Nikon D800 36.3 Mp Cmos Fx-Format Digital Slr Camera (Body Only) (Old Model)

nikon d800 36 3 mp cmos fx format digital slr camera body only old model

Nikon D800 36.3 MP CMOS FX-Format Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) (OLD MODEL)

Buy Now : Nikon D800 36.3 MP CMOS FX-Format Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) (OLD MODEL)

Brand : Nikon
Category : Electronics,Camera & Photo,Digital Cameras,DSLR Cameras
Rating : 4.3
Review Count : 544

Nikon D800 36.3 MP CMOS FX-Format Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) (OLD MODEL)

Nikon\'s D800 will go down in history as one of their best dslrs ever made. The D700 used to be go to classic. It was the first affordable FF DSLR from Nikon to incorporate a full frame digital sensor (a year after the D3), but it\'s title as a classic will fall to the D800.In almost every single aspect the D800 is a better camera than the D700 ever was. The D810 did little to improve the overall experience of the D800. When you use both cameras as I have you see the disparity between marketing claims in real life performance. All of the claims for a more balanced shutter and less vibration of the D810 did little to mitigate or improve the outcome.When you add in the fact that the D810 is a camera that doesn\'t quite handle as well as the D800 nor sound as good, for example by removing the rotating metering dial around the AEL lock button, and quieting the shutter sound, the D810 is no longer really much better at all. The slightly faster frame rate does not bring it into the category of being a good sports or action camera therefore the specification itself is a bit useless. The D800 will shoot up to 6FPS with an attached grip using the 1.2x and DX crop modes, 5fps without the grip.In order to really jump up in any performance overall you have to purchase the D850. That camera right now is about four times as expensive as the D800 used. The resolution advantage if you want to call it that, is very much minimal at best, at least for most practical circumstances. Nikon\'s D850 has also turned out to not be that good of a sole performer for action and sports (D series are MUCH better) again making you question what you\'re really getting for all that extra money. In the real world not much, although admittedly the D850 looks like a much better camera on paper and you\'re never going to convince a D850 owner to the contrary. Understandable, of course.Working photographers such as myself know that we do not live by marketing claims or by paper specifications. We live by judging a camera\'s performance in real time in real life circumstances. I\'ve owned or used extensively all three of the 800 series cameras from Nikon, and I can tell you that the D850 is really not much of an upgrade from previous iterations practically speaking.I own several bodies in multiple camera formats because I like to use a camera that works best for a particular type of photography. The 800 series cameras work best for everything except action work. There are other cameras such as the D series pro level cameras and the D500 that are better suited to this type of work.I see many photographers trying to buy one camera body to do everything well, in the end they only end up disappointed because their camera will not live up to all the unrealistic expectations that a marketing department or specifications of the camera would have you believe they could fulfill. Real life is everything, unless you just want to collect cameras that collect dust and compare their mathematical specifications in la la land.From a working photographer\'s perspective though, the D800 is a fantastic classic legendary camera, and may go down as Nikon\'s best full frame camera for the dollar of all time. That is why I think it will dethrone the legendary D700 here in the near future. The bang for the buck is amazing.This is not to say that other cameras cannot perform better in certain aspects of performance, that is not my claim at all. The claim I make is that there is a loss on your return of investment when you purchase its successor cameras. The value proposition of the D800 is much higher and the performance is at least 90 to 95% as good as its successors.Marketing departments and shills dominate most of the airwaves online and in writing, this unfortunately is bolstered by forum \"heroes\" that defend their brands and purchases. That is not the world that a professional photographer lives in. Not at all. Therefore my opinion is going to be soundly different than the majority you may read out there. I\'m perfectly happy with this fact because I know in the end most people will end up coming to the same conclusion eventually, if and when they become working photographers.The newer mirrorless cameras still do not focus as well as dslrs in critical circumstances for action sequences, and they probably won\'t ever surpass, but may catch up, to DSLR performance in this respect. Camera companies want you to buy their latest cameras so they do not go out of business. Of course that is very understandable but that doesn\'t mean that their promises through their marketing departments will live up to your expectations as a photographer. If you would rather listen to wisdom and save a lot of money, then this review is for you.The D800 is a reliable tank of a camera that is pleasurable to use, consistent, durable enough for generations of ownership, and priced in the used market for an extraordinarily great deal. It\'s image quality is some of the best that has ever been.Take some advice from a working photographer who has used nearly every DSLR or high-end mirrorless camera offered by almost every manufacturer.
I am not going to give a full review of this camera since it is likely you are already well aware of much of what is out there. That being said, there are a few things I have noticed which there don\'t seem to be much feedback on which I would like to highlight. For point of reference I am coming from a D700 and have many of the high end FX lenses.One of the absolute best improvements (aside from obvious things like resolution, improved DR etc.) is the Auto ISO feature. Am I the only one who loved this on my D700 and love it even more on the D800? Nikon has tweaked the min shutter speed setting on this so it is a little more intelligent. Instead of just saying 1/50 or whatever you want as the min (this would be a decent setting for a wide lens) the D800 takes it 1 step further and allows it to float relative to the focal length. In other words 1/50 with a 200mm lens might be a little low in my opinion but the D800 will set it to 1/200 (following the 1/ FL rule). Furthermore, you can tell the camera to set it faster or slower (there are 5 levels with the mid setting as 1/FL) so the same 200mm lens will have some multiple (or fraction) applied to this as well. I like the one step up setting so my 200mm lens never shoots with a shutter less than 1/400. This makes it so much easier on longer length lenses and especially zooms like the 70 - 200 where you might jump around and going back into the menu is a pain to set the min shutter each time... Call me lazy but I love this feature - great addition.EDIT: After shooting 2,000 shots or so with the D800 (and especially with any longer non-VR lenses) I see why this feature has been added... With the D700 the 1/FL rule seemed to work just fine, especially with VR equipped lenses (most non caffeine junkies can get away with far less). With the D800 this rule just doesn\'t work as well and will produce mixed results. With a D700 and my 24-70 I would shoot at ISO 100, 50mm and 1/50s all day long. On the D800 I have found it is better to go to 1/100 or even a little higher with ISO 200 or higher - the ISO change is a lot less noticeable than the increase in sharpness due to the shutter. With the 14-24 this \"new\" rule (haven\'t decided yet if the new rule should 1/2*FL or 1/3*FL) isn\'t too hard to follow but with the 70-200 I find myself pushing the ISO frequently of changing the setting down a bit due to the presence of VR (I use the VRII model). I honestly would not have guessed that the increase in MP would require this much of a change in technique but it does. Of course you can always downsample and still be better off than where you were with the D700 so don\'t take this as a negative to the camera - just a required change in technique in my opinion. When I first wrote this review I loved the new feature and I still do now but there is one change they now need to make: Recognize VR equipped lenses and allow conditional rules such as 1/2*FL with VR and 1/3*FL without. None the less I just change the setting in \"my menu\" when I use a 16-35VR or 70-200VR (although the longer one can sometimes benefit from just leaving it) and the end result is the same but Nikon made it 90% of the way on the new feature, why not round it out. I did also pick up a grip and use rechargeable AAs simply to add weight & this also helps but D800 + grip + 8 rechargeable AAs + 70-200 is not something I walk around with for hours on end.Other more minor comments:- This is less about Nikon as it is about Adobe but it caught me off guard: LR3 will not read D800 RAW files nor will it ever! You either have to use a converter (add more workflow steps which is unacceptable in my opinion) or upgrade to LR4. I suppose I can see both sides but it is annoying to say the least. Adobe should really support this in LR3. It made me want to use Aperature instead but I also use PCs so that is just a pain.- Built in HDR is a joke. Any respectable HDR shooter will bracket with at least 5 frames and likely use Photomatrix or something similar. It also does not work if you shoot RAW - only JPG and only 2 images hence the joke. Your probably not buying the camera for this anyway.- The quiet mode is also useless. Fractionally less noisy than the std and a waste of a spot on the dial.- The + / - on the image zoom is backwards from the D700. Just takes some getting used to...- Folks, it is a 36mp sensor; you will need a bigger drive and 16GB cards barely scrape by now. I am finding 14 bit lossless compression files in the 50mb range - directly after a format the camera reads 200 available images on the 16GB card. A 2GB card is like an old roll of film now for 25 \"exposures\" LOL. I get that wedding shooters are going to need a lot more bigger drives but you can\'t have more detail without more space... Yes, people say you can downscale but this poses a serious workflow bottleneck for me. I have also found that in addition to more drive space working with these large files, particularly in PS & HDR SW with a dated dual-core 2.4GHz CPU and 4 gigs of ram in 32 bit mode requires patience. I hate waiting. EDIT: I have underestimated the PC side of the equation on this camera upgrade. I had to buy a new computer with a lot more muscle to handle a 7 or 9 image RAW stack to be sent to Photomatrix. These get really big and processor hungry. I got a PC with dual quad core (8 total) 3.2GHz XEONs and 16GB of RAM. The processors are far more important than the RAM I have found so get a faster processor and 8GB if you must to save $. It costs as much as a nice lens or even a bit more but keep in mind it is used for every image I take... Worth the upgrade in my mind and something to consider if you have an aging PC / Mac.- 100% viewfinder vs 95% on the D700 doesn\'t sound like much but it is really a welcome improvement.- I have now started buying SD cards to compliment the CFs I already used with my D700. For whatever reason tests I have done on my computer show I am getting faster write speeds out of a 60mb/s Sandisk EX Pro CF card than I get out of a 95mb/s Sandisk Extreme Pro SD card. Same manufacturer but the CF cards just seem to be faster. They are also more expensive - go figure.- I have never owned a D7000 but I hear the auto focus settings (selecting) are the same on the D800. It is way different than the D700 and took me 10 minutes just to figure out how to adjust from AF-S to AF-C. Hint: it is on the front (the side button) to the left of the lens when looking thru the viewfinder.- It has been said before but the fact that this thing has similar high ISO performance compared to the D700 with 3x the resolution deserves a slow clap from Nikon. Really, impressive. I have no issue with using ISO 1600 in auto ISO mode and for certain types of shots see little downside to 3200 unless you are seriously pixel peeping.- Their product launch and way they rolled this out and so dramatically underestimated demand is the exact opposite. Once you have one (a good one without some of the early mfg issues) though you seem to forget all the frustration of the wait.These are just the initial impressions since I have only had the camera for a week or so and shot < 1,000 images. So far very impressed thou and would do it again in a heartbeat. Lastly, in case you are also wondering, I have since cold my D700. Given it still has amazing value I just could not justify it as a backup body and there were few if any advantages that I could really see. I can see wedding photographers scooping these up though as they are a great balance of performance and file size if you are getting into the 4 digit file counts per shoot.