Few last minute Nikon D800 updates





The French magazine Chasseur d'Images posted few new bits of information for the upcoming Nikon D800:

  • The D800 will have a Sony Exmor sensor with a design similar to the APS-C version used in the NEX-7, providing clean images up to 1600 ISO for A2 format prints
  • Only 2 crop options in video (Nikon D4 has 3)
  • TheD800 with AA filter should costs less than €3000 in France (same price was reported back in October, 2011), the high version without the AA filter should cost €300 - €500 more
  • The D800 will be 100g lighter than the D700

For the remaining specs check this post.

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



    • R!

      Good remark; If It is 24 mpxl It will be the same quality of the D800 mines half of the file size with probably 10 fps like the A77 for cheaper(I would say a 7D killer]!!!!!!!!

      • WoutK89

        No it wont be the same quality, 16MP is “the same quality”

    • i see it so for weddings: D800 with 85G on one shoulder
      D700 with 24-70 on another shoulder
      200G in backpack
      and i am set.

  • why it will cost less in france ?

    • WoutK89

      Because the official price isnt out yet… Why do you ask questions no one yet has a true answer to?

    • Josh

      Duh, duh, duh!!! Go and put your tinfoil hat on.

    • R!

      Because we invented the french kiss!!!!!!!!!!

  • St.

    If D800 is good for A2 in ISO1600, how is that comparing to D700 and D7000?
    Ideas anyone?

    • it depends on what “good” is for you. D700 sure makes nice A2 prints at ISO6400 when not underexposed.

      • St.

        from [NR] post:
        “providing clean images up to 1600 ISO for A2 format prints”
        That’s what I meant saying good.

        • i am sure it will be useful at all native (not pushed) isos as all nikons since D300/d90 are

          • St.

            yes, but “useful” and “clean” are two different words.
            I guess we’ll see when first tests come out – now we just talk here and hope for the best

    • The D800 looks like it will be effectively 2 stops noisier than the D700.

      But for the user-base it’s designed for, that’s perfectly fine.

      • St.

        I always wonder – how can you divide “user groups” that much??
        If you’re working pro – sports or wedding photographer for example, I understand it. But for all the rest – we don’t need such specialized camera. I want to shoot landscapes, but yes, I want to shoot in low light, etc. I can skip some pro features (like Ethernet port) but rather have a camera good for everything – landscape, sports, low-light, etc.
        Put the extreme features (like all those 11-12fps, ports, etc in the pro bodies) since those who use them will appreciate having them.
        For the rest – please – do a multifunctional camera without having to sacrifice so many things. Do one FX and one DX, but do it right!
        This is not the P&S market…

        • Royster

          What you are asking for is a camera that is ”jack of all trades master of none”.
          I would much rather have a camera that is very good doing what it is designed to do rather than have a camera that can do a little bit of everything but not very well

          • CR

            well, isn’t that the field real DLSRs are supposed to be used for?

        • Michael R.

          Because I will only use the camera in the studio. Hence ISO will never be above the minimum setting and there will always be enough light… There are users out there, who need different cameras for different settings and I do not want to travel with the Nikon. For that I have the NEX-7.

        • Andrew

          For DX, the D7000 fits the bill for enthusiasts. But the D7100 (when released) incorporating the Expeed 3 image processor with a larger buffer and 1920×1080 at 30p video performance will be ideal.

        • Andrew

          For FX, the perfect enthusiast camera will be the D4 in a D7000 body. Give us everything in the D4, but in a smaller body and maybe 6 frames per second – to keep the price down below $3,000. Nikon can then remove the filter in a different model and price it at $3,500 to increase their margin. The only question is – can Nikon deliver?

      • St.

        @Sean Molin:
        saying You above I don’t mean you in person 0 I speak in general

        • It’s physics and technology. They aren’t doing this to spite people. A hammer works for nails and a screwdriver works for screws.

          A lower MP sensor can have physically larger photosites which allows for lower noise. 36mp requires 3x the bandwidth of 12mp and therefore cannot shoot as fast. It’s that simple.

          • CR

            >> A hammer works for nails and a screwdriver works for screws.
            yes, and a banana does not drive a car, like my dog runs after the postman.

            I think in this price-range St. is right to ask for a flexible camera. There’s no other price-range you can ask for it, unless you think of monster-bug D4, which adds professional features that are secondary to amateurs, as St. pointed out quiet correctly.


      • mitchy5

        ignorant comment!

    • WoutK89

      it compares to the D7000 at a smaller print size. Dont ask me what size exactly.

      • St.

        I have some 36×24 prints form D7000 which look awesome and other which look like this resolution is too big for them.
        I think it’s a combination of different factors to determine how a certain picture will look when printed big – light, ISO, noise, lens sharpness, etc.
        A2 is ~ 16″ x 24″…
        That’s why I asked. If I assume according to my prints that D7000 is also best till that resolution, then there is no real upgrade.
        From what I read so far about D800 it seems to me that the low light performance will be about a stop better than D7000, but 1-2 stops worse than D700.
        And then we have the MPx upgrade and AF and so on in addition.
        But we also have 3x price of D7000.
        Just trying to justify if it’s worth such upgrade for me.

        • And from what I’m reading here, this will have lower noise performance than the D7000. It’s not designed for the same target audience.

          • St.

            What is the target audience for D7000?

            • CR


              Oh Sensei, apollo G me not audiance target.

              Please me let do Seppuku, Sensei.

            • Amateur enthusiast or hobbyist?

        • Charly

          If D700 is 1 to 1 1/2 stop better than D7000
          and you say D800 will be 1 stop better than D7000
          how come D800 will be 2 stops worse than D700?

          Suggestion, wait until the release and the reviews.


          • KnightPhoto

            I agree with Charly.

            @ “St.” regarding “From what I read so far about D800 it seems to me that the low light performance will be about a stop better than D7000, but 1-2 stops worse than D700.”

            Take two knowns namely D700 and D7000 performance, include a third known (D800 will gain a little more than 1 stop due to FX boost) and then you can extrapolate that D800 will have very nearly the same ISO performance (within 1/4 stop). Then downsize the image for display or print and the D800 moves ahead. The D800 IS THAT DO-IT-ALL FX camera that is so desired! Especially if that 6fps with grip stat is at full FX resolution (please). It’s all right there right in front of us 😉

            I find it interesting that people (especially current D700 owners) are missing that message because they can’t get past the “36mp” shock.

            Nikon has given us everything we all asked for, and we can’t see it staring us in the face 😎

  • adonay pernia

    AA filter ?

    could you please explain the diference betwen the 2 version?

    greetings from venezuela

    • St.
    • Symple

      MaxMax has great information on this. Maybe have a look at the D700 page adonay, and the other links there and they show how changing out the low-pass moire filter affects potential image characteristics, among other things:


    • missing AA sensor allows you to post process aliasing needed to remove artifacts caused by the fact that each pixel have only one color. If you are capturing pattern (fabric, hairs,…) which is close to resolution, it causes weird color behavior (moire).
      it means that jpegs will be rather bad from the camera in some cases, but you have chance to play with the image more.
      all real MF cameras have no, or very weak AA filters

      • sirin

        does no AA filter increase noise at all?

        honestly, i’m a bit worried that a photo might look oversharped. i’m not against a slight blur (can’t be worse than film with manual focus), but oversharpness is sometimes very annoying.

        am i a paranoid?

        • yes you are paranoid, because as long as there are no artefacts from PP sharpening (haloing) you can never have “too sharp” photo. you can always blur it. sharpening is what is hard. sure this camera will produce worse JPEGs, but with post production you can do much more then camera onboard can. keep in mind that RAWs are 1:1 content of sensor. all good raw converter (capture one for me) can handle moire removal much better (and selective, and only when it disturbs) then any AA filter can.

          • sirin

            cool, thanks for the info. )

    • Daf

      Anti-Aliasing filter.

      Used to reduce moire effect however they can also reduce resolution sharpness.

      • WoutK89

        They reduce image sharpness, because it is to reduce moire 😉 It is a fact

  • HeirNeitz

    What’s the difference between the D800 w/AA and W/O? I’m not sure I understand what the benefit would be of having it removed. Is it simply a video related concern?

    • WoutK89

      Offtopic, Admin, people keep asking this same question, maybe add a link on the bottom of each post to a good answer, so people dont have to ask?

      • I don’t think I can provide a better explanation than the articles listed in the Google search results. Maybe I will do a separate post with some good links.

        • Up $#!t’s creek!

          i just came across a high res side view on white background, which i cant for the life of me find again, can you post a side by side with the d700. any word on rebates?

        • Up $#!t’s creek!

          i just came across a high res side view on white background, which i cant for the life of me find again, can you post a side by side with the d700. any word on rebates?

        • AXV

          Yes, while we wait for the camera, do a post explaining the differences, because some people can’t google…

        • R!

          The people that does’nt understand ,does’nt need to buy It, I would say…

      • Martin rock

        AA filter greatly increases the blur but avoids moiré effect(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliasing). A camera without AntiAliasing filter would provide sharpness to none!

  • Scott

    Sony sensor? I’ll pass.

    • Mandrake

      Just like the majority of cameras out there. :p

    • The D3x sensor is considered one of the best sensors there is and it was manufactured by Sony, and actually MANY of Nikon’s best sensors are… so I’m not sure what the problem is.

      • FM2Fan

        fully agree – it does not matter, who manufactures the screws, the metal pieces, the sensor – as long as Nikon is capable of assembling good products.

        • Andrew

          Nikon doesn’t just assemble, they do some serious engineering. Among other technologies, the Nikon Expeed 3 image processor is an essential part of what distinguishes Nikon cameras performance. Nikon’s optics is another example of Nikon’s engineering expertise.

      • Charly

        >The D3x sensor is considered one of the best sensors there is and it was manufactured by Sony.

        +1 Sean, Scott obviously doesn´t know what he is talking about.

    • lol. One less on all Nikon waiting lists. What a stupid comment………..

    • nikon

      buy Canon and GTFO!!!

    • The Manatee

      Dumbest comment on this post.

    • jorge

      Sorry scott.. goodbye.

    • R!

      So you’re passing the best color quality of all the markett!!!!!!In photo and video,and in screan.

  • Mandrake

    So $4K with AA and $4,500-ish without?…fogetaboutit. Hope no one was hoping for cheaper D700’s, this is a completely different price point. Bring on the D400. 😉

    • WoutK89

      below 3000$ with and below 3300-3500$ for without a filter. Dont use direct conversion for prices in different regions. Usually Dollar to Euro is a 1:1 price, so 3000 euro would be 3000 dollar.

      • Mandrake

        Thanks, a little more reasonable.

      • PJS

        I hope you’re right about the conversion, but I don’t think you are. The D800 will come in around 4K US.

        • The Manatee

          Doubtful. You have to remember that European prices include VAT which in France is 19.6%. 3000 euros would work out to a price of $3,135 if you take out the VAT. Since the Canon is expected to price at $2700, you could easily see Nikon selling it at $2,999 (and higher without the AA filter) to keep competitive.

      • nope .. will not be 1:1 conversion .

        Thailand Floods and Yen vs Dollar will makes things expensive .we as a user will have bear it .Whether we like it or not 🙁

        • Steve Starr

          Price depends on the greediness of whatever country’s distributor too. Offer an extended warranty and the price goes up too, even though they may find a way to get out of it. Same for cars (cough..bmw..cough..cough.).

          Take Australia for an example of greedy distributors who charge more than any suggested list price – or not.

  • So just as many suspected… this is a mini-D3x on steroids. With a practical ISO limit of 1600, it’s DEFINITELY a studio/landscape camera. D3x-es will be going on eBay with a vengeance.

    Well, damn. That means I’m DEFINITELY looking for a D3s or a way to afford a D4. I was at least hoping the D800 would have the same ISO capability as my D700.

    • it cannot be, because D4 have much less resolution and is only about stop better then D3s

      • I’m totally okay with the D800 having less ISO performance and I understand completely why it does. It suits the target market. I was just hoping there would be some magic.

        • AXV

          I’ve never gone past ISO 1600 on my D300 and 60% of the time 500 is most I use. What I need is dynamic range, super clean images at base iso, sharpness and color depth, and more megapixels than 12 are welcome, but not really necessary I would have prefered to have 16-24mp and an increase in the IQ, it would have been an astonishing one.

          So probably D800 + no AA filter is what I need (although I’ve gotten moiré when shooting some clothing so that’s a little worying).

          Let’s just hope for low prices (2999-3499 usd) *fingers crossed*

    • scurvy hesh

      These are HUGE files. At 50% it just might. How often will you need 36mp @1600+ iso? If you use it and its not as clean as you like(which I doubt), you have plenty of data to downsample it to taste.

      • Landscaper and studio photographers will need 36mp all the time. They are also usually not shooting with the volume of a wedding or portrait photographer.

        This is that camera for that target segment.

    • You guys are increadebly ignorant about the noise capabilities of the d3s. Actually all the coments here seams to be based on dxomark data. And on misinterpretation of that data as well. I have used both D3, D700 and D3s both proffessionally and privately. The D3x constantly outperforms the D3 when post production is finished. Why? Well, have a look at the Dxo figures and do the math right instead of whatching yourselves blind on the pretty pics. D3s has twice as many pixels and 15% more DR. That is 2.3x more data. Put that figure in the noise-data comparison and try to figure out from which camera you can gather most image data for a similar print/screen resolution after an acceptable level of. Notisen reduction is applied. Arter figuering out that you cant do that without knowing the exact algorithms of both the raw-converters and the noice reduction, go buy a D3x/D800, learn the process and be amazed.

      However, in a way, you might not be that wrong after all. The D800 is not a camera for you if you are in it for the quick kick and to lazy to learn the craft of photography.

    • Emanuele

      io avevo la stessa speranza 🙁

      • Emanuele

        sorry: *I had the same hope

  • UA

    This will be so niché camera with that huge resolution and (most likely) poor high ISO performance. Only for studio, video and landscapes. I’ll be suprised if it can match D700 or even D3x in ISO performance.

    I’d wait for D400, which will most likely have the same sensor than D4. D400 must be FX (no even rumours or filled patents for ANY pro DX glass from Nikon in ages) and the “delay” would be due to the newness of D4. If old times keep, D400 will be here in August: 16mpix, ISo25,6k native 7fps, and same movie features than D800/D4 will have, body directly form D800 with minor usability adjustments, and price will be propably below D800 somewhere between D300s and D700 release prices.

    • WoutK89

      No new Nikon DX pro glass does not equal no more semi-pro or pro DX bodies. Pro DX lenses equals big and heavy (and pricey), so just as well buy FX lenses in that case.

      • UA

        This is a simple one: fast super wide.

        There is no fast super wide pro lens from Nikon for DX. FX lenses won’t do the cut due to the crop factor. Remember: 14mm FX is 21mm equivalent on DX.

        Why do DX pro camera, when all pros already are in FX?

        • WoutK89

          Why does a pro DX camera only appeal to professional photographers? And officially, the D300(s) is semi-pro already. Mostly pro or semi-pro is used to point at what features are included (meaning everything possible usually for pro, and less and easier/automated in consumer).
          But you are correct about the super wide prime, but that is all that is not available in DX. We have Tele but not yet the 80-400 refresh, and all other lenses are there in FX or DX. It holds still true however that if you want true pro glass, it will weigh as much as the FX lenses out there at the moment, so DX pro lenses lose the value of why they are DX (only).

          • PHB

            No, the d300s is and always has been professional, no qualifier.

            Lots of women prefer to use dx as they can use lighter lenses.

            There is little need for pro dx glass as tlhey take the same lenses at telephoto. And at the wide end nikon has only just got serious about FX primes again with the 1.4 series and is still working on a DX consumer range.

            The only DX pro lens that makes much sense is a mid range wide. Which they have. At ulta wide, dx is going to be worse than fx which will be worse than cx.

            The only reason for not doing a d400 would be that the D800 is effectively a high res DX camera plus an FX camera and can serve both markets.

    • So, let me get this straight . You think they’re going to introduce a prosumer camera, with the flagship sensor, in a prosumer body, with all the same specs besides minor usability, and have it cost less than the other flagship? And all this only a few months after said flagship was released? Not a chance in hell. Sorry, but why would ANYONE want a D4 if they could get the same thing in a D700-sized body?

      This is definitely not going to happen for at least another 1.5-2 years. Maybe more.

      The D400 will come out, but I strongly believe it will be DX, and probably 18-24MP.


      • The D700 was only a year after the D3. I don’t think it will necessarily be that long… but they’re sure as hell going to give it “some” time, for sure.

      • UA

        Yep, D700 did that with D3 sensor. Typically, history keeps repeating itself.

        “Field pros” like to use D3/D4 bodies: big battery, very solid (D700 with battery grip is no where near the solidness of D3), higher fps, typically more dedicated buttons (D4 has 2 joysticks, D700 successor most likely will not), etc. Small things, but they do matter when you do not really have to care how much your equipment costs.

        There is already prosumer DX body: D7000. D300s was not intended as prosumer, it was a full pro camera when released. D3 cost something like 5000€ when released, D700 2800€, D300s 2000€.

        We WILL see a small body with D4 sensor (there is no doubt about that). All pro’s except bird photographers would prefer FX, because they have a set of FX lenses and most likely already shoot FX camera (D700, D3/D3s). If D800 is a niché camera for studio and landscape, Nikon does not have point to do another niché camera for bird pros.. so do the math: D400 will be FX, it will be cheaper than D700 was, it will be more allrounder than D800 will be.

        Oh, and we do not have any rumours about D400 yet. D300S is old and outdated as hell.. they should replace it very soon, if they are going to keep providing DX pro body.

        • WoutK89

          According to this site’s comments, there will never be a D700s as well, people wanted it, it didnt come. So it will not come, right?

          • PHB

            I would not be surprised if it came in the form of a D9000

            The reason that there was no D700s might well be that thr D3s was made possible by cherry picking the best sensors for D3s bodies and putting the rest in d700 bodies.

        • AXV

          That makes sense, but business sometimes does not. I don’t think there will be a cheaper FX right now, they want to keep FX value (expensive) for as long as they can, people are not going to jump to FX just because a cheap body, because the lenses are expensive.

          So $3000 or more will be the cheapest in FX for a while (with nikon).

          • WoutK89

            Ok, here is silly idea, get people to buy a cheaper body, make more money on the lenses sold.

            • KnightPhoto

              If one is serious about photography and willing to spend $2,000 on a camera, open your personal blinders and go ahead and spend the $3,000. It won’t kill anyone or cause them to go bankrupt. The D800 is going to make a great all around camera.

              It does require removal of personal blinders though. Not that tough really, look around folks you’ve probably got an under utilized lens or two you can sacrifice (and stuff from other hobbies you can put on Kijiji) that can raise a good part of the price difference.

              I sacrificed a lens already for my D4 fund and no it won’t kill me. I’ve got some bodies that can go too.

              If you are serious about photography “It’s not them it’s you” 😎

    • mikils

      Another Whisful thinker. Nikon has no use for selling their precious D4 sensor in a cheap body, not yet at least, nor will ever deliver customized on demand camera, or at least not with such delusional specifications

  • Michał

    Wow, I really thought this is all but a joke. Now it seems D800 is REALLY gonna have 36MP, poor high ISO performance and slow FPS rate. Moreover, it’s highly unprobable that REAL D700 successor is coming any soon.

    I hate that “F**k Nikon, I’m switching to Canon” stuff, but if suspected specs and price of 5Dx are true (22MP, 7FPS, pro AF, 2700$), it’ll be hard not to consider a switch.

    That is kind of sad, because new Nikkor lenses are SO nice.

    • The D700 is on a pro cycle, which is four years.

      Think about it. The D700 took the flagship D3 sensor and put it in a smaller body… a YEAR after the D3 came out. It only makes sense that they’d give the D4 legs before they even *consider* putting it in a less expensive body.

      We’ll see a true D700 replacement in a year.

      • Michał

        All that four years cycle is BS, D3 was replaced after 2 years and D3s after 3, so it makes absolutely no sense.

        Will there be a D700 replacement in a year? Maybe. But what if we’ll see 5Dx at the end of February? Should we wait a year hoping that Nikon is gonna bring the D700 successor? With new Nikon bodies being kind of disappointing (let’s be honest – 1Dx looks much better than D4 and D800 is a camera that not only a fraction of Nikon users are waiting for right now), I guess many of us will face the moment when we’ll think of switching to Canon.

        I still hope we’re all wrong and everything will end up with Nikon releasing THE camera everyone is waiting for. Few years back, Canon was all about gimmicks and Nikon was all about performance. With what’s going on right now, it seems everything will be opposite. And I guess so will be many of current Nikon shooters.

        • Now, I do agree that they *could* have by this point put a D3s sensor in a D700… but I’m not sure they like the business side of that. That’s just a question I couldn’t answer.

        • Mock Kenwell

          How many of you have been saving your pennies and buying FF glass waiting, waiting, waiting for a D700 successor with video? Waiting for an answer to the 5D Mk II? Waiting for Nikon to release their first affordable FF camera with video? Then this? Was this audience clamoring for a more affordable FF? The D3X isn’t that old, shouldn’t this camera be in line AFTER the D700 update? Nikon’s marketing decisions are baffling.

          Pink cameras, underwater cameras, lame EVIL cameras… but not the one camera the most vocal audience has been clamoring for. Waiting for a camera that never comes. Unbelievable.

          • paf

            +1 for Michal and MK…

            I’ve been waiting for an “affordable” digital FF from Nikon since 2002 when I got my first DSLR. My hair is falling out by now, the cows have come and hell is about to freeze with no sign of Nikon FF under 2K.

            Can I afford 3-5K FF DSLR? Sure, but the ROI is just not going to be there (well, is there ever ROI on hobbies?). For pros (people who make $ per shutter click) it might be a different game but for hobbyists — well, the question is how much $ are you willing to burn to support NAS (Nikon Acquisition Syndrome).

            One thing I have learned from my 10 year wait — buy excellent glass (and only the items you really need so for hobbyists that might be 2-3 lenses), buy the the body you NEED (not want), be an expert in post processing and be ready to switch brands as they all have their ups and downs and no brand “does it the best”.

            I suppose I need to start living this lesson instead of continuing my wait — I definitely am not hyped about the 800 as I thought it would be the answer to my long long wait.. 🙁

          • KnightPhoto

            @ Mock Kenwell

            Once again to you and the many posters with the same theme, the D800 is staring you right in the face and you can’t see it 😎

            What exactly are you AND THE MANY LIKE YOU missing? Canon is NOT OFFERING THEIR 1D X SENSOR in a 5Diii body! This is blindingly obvious.

            Open your eyes folks and get past the “36mp” schock on the D800 and see what it can do for you.

            I hope you aren’t the type of guys who have been quibbling about $300 here are there – are you? Because if that is the case, you don’t really belong in threads discussing D4 and D800 and stop wasting everyones bandwidth.

            • Mock Kenwell

              I run an agency video department and bought six 5D Mk IIs about 2 years ago, when Nikon was ALREADY late to the affordable FF niche. We need FF cameras/video that travel light and don’t cost a fortune. Nikon doesn’t make one. Shall I draw you a picture? I didn’t whine or threaten, I just did it. Canon bodies, Nikon glass. I can’t justify the D3, D4 cost—our market is too competitive and I don’t need a piddly 35mm studio camera—I have 2 Sinars.

              I’d love to switch back, so would my crew, but Nikon has stupidly ignored this segment and will continue to do so at it’s own peril. What I need (not want,as I’m sure is your case) is very simple. A D700 replacement with video and as many more MP as I can get without sacrificing D700 quality. What I don’t need is a fanboy tool talking smack and calling people out without verifying his own (hobbyist) credentials.

      • Eskimo Macinoid

        I am guessing they won’t put the D4 sensor in a cheaper body anytime soon. I think the D3s sensor will go into the D400…here’s why I think it’s a possibility (though not a certainty): 1. The D3s sensor, which has superior ISO performance when compared to the D3, never made it’s way into a D700-class body. 2. The D7000, which replaced the D90, got a magnesium body and led off with this generation’s best DX sensor…I don’t think it will find it’s way upmarket. 3. Why all the secrecy behind the D400? Admin has nothing. If the D400 comes with the D3s sensor, Nikon wouldn’t want anything to leak because it would cannibalize D3s sales, which is a problem – until the D4 hits the shelves. 4. Why wouldn’t Nikon want to harvest the D3s sensor? 5. Why would Nikon want to put the D4 sensor in a cheaper body? They probably skipped a generation because they want the true D700 replacement (D800 isn’t it with its low ISO, high MP sensor) to have last generation’s sensor, therefore not cannibalizing current pro FX sales. 6. Nikon could have D300/D300s customers move upmarket with the upward trend in camera sales. They could chage $2,500 for a D3s-sensored D400, and the customer would say, “Gee, thanks Nikon for charging me $700 more than my last camera….oh, wait, this camera is awesome.”
        I just hope the D3S sensor sticks around somewhere for awhile at a cheaper price…after all, we still have the fantastic D3 sensor in the D700. Give us a true D700 replacement, Nikon, not a D3X replacement in a D700 body.

        • UA

          D3S sensor in D400 could be also a good move, but I think it should be called D700s then.

          They could detoriate D4 sensor with software for lower class body to keep D4 as a “better” quality option. I think they already do this with D5100 and D7000.. Using the same sensor is beneficial in cost wise than keeping two different production lines going on.

          • eskimo Macinoid

            I certainly agree with your logic though there is one caveat…chip yields. The D3s sensor is a mature chip and the manufacturer will get greater yields out of it than they will initially with the D4. Also, the D3 sensor has been made for nearly five years now with the continuing production of the D700. The 10.2 and 6 MP sensors soldiered on for years as well. Also, there has to be a direct competitor with the 5D Mk III, and the D800 isn’t it.

    • UA

      5D2 successor will be quite odd ball, also. Just slightly better in all areas. Why bother when you can get same resolution, pretty much same ISO performance already from the old cheaper 5D2 (not gonna be much better than D700, since, 5D2 was already lagging behind and 1Dmk4 has only 18mpix capable to 25,6k ISO).

      Well, the AF is crappy in 5D2, so propably Canon trusts that better AF will be enough to encourage people to upgrade.

      • WoutK89

        Haha, Canon says PRO AF… That is the same as saying “pro point and shoot” I mean, just because the name says pro, does not make it work like a pro needs. And about pro AF, I think Nikon has already a proven system, and Canon’s still has to be proven (is the 1Dx out yet? 😛 )

    • Andromeda

      I’m with you here..I started buying very expensive glass and waited waited for my first FX camera. Currently have a D7K, awesome camera but I need good ISO and FPS, not sure if I should upgrade or not at this point for a inferior camera…

    • Sandy

      Crappy ISO? What are you smoking? The D800 with sesnor technology similar to the D7K should be have ISO same or a little better than a D3, and definitly better DR. With 36 mp. it is going to rock.

  • Daf

    Hmm more Mpx at the cost of ISO noise – disappointing.
    I would much rather prefer a small D4.

    (Although I do studio work, I also do nightlife events.)

    • The target audience of studio and landscape photographers could care less about anything over ISO 1600.

      • +1

        i rarely ever go over ISO200 at all my MF shoots. and when i have to, i do it for a good reason. Clean ISO1600 is still “nightmachine” for any commercial shoot.

      • St.

        yes, but again, you can’t simply divide all people to this or that category.
        Some peope like Daf and me ( and I’m sure many more) like to do different stuff with their cameras.
        And for >$3000 I don’t want to sacrifice quality!!!

        • “yes, but again, you can’t simply divide all people to this or that category.”

          And again, why not? Hammers work on nails. Screwdrivers work on screws.

          Do you not realize that it’s better to be a specialized tool than a jack of all trades? These are PRO cameras. They shouldn’t be making sacrifices just because. If you have two very specific needs, then you need two bodies.

          • St.

            I understand your point and I agree in general, but are you saying that a serious hobbyist (not a pro) in order to have good quality images (for landscape and low light) he must buy both D800 and D4 (since those are the new models)?
            $10,000 just for the bodies is not what a photography enthusiast (at least most of them) can afford.
            Is that hard for Nikon to create a camera, which fit this niche – the “advanced enthusiasts” as they were calling them.
            Something like this (FX body with 21-24Mp & 5-7fps) doesn’t sound so hard to create, right?
            I’m sure such camera would have better low-light capability, still good amount of MPx and fast enough shooting speed.

            • It’s still a cheaper hobby than collecting cars. lol.

              But seriously, you only need to get two separate bodies if you demand THE BEST. I’ve seen incredible landscapes AND low light portraits from several single bodies.

            • Ralph

              Either the D4 or the D800 will meet the NEEDS of any enthusiast. Photographers were taking great pictures with film that was unusable past ISO800 and cameras had manual advance of film. This rubbish of high ISO, VR and lots of FPS is just annoying. Photography has a lot more to do with creativity than technology. I read once that more great photos from photo comps were taken with a standard 50mm lens than all the others combined.

              Buy the camera that best meets your needs – if you cant afford it, go collect stamps.

          • Jim

            @Sean Molin
            Hammers work on nails. Screwdrivers work on screws.
            Do you not realize that it’s better to be a specialized tool than a jack of all trades?
            There is something to it! Lets start by dividing Still and Video Cams!!!
            I bet you in 5 years only a hand full of pros will do good in DSLR-video, while being heavy invested in additional video-gear. And the rest of the flock will make some clips about their kids growing up and some holiday stuff in the best case.
            Either the D4 or the D800 will meet the NEEDS of any enthusiast.
            You’re right! The problem is, if these cams will fit their wallet also!

      • Michał

        Yeah, but for landscape base ISO is much more important than igh ISO performance, isn’t it? Modern MF digital SLRs goes down to ISO 50 or even 25. Die hard landscape shooters will choose MF back every single time anyway, so I guess targeted audience of D800 is shrinking from both sides.

        With MF becoming more and more affordable nowadays, I doubt that D800 will be a huge success. On the other hand, crappy and overpriced X-Pro1 seems to be top seller (even though it’s not even shipping yet!), so who knows…

        • 1. You are correct that base ISO is important, but the noise floor on the D800 and a Hasselblad at 25 aren’t going to be much different if at all.

          2. Why do you think die-hard landscape shooters will choose the larger, bulkier, more expensive camera every single time?

          3. MF being more affordable is totally relative. We’re still talking investments are the are more than ALL of my gear combined, and I have a LOT of great gear.

          4. You said yourself the X-Pro 1 isn’t even released, so how do you know it’s crappy? I’d say for it’s target market it’s an amazing camera. Better low light performance than the D3/D700, compact mirrorless with no AA filter… that sounds like the travel landscaper’s dream. It’s also a low-production, high-end product. It’s better than a Leica at a fraction of the cost, and will even be able to use Leica lenses. So… where the hell are you coming from?

          • Michał

            1. Probably right, but again – noise level will be very low on both, but it’s not all about noise, I think. Dynamic range, color rendition, possibility of taking exposures 4 times longer than with D800 – I think it is very important when shooting landscapes. Studio loves low ISO too – especially when using shallow DoF (agree that’s rare in studio environment, but not that uncommon).

            2. Because it gives better results. Pentax 645D (though not spotless landscape camera) beats D3x in every aspect, I think. And it’s not that big and heavy.

            3. You’re right, but still they are cheaper – especially with other types of cameras getting more and more expensive.

            4. IQ is spotless, that’s true. X-Pro1 is beautiful and has the vibe, but what’s the point of using the camera that has poor BOTH manual and auto focus? And since manual focus is barely usable, M-mount lenses still seem to fit Sony better.

            • 2. The price to performance ratio is obliterated at this point. If you’re getting 97% of the way there for $4,000… few people are going to pay $50,000 for the extra 3%.

              4. The X-1 Pro is not the X100. Every early review I’ve read says the X-1 Pro has significantly fixed many of the usability issues of the X100… manual focusing being a huge one. I am actually very excited about it.

      • +1000 I love all of these cries of disappointment at the “crappy ISO range” of the D800. I rarely shoot above ISO 200…looks like I will be able to get my hands on one in double quick time after it goes on sale, which is absolutely awesome.

        • Michael R.

          +1 I have already considered and tested MF backs. IMHO if the specs/price estimation of the D800 are correct, I would just love to have that camera, it is way cheaper than *any* MF on the market. It will appeal to studio photographers, that are not willing to invest in a MF and is still easier to transport. Also, any of the FF glasses of Nikon are cheaper and have superb quality than those for MF cameras. Consider a typical gear with 1-3 primes or 1-2 primes and 1-2 zooms. Then you can make a guess, which will be more cost effective.

          I really like the distinction Nikon is making – the expensive D4 for those, who do sports and probably earn their livings from photography and put out a camera for enthusiasts with different characteristics a lot less expensive.

          Just my 2c.

  • Donji hogfan

    If the non-AA model is available only as a custom order from Nikon, would it be safe to conclude that it is aimed for extreme landscapers, and the AA version is their official model? Would the AA version have a thinner filter then?
    Of course testing will give us the answer, but I am debating whether to pre-order an AA model if it is our only choice next week.
    Everything would be much easier with only one model!

    • I must say the more I’ve considered the options, I can’t see much advantage without the AA filter. I’ve been printing up my 12MP D700 images at A2 and they still scale beautifully so will I be swayed to part with even more cash for a minor benefit? I guess it’s the same reason why people buy say the Nikon 85mm f/1.4G over the Nikon 85mm f/1.4D. You get maybe a 5% improvement for a big premium by all accounts. This time though we’re talking about a 36MP image already – I don’t need to print over A3+ as a rule so it’s only about other factors such as crop that the extra resolution will make a real difference. This is how I’ve justified it to myself anyway…

      • Donji hogfan

        I came to the same conclusion. If the AA filter is not too thick then all the sharpness can be retrieved with PP. Much easier than trying to remove color moire.

      • rck

        I’m with you. If time proves that there are much better results without the AA filter and no serious moire issues it can always be removed. I have no idea what expense would be involved in installing an AA filter or whether it can be done after the fact but I’d bet it is much more involved/expensive than removing the filter.

  • pmac

    yeah i get the idea that the camps are swapping. nikon is going 5d type and canon is going d700 type. if thats the case im going over

    • Seriously? Nikon is putting out more great cameras and lenses in a short period of time than ever and you’re already complaining?

      The D800 is NOT a D700 replacement. It’s basically a mini-D3x on super steroids. It’s a new segment. The D700 came a year after the D3. It would only make sense that if Nikon’s going to replace the D700, that it would be a year after the D4.

      1. What’s wrong with the D700?
      2. Buy a used D3s or a D4.

    • Master_D

      I think I have cracked it. I’m just gonna keep my D700 for low light stuff. Main thing I want to upgrade for are 1080p video and sharper pics. So I’m going to get the non-AA version for optimum sharpness. Will be able to make really mega images for large prints, which is what I want.

      I do professionally need to often shoot interiors in less than ideal available light though, so a bit bummed about the hit on low light, however if I keep my D700 which is already awesome for that side of things, all bases covered. Also can just use the D700 which is still sweet for the occasional moire issues that may arrive.

      I really can’t wait to start shooting video. Also, I like shooting sports, and with the 70-200mm 2.8 lens I always found the reach wasn’t quite far enough for tighter compositions across the pitch (and I don’t like the quality/aperture loss of the 2x convertor). So having the extra pixels, I can use the DX crop mode and still have a dump load of pixels for very high quality shots, close into the action. Happy days. If I could swap the D700 for a D4 then that would probably be about perfect… Hmmm…

  • D800 with $4000 with AA and without AA $4500 wow

    No cheap D700 .

    • WoutK89

      See my post above, dont use direct conversion. Usually Euro – Dollar is 1:1, so 3000 Dollar and 3300-3500 dollar.

      • see on the other page it will cost 3,000,00 Yen which is equal to U$4000.

        • The Manatee

          No. Prices in Japan are not directly comparable. Nikon and Canon tend to price their cameras MORE expensively domestically than in other jurisdictions.

          • still difference cannot be more than $200-300.

  • SirWilliam

    That’s strange, NEX-7 has a APS-C sensor with 24Mp.
    So how the FX 36Mp sensor of the D800 could have a similar design…
    24 *1.5*1.5 =! 36…

    • WoutK89

      Yep, if the D800 is outperformed by a higher res smaller sensor, that is bad.

    • Michał

      I KNEW someone will write that. Come on, are you really that bad at math or don’t you realise that the area of FX sensor is more than 2 times bigger than DX? 24MP on DX equals more than 50MP on FX.

      The funny thing is, Sony is probably NOT going to use their 36MP sensor on their upcoming cameras. Weird, eh?

      • SirWilliam

        I have writen that 24 * 1.5 * 1.5 is not equal to 36…
        I exactly explain that a FX sensor is 2.25 time greater than DX sensor and it’s why I think strange that the sensor design could be the same…
        I don’t think that I’m so bad in math…
        May be you should read better
        And if it’s because my english isn’t perfect, sorry for that it’s not my mother language…

        • Michał

          Oh, sorry, my bad. I though you meant 24×1.5=36.

      • SirWilliam

        May be you didn’t understand that =! or != mean “not equal”… Sorry…

    • Ralph

      I dont think there are any lenses that can resolve 24MP in DX format. I thought 36MP for FF was about the limit, so 17MP for DX format. Even for those resolutions you need the very best lenses Nikon make.

  • mikils

    Well, as for me that would make D800 a perfect match with my D3s; as a birder who very seldom goes higher than 400-800 ISO this is mighty good news.

  • d800hater

    That means there will be no any product of nikon between 1000 EURO and 2000 EURO since the D700 was discontinued. D7000 is holy crap.

  • Dunno what all the complaints are about, looks like one hell of a camera to me if you are looking for specs like those. Guess that is the clue about all this talk anyway. Make sure you know what kind of features you need, THEN decide which camera you buy.
    With the pricetag of the D800, i got good hopes for the D400; i would have expected the price of the D800 to be higher, if i am honest.

  • D800hater

    That means there will be no product of Nikon between 1000EURO and 2000EURO since D700 and D300s were discontinued.

  • bert dol

    no 36MP pls

  • Up $#!t’s creek!

    getting extra sleep tomm night, gonna gets me a new camera monday!!!
    hoping for some new nikon rebates……

  • Ben

    WHAT?! It had better have a full-frame 35 sensor, or I’m going to buy the 5D X!

    • …What are you talking about? The D800 will have a full frame sensor. Where is there confusion?

    • WoutK89

      WHAT!!! IT HAS A FULL FRAME SENSOR 😀 REALLY? YES REALLY. hehe, keep your cool. Just because a sensor performs like a smaller sensor, doesnt mean it is that size. Sony at the moment doesnt have a Full Frame camera out there, so you can not compare to a proven sensor yet.

      • Jim

        The Sony A900 is full frame at 24 mp

        • WoutK89

          Do you mean, the discontinued A900, that shares sensor with the D3x, but Sony has no 36MP or similar recent camera at the moment? Is that what you are saying?
          You have to read the comments and rumors, to understand I guess. Responding with no ground is useless.

  • PixPix

    Do you think we will be able to reduce the resolution?

  • Ugh. I wish the ISO at least matched that of the D700. I was REALLY hoping that it would. IF this camera is going to be called the D800, that means that this is the end of the D700-type cameras on the D700 line. The D700-like D4 will not be called the D900. If it were, what would the D800 evolve into? It’s not going to work like that. I smell another line of FX in the works. The D4 is clearly the ISO performer, with the D800 clearly being the resolution performer. With the invention of the D700, Nikon has saw how strong the prosumer FX line will be. They’re not going to stop with the D700, considering how popular the camera was. That being said, since there is no more growing room name-wise, I can see another FX line in the works. A prosumer, mini-D4-like system. Probably 18-24MP, with specs between the D4 and D800.

    That said, I don’t think it will be the D400. That one will remain DX, I believe.

    Either way, I just sold all of my DX lenses (only had 2) and replaced them with FX-format lenses in anticipation for my move from the D300s to the D800. I was REALLY hoping for a bit better ISO performance. But, this would be a PERFECT match for anyone with a D3s.

    I’ll still be on the preorder list, and wait to see what else they’re hiding in the dark about the camera upon release.


    • Nikon has been changing their naming conventions because they realized they couldn’t keep up the old one forever. Hence D3000, D3100… D90 became D7000… they are switching things up.

      D800 is a totally new line. It’s the mini D3x on steroids. It’s a line for landscape and studio photographers… photographers that don’t need high ISOs. Besides, it’s physics. The photosites are physically a LOT smaller, therefore they are noisier.

  • Ben

    What size is A2 size? I mean how big?

    • WoutK89

      A4 is half the size of A3, A3 is half the size of A2.
      If am mistaken, please correct.

  • AndRox

    has anyone thought that this 36Mpx camera with a not super-duper-wow performance at high ISO should be the D3X replacement rather than the D700?

    the D3X is from 2008 as the D700 🙂

  • Earl

    Most of posts seem to hell bent on ISO performance, so what is is not the best in industry. if you don’t like it, don’t buy! It’s that simple.

    Different strokes for different folks!

    The rest of us needed it for landscape and studio uses can have enough to go around instead of waiting for the back orders.

    • People don’t get it… and I figured that most people who follow Nikon Rumors would. This isn’t dpreview.

      90% of the people who are interested in the D800 are going to use base ISO 90% of the time. (obviously totally made-up figures, but that’s the real picture)

      • Jadewatcher


        They really don’t get it. I don’t remember when was the last time i pushed my camera over 200 iso, i have a d700 body for anything else than landscape (which is of course my primary field of work). Of course i also used my d700 for landscapes @ no more than 200 iso, where it performs brilliantly anyway.
        When working with my mamiya 7II, it’s iso 50 (Velvia) or iso 200 (Ilford SFX 200). I’m sure Nikon is simply in the process of differentiating its offer, which is a good thing. All-round cameras, if there ever existed one, are for people who don’t really know the field they perform best in. Because if you’re serious about photography, in my opinion, you have to at least know *that* .

    • Steve Starr

      Ditto on the high ISO nonsense for the landscape shooters and studio people with flash. They don’t need the high ISO numbers anymore than they would shoot old Tri-X Pan film in a 35mm camera (maybe a 4×5) for landscapes along with grain.

      Actually, a lot of landscape shooters would have preferred a far lower ISO for water and clouds, maybe as low as ISO 10 rather than trying to find some 10 stop ND filter that the camera couldn’t even auto-focus through. No sense trying to get some waterfall at 6400 ISO for the blurry effect.

      Not the design intent of this camera. Want the speed, go to the D4.

    • AXV

      I don’t understand what is all the fuzz about high iso, why do they really need it for? If they really need it for like night sports or whatever they have the D4.
      It’s just a bunch of newbies arguing about spect they don’t know, like the megapixel war, or the horsepower in cars (and we all know power to weight ratio is far more important, or torque).

  • As it has the same pixel density as the D7000, I’d expect it to perform as well in low light, which would make it pretty good; not D700 but not that far off. Dynamic range of the sensor should be better than D700 as well.

    Then if you down res images, you should get rid of a fair amount of noise, it’s just the dynamic range at those iso’s you need to worry about then, which may be fine. It may be not that far off a D700 after all.

    • Correct, but I believe they are optimizing this sensor for a base ISO noise floor. I don’t think it’s going to operate the same. It will go down to ISO 50 or 100 and be amazing there. I don’t think it will have the same high ISO performance as a D7000 even though it *could* if they designed it that way.

  • paul

    I don’t really understand how this is a D700 replacement? It’s built for entirely different uses. Will nikon continue to built the d700 (maybe with minor changes like a new battery)? Nikon is really missing a huge segment between the d300s and d800 now, we need an affordable FX camera dammit!

    • You don’t understand how it’s a D700 replacement because it’s definitely not. It’s a totally new line designed for a different shooter.

      There is no missing segment between the D300s and D800, because the D700 is still awesome… but I know some people want video, and it COULD use a refresh. It will happen sometime in the next year. It’s okay. breathe.

  • FX DX

    If the IQ in low light is not better than D700, I think D700 for stills and a D5100 body for video combined will be a better option than D800 at the lower or same price range. We shall find out this Monday.

    I will wait for Canon to offer 5D MarkIII to compare before deciding on D800.

    • mikils

      Oh yeah, And why not a D 40? and regarding Canon, suit yourself; the 1Dx was announced ages ago and still nobody has seen it, heaven knows if and when 5D will see a replacement.

  • Really?

    Ok honestly

    If all you want is 12 mix and high iso at a low price, go buy the d700 now! Or wait a year, or perhaps longer.

    If you don’t want to spend over $2k, buy a d7000 or d300s now or wait a few months for the d400.

    Also, chances are the d800 when viewed at the same resolution as the d700 or printed same size and dpi will show the same amount of noise at high ISO

    AND have better dynamic range at base ISO, and a meaningful amount of more detail

    Frankly, if the price is $3k, you may all forget you wanted a mini d4

  • FM2Fan

    Lets see the first confirmed images under real conditions (production sample) at high iso etc. I can hardly believe, Nikon will compromise on quality for such product. All discussions of use cases are really artificial – yes you can do great shots with D90, D700, D3x and others – the conditions of use depend more on the photographer than on the camera (unless you expect photon efficiency beyond 70% …)

  • FussyBob

    How big is this landscape/studio targeted group?

    Compared to the the average user that would prefer Hi-ISO pefromance over MPs it is probably very small.

    So Nikon marketing said lets produce a camera that will not sell well to the current D700 crowd and minimize profits! I don’t think so, the D800 ISO performance may surprise us and I hope it does.

    • Really?

      People have been screaming for a mini D3x since before there was a D3x. Here it is. On steroids, even. There are A LOT of people who will benefit from this camera and are happy. Just because you aren’t one of them doesn’t mean they are a small market.

      This is NOT a D700 replacement. It’s a new line.

      • FussyBob

        Give me some numbers?

        • there are more studio / commercial photogs then event or sport photogs.
          in every photo shop you see one.
          thats your target group.

          • Jadewatcher


            Not to mention, all of the “foodies”, “bloggies” that shoot and write a lot about products and product review…it’s an entire internet ecosystem..

        • You first. You made the initial claim. I admit mine is from observation and just thinking about it.

          Who *doesn’t* need high-res and low ISO? Modern wedding photographers… photojournalists… some sports photographers I guess.

          Who wants it? Anyone publishing to magazines, billboards, advertisements of any kind… and that’s the entire fashion, sports, and product photography industries. Anyone who works in a studio (including studio portraiture) and is doing low-output and has access to good lighting. And of course landscape and fine art photographers.

          I’m really not sure how you can argue that *more* people even need high ISO capability. Consumers do, I guess, because most of them aren’t versed in or have access to good lighting equipment or collaborative shoots.

          • For me, it is about capability. I’m a landscape photographer and I very rarely go above base ISO on my D300s. I very seldome have the need for 7 frames per second as well. When I was taking pictures of an owl perched on a branch, I appreciated having 7 FPS as it flew past me. I was able to choose the photo with the wings positioned best to make the shot. I paid for that capability on the D300s. I would not have gotten the shot with my D80. The only real capability that I am missing is high ISO. I don’t have the capability to take a picture of people climbing El Capitan at dusk with the Milky Way as a back drop. I needed a 24mm f1.4, clean ISO 6400 at about 15 seconds to prevent star trails. I didn’t have that capability so i lost that shot. Yes, people survived and made compelling images using film but technology has given us the opportunity to push the boundaries of what is possible. I want all of these capabilities in one camera body. I don’t want to hike 20 miles with two cameras around my neck but I do want to have equipment capable of “getting the shot” when needed. The D800 sounds compelling enough and I am going to wait and see the high ISO samples of RAW files before I pass judgement but the camera is most likely not for me as I gain little from it but lose a lot. It would only replace my Mamia RB67 which I will continue to use because it is so much fun to shoot with. I think a D3s is in my future and I’ll put up with the “crappy” 12 MP resolution. Then again I may be blown away by the D800. Time will tell.

            • WUff1


              I´m a landscape photographer, too, and you made it with this posting!
              Not everything in landscape photography is long exposures and base ISO – so the D800 seems to be a very, very specialist cam, which even a specialist photographer won´t be able to use without a secondary body. Nikon pushed it to the very extremes this time, and if the 5Dx comes as said, this time again Canon will be ahead again.

  • Luis

    So if it’s a similar design to the NEX-7 sensor, that is the same sensor that is in the Sony A77, which is a 23.5mm X 15.6mm 24.3MP APS-C sensor with this performance:
    ISO 100 – 16,000 (25,600 with multi-image combination. Expands down to ISO 50)

    A D7000 has a 23.6mm x 15.6mm 16.2MP APS-C sensor with this performance:
    ISO 100-6400(12,800-25,600)

    So you’re telling me that the D800 sensor, which is of a similar design as the Sony A77 sensor, can only go to 1600? That doesn’t sound like it’s a similar design at all.

    It seems to me that the 1600 referenced in the article might actually be a misprint and it should have been 16,000, which WOULD match more closely with the A77 sensor.

    • jaja

      I dont think it is a missprint. Without interpolation that is a huge print. Most cameras cant do that even in good light at base ISO. You guys have to start think like a landskape photographer or macrographer to interpret that statement.

      • Luis

        I’m not thinking as a landscape or any other type of photographer, or wishing the performance is one way or the other. I was just making a simple observation of the statement “design similar to the APS-C version used in the NEX-7” so I went and got those sensor specs.

        The article itself the link takes you to in this post says “The sensitivity range is from 100 to 6400 ISO (ISO 50 to 24,800 L and H). We can expect an image completely free of grain in ISO 1600 A2”

        So “completely free of grain” at ISO 1600 to me does not mean I can’t shoot at 6400 and still get a very acceptable A2 print.

        • Luis

          As was mentioned prior an A2 print is 23.4 x 16.5 in. If the resolution of the D800 is 7360×4912, then that would already be a 300dpi print that would not require interpolation unless you need even higher dpi than that.

  • Zen-Tao

    These guys of Chasseur d’Images have sowed a toxic new to mix up things more. Aps-c? could be a backward step. Let’s see…

    • Being a old (very) nature photographer who doesn’t understand all the technical aspects of the AA Filter, I normally photograph birds, mainly eagles, ospreys, and hawks. Realizing the shortcomings of the FPS of the proposed D800, I am leaning towards the version without the AA Filter to get the sharpest possible images. What is the feeling about a D800 without the AA Filter for bird photography? Do you feel that the repeating pattern of bird feathers will be a constant or occasional problem? Thanks for any comments.

      • mikils

        most of the possible moire effect can be effectively removed in Post-Production; someone here said that PP is more effective than Anti Aliasing in-camera; cannot say whether it’s absolutely true but it could very well be. I expect also, once this kind of camera is on the market we shall find all sort of plug-in available to remove moire.

        • knightPhoto

          I am thinking D800E for birds as well. Fine detail resolution is a limiting factor in a lot of bird photography. Only time 800E might be a prob is captive birds where you are so close to your subject you are getting a lot individual feather detail at which point I would expect moire to be very much a problem. For that use case though, I can whip out my D7000 which I don’t intend to sell.

          And maybe things like Eurasian Wigeon might be a problem – they have a built in moire pattern thanks to mother nature! Having another camera handy could be a solution, but I am guessing one doesn’t notice the moire until you are in PP.

          The other things driving me to thinking 800E is landscape (sounds great!) and a use case of second cam in Theatre to perform the 24-70 role in backup to my D4. In the Theatre role, on the wide shots, extra detail on faces is needed as compared to the D700/D7000 I have been using although I am worried about moire on the actors clothing. I bet though that moire is not a problem in the bad light present in theatre (not enough light to resolve high frequency I’m betting).

          I think I’ll sell my D300 and D700 and plan for a kit that includes D4, D800E, D7000, and V1. It’ll take me a year or two to get there and I’ll look to do further semi-pro work to help finance it.

  • Canon user


  • Brock Kentwell

    Some good AA talk by Thom here:


  • Guy

    Hey Sean Molin, you speak my mind!
    Back when the 32MP D800 rumors started I posted the same comments and got flamed to hell…
    Finally somebody who understands at whom the D800 is aimed!


  • I’m sorry, but how do we know what the high ISO performance will be like? Answer – we don’t. Let’s wait and see. Once I’ve seen the results, I’ll get either a D800, a D700, or a D3s. Any of them will be a massive upgrade from the D300 I’ve been using quite happily for pro work for the last four years. D70 for four years before that. I don’t tend to upgrade until the upgrade will be a big leap.

    • Luis

      We don’t know what the ISO performance will be like.

      It’s just fun to speculate. Kind of like gambling but without losing money over it 🙂

  • QQMoar

    I’m gonna laugh@ ppl bashing D800 iso, if D800 resize to 12MP handles noise much than D700. 5D2 have similar iso performance when it’s resize to 12MP, why can D800 do the same? It’s 2012, stop comparing 2008 product to it.

    • FussyBob

      Good point on the resizing!

    • neversink

      You are absolutely correct… Today’s sensors in the D3 and D700 will not be the same type of sensors in the D4 and D800. They will probably be improved.

      So stop saying the D800 will be noisier than the D700. WE DON’T KNOW ANY SUCH THING.

      In fact the D700 might end up being noisier than the D800. The structure of the sensors may have changed, as the design of the sensors probably have evolved. It makes no sense for Nikon to put out new cameras if there aren’t any improvements

      Calm down. Take a walk. Wait and see. We will all know soon. I have already pre-ordered my D4 and am waiting to see what the D800 is like. If I like it, I will sell my D700 and D3s and buy a D800 along with the D4 I am waiting for. I will keep my D7000 because I love it. I will use all three for assignments.

      Chill out everyone….

  • hq

    I was really hoping the ISO performance will exceed that of the D700.
    I don’t care so much about megapixels anymore. What I have now is good enough, but low-light shooting is always a welcome addition.

    • jorg

      why don´t you get a D3S?

  • derek mtarangas

    I think I am more worried in deciding to go with no AA filter or with. I don’t think it makes sense to sell two different cameras.

    Just my 2 cents.

  • pointshooter

    I thought the ISO would be 6400, and noisefree at 1600 is actually pretty good. If you pixlpeeping you should find noise much earlier than that on most of todays cameras.

  • Jadewatcher

    Admin, do you know anything about the presence of 5:4 crop mode in camera? Considering the high megapixel count, i think many of us landscape shooter are interested in knowing whether the option is there or not..

  • photo-Jack

    Until recently I was pretty sure to go for the D800 because I believed that a company like Nikon can’t afford to mess up with their top of the line products.

    But discussing the leaked D800 image, so many people wrote here that the lacks of the leaked image were in one way or another also a consequence of the high MP.
    Now, isn’t it right to assume, that as the D7000 has the same pixel density, the glass which works fine on the D7000 should also work fine on the D800??? (Of course aside the “sweet-spot” effect of APS-C sensors)
    And wouldn’t the diffraction also be the same with both cameras?

    Some posts discussed the motion blur in a way that let me assume, that because of the high resolution one would need higher shutter speeds than with the D700 at the same focal length to make sure, that motion blur/camera shake is excluded. Is that true???

    • I can at least answer one of your questions, Jack: Yes, such high pixel density does affect your “shutter speed rule”.

      In fact when the Nikon D2X came out in 2005 or so, photographers even had a hard time going from 4-6 megapixels to 12. 4-6 megapixels DX is about the same as 12 megapixels FX. (DX crop on a D700 is ~5?)

      Anyways, when you crank it up to 16-18 on a crop sensor, let alone 24 like one of the new Sony sensors has, …you really gotta double your shutter speed rule, and shoot VERY steady.

      For those who are having a hard time wrapping their minds around WHY this is, just imagine: Try hand-holding a magnifying glass. Not hard at all, right? Okay now try hand-holding a microscope. Practically impossible! Of course the analogy probably doesn’t have the same amount of difference between the two, but you get the idea. The more the magnification, (sensor resolution) …the more steady you have to be.


      • QQMoar

        In short, buy faster glass 😀

    • roos

      The diffraction question is ofcourse significant. Therese is a simplex answer and a complex one.

      Simple one is regarding the center of the sensor. There is no difference whatsoever to the D7000 there.

      When it comes to the corners things are differeyönt. The light travels through the aperture at steeper angles there. How significant that is i dont know, but it makes the gap through which the light has to travel effectively narrower and more oval shaped the further out from the sensor the light hits it.

  • Rob

    I cant justify this body if its IQ or even just the ISO is worst then the d70o…I already have a preorder in but I dont think Im alone here and am also ready to cancel it if its just a MP pig with no low light ability at all.

    • derek matarangas

      I feel the same way. Might as well go MF and you would still have the low ISO problem but everything else would be better then on the d800.

    • neversink

      H Rob.. How do you have a preorder? The D800 hasn’t even officially been announced or presented to the public yet.

      Please enlighten us!!!!!

      • Rob

        I buy a lot of stuff from the same dealer so I have a written preorder so that I get one of the first ones to ship up here in Canada.

        • neversink

          Thanks Rob…

          Pre-ordering the D4 for me was a no-brainer — my D3 has 100,000s of shots… Time to move on. My D700 also has a lot of use, but what to order — the D800… with AA, without AA (and more expensive?) I will have to wait and see the results before ordering one of these cameras….

  • St.

    Does anybody know what kind of battery will have D800 – like D7000 or like D4? or something totally new?

  • Mike

    I can not wait for this body! Exactly what I need — a mini D3x. Yes!!!!

  • Clean ISO 1600? Party like it’s 2005!!!!

    I know the science behind it is highly controversial, but I *hope* that down-sampling the images to ~12 megapixels can take me to a clean 3200 or 6400. Otherwise I’ll be waiting another year, and then buying either a D3s or whatever “affordable FX” body has the D4 sensor, if Nikon decides to do that.


    • Luis

      Yeah – the sticking point with all this is what each photographer considers “clean”. I shoot the D700 at ISO6400 quite a bit and am happy with it at that ISO, but it’s not as clean as shooting it at ISO200. On the D700 even going from ISO200 to ISO400 there is a very slight tick up in noise, so is that not “clean”?

      • Exactly. So whatever they deem acceptable to print at “A2” from ISO 1600, I hope I can find acceptable to print at 3200 or 6400. Although honestly like you said, I already have a borderline acceptable ISL 6400 with the D700. So once again, depending on the D800 price, in ~1 years time a used D3s or D4 “lite” might still be a better choice for us low-light junkies.

        The landscape photographer in me is still giddy, though. Especially the fact that Nikon is even toying with the concept of zero AA filter. That is a step in the direction of AWESOME for those who need the resolution. Maybe I’ll quit weddings and get back into landscapes and big-print gallery exhibitions LOL…


  • Shane

    People have to remember that Nikon doesn’t make a fortune on pro level cameras as they don’t sell huge levels whereas the dx cameras such as d7000 d5100 etc sell huge levels and are generally where Nikon corp make profits on dslrs

  • Back to top