The D800 arrives........
12th February 2012
.......at least on paper. Park Cameras believe that they will have stock by April. I will be going to 'Focus on Imaging' at the NEC in March and it will be interesting to see whether any will be for sale there.
As was widely predicted by the Nikon rumour mill, the D800 is not really a replacement for the D700. It's more of a D3X replacement. This is a shame because the D700 is quite a competent camera for shooting hockey and I have shot quite a lot using mine as a back-up to my D3. Unfortunately the frame rate on the new D800 is hobbled by the fact that the processing power has been invested in the extraordinary number of megapixels - 36.3 - which makes it a less than ideal buy for hockey. (I will add a little proviso to that at the end.) One pundit is claiming that the D800 is the best camera that Nikon has ever made and I'm not going to argue with that. I just ask the same question - will it do what my current D700 will do?
If Nikon stick with just the two FX cameras in its range, the D4 and D800, it looks as if they will price enthusiasts out of the FX market. Whatever the D800 price eventually stablises at, it is likely to be well over £2000. Despite being touted as a pro camera, I've always suspected that more D700s are bought by enthusiasts than professionals, and perhaps Nikon ought to be aware of that. There is likely to be less money around for the launch of the D800 than there was for the launch of the D700.
Just a small note on frame rates. Four frames per second sounds pathetic compared with the D3, which I think is rated at nine frames per second. However, I often find that when I look at a series of images I have shot in burst mode, the first one in the sequence is the best. Perhaps these high frame rates just make us lazy?
As was widely predicted by the Nikon rumour mill, the D800 is not really a replacement for the D700. It's more of a D3X replacement. This is a shame because the D700 is quite a competent camera for shooting hockey and I have shot quite a lot using mine as a back-up to my D3. Unfortunately the frame rate on the new D800 is hobbled by the fact that the processing power has been invested in the extraordinary number of megapixels - 36.3 - which makes it a less than ideal buy for hockey. (I will add a little proviso to that at the end.) One pundit is claiming that the D800 is the best camera that Nikon has ever made and I'm not going to argue with that. I just ask the same question - will it do what my current D700 will do?
If Nikon stick with just the two FX cameras in its range, the D4 and D800, it looks as if they will price enthusiasts out of the FX market. Whatever the D800 price eventually stablises at, it is likely to be well over £2000. Despite being touted as a pro camera, I've always suspected that more D700s are bought by enthusiasts than professionals, and perhaps Nikon ought to be aware of that. There is likely to be less money around for the launch of the D800 than there was for the launch of the D700.
Just a small note on frame rates. Four frames per second sounds pathetic compared with the D3, which I think is rated at nine frames per second. However, I often find that when I look at a series of images I have shot in burst mode, the first one in the sequence is the best. Perhaps these high frame rates just make us lazy?
