Nikon D800 - The new 5D?

[Tonyz]

Remember the excitement you felt when the 5D2 was announced? Remember the thrill the first time you wrapped your hands around that body? You couldn't believe the amount of detail captured with all that resolution, in a DSLR body no less. And what unbelievable performace for such an amazing price! Well, now its Nikon's turn with the D800. It is what everyone was hoping the 5D3 would have been, and much more. It generates the same unbridled excitement of performance in a DSLR body at an amzaing price.

The 5D3 is more of a small evolution. You finally get a pro level focusing system. The resolution stays pretty much the same. The 2 stop improvement is merely a faster processing chip that can handle real time software noise reduction on jpg images for those not inclined to shoot RAW. And a few other minor things along with an incredible $800 INCREASE in cost. And you thought electronics always give you more performance for less money.

I shoot Canon, and with the glass I have it would be quite a chore to switch camps. But give Nikon credit. They've generated the next standard in DSLR performance at an amazing price point. All the excitment, lust, and demand is what Canonites had hoped the 5D3 would generate.

This time, the Nikonites get their day in the sun. Congrats.

[Ivann]

+11111

This pretty much sums it up.

I havent decided if I will switch or not, but I will probably do it if Canon doesn't respond to the D800 before the end of this year.

[Charlie]

Nikon is not a straight upgrade either, and I'm sure some nikonites arent happy with a few things.

The file size: with the minimum raw size being 30MB, it takes quite a toll on space and cpu processing.

FPS: the camera is significantly slower than the D700 and 5D3

The D800 feels like such a big upgrade because nikon jumped into the video arena... and that alone is HUGE. The D700 Mpx was always small, so that makes it feel like such a big upgrade as well.

I still prefer the D800 to the D700 or even 5D3 for a few reasons. In body flash, af illuminator, low ISO sufficiently good, and 500 bucks less.

[Ricku]

Yeah the D800 is a diamond.

FPS is not very important unless you are into action / sports photography. RAW file size is no problem if you are on a modern computer. If not, just get more external HD space and upgrade your rig with a new processor.

I really like what I'm seeing from the D800. Especially the image quality and wide dynamic range at low ISO.

[Ivann]

Originally Posted by Ricku

Yeah the D800 is a diamond.

FPS is not very important unless you are into action / sports photography. RAW file size is no problem if you are on a modern computer. If not, just get more external HD space and upgrade your rig with a new processor.

I really like what I'm seeing from the D800. Especially the image quality and wide dynamic range at low ISO.

This.

Seriously, if the 5D3 had the DR capabilities of the D800, It would be a no brainer to stick with Canon, even though the 5D3 is only 22mp.

[David Arbogast]

Originally Posted by Ivann

This.

Seriously, if the 5D3 had the DR capabilities of the D800, It would be a no brainer to stick with Canon, even though the 5D3 is only 22mp.

Even if that were true, Canon made it a little harder than "no-brainer" thanks to a 5D II price sticker that is $500 more than the D800. If it is argued that they're very comparable cameras, the price sticker on the 5D III is just shocking, comparitively speaking. And the surprising thing is that the price-point of the D800 was established well in advance of Canon's announcement. Good for Canon; they are charging each 5D III buyer $500 just for the privilege of being Canon-loyal. I just thought loyalty programs went the other way.

The way I view it, Canon has handed me an $1000 rebate to go with the Nikon D800. Starting with the camera itself, the D800 is $500 less. Additionally, I have also ordered the Nikon 24-70mm lens to pair with it...Canon's new 24-70mm II, which appears to be performance-competitive with the Nikon, is going to be a solid $500 more than Nikon's offering. [Of course the old EF 24-70mm mk I is a lot less $, but it simply is not performance-competitive with either the Nikon or Canon's new 24-70mm.] It's going to cost me a few bucks to sell a couple of my Canon-mount lenses, but thanks to Canon's prices, I'll still come out better than I would by upgrading to 5D III with the new EF 24-70mm II USM lens.

[Charlie]

Not really a fair comparison to add the Nikon 24-70g. That lens is close to 500 more than the brick and should be compared vs the brick. When compared that way, both companies are the same.

being an enthusiast, in body flash and af illumination makes the most sense. The IQ is a wash, as I would be happy with d700 levels to be honest. Nikon never had ff video until now, and that evens the playing field.

sold off my HD camcorder because hddslr wash just on another level.

[David Arbogast]

Originally Posted by chardog

Not really a fair comparison to add the Nikon 24-70g. That lens is close to 500 more than the brick and should be compared vs the brick. When compared that way, both companies are the same.

being an enthusiast, in body flash and af illumination makes the most sense. The IQ is a wash, as I would be happy with d700 levels to be honest. Nikon never had ff video until now, and that evens the playing field.

sold off my HD camcorder because hddslr wash just on another level.

I think it's absolutely fair to compare the latest 24-70mm lens from each company. Why "should" the Nikon 24-70mm be compared to the old brick that Canon is now updating. Had I gone with the 5D III I was seriously contemplating getting the EF 24-70mm II...the ol' brick just isn't in my field of view for comparison's sake. Must we also compare the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 to the older Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L instead of the newer EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II. No way...comparing apples to apples means comparing the latest iterations of lenses against one another. That is fair.

[JeffreyG]

Originally Posted by Tonyz

Remember the excitement you felt when the 5D2 was announced? .

Actually, the 5D Mark II announcement was a big disappointment to me. I seriously looked at going for the D700, but in the end I picked up a used 1D Mark III, which was probably a better bet than what I had wanted from the 5D line anyway.

I've always thought the D700 was a better camera for me than the 5D Mark II, and now I think the 5D Mark III is a better camera than the D800.

I understand that there is a small, vocal group of landscape photographers who liked the 5D2 and now prefer the D800. These people don't seem to understand that different photographers have different needs.

I bet the 5D Mark III will be very successful. Those of you who are disappointed now just see what the rest of us felt three years ago when the 5D Mark II didn't do what we wanted.

[Charlie]

Originally Posted by David Arbogast

I think it's absolutely fair to compare the latest 24-70mm lens from each company. Why "should" the Nikon 24-70mm be compared to the old brick that Canon is now updating. Had I gone with the 5D III I was seriously contemplating getting the EF 24-70mm II...the ol' brick just isn't in my field of view for comparison's sake. Must we also compare the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 to the older Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L instead of the newer EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II. No way...comparing apples to apples means comparing the latest iterations of lenses against one another. That is fair.

You can still buy the brick new... unfair comparison. Until the brick is discontinued that comparison is more valid.

[David Arbogast]

Originally Posted by chardog

You can still buy the brick new... unfair comparison. Until the brick is discontinued that comparison is more valid.

By that logic it isn't fair compare the D800 to the 5D III because the 5D II isn't discontinued yet either. And Canon's EF 70-200mm f/2.8L mk I is not discontinued yet , so I suppose we can't compare the Nikon's latest 70-200mm f/2.8 to the Canon's newest EF 70-200mm f/2.8L mkII either. I'm sorry, but I feel you have a very convenient idea of "fair". Fairness means comparing the latest to the latest, not the latest to the oldest (just because the oldest is still for sale); seems fairest to me. And to be perfectly fair about, my guess is that the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II will prove a better lens than the Nikon from a performance standpoint.

[grahamwynnephoto]

Originally Posted by Tonyz

Remember the excitement you felt when the 5D2 was announced? Remember the thrill the first time you wrapped your hands around that body? You couldn't believe the amount of detail captured with all that resolution, in a DSLR body no less. And what unbelievable performace for such an amazing price! Well, now its Nikon's turn with the D800. It is what everyone was hoping the 5D3 would have been, and much more. It generates the same unbridled excitement of performance in a DSLR body at an amzaing price.

Oh dear, this is more than a little bit sad.

[RobKirkwood]

Originally Posted by David Arbogast

And to be perfectly fair about, my guess is that the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L will prove a better lens than the Nikon from a performance standpoint.

Funnily enough it's actually quite the opposite - we've owned and used both the original Canon 24-70 f2.8 and the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 for wedding and event photography.

Both lenses were routinely sent to Fixation (UK pro service center) for check and recalibration during the time we owned them - so I'm satisfied our copies were as good as they possibly could be ...and the Nikon was hands-down the better performer - definitely the sharpest zoom lens we've ever owned.

Rob

[Ricku]

Originally Posted by grahamwynnephoto

Oh dear, this is more than a little bit sad.

Sad that it is true, yeah.

Or are you in some way trying to imply that he is wrong? That would be more than a little bit stupid.

[David Arbogast]

Originally Posted by RobKirkwood

Funnily enough it's actually quite the opposite - we've owned and used both the original Canon 24-70 f2.8 and the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 for wedding and event photography.

Both lenses were routinely sent to Fixation (UK pro service center) for check and recalibration during the time we owned them - so I'm satisfied our copies were as good as they possibly could be ...and the Nikon was hands-down the better performer - definitely the sharpest zoom lens we've ever owned.

Rob

Oops Rob, I erred in my typing. I meant to write that "my guess is that the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II will prove a better lens than the Nikon from a performance standpoint. The mark II is set to ship about the same time as the 5D III and just looking at the charts, it looks like it's going to be a winner: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consum..._f_2_8l_ii_usm

When I was seriously considering whether to upgrade to the 5D III, I was also thinking of ordering the 24-70mm II with it ($3,500 + $2,300), but I went with the D800 and Nikon 24-70mm instead ($3000 + $1900). Which brings up another error I made...there's only a $400 difference between the comparable lenses, not $500.