« Filming Mountain Climber Alex Honnold | Main | Quote o' the Day »

Tuesday, 03 January 2012

Comments

I bet the weight of all those one dollar bills that it will take to buy this camera with more than make up for any weight loss by the Nikon D800.

Damn...
I guess it is definitely time to upgrade my 7 or 8 year old camera...

I think the "smaller and lighter" means "can't use my existing MB10 (and equivalent) battery packs". Sigh. Of some value in and of itself anyway; but with a 24-70/2.8 and possibly an SB-800 mounted, a few ounces in body weight is neither here nor there.

And the specs described on nikonrumors.com seem to me to be a 5D-killer (maybe; kind of expensive), but not in any way a D700-replacement (it's clearly optimized for resolution, NOT for high-speed shooting and low light). I remain rather afraid that they're orphaning the model that's important to me (not expecting to be able to afford a D4).

Oh. Em. Gee.

36MP?

Hard drive space issues aside - can anyone say something informed here about the ability of DSLR lenses to make the most of all that resolution? I wonder whether we've strayed beyond what they can handle. Perhaps I'm wrong, though?

Hmm. 36Mp? D700 replacement or D3x replacement?


"it's going to be smaller and lighter. We need that to become a trend."

I really don't like the way things are going (furthermore, they scare me just a little bit).

I've been a Pentax shooter for several years now, and I really love the size and weight of their cameras. Both their entry level and pro bodies have always had reasonable sized hand grips and just the perfect weight.
Canikon, on the other side, thinks bigger budgets means bigger hands.

If Pentax ever decides to fall into the trend you want, I hope it also keeps making the same heavy, utilitarian piece of machinery I like so much.

Victory will be the day when there is a full frame DSLR the same size as my Nikon FM2…

Looks like there is a Nikon press conference for Fri Jan 6. There's a post over at NR.

Regarding the "more than we think" comment here regarding the disasters, you are absolutely right. People who have not actually been affected or involved just have no idea, and water disasters are just the worst.

I agree. The 5DII is as big as I ever want. And I don't get why Nikon has not competed with that.

I hope there will soon be a compactish 5DIII. I have top notch Canon lenses waiting for it. And I hope they go for sensitivity rather than pixel count.

Me, I'm looking forward to the 1DX or, more realistically, the 1DX sensor in a 5D-class body.
Ultra-clean 18MP with smaller file sizes than current 5D2 RAWs (so less storage and faster processing) will be a win all around.

But I also bought my wife an EPL3 + 45mm f/1.8 for Christmas, and after playing with it, that's the system I'd like to get into... (although I must. get. a. viewfinder.) :)

What do I want with 36 megapixels? Hopefully they keep the 700 around for while until this camera fits in my pocket and I have a new 1TB SSD in my laptop.

36 MP... I wonder if the D800 will be able to retain the noise levels (or lack thereof) of the D700.

Smaller, lighter? Ya got my attention- at least till I see the price tag.

"Someone pointed out on a forum that if you buy a D800 you'll have to buy bigger hard drives..."

Well, no. I see this all the time -- buy the new camera and you'll have to upgrade your computer blah blah blah...Actually, the smaller of the two standard hard drives offered on the MacBook Pro (for example) would hold some 14,000 of these shots, so I don't envision millions of people running out to get bigger drives in the next five minutes. As for processing, it'll take what, an extra second to process the additional ten mp? Not a big threat, IMHO.

Dear Roger,

A very large number of decent 35mm-format lenses can hit 200 lp/mm. Don't start worrying about 'wasted resolution' until you get up to circa 100 megapixels:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/02/why-80-megapixels-just-wont-be-enough.html

~~~~~~~~

Dear John Camp,

With hard drives currently going for less than $100/terabyte and no shortage of them at any stores in my neighborhood, anyone who complains about the extra storage space for 36 Mp files is really not in the market for this camera.

Some people just like to complain.

pax / Ctein

seems Sony started the megapixel-race all over again ... But I really hope Nikon also remembers to make a D3s replacement in a D800 body ...

Smaller and lighter would make no sense to me, at this category of cameras. I understand that some people are interested in a small camera they can put in their pocket and take everywhere. But if you use a camera like the D700 this won't be an option anyways. So when it comes to size and weight of the new D800, I would prefer a body that can be handled well and has a good feel over a camera that's just small and light.
I thought about buying a D7000 some time ago, but when I tested it in the shop, the body was too small for my taste. I want a body a that fits my hands! Not a body that is as small as possible, what makes it difficult to use it.

If only they would get cheaper along with smaller and lighter. I'd love to graduate to an FX sensor, but when.......

36 Mpixels FX is apparently the same pixel pitch as the D7000 has at DX. I guess it will at least match the D7000 in high ISO low noise.

Rumors around for a D4 too, which will be a good reason to revisit the recent article on ISO ratings - it's expected to be even further off the scale!!!

Well- if the D7000 is a stop or so behind the D700 in noise performance, and the D800 has the pixel density of the D7000, with some Nikon sensor magic this may just have the same sort of noise performance as the D700 with 3 times the megapixels.

To handle a 36Mp sensor you need a very well done lens...

"Anyway, I like that it's going to be smaller and lighter. We need that to become a trend."

Says a prime lens shooter.

I only complained about file size because

1. I'm skeptical that the marginal gain in image quality will matter to me, but eventually I'll have to pay the cost anyway because they will discontinue the lower pixel count camera

2. I'm addicted to my SSD, which as yet does not come in the larger sizes.

These are admittedly minor complaints.

I don't find the trepidation surrounding 36 MP images that hard to understand. People find their way to photography as a hobby for different reasons and people like different aspects of it.

Someone might fear that if they had to carry around a 3 or 4 lb camera body, they would enjoy photography less. Despite the obvious technical prowess of the Canon 1D series or the Nikon D3 (D4?) cameras, someone might fear that they would actually take less pictures, not more, once they purchased one.

I think I would do OK with a heavy camera, but I understand the trepidation. I have a similar fear with image files of monstrous size. I work with spreadsheets all day. I'm not generally looking for a hobby that puts me in front of a computer screen, mouse in hand. I already know that I don't enjoy the image editing and post-processing steps. This is with files not even half the size of what the D800 is rumored to produce. Now, I've never tried to edit a 36 MP image before, so I don't speak from experience, but my gut tells me I would find the editing process even less enjoyable if encumbered by 36 MP files. So my fear, perhaps unreasonable, is that I would take less pictures with a massive resolution camera than I would with my current (old) 14 MP camera. Again, I don't know, but that's the fear. I already have files that sit in the camera for a couple weeks before I work on them.

Toto said: "36 MP... I wonder if the D800 will be able to retain the noise levels (or lack thereof) of the D700."

Pixel level noise is likely to be around the same as the D3x. Printed at the same size as a D700 shot, it may be able to replicate the same noise level. There is a rumour that it will be able to produce 12MP RAW files with low noise (unsubstantiated).

Ctein said: "A very large number of decent 35mm-format lenses can hit 200 lp/mm. Don't start worrying about 'wasted resolution' until you get up to circa 100 megapixels:"

Hmm, but what about when stopped down to get decent landscape DOF and sharp corners....

Great! I can finally start that billboard project.

"Smaller and lighter would make no sense to me, at this category of cameras. "

I thought the same thing, but when I switched from a 5D Classic to a D700, the weight difference made me think otherwise and started me on a journey towards my current very small and very light gear.

Regarding the task of editing large files, I can report my experience with 24 mpx RAW files from my Sony a850. Opening images in Lightroom 3 on my midrange iMac (dual 3.0, 8 G RAM) takes 5-10 seconds for loading a full-rez image. I think of that as my Dektol-gazing moment, if you know what I mean. Might be aggravating if I did volume work, but when I do I usually crank it down to 6 or 12 mpx. Nice to have all those choices, especially the 24 mpx one.

The comments to this entry are closed.