[citation][nom]RumoursAreNotNews[/nom]@nukemaster - huh? what? In the first paragraph you question the value of high ISO settings - in the second you suggest they focus on low light performance with less noise.[/citation]
They are not, backside lit sensors capture more light(because they are more efficient by way of a redesign) and there by do so with less noise(an issue at higher sensitivities). no need for iso settings that make the image look like it was taken with a phone now is there?
I am fully aware longer exposure lets more light(at the cost of quality in some cases)
and that opening the aperture will capture more light at the cost of depth of field.
Thanks for stating the obvious. I am saying better sensors are better then larger megapixels.
on the S8100(i do not own one of those by the way, just got to play with it), I said it takes ALL its pictures at lower ISO(not saying a night photo will not get to 800+) then most of the other Nikon point and shoot camera's and has far less noise because of it I had seen many others running auto 800+ indoors with flash, they looked like crap...
[citation][nom]outlw6669[/nom]Really, they should be focusing more on a larger dynamic range and better high ISO performance than more raw MP.Even for the majority of pro photographers, 10MP is more than enough (10MP allows you to print a standard A4 sheet picture at 300 dpi).Take a cue from Cannon's latest pro body and stick to 18MP (A3 print size at 300dpi) focusing on better IQ instead.Anyone who pro who wants to print poster size or larger will be shooting with a large format body anyways...And joytech, your 1100D actually has really good pixel level quality, better than my 60D even.Just slap some good glass on it and it will rock![/citation]
U must be a pro photographer than, huh? Well, u are wrong on that one.
[citation][nom]__-_-_-__[/nom]"A previous report stated that the camera would be unveiled on October 26 and shipments would begin on November 24." yeah but Thailand floods completely destroyed a nikon factory. Things are not good for nikon. It's an entry level full frame to replace the old D700. $3900 imo the price will drop a lot when they launch the new flagship full frame to replace the current D3S in Q1 2012.[/citation]
U surely don't think that Nikon giant has only one factory, do u?
I've never heard of a "D700m," just the plain D700, unless it's the name used in some markets.
This "D800" as proposed is a full frame sensor, not an APS-C. Also, ISO 6400 and above is VERY useful. There is no comparison between high ISO in a back illuminated CMOS sensor in a bridge camera and a full frame DSLR; at least for any photos you want to publish or sell to people.
I regularly shoot my D700 in nightclubs, caves, and local concerts, where flash is not allowed. I can go up to ISO 4000 before the dynamic range and colors start going south. One of the big selling points of the D3s is it can take clean photos at ISO 12,800 and even go up to 102,400 but the pictures are only marginal. And no, you don't need this for fireworks; those are really bright, you just need a steady mount and a 2-5 second exposure,
That said, I doubt this is real. Nikon normally releases first a flagship model, then a consumer one, a high speed sports one, and a large image size portrait/landscape one; but they haven't always been consistent Enhanced/improved models are followed by an "s" at the end of the model name.
The D3 was followed by the D3X, D3s, D700, and D300/D300s. There was no high speed model as there was probably no need since the D3 did well as it is, and the D700 was really what the D300 should have been.
The upcoming model should be the D4; the "D800" seems more like a "D700X" than something new. A lot of us have been hoping for a D3s sensor (which is different from the one in the D3) in a D700 body. This clearly isn't it, not does it make sense in Nikon's naming scheme and release pattern. Maybe it's all they can do after the earthquake and Thailand floods, but I doubt it.
[citation][nom]loomis86[/nom]nonsenseIf you take a pic, then crop it down to a tenth of the original pic or less, then blow it up...you will need every bit of those megapixels.[/citation]
I would argue that anyone that crops to 1/10 or less of the picture then makes a large print is really neither going to care about image quality (final or initial) nor spend the cash on a DSLR.
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]back when film was still used as the norm, we looked at a pro photographer who used a disposable camera to take some really amazing shots, crap we never thought was possible outside of a slr. for almost every application, the photographer matters far more than the camera.clarity of picture > size of picture.[/citation]
This is so true; I wish I could +1000 you.
[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]For anyone who says 36megapixels is overkill you don't know photography. The more pixels the better. RAW pictures is precisely why there's 2 memory slots[/citation]
More MP is not inherently bad, just massively overkill for the mast majority of photographers (pro and not alike).
As stated above, even a 10MP image is large enough to make an A4 print without dropping below 300dpi.
The real issue with high density sensors is that you must reduce the size of the photosites which reduces the capacity of each to capture light.
As the capacity to capture light is reduced, each photosite will give a less accurate readout therefor increasing noise, reducing dynamic range and overall pixel level quality.
Personally, I almost never print larger than A4 and only once or twice have printed A3 or larger (18MP to stay above 300dpi); this probably holds true for the vast majority of photographers.
With this in mind, I would rather that the majority of advances in sensor tech went towards better quality instead of stuffing more pixels on the same surface area.
IM NOT THAT BOTHERED ABOUT THE D700 REPLACEMENT, excepr for the fact there will be some real D700 bargains around. I will buy a second d700 body as it is a stunning camera that gives wonderfull files , i especially like the HIgh end ISO low nose levels i can get from it
I'm so fed up with hearing people say that 36mp is overkill. Its just not the camera for you if you think this is the case!
I shoot fashion, products, interiors and commercial photography. I've just finished doing a shoot that will be for billboards and bus stops similiar to movie posters. Some of my fashion shots are printed to 4ft high.
The earlier comment that any pro's shooting billboards or posters would use a medium format camera is rubbish, not all professionals either want to pay that kind of money or can afford to.
Everyone is obsessed with low noise at high ISO, I never have the need to shoot above 400 ISO so why does everyone talk about it so much???????
Less amateur photographers should comment on these forums and cameras as they don't know what they are talking about.
The D800 sounds like the perfect camera for me and can't wait to get my hands on it.