:

    “why are you sooo silent?” :p

    • I still maintain that the images we’re seeing are not 100% un-touched. There are a handful of things that just don’t make sense about the camera, which I have outlined before numerous times. At this point I don’t care anymore; the cameras I have will get my work done, and if worst comes to worse then maybe Canon will make a 5DX with 18 megapixels and flagship AF. Who knows.


      • silmasan

        Of course it’s ‘touched’: black boxes + background removal + edge blurring. Other than that it’s perfectly photographic (undeniably a lousy product shot job): not so deep DoF + camera’s plane not perpendicular to the object’s base.

        And maybe you could be more specific about what you’re criticizing as ‘doesn’t make sense’: the design, or the image. Anyway, since you don’t really care anymore, it’s of no use. Wish you well.

        • I care at least a little bit as to whether or not I am proven right or wrong, that’s just human nature.

          And yes, I am in fact arguing that the image has received additional photoshop. Certain contours and button layouts just don’t make sense, neither does the apparent terrible quality of the capture, and yet it is taken in what looks like studio-grade lighting, and I also believe the DOF is fake. It is as if this image was taken from the same camera that shot the OFFICIAL product images, but was just done sloppily. I guess that’s possible, in which case I’m proven wrong. Either way, we’ll find out in a month or so, I guess!


    • Rich

      I still think the image looks altered. I’m hoping this is an early prototype camera and the final version is different. Its an ugly design. I know it’s about image quality and performance but there is a reason Canon and Nikon hire high end designers that create the final look of these cameras. And I think if this it, Nikon dropped the ball.

      • silmasan

        re: “altered”, please see my above reply to Matt

        re: “ugly design”, I agree 🙁

        • When I say altered I mean it looks like a composite. The vertical grip has more noise than the body, the debt of field is all wack. Uhhhh… yeah I can see that there are blacked out boxes and the background has been removed, thats a given.

          • silmasan

            Uhhh… I mean the shooting rig, angle etc but never mind! 😀

    • Happy Tinfoil Cat

      Because it’s a Nikon and I really don’t care other than curiosity in the state of the art. The photos have numerous issues that haven’t been resolved to my satisfaction. I could easily hack together more believable photos if I had Nikon’s around to shoot with my Canon. I’ve been where you are now, waiting for a wonderful Nikon to be released. I was fool enough to buy it when it was and it died within a week of purchase, the day before my vacation trip. You’re getting all HYPED over something that likely doesn’t even exist.

      • mikils

        yeah sure, highly likely! hope you are just a sorry troll, since you to be a pro Canon slanderer would mean Canon is in an ink pool deeper than I’d believe

        • I don’t know that expression so I don’t really understand your comment. My second Nikon (I won in a raffle over a year later) also died within a week from the same firmware bug. It was the bug where if your finger bumped the lens as it powered on, it overwrote its own bootflash. CP5000 $1,000 and then a low end model with a number 3100 in it. Good news, Nikon has a unified codebase… bad news, they left in fatal bugs for over a year. The first one was exchanged at Frys for a Sony
          F707 and the second had to go in for repair b/c there was no receipt (that took over 4 months)

          I envy Nikon’s low light capability. Not here to troll and I’m not here to change anyone’s religion. The photos look fake and only time will tell which of us are correct.

  • Release_It_Already

    There seems to be some seriously clueless comments about the AA filter.

    1) The AA filter is NOT the same thing as the CFA which is used for creating your bayer pattern

    2) The AA filter is NOT a microlens which is used to magnify the amount of light on the pixels

    Its only purpose of an AA filter is to intentionally blur the image such that the sampling rate (ie pixel density) exceeds the frequency of the image (ie neck ties, fine lines on clothing, etc.). It’s been known for a while now that once your megapixels are high enough the number of subjects which will cause aliasing will become less and less. Personally I’ve been waiting for C or N to finally remove the damn AA filter. The amount of sharpness that you can gain from getting rid of this filter is astounding. People pay top dollar to buy the most expensive pro lenses to gain some slight sharpness advantage. Removing the AA filter would give you an enormous gain in sharpness for free. I’ll deal with the consequences of moiré for the small number of cases I may encounter.

    A lot of people are whining about degradation in high ISO from 36mp. I totally agree that these rumored specs would be inappropriate for some photographers. However, for studio photographers like me who have controlled lighting, this camera is perfect. I don’t want 36mp because I need to make large prints. I want it because it would be a huge benefit when I need to Photoshop a model’s face. Try zooming in to touch up a model’s eyes and lashes on a low resolution picture. You’ll see a bunch of pixelated crap, impossible to Photoshop.

    • Roger

      I cant wait to see you try to photoshop moire out, on a portrait shoot.
      Say hi to “SHIFT + DEL” on your pictures.

      • Thierry

        It’s not that difficult to remove!

  • Any idea if the absence of AA filter will cause the camera to cost more or less than its AA-filtered counterpart? I can see that Nikon may want to cause MORE for a camera with LESS parts, because it’s something new.


    • Thierry

      I think the problem is not the cost of the parts, but rather how many cameras of each flavor Nikon expects to sell. If it expects few cameras to be sold with no AA filters the cost of manufacturing / distributing a small number of cameras may outweight the cost of the filter itself. And the camera will be more expensive than the AA version.

  • geo

    What is the purpose and benefit of AntiAliasing filter removed?

    86k pixels RGB sensor to improve white balance??

    • JD

      Perhaps that as well. More likely, I think it is 86k for the mentioned face detection feature.

    • Roger

      Not much benefit. You will get aliased pictures which newbies confuse with real detail and sharpness. You will get moire than can not be removed.

      • Thierry

        Moire is not difficult to remove. And AA filters do remove true detail.

        • b

          please, tell me your workflow.
          really, show me. i’d like to see it done. i’m not very successful at it.

  • Steve Starr

    If no AA filter is an option, is there still a glass or some filter covering the sensor so one can clean it should some muck get in there? Wet cleaning possible?

    I get a lot of sticky dust in mine that often takes several wet cleaning to get it off the greenish filter in there.

    • Yes, there will still be the glass IR cut filter (the greenish one).

  • Jacky

    36MP vs ISO range: 100 – 6400

    Well…….it means…….it just like my D90 and the ISO level I can accept is ISO1600……
    I am not sure about how well D800 can handle on the noise
    But, usually, the highest 2 level on ISO I will not consider to use (i.e. 6400 and 3200)

    Maybe…the same situation as D3s and D3x

    I think D4 is much suitable for most of the situation while the D800 is more suitable for the studio works

    • Roger

      This will be A LOT BETTER than your D90.

      • lorenzino

        arguably… plus the large amount of mp confines even croma noise to a pixel level that usually would me much less noticeable even in relatively large prints

        • Ren Kockwell

          No it will for sure be better. How/why would they release a professional level DSLR with the same noise control capacity as a 3 year old consumer DSLR? I think if they’ve managed to get 32MP on a FF sensor with ISO 6400 native, that they know what they’re doing and it’ll be amazing. Expect better ISo than the D7000 with ff and 32 MP!!!

          • Ren Kockwell


  • skipiggy

    What is “Uncompressed HDMI video out”?
    What is the benefit of removing the antialiasing filter?

    • Doctor_EVIL (Russia)

      Without filters sharpness above, but receive moire on some plots

      • alex

        there’s very very little moire above 30mp, no need for AA filters anymore.

        uncompressed hdmi is for exernal video recorders, it’ll be a great feature since you can record exactly what the sensor outputs without any compression at all. it’ll be the best video format you can get out of the camera.

        • skipiggy

          Does this mean that the camera would produce uncompressed video (like a RAW for video) at very high bit rates, and send real-time, via a HDMI cable to an external box of some sort, that would then record in some uncompressed/RAW format? Where are these boxes? Why can’t it just do that to the SD card? Too slow?

          • cpm5280

            Such boxes are used in the video world, either as the primary production recording device, or as a backup to the camera. Some also record directly into Apple’s ProRes codec for use in FCP.

  • Doctor_EVIL (Russia)

    The great ergonomic miscalculation: buttons “+” and “-” and buttons “REC” and “MODE” have changed in places!

  • Been there guy

    With these specifications, Nikon should keep the D700 in the line up, or maybe change to 16mp and keep the rest same and call it D700x.

    • agree would love to see something that’s like the D700 is to the D3S. maybe drop the D3S sensor in an updated D700S : D.

  • dan

    I have to say, the new body looks SO much nicer than the D700. I always thought the really high VF hump on my D700 looked a bit silly, but with it curved up like this…mmm.

  • Chris P


    Have you had any confirmation/suggestions that the D800 will not have a built in motor for ‘screwdriver’ lenses? If it is not usable with my 105 DC then as far as I am concerned it is completely useless, no matter how good it may be.

    • No, but I assume it will.

      • Chris P

        Thanks Peter.

  • clemens

    Reading this discussion about an absolut unnecessary and never comming 36 mp camera I have sold my Leica-equipment in the last weeks and return to my 57 years old Agfa Clack-Box. I think it will be better to use fantasy for drawings and paintings instead for rumoring if a camera will come or not. Bye.

  • big m

    clever, clever Nikon. Specs of D800 and D4 will allow Nikon to charge a high price for _both_ cameras. I was hoping for D800 to be in the price range of a D700, but I’m afraid this will not be the case.
    Anyone know how much the D700 cost when it first came out?


    • Not Really

      Allow higher prices? There’s still something called competition. And with the economy today, no one can afford to charge a higher price for anything unless it’s ground-breaking. Nikon hasn’t been that for years. But if they can make their profit off the 1% then I guess it doesn’t matter.

      • F X DX

        5D MII is currently selling for $1999 and D700 is selling for $2699. Overall Canon is 30% cheaper than Nikon, e.g., 24-70 lens 70-200 lens, 50mm lens.

        When it comes to Nikon v/s Canon and Mac v/s PC, competitive prices are almost non-existent. Prepare to pay between $3500 to $4000 for D800.

    • EnPassant

      Let google be your friend! Serch “Introduction price Nikon D700” and the top result will tell you $ 2.999. Considering inflation, much better specification overall and the weaker dollar compared to Yen a price of 3.499-3.999 doesn’t seem that unreasonable. But expect it to fall $ 500 when the early adopters bought their camera.

  • Cool WHip

    Not to sound like a dick but, unless the non AA filter version is spectacular, this doesn’t sound like much of an upgrade from the D700 for $4000. Except the MP hike. I’m sure it’ll kick ass but 4K is just retarded. Perhaps the original 125K ISO would justify it. But can’t make any assumptions from rumours yet. But if it’s a studio camera and the D4 is a field cam then this makes sense. It’s as if the Dx and the Dxxx lines have switched places.

  • R!

    The quality should be around D7000 / A77 one with 1,5 X the file size;this is good for landscape and poster but ,I would rather have 24 mpxl and at least 5 or 7 fps ;this look like a grandma camera a la Canon 5D…

    • Mo

      totally agree

    • Lakamas

      It will give you the quality and file-size of D7000 when shooting in DX mode which already gives you 6FPS if rumors are true.
      On top of that you can shoot in FX and get much better quality if you want. I would say this is more like a hybrid.

  • Mo

    I really don’t know what Nikon is thinking. 4fps!!!6in DX mode!! I guess I should go to a D7000 instead. I thought Nikon understood that the pixels race is over before canon did. They should keep the huge mega pixels for higher end models. I really don’t wanna buy a new hard drive for every photo shoot I do. D800 is not on my radar anyways. I just hope the D400 will have 9+ fps even if it stays at 12mp or 16 mp

    • Tom

      Good point.

    • R!


  • Pikemann Urge

    Some people have made the point that 36Mpx is overkill, especially if it means a $4,000 price tag. Now, don’t get me wrong, because that is a valid objection, but look at it this way: do you want higher resolution than 8-perf 35mm or don’t you?

  • With the rumoured specs, it really seems that with the D4 and the D800, we are getting a replacement of the D3s and D3x. For the D4 this is clear, but for the D800 I’m not so sure.

    I can see that, for landscape and studio photographers, they trim it down in size and ruggedness, while increasing the pixel count. As such, the D800 as a combination of D3x type high pixel performance and a D700 size makes sense. However, in terms of marketing I’m not so sure where this is going. I find it hard to believe it will have a D700-like price, when the camera’s performance would be an evolution from the D3x. What message would a D700 price point of the D800 sent to current D3x owners? They paid top dollar (and then some) to get high pixel performance. At the same time current D700 owners looking for an upgrade might find a 1-1.5K$ price increase too steep. Additionally, the rumoured D800 would not be a linear upgrade. Rather than getting “just” more pixels, most D700 owners seem to be looking for a bit of everything: Better ISO performance, a few more Mpixels and up to date video options.

    This is why I wouldn’t be surprised if there would be another, FX body release later, with more moderate specs (as has been suggested and rumoured by others). This would also make the gap between the top end DX models and the entry FX models a bit smaller. Either way, it’s going to be interesting how Nikon’s market targeting is going to work out – which, as Thom Hogan has stated before, is not always very clear lately.

    • El Aura

      “I find it hard to believe it will have a D700-like price, when the camera’s performance would be an evolution from the D3x. What message would a D700 price point of the D800 sent to current D3x owners? They paid top dollar (and then some) to get high pixel performance.”

      What message did the D300 price sent to D2x owners? It is similar scenario, a large-body camera was replaced with a smaller body one having the same or better sensor, same or better AF for a third of the price, three years after the large body camera was introduced.

      • The upgrade for D2x users would typically have been the simultaneously released D3, just like the D2x the pro model. D3x users will (if the rumours hold true) find their upgrade in (what seems) a slightly lower tier model (lacking a built in vertical grip and full weather sealing). If you would just look at the specs though (rather than at the natural evolution of technology), you’ve certainly got a point.

        Anyway, I guess we should first just see what’s going to be in stock for us in the next few months. Exciting stuff for those looking to buy a new FX DSLR.

  • simpleguy

    I’m so excited about this specs especially – Uncompressed HDMI video out
    this would be totally a game changer against canon video capability
    this means no external decoder from the hdmi – which cost allot , and a much cleaner \higher quality video file , not h.264 compression output
    i just hope that those specs are correct , good move nikon 🙂

    • “this would be totally a game changer against canon video capability”

      Not necessarily. We haven’t seen what the 5DIII will pop out with just yet. It’s going to be hard for Nikon to reclaim their spot with HDSLR video. Canon is simply too experienced. They already have their feet wet in the video industry, and have clearly taken it by storm the past couple of years. This better be amazing video (which I hope it is), or Canon will continue to prevail in this category.


  • Evelyn K.

    Improved Live-View (More like Sony DSLRs) and Simultaneous video/photo (Like the Nikon 1) would also be welcome 🙂

  • I welcome the D800.

    I love my D7000 and the DSLRs I’ve had before it and I hope the D800/D4 causes the price of the D700 to come down because I’ll be tempted to snatch one up, but of course I’ll miss the reach of my lenses.

    I really don’t know what to think with this current line up. The D4 is the only one that makes sense and the D800 is really a small D3X rather than a D700 upgrade. That would be fine but I really feel like there is a missing D700s or something or maybe the price for the D3S falls where the D700S is not even needed.

    The only new DSLR I’m waiting for is the D400 and I really hope it is not a 24MP. I love my D7000 but I would love the build quality and BUFFER of the D300S and I despise the auto modes on my camera. I was originally going to the D300S from my D90 before the D7000 was announced but for the price vs specs of the D7000 I couldn’t resist and it gets the job done but lord do I want a bigger buffer.

    If they offer a buffer upgrade program for the D7000 and a firmware update for the video modes then I am completely satisfied or if the D400 is really affordable.

  • derWalter

    and nikon wants to knock out the d5 mk2 from the video sektor with THIS?

    also if i want to have fast iso speeds and FF i have to buy the D4? i am absolutely not happy with this release.

    i want something more in the direction of the D7000, updated and in FX.

    are those japanese ppl nuts or sleeping or are they getting payed for burring nikon alive?

    that combination makes sense for pros, like buying both cams, but for no one else, there is a GIGANTIC hole now.

  • Tom

    Why bother about nikon D800 we got canon 1DX 😀

  • Kostas

    I would love a small very light weight, semi plastic FF body with 16 -24 mp. (D600 perhaps!)

    I love the D700, but i hate the weight and size (I am big fan of smaller size cameras with big low light performance)

    Sorry for my English

  • Andre

    The only thing I want in the D800 is for it to be at least as good as the D700at high ISO’s (3200/4000). If it’s better, great! Do you think this is likely to be the case? It surely couldn’t be worse than a D700 at high ISO’s…?

    I’ll get a D800 for 2 reasons – video capture and higher mp for studio work. Cause i do al sorts of photography: weddings, studio, food, events – everything…


  • Felipe Gonzalez

    i need more information about nikon d4 video specs, ethernet port, d800 and the post reality or fiction d9000, d4x, d400 and more.
    for NR admin request thanks and sorry for my english

    • Felipe Gonzalez

      For NR admin give me some breaking news, surprise us bye.

  • I’d like to go to fx but not a d4 (price…) and this d800 seems not to be good for wildlife photo no ? low fps, iso, too much pixel maybe. I’m disappointed & now I don’t know if I need what to do :/
    I hope they’ll do this one as a d800x (36mp) and the other one low px and more fps, but I can dream.

  • John Richardson

    Any clue as to the new battery pack? Would be nice if the footprint and power contasts from the MBD-10 were the same.

    • John Richardson


  • DavidB

    I’d like someone to comment on how they think the D800 will function in low light/long exposures which is how much of my photography is done. I’m still a film guy and often shoot Tri-X pushed to 1600 and shoot at night. Thoughts?

    • Andrew T.M.


  • Bozo

    I think this camera will be directly competing with the Hassleblad H4D-40. Quickly comparing the two cameras as below:
    Nikon D800 Res 36MP
    Nikon D800 ISO range 100- 6400
    Nikon D800 Shutter speed 1/4000?
    Nikon D800 Price $2500?
    H4D-40 res 40MP
    H4D-40 Iso range 100 – 1600
    H4D-40 Shutter speed 1/800
    H4D-40 Price $18,000

    there is really no reason to complain about the specs for this camera unless you want a camera that does everything at a very low price, which really makes you look like a cheap douche.

    • Pikemann Urge

      I think this camera will be directly competing with the Hassleblad H4D-40

      Many photographers will buy the D800 and think that they’re going to get 36Mpx each time they press the shutter button. Now, one doesn’t have to go to extremes, but to make use of that kind of pixel count one has to to make sure that one’s lenses are good enough and that the camera is on a tripod when appropriate.

      Perhaps the D800 is a good excuse to lash out on some Zeiss WA primes…

  • I’m and passonate landscape/nature photographer who had just started to shoot wildlife with rented 200-400 and 600 usinf my D300S. I already own Nikon 2.8 glass and I’m ready for the steop upf to FX to get a second body.

    I already had vacation Pics lost where my bodied died once on the first day of a foriegn trip.

    I know the advantage of the D700 with compatibility with the D300 but a D800 sounds reasonable for an occasionalbe wildlife shooter.

    Constructive comments please

    • R!

      no bird in flight with 4 fps,or not much!!

      • rhlpetrus

        Agree, that spec is a downgrade from the D700, I’m still doubting it.

        • I hope you’re right. Even with a battery pack it should be way more. 4 fps is less that my D300S. While I look forward to using a D800 on landscapes, for wild life it may such except for when I need to crop. In that came it may be a tough choice but the D800 may win.

  • dinomite

    besides the useless 36mp, this camera is way too small imho.
    it has the size of d7000 which doesn`t fit my hands very well.

  • Davix

    I am always amazed to read comments such as if i sum up “do you think this camera is good for photography”? Have a look at the specs, this is surely a very good camera deliverying high quality photos for all kinds of situations. IMHO we are too much looking at the specs on the paper and forget that this technology 5 or 10 years ago was SF.

    So yes if you can afford this camera..you will not regret it.

  • Steve Starr

    David (above) posted an excellent comparison of the AA filter (without and with one) in a D300. Sharpness increase is incredible.


    For the 36MP naysayers, if you want a magazine quality photo at 300 dpi, then the 12MP is good for about an 8×10 at 300dpi which is the normal household printer width (8.5 inches).

    If you want a larger print out of a A3+ or 13 inch printer then you need to go to around 21 MP for a 300 dpi print. Canon matched their EOS 21 MP cameras to their A3+ printers.

    Larger prints out of the next step up 17 inch wide printers need 36 MP for 300dpi, unless you are a fan of up-rezzing stuff.

    Here’s some stuff on MP vs. size of your print.


    Bring it on Nikon!

    • Why would you print huge images at 300dpi?

  • rhlpetrus

    I still don’t get the 4fps at full res. Looks like a downgrade from D700, very unlikely I’d say.

    • rhlpetrus

      Besides, 6fps is what the D7000 does, no need for a battery grip, so 6fps at DX with extra battery is really wrong.

    • Dan

      D700 8fps -> 96 MP/second
      D3s 9 fps -> 108 MP/second
      D3x 5 fps -> 122 MP/second

      36MP , 4 fps -> 144 MP/second seems upgrade to me 🙂

    • Timo

      No, it’s just logical, as I wrote earlier. Just consider the pixel count and the file size. With lossless compression a NEF file from the D800 will very likely be around 35-40MB. If you want to maintain the 6fps continous from the D7000 that means you would have a data output of 210-240MB per second! (And if the D800 will let you save uncompressed RAW it will be even more!) Now, I’ve seen memory cards that can write over 100MB/s but that’s just not enough. Of course the camera buffer will help a bit, but only temporarily until it’s full because the data cannot be written fast enough to the memory card.
      Keep in mind as well that at the beginning of a burst the camera will offer a higher fram rate, it just can’t keep it up continously. If you want higher continuous frame rates, you shouldn’t consider a camera with 36 megapixels – or shoot JPG.

    • Roger

      4 fps is deliberately there to prevent users from using D800 for sports. Instead, buy the more expensive D4.

      • kevline

        prevent but if you can’t afford this d4 and you want fx, you must buy the previous version d3s or d700 and you can’t appreciate the new technology they put in the news camera like (86k px sensor…). The choice for customers is too restrictive, it’s a strange decision in term of marketing ‘ you want fx in sports/wildlife’ buy the d4, if you don’t have money we’ve nothing for you. The price between a d800-d4 is huge and there is nothing between 🙁

        If they put a system like jpg for raw format (medium/high) and we get more fps even 6, i’ll buy it but if it’s so strict i’ll go for d700. Sometimes I ask myself why I buy nikon, I’m a fan but when I see this kind of they evolve :(.

  • Michael

    Please excuse if answer is somewhere in the already-submitted half-a-thousand (!) comments (tremendous interest), but I am thinking that, if there is a ‘2x binning’ mode where the D800 can operate in 18 MP range, that would double light gathering (true?), bringing it into the range of the Nikon D4/Canon 1Dx. So first, is that feasible, or is there a technical reason why images thus binned might look terrible? Second, if feasible, how do they bin? Side-by-side feels wrong – then pixels would be rectangular. Is there a ‘diagonal’ binning mode where top left is binned with its nearest diagonal, checkerboard style? If all of the above is feasible and likely, and it is true that bigger pixels (like, double area) mean shooting in half the light is possible (is that correct?), then I would be happy with a D800 that can kind-of mimic the light gathering capacity of a D4 (aside from maybe that the D4 sensor might be better), and still have 36MP if I want/need it. Is any of this thinking flawed?

    • Pikemann Urge

      but I am thinking that, if there is a ’2x binning’ mode where the D800 can operate in 18 MP range

      Well, you could just as easily down-sample on the computer. Same thing. And no need for extra processing on the camera.

      Secondly, just to be clear, when you double resolution, you quadruple the number of pixels (and when you halve resolution, you quarter the number of pixels). So 36Mpx is double the resolution of 9Mpx (four times the pixel count).

      • Roger


  • Samer Momani

    I have an older DSLR but I still like to shoot 35 mm film and scan @ 4000 DPI = 20 MB resolution image. With a medium format scan, the resolution is beyond 36 MB rumor of the D800, a lot more!!

    To a minimum, I wish to get a 20 MB image resolution from a rugged FX camera. It would be great to have that for under $2000 with high ISO, improved HDR, improved white-balance, and uncompressed HD video.

    Is it technical feasibility for Nikon to combine SLR and DSLR into one camera!!!


  • Richard


    Are there any details about the sensor itself? Source & so on?

    • I think it will be a Sony sensor but I am not sure.

  • Oberhorst

    Wow this camera is one big piece of junk. Unbelievable. And people will eben buy it like crazy, that’s what confuses me the most. Well, at least the D4 looks promising.

    • Nicolás

      That’s your opinion.


    You are 99% certain that these are the D800 specs; which makes me 99% certain that I will stick with my D700 (I like the D700 specs better than those of the rumored D800). If the specs of the D800 were closer to those of the rumored D4, I would be sorely tempted.

  • Cedric Cruz

    I hope it will have a live view exposure simulation.

  • Back to top