Just released and looks like the hottest digital camera yet. 36 megapixels puts it in the performance category of specialist high-res cameras used for landscapes and commercial photography that cost many times more and are less versatile. For a few extra bucks the D800E has even higher resolution because it lacks the D800’s anti-aliasing filter. The D800/E won’t ship for a month or two, but you can order it and cancel or return it if you change your mind — IOW, a free option.
18 thoughts on “Nikon D800 and D800E”
Does Canon have an equivalent in the works?
A mere $3,000.
Does Canon have an equivalent in the works?
Beats me. See http://canonrumors.com
A mere $3,000.
Like most specialized products it’s not for everyone. For people who need it it’s a bargain relative to the alternatives.
Jonathan, for Pros, like you, it is worth every cent. For patzers, like me, it is breath taking.
I checked the Canon link and found nothing like the Nikon. It’s starting to be like the golf and computer markets, where new equipment is coming out so quickly you can’t keep up. Awfully expensive to try.
There’s no need to keep up for its own sake. As with computers, many users only upgrade if their old machine is broken. Some users upgrade because the new model does something they need better enough to justify the expense.
Also, the simple cost analysis is misleading. In the old days people rarely bought photo equipment but spent a lot of money on film and a lot of time and/or money on processing and maybe scanning. Now you buy a camera every three or four years but your other costs are much lower. If you make a lot of photos digital quickly becomes cheaper, in time and money, than film and makes it possible to be more productive than you were before. And as with computers cameras do more all the time. For example, the D800 is certain to be an extremely good video camera in addition to its other qualities.
Jonathon – I have a friend – recently retired as a photographer for our major newspaper. He was showing me his Nikon – DX I think – that was a good $8,000 and now “obsolete”. That is one of the nasty side effects of the digital world.
I have a Nikon F3 that – until the digital revolutino – was a trusty companion for over 20 years.
In fact the camera was so loved by the pros Nikon continued to make it – even a couple of generations later in the f series.
I guess it is almost a paperweight now.
Have another friend who had over $20,000 of Hasselblad equipment – now worth a few 100
I miss film. I still have my old Canon Elan IIe which was my favorite. Great camera.
Jonathon – the one major disadvantage digital has over film is that – unless you make a hard copy – it is – digital. Wonder how many people have lost irreplaceable images all because they didn’t have a back up –
Then how many people have photo albums – or slide collections – that are viewed once every 10-20 years.
Still, having just gotten into the last 10 years of consumer electronics I just got a 40″ lcd tv and am astounded at the resolution – seeing every actor’s skin pores and….nose hair.
Come to think of it I am wondering if that is an improvement ;-)
“Have another friend who had over $20,000 of Hasselblad equipment – now worth a few 100”
Most of that has to be lenses. The backs may not be worth that much. But, I believe there are digital backs, that can be used with the lenses.
Lenses are still lenses. And good ones are expensive, and worth it. That is why I tell people to ignore the mega pixels. Optics is still pure geometry and still what is important. Lens quality and sensor size are the best figures of merit.
Jeff – (Mr Bobcat?) I learned photography at the age of 12 on – get this – an Ansco Twin Lens reflex. An American Rolleiflex (whatever happened to those.
I used a hand held light meter. Seems anachronistic today. The camera looked huge around my neck.
My first SLR was a Minolta – the predecessor to the SRT-101 – that was a big seller.
In the Army I bought an Asahi Pentax SLR – the customs – on returning – had a small fit because it wasn’t “Honeywell” – they had the license to sell the Pentax in this country.
Then, in the early 80s, just before going to Africa, I bought a Nikon F3.
I figured I had my Mercedes then.
Robert (I was the last post – my office computer doesn’t seem to keep the cookie) – but as far as lenses Nikon has been the most successful at keeping obsolesce at bay – keeping the same mount. Some manufacturers would change the mount with each new model.
But I think my 3 Nikon lenses for the F3 are about worthless.
I think you are right on the Hassleblad and the digital back. But the estimate of a few $100 was for his entire collection – lenses included. Maybe someone was trying to low ball him.
Bill: Your F3 lenses will still work on the newest Nikons. Whether they are worthless is tougher to tell with out knowing the particulars. But, there are plenty of shops that still trade in the older equipment.
Jonathan: BTW, there is also a new D4 to replace the old D3. B&H lists it at $6,000. If you are a pro.
Robert, you seem very interested in how much I spend on photo gear. I wrote this post because the D800 appeals to me and I probably would have bought into the system if I hadn’t already gotten Canon equipment. I don’t think anyone has to justify buying such things or not buying them.
Pretty impressive cameras. Not really knowing a lot of the digital terms there is a lot more to image quality than just megapixels isn’t there?
Didn’t the earlier Nikon digital cameras use a little disk drive for storage?
Jonathan. Please enjoy it all in good health. I am impressed by your photographs, and enjoy them very much. I referenced the costs, because of my own “price is right” instincts. I was not referring to you. Although given the quality of your photos, I would not be surprised if you bought a full professional lash up.
P.S. is your Canon a full frame sensor or an APS sensor?
Bill: I think you are referring to the Sony Mavica
Robert, no worries.
Comments are closed.