Nikon D800 DSLR with 36 MP to be announced on February 7, 2012

Darrell Larose writes:

Bruce wrote:
At last, the much-delayed Nikon D800 will be announced next Tuesday.
Rumours suggest a price around US $4000 or GBP 3000 (incl. 20% tax).

In Canada the current MSRP on a D700 is CAD $2,500. In the past the
replacement camera tend to come in at or around the same introduction
price point. I would therefore think a D800 will hit the shelves here
at $2,999. which the D700 was when it was launched.

nikonrumors.com gave their highest confidence to a $4000 price. Which
is not to say they're right and you're wrong; your historical
observation is accurate, and history is a decent predictor in general.

It will have a 36.3 MP Sony sensor and 1080p video, but we shouldn't
expect the same low noise/high ISO performance of the D700.

I also don't buy a 36.6 MP, as that would be higher than the D3X. My
guess would be a D800 will feature the chipset of the D3s, with some
features disabled (either via hardware or firmware). My logic is based
on Nikon's previous methods, to recover as much R&D from their chips.

However, all the rumors seem to agree, and be quite specific.

I'd much prefer if you were right -- the D800 as rumored is NOT a
successor to the D700 any more than the D3x was a successor to the D3.

I note most camera rumour sites peg a new camera pixel count at higher
than what appears. I also note most of the Canon 5D mk.III peg it at
21-25 MP. The trend lately is to improve video performance (not that
is a selling point for me) and noise reduction. That is a sales point
for me. All dSLR cameras on the market have outstanding
signal-to-noise performance, I shot film since 1970 and a dSLR will
blow high ISO films out of the water. I see many cameras now with
in-camera HDR to address dynamic range (the other weak area of
digital!)

Dynamic range is not a weak area of digital, the usable range (that you
can put into prints) is bigger than film was in good light, even with
P&S cameras often (though not universally).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
Dynamic range is not a weak area of digital, the usable range (that you
can put into prints) is bigger than film was in good light, even with
P&S cameras often (though not universally).

With most P&S camera's still stuck with 8 bit jpegs, dynamic range is
definitely not their strong point. I'd say the exceptions are far from
universal.

Trevor.

"Trevor" wrote in message
...

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
Dynamic range is not a weak area of digital, the usable range (that you
can put into prints) is bigger than film was in good light, even with
P&S cameras often (though not universally).

With most P&S camera's still stuck with 8 bit jpegs, dynamic range is
definitely not their strong point. I'd say the exceptions are far from
universal.

Trevor.

Don't forget, though, that 8-bit JPEG is "gamma corrected". It has a
greater dynamic range than 8-bit linear, and even than 10-bit or 12-bit
RAW, albeit at lower precision.

Cheers,
David

"David J Taylor" wrote:
"Trevor" wrote in message
...

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
Dynamic range is not a weak area of digital, the usable range (that you
can put into prints) is bigger than film was in good light, even with
P&S cameras often (though not universally).

With most P&S camera's still stuck with 8 bit jpegs,
dynamic range is definitely not their strong
point. I'd say the exceptions are far from universal.

Trevor.

Don't forget, though, that 8-bit JPEG is "gamma corrected". It has a
greater dynamic range than 8-bit linear, and even than 10-bit or 12-bit
RAW, albeit at lower precision.

Technically that is true, but only if certain things are
ignored. The dynamic range greater than about 9 fstop
is totally worthless due to quantization distortion, so
it doesn't actually exist.

But that misses the point of the JPEG format! It is the
equivalent of a print, or a slide if you will. The raw
sensor data is the equivalent of a negative. So to
compare film and digital, the raw sensor data has to be
compared with the RAW file, and the resulting slides are
compared to the JPEG image.

Digital of course simply walks away from film as ISO is
increased, but at lower ISO's the range that slide film
is able to display is greater than digital, but range
from the scene that film can capture is not as great as
digital.

As for P&S cameras that do not produce a RAW
file... well they are the equivalent of "Instant Film"
cameras such as Polaroids. And again, digital wins
hands down.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
As for P&S cameras that do not produce a RAW
file

Which is most of them unfortunately.

... well they are the equivalent of "Instant Film"
cameras such as Polaroids.

Nope no instant prints like Polaroid. Were there any "instant *film*"
camera's?

Trevor.

On 2/6/2012 5:18 AM, Bruce wrote:
wrote:
"Floyd L. wrote in message
...
As for P&S cameras that do not produce a RAW
file

Which is most of them unfortunately.

... well they are the equivalent of "Instant Film"
cameras such as Polaroids.

Nope no instant prints like Polaroid. Were there any "instant *film*"
camera's?


Polaroid did make instant negative film for 4x5 (B&W). The
negatives were excellent fine grain middle of the road film.
I used lots of it. It made instant positives too at the same time.
Not high speed.

Doug McDonald

"Darrell Larose" wrote in message
...
... well they are the equivalent of "Instant Film"
cameras such as Polaroids.

Nope no instant prints like Polaroid. Were there any "instant *film*"
camera's?

Polaroid did make Type 55 Positive/Negative film, that was a nice B&W
negative.

There was also Polavison slide films.

PolaBlue CN, ISO 8, white-on-blue, 35mm instant negative slide film
PolaChrome CS, ISO 40, color, 35mm instant slide film
PolaChrome HCP, ISO 40, color, 35mm instant slide film
PolaGraph HC, ISO 400, black and white, 35mm instant slide film
PolaPan CT, ISO 125, black and white, 35mm instant slide film


Oops, forgot about them, and I did know about Polachrome at least.

Trevor.

David Dyer-Bennet writes:

Darrell Larose writes:

Bruce wrote:
At last, the much-delayed Nikon D800 will be announced next Tuesday.
Rumours suggest a price around US $4000 or GBP 3000 (incl. 20% tax).

In Canada the current MSRP on a D700 is CAD $2,500. In the past the
replacement camera tend to come in at or around the same introduction
price point. I would therefore think a D800 will hit the shelves here
at $2,999. which the D700 was when it was launched.

nikonrumors.com gave their highest confidence to a $4000 price. Which
is not to say they're right and you're wrong; your historical
observation is accurate, and history is a decent predictor in general.

And in fact you were right on. Good going!
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

"Trevor" writes:

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
Dynamic range is not a weak area of digital, the usable range (that you
can put into prints) is bigger than film was in good light, even with
P&S cameras often (though not universally).

With most P&S camera's still stuck with 8 bit jpegs, dynamic range is
definitely not their strong point. I'd say the exceptions are far from
universal.

You're confusing number of brightness steps with brightness range;
they're not the same thing.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
Dynamic range is not a weak area of digital, the usable range (that you
can put into prints) is bigger than film was in good light, even with
P&S cameras often (though not universally).

With most P&S camera's still stuck with 8 bit jpegs, dynamic range is
definitely not their strong point. I'd say the exceptions are far from
universal.

You're confusing number of brightness steps with brightness range;
they're not the same thing.

Rubbish, I'm talking about nearly all DSLR sensors (and many P&S for that
matter) true dynamic range being well above what an 8 bit file can handle.
If you think jpeg compression simply reduces "brightness steps" you are the
one mistaken.

Trevor.