Nikon D800e 36.3 Mp Cmos Fx-Format Digital Slr Camera (Body Only) (Old Model)

nikon d800e 36 3 mp cmos fx format digital slr camera body only old model

Nikon D800E 36.3 MP CMOS FX-Format Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) (OLD MODEL)

Make sure this fits by entering your model number.
36.3MP full-frame CMOS sensor
51-point AF system (15 cross-type)
ISO 100-6400 expandable to 25,600
3.2 inch LCD with 921,000 dots
1080p HD video recording
4 frames per second continuous shooting
100% viewfinder

Buy Now : Nikon D800E 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
Review Count : 153

nikon d800e 36 3 mp cmos fx format digital slr camera body only old model

Nikon D800E 36.3 MP CMOS FX-Format Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) (OLD MODEL)

As a fan of Nikon SLR for almost 50 years, I am accustomed to ordering the latest and greatest without much thinking about it, and so I ordered the D800E. I had sold my D700 - which I and many others considered the best camera ever - a bit prematurely and had a long wait for its replacement. D800E is a highly developed piece of hardware with unlimited capabilities. After a few weeks with it however, I am having doubts whether I made the right choice. Or should I say, whether Nikon is making the right choices for handheld still photographers. D800E is not what I expected as an update to D700.Let\'s begin with 36MP. This sounds at first like an advance over the very popular 12MP D700. Unfortunately some testing shows it is not, and here\'s why. At shutter speeds slower than 1/500, it is impossible to capture real image detail at this resolution in the presence of the slightest mechanical vibration. At 7,360 horizontal pixels, any jitter, even mirror slap, that fluctuates the aimpoint of your camera during the exposure by the equivalent of 1/3 inch at a hundred yards (0.3 minute of arc) will smear out your finest pixel - and you might just as well be working with 18MP, or 12MP, or less. More pixels will not translate into more actual detail if the limit is mechanical stability. Nikon realized that 36MP is overkill for handheld photography and this is why, in their Technology Guide, advises that using a tripod or even locking up the mirror is necessary to achieve the full resolution - hardly in the spirit of classic 35 mm photography. Vibration Reduction is also pretty much required here, but such is available only on a handful of FX lenses. For handheld photography, 36MP is overkill. No one will ever put out a 100MP camera - it would be pointless. The full potential of 36MP is only realized as a studio or landscape camera bolted firmly to a heavy tripod. Considering that Nikon optimized for MP instead of high ISO, and since the movie capabilities are not important for me, I am not sure what I gained over the D700.OK then, if I need sensivitity more than pixels, can I at least choose to downsample to S format (about 9MP) and expect superior high ISO? I tried it, and the answer unfortunately is: no. L format and S format pix look exactly the same except for resolution. There are two ways to downsample to reduce pixel count; the first averages a group of pixels - this method will reduce the noise. But Nikon does it the second way, which requires less processing, wherein the S version simply omits certain rows and columns of the full image. This simply throws away information with no benefit in signal-to-noise.Why did Nikon change the philosophy which had attracted a wide customer base for D700, reducing the high sensitivity pixel pitch of 8.5µm down to a miserly 4.9µm for D800? It seems this was a marketing ploy and not a photographic decision; little more than one-upping their archrival Canon in advertised specs. Like many tunnel-vision corporations before them, Nikon seems obsessed by their short term death struggle with Canon while failing to recognize the bigger handwriting on the wall, the rise of mirrorless cameras such as Sony NEX and Fujifilm XPro1. These are emerging as a genuine alternative to DSLR for high image quality, even full frameLast weekend I had the opportunity to get all three in one room and compare the D800E directly for image quality. I chose an overcast day, set up an outdoor still-life, used a tripod, set all three at ISO 800 and JPEG\'s. Of course D800E has the highest pixel resolution (36MP vs 16MP) but if you don\'t magnify enough to see that, the other measures of image quality (noise, dynamic range, contrast, color) under good light were beautifully rendered in all three. D800 images may be a bit better upon close inspection. But they certainly weren\'t five times better photographically than cameras that may cost a fifth as much and weigh a fifth as much.I wish Nikon had made more imaginative design decisions for D800 to meet these challenges for users like me. Instead of pumping up MP and adding movies, they could have reversed priorities. I would have much preferred if the D800 had used their D4 sensor with 16MP and ISO up to 100,000, which would allow me to take more unusual pictures and have more latitude in aperture and shutter speed. They could have attempted to cut the weight of the FX package by half (there is a rumor of a D600 in the works which may be less massive). Fewer pixels would have enhanced colors and dynamic range and contrast, the non-MP ingredients of meaningful image quality. What about a wireless download to replace all the strange cables? And they could have done something about the clunky Nikon software, the endless menus, the whole unwieldy architecture of controlling a complex instrument. How about a simpified interface I could perhaps set up and save on my computer instead of only on the camera, and open the operating system to third party apps, similar to the iPhone? I am disappointed in Nikon for caving in to the megapixel race just to puff a number. Steve Jobs once said that when the marketing people with their short term incentives take over a corporation from the product engineers, it is doomed to go down.SLR is on the ropes. The advantage of SLR for the past forty years had been the superior accuracy of viewfinder, framing, and focus. For this, photographers were willing to accept tradeoffs, such as the bulk and lesser optical quality which could be obtained from wide angle lens designs fitting the long distance between glass and film. SLR is still the best viewfinder today but the electronic display, which sees what the lens sees without a mirror by using the signals from the digital sensor, is on a path to catch up. And mirrorless brings compactness and superior optics. At the moment, available electronic viewfinders (in addition to the Fuji XPro, I have also tested the NEX 7) remain far inferior to an SLR view, more like comparing the screen of a tiny flickering television to looking out the window. But this will improve and DSLR seems on a path to obselescence. DSLR is no longer the only way to get fast shutter response either. I am not the first to say this; Trey Ratliff, who has an influential blog and teaches HDR photography, has written the same thing.So far Nikon\'s response to mirrorless has been off the mark. F-mount lenses are not a good match to compact mirrorless layouts, due to their long flange-to-sensor distance, so Nikon put out a new design, Nikon 1 with the CX mount. But the sensor they use is 1/4 the size of the DX class found in the NEX and Fuji and new Canon. Probably they did this out of corporate shortsightedness (\"let\'s not cannibalize our DX DSLR\"). Wrong strategy; Nikon 1 has received lukewarm reviews, and prices have just been slashed by 33% due to weak sales. In the meantime, longtime DSLR users like myself are being seduced away, and mirrorless now accounts for 50% of the Japanese domestic market. I am considering sending back my D800E and putting my most expensive VR FX lenses on eBay, recovering a large pile of money for other equipment. Maybe this is my very last DSLR? These are thoughts I would not have entertained even two years ago and I am not alone. Whereas Amazon customer reviews of D700 were overwhelmingly positive, the early reviews of D800 are decidedly mixed.D800/D800E is a mature instrument with all the bells and whistles and robust construction quality Nikon is famous for. It has every possible setting variation at one\'s fingertips. There are refinements such as correction of lens distortions as part of the JPG processing. In-camera HDR. A scientific or industrial tool of equal complexity but lower sales volume might easily cost $70K instead of $3K; in that sense it is a bargain. But \"mature\" is the key word: there is no sign Nikon has any real innovations up its sleeve, and D800 in its present form is at the point of diminishing returns. Unless one is a working professional, it is too big and heavy. 36MP and movies were the wrong emphasis when there are so many other areas where DSLR could be advanced. Nikon is a conservative Japanese corporation whose DNA is scientific instruments, microscopes and industrial equipment. But here they are in a rapidly evolving market more influenced by Instagram than a few extra pixels. Unfortunately, the \"D\" in DSLR is beginning to stand for Dinosaur.Here is my wish list for a new Nikon product line which could leapfrog over anything currently out there. Put out a FULL FRAME (FX) mirrorless, with a new mount and new lenses with a short flange-sensor distance plus an adapter for F-Mount to allow use of the 70 million F lenses out there. A mirrorless FX will weigh half the D800 bulk. And while you\'re at it, let me the user have the ability to simplify the forest of menus - make the camera programmable, including the interface. Open it to third party apps like the iPhone; can you imagine what creative designers would come up with if they were granted total control of a top quality full frame box? And please ditch the clunky buggy software you ship with the camera - but which no one uses - and find some up to date software house which can write a brand new, clean, application. As for viewfinder, don\'t bother with the poor tiny EVF\'s we have today - perhaps just supply a nice LCD with a magnifying hood to look at it close up at eye level. The whole package will be bigger than half frame mirrorless, but it will also be far better, in fact stunning, especially if they use the D4 sensor. Dear Nikon; show some boldness and spirit, just as you did in the 1950\'s when you led the commercialization of single lens reflex.The other choice for Nikon is to continue on their conservative path and slowly sink with the DSLR ship, as advanced amateurs and eventually pros make other choices. Over and over we have seen big companies locked into an existing product line fall behind and find themselves unable to recover; think Polaroid, Kodak, Commodore, AOL. In any case the most significant innovators in photography today are not the \'camera-heads\' of the world - Canon / Pentax / Olympus / Nikon - but Apple and Android, with their always-with-me smartphones, third party apps, and wireless connectivity.Nikon could still be the ones to apply this approach to the high end of photo quality. I hope they do but I expect they will not. Yesterday I looked in my cabinet and was reminded I own a lovely Nikon F6, the best film SLR ever made. Masterful. But now, only a few years after its introduction, a museum curiosity and collector\'s item. The best of the breed; and the last of the breed because it refined itself on a straight path into the history books while completely different image technologies whizzed past.Note added on May 20, 2013: In the past year the introduction of the D600 Nikon has answered some of the problems of the D800E. However, the most significant recent innovation in DSLR is the Canon SL1 which weighs only 13 oz compared to D800 32 oz. They did this by repackaging the sensor chip and shutter to allow a much smaller box. In fact the SL1 is smaller and lighter than a Fujifilm XE1 and yet retains an optical through the lens viewfinder, which is still superior to any electronic viewfinder.
I received this camera from Amazon about a week ago and I have enough reservations about the D800E that I will likely be returning it. Initial impressions were a bit lukewarm with regard to build quality. First the positives - it feels great in the hand (I was a bit worried about the grip but it fits my hand perfectly), the viewfinder is better than expected (coming from the wonderful finder of the Sony a900, I had concerns the size and acuity would be lacking - that\'s not the case at all) and finally, the camera feels much lighter than I expected. Unfortunately, that last point would seem to come at the expense of build quality - quite surprising to me having used various Nikons over the past thirty years (Nikon F2, F3, F4, FM, FM2, N90 and so on). Right off the bat, I was shocked at the flimsy battery door and card reader door. Both feel really cheap in comparison to any mid/high level DSLR I have used over the past five years or so (the Pentax K-5 for instance has a noticeably more rugged build in these areas by comparison and I expected the D800E would be at least at that level). Whether or not the cheaper design will prove a long term liability, I don\'t know but it\'s not reassuring to feel the card reader door give/move/squeak when gripping the camera. I expected better from Nikon at this price.The real issue for me though is in useability with Live View and AF. It\'s been mentioned before but I had no idea just how frustrating and almost unusable Live View is in practice. The problem is that the 100% LV image is apparently interpolated so it\'s nearly impossible to ascertain perfect focus via inspection, particularly at 100% view. This becomes very frustrating when doing critical work because essentially you have to blindly trust the contrast detect LV AF (if you are using an AF lens that is!). That really cripples one of the main advantages of having Live View in the first place imo. The other issue I\'m experiencing is with general AF accuracy and reliability. I have spent the past week testing the camera with three different lenses, all new (Nikon 28 1.8G, 50 1.8G and Tamron 105 Di Macro). In every instance, the AF accuracy seems to be all over the place. With the 50, after experiencing this hit and miss phenomenon, I found after testing that the lens required an extreme +20 fine tuning calibration. Oddly though, the outer AF points were off with that setting in the center and furthermore, that setting did not seem to be accurate at all distances so in the end, the fine tuning was found to be completely unreliable. So, Ok, maybe the lens was bad. Moving on to the other lenses, testing showed them to require no fine tuning adj. but the Tamron was always inconsistent when actually shooting with regard to AF accuracy (50% or less hit rate on stationary subjects!). The 28 was found to be tack sharp most of the time in the center using the central AF point but the other AF points varied quite a bit. After further testing, I\'m inclined to believe the issue is with extreme field curvature of that lens (so the proper point of focus in the center is not at the same plane as the D800E AF points to the far right or left (and, unfortunately, the left AF point is not the same as the right AF point which leads me to believe there is an issue with the D800E outer focus point accuracy as well).All in all, with three different lenses and each one exhibiting major issues with the D800E, I have to believe the camera is at fault to some degree with regard to AF. Combined with the poor Live View implementation and the so so build quality, I don\'t think this camera is going to be worth it for most users in comparison to a 24MP or so FF alternatives. For one, the jump in actual resolution will not be seen if the AF is even slightly off. Secondly, if one were planning to use the best MF Zeiss lenses + Live View to really take advantage of those 36MP\'s, the Live View issues really get in the way and one is left basically bracketing focus IN LIVE VIEW! That just seems crazy at this price level.