Nikon D800 is a reality - 36.3 Million Pixels!

Morkel the dollar difference I show is the cost between the two models, not the cost of the camera body itself.

Here in the old US at B&H
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...alSearch=yes&Q=&O=&Ntt=nid800*&A=endecaSearch

Chris Poole said:

Morkel the dollar difference I show is the cost between the two models, not the cost of the camera body itself.

Here in the old US at B&H
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...alSearch=yes&Q=&O=&Ntt=nid800*&A=endecaSearch

Click to expand...

I know! That's why I was trying to put this "model price difference" in perspective for you. Down here you can get a few pretty decent items for that $300 difference...

I thought I'd also point out that to get 6fps you not only need the grip but you also need the $169 D4 battery and to get 5fps you need the grip not just the DX mode. In Canada the grip is only $429 which is strange compared to the US price. However to make this a 6fps camera you need to spend about $1100 extra assuming you'd want two D4 batteries.

Yesterday I was initially floored when reading about this camera because it looked like you could use it as a DX and Fx at the same time. There is also a 1.2 crop mode making it similar to the 1D series crop. The problem is that the files for my use are just going to be too big if not in DX mode. I really don't want 50-75MB files.

I was seriously considering switching to Nikon from Canon but have since done more research and realized I can't give up on Canons much better range of lens selection.

Geoff Newhouse said:

I thought I'd also point out that to get 6fps you not only need the grip but you also need the $169 D4 battery and to get 5fps you need the grip not just the DX mode. In Canada the grip is only $429 which is strange compared to the US price. However to make this a 6fps camera you need to spend about $1100 extra assuming you'd want two D4 batteries.

Yesterday I was initially floored when reading about this camera because it looked like you could use it as a DX and Fx at the same time. There is also a 1.2 crop mode making it similar to the 1D series crop. The problem is that the files for my use are just going to be too big if not in DX mode. I really don't want 50-75MB files.

I was seriously considering switching to Nikon from Canon but have since done more research and realized I can't give up on Canons much better range of lens selection.

Click to expand...

hum...not sure, you buy this camera because it makes LARGE files with lots of detail, that's exactly what you pay for. You don' t necessarily need the D4 battery for 6fps you can do with AA batteries too, just get a bunch of cheap rechargeable AA's. (That's what I did when I had a D700 to get 8fps).

Price is really good considering what you get, also Nikon lens selection is better than Canon these days. Nikon has had a fantastic 24-70 for many years and the legendary 14-24. Canon has no good wide lenses if you are critical about image quality. They just came out with a new 24-70, it is $400 more expensive than the Nikon lens and I am not sure if it is as good.

Also super telephoto lenses on Nikon department are now considerably cheaper than Canon's, of course Canon is lighter (assuming Canon finally actually starts production), it makes a big difference if you hand hold your rid, but if you use a tripod I am not sure why you would pay $3000 more for the Canon 600 as opposed to Nikon's 600VR.

I think if Canon messes up 5DMKIII it will be very difficult for them to compete with Nikon, I hope they don't

Of course the 36mp metric is a function of pixel density x sensor area, and in this case is a large number because the pixel density is moderately high and the sensor is FF. The sensor is ca. 15mp at 1.5 crop so it should be comparable with similar sensors out there (ca 4.9 micron pixel size).

Geoff Newhouse said:

I was seriously considering switching to Nikon from Canon but have since done more research and realized I can't give up on Canons much better range of lens selection.

Click to expand...

I was under the impression that there was a disturbingly large range of lenses available for both Canon and Nikon... or did you just mean the ones that you own?

I mean that for what I shoot. Specifically the 100-400, 4005.6 and even the 70-200F4IS. I also don't use 2.8 zooms (except considering the 70-200mkII) and I like Canon's selection better. My next wide angle purchase will be the 17 and 24 TSE (no such thing on the Nikon front). Also I can get the 14-24 with an adaptor for Canon but its a no go to try and mount Canon onto Nikon. That is what I ment about Canon over Nikon for lenses. I'm also purchasing a 600mkII for this summer (if they show up).

Geoff Newhouse said:

I mean that for what I shoot. Specifically the 100-400, 4005.6 and even the 70-200F4IS. I also don't use 2.8 zooms (except considering the 70-200mkII) and I like Canon's selection better. My next wide angle purchase will be the 17 and 24 TSE (no such thing on the Nikon front). Also I can get the 14-24 with an adaptor for Canon but its a no go to try and mount Canon onto Nikon. That is what I ment about Canon over Nikon for lenses. I'm also purchasing a 600mkII for this summer (if they show up).

Click to expand...

Interesting. I know precisely zero about Canon, so I'll take your word for that. When I was looking at cameras a year or so ago and trying to decide between the various choices, I narrowed it down to Canon and Nikon based on the fact that both seemed to have a dizzying array of lenses available. I guess if you're specialized enough that a specific few lenses are essential to what you do, you gotta go with that, eh? I'm curious, why don't you like the 2.8 zooms? Is that because of price or bulk or is there some limitation of them that you don't like? Probably bordering on thread hijack now... lol sorry!

J

I just don't shoot much in low light so I don't need 2.8 and I am happy with my F4 that I have in my 17-40L and 24-105L. However, I have occasionally found a need while shooting BIF to need lower than the 5.6 on my 100-400 and 400. I'm considering the 70-200MkII to use in lower light at 2.8 and with the 1.4x teleconverter at F4 in moderate light.
Don't get me wrong, Nikon has a very large lens selection and even larger than Canon if you consider that all the legacy glass can be used on the newer cameras. Nikon has a few gems like the 14-24 and their 24-70 that up until this new release was better regarded than Canon's version. Canon's new release of the 24-70mkII will likely rival the 70-200MkIIiS that is regarded as the sharpest zoom available from Canon (probably will be replaced by the 200-400 but thats a whole different level). Nikon's 70-200 VRII is also about equal to Canons MkII. Nikon has a 300F4 but no 400F5.6 and Canon's 300F4 has IS. Nikon has the 200-400 but Canon will soon and with built in 1.4 converter to boot.
I would love to run a dual setup of Canon and Nikon for a time to compare and contrast because nothing compares to doing the research yourself with a hands-on evalutation. You haven't made a bad choice with Nikon. There are just a few pieces of the puzzle that Nikon has yet to produce.