Why is the D800 late.

I stand corrected, thanks to a reader with useful information. Now people who can never constructively debate online, watch and learn: I will admit that I was wrong on the Internet. 

I first wrote that:

Great news to all of you who preordered a D800! 

The Nikon D900 will be out in 2015 ! Which means you can have it just before you receive your D800 for comparison. You can then sell your D800 to Le Louvre museum in Paris: 

"Look son, that is a D800! It was one of the most desired camera of all time, the 7 guys in the world who finally got one said it was actually good. Of course that remains a legend since no one was ever able to seen one in store."

Seriously Nikon, production chain ? Creating desire by lowering availability is one thing. And it's ok when the product is actually useless (hint: it start's with an "i" and finished by "pad"). But when you can 't fulfill more than 15% of the preorders at best (yes I have all the numbers for all shops in my town as well as the exact numbers delivered), this is called incompetence and bad supply chain management. It's even more serious when most of those people are pros waiting for their work tool.

I am mad, you're lucky you have no direct competition. 

Then I was redirected to a good article explaining why Nikon can't do it all. Basically, they have a maximum monthly production capacity and since the demand is only at a peak at launch, it is industrially irrelevant to make a much larger factory that would run 80% empty most of the time. Therefore, you gotta wait. 

Fact: well, it sucks but that's the way it is and it's not incompetence from Nikon.

Perception of the fact: Nikon should explain us why. Now that I know, well, I'm less mad.

And because you still gotta be mad at someone: rich amateurs who can't take a decent picture, stop preordering pro gear that pros actually need to make a living ! Damnit ! Most shot's I've seen from a D800  so far were just plain bad. I'm mad again ! (yeah back to normal). 

Thanks to "anonymous" for the comment.

D800 rating #1 at DxOmark

...what the hell is DxOmark?

DxOMark is "the trusted industry standard for camera and lens independent image quality measurements and ratings. "


In other words, if you wonder how your sensor performs against an other, and argue online based on your visual interpretation of  a 1:1 crop, give it up, check DxOmark, close the debate. Then you'll be able to stop counting pixels and do some actual photography :)


Now wait, if I despise pixel counting, why am I mentioning that ranking? Answering this question requires asking an other question: why do some people still shoot film? Well among the reasons, film has a much superior dynamic range than any digital sensor. That is simply an awesome property and one of the reasons I shoot mostly film no matter what. It means you can shoot a high contrast scene and both dark and bright zones will come out with a proper level of exposure. Beyond the technical talk, it just makes photographs way more subtle, refined, colors are nicer, and landscapes in particular looks a zillion times better. Digital photographer use filters, or HDR (high dynamic range) to simulate the better dynamic range of film. 


But now, look at this: 

At ISO100, 200 and 400, the D800 offers even better dynamic range than a D4. This + 36MP + built in HDR mode make it the best landscape SLR you can which for. Of course, any large format camera will destroy it, but for digital, it's good stuff. It overtakes the D700 all the way, and only the D4 ranks better from ISO 800 and above.


Every camera is best at something, for large prints plenty of light shots, or long exposures, the D800 is your friend. 


Oh and according to the ranking, the D800's sensor doesn't only overtake the D4, it also is ahead of the 50000$ Phase One IQ180MP best of the best digital medium format camera... So i'll say it: when I heard about the 36MP, I was like "yeah right...crap". I was wrong.

What lenses should you buy with your D800 ?

A lot of D800 talks lately (guiltyyyy !), but let's not forget what's actually the second most important thing after your photographic skills: the lens. Indeed the D800 is a facilitating tool but it's still just an intermediary between you and the final image. Among all those intermediaries (lens, camera, editing software), the body is definitively the one that has the least impact on the image.

So what lens should you buy for your D800? The answer always lays in a good need assessment, and since I can't cover every possible combination of need, I'll stick to a multipurpose lens selection that should allow you to cover landscape, street photography, wedding, portrait and macro. For more eccentric needs (underwater fish eye, super tele zoom), I am not the best person to ask for advice anyway.

What applies to nearly every situation is that prime of fix focal lengths outperform zoom lengths. They do because they are optimized for one focal length only, you then benefit from sharper image, with less distortion and vignetting. They also tend to cost less. Last but not least, they can open much much wider (down't to F1.2), allowing low light photography and really narrow depth of field. Most prime lenses happen to also be FX lenses. Those usually don't have a built in motor for AF, and work only in manual focus mode in DX cameras. So when you buy a prime lens for a DX camera, make sure it's either a DX, or be aware that you won't have AF. That fact is that anyway, you need at least one prime lens. 

Of course, some situations require the capacity to zoom in and out, for example if you are a wedding photographer, or a journalist. In that case, you'll have to invest in a zoom lens. The problem is that good zoom lenses are costly. You want, on a FX camera, premium quality (otherwise why spending that much in the body). It usually means fix aperture at F2.8. Also, the greater the zoom range, the higher the risk of quality drop. You will usually buy the one you need most and invest on more latter.

1st case scenario: you had a DSLR before, DX format.

First of all, you might wonder what is different in a DX lens as opposed to a normal full format lens. Well essentially they aim at covering a smaller sensor. So if you put them on a FX, you might suffer from dark corners and excessive vignetting. Also, on a DX camera, you have to multiply the focal length by about 1.5 to know what real length your are shooting at. Because the sensor is smaller, it covers only a center portion of the image, acting as a fake 1.5 zoom. You can use your DX on an FX camera, but I recommend you then shoot it in DX mode to get the most of it. Then of course, you totally loose the purpose of having a DX camera. Finally, DX lenses tend to come in super short focal lengths, to compensate the above mentioned crop factor and allow wide angle. 

Back to your situation: if you had a DX camera, it's very unlikely that you own a premium zoom FX lens. That's the first thing you need to get since your actual zoom lenses will strongly limit the potential of your new system.

2nd case scenario: you are starting from scratch.
You must buy a great prime lens. I would go for the following combo: Nikon 50mm f/1.2 Nikkor AI-S Manual Focus + Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G AFS. This being said, here is my FX lenses Nikon selection.

Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G AFS

Yes it costs an arm. But if you must have one multipurpose lens on a Nikon FX, that should be this one.  Prefer it to the 18-55 f2.8. Similar quality, 15 more mm. It's clearly aiming at professional use, but if you can afford it...

Nikon 16-35mm F4

For landscape shooters, architecture, doesn't get sharper than that on a zoom. I would even recommend this over extra wide prime lenses. Prime lenses will mostly allow low light photography, but for landscape you are likely to use a pod anyway.

Now you'll need a prime lens or two, in order to maximize your options and make the most of that large sensor. It's a lot of lenses, but you'll keep those for decades, so don't be scared investing on it.

Nikon 35mm f/2D

Ideal for street photography and travel, my kinda stuff. It's wide enough to capture a scene, allow portraiture too. I own few 35mm lenses (I shoot mostly medium format) but this is one of them. It's very affordable, small and light. It also perform really well, and remains sharp at F2, much more than the cheap (yet good) 50mm f1.8D. You. Must. Get. One.

Nikon 135mm f/2.0D
I need one (and I accept donations ! Email me or leave a comment). The portrait lens you must get, also a bokeh monster.

Nikon 50mm f/1.2 Nikkor AI-S Manual Focus
Not the cheapest, an older design too and manual focus only, but oh my god it is beautiful. It does not get sharper. Period. Bokeh is superb, at f1.2 it like a painting in the background. At F2 it is sharper than your sharper most expensive zoom. I own one, it's built old school, like a Rolex, I love it.

Nikon 105mm f/2.8G Micro
For macro. Don't get 60mm lenses for macro, this is the one you need. As the huge advantage of also being a substitute for the 135mm f2. Solid metal build, one the best Nikon lenses ever.

Last point on competition: 
Some pro Nikon camera have very brutal and fast AF motors. If you use cheap Sigma stuff with it, you might destroy the lens as it won't be handle the camera body (if you had a cheap lens on a F5, you know what I'm talking about).

Sigma and Tamron are just not cheap enough to be worth it. I don't see the point, if you can spend that much money, buy Nikon.

Zeiss and Voighlander do great stuff to, mostly prime manual focus lenses. They are excellent, but I find the 50mm f1.2 AIS so good that I don't see the point.

D800 and low light performance

Very interesting, I took it from mansurovs.com, who downscaled the jpeg file to the size of a D700 file (12mp). I then applied a noise reduction filter in PS Element 9. Keep in mind that this is a jpeg file, raw files will be a lot cleaner. 

Now I promise I won't patronize you with the usual "any camera is good if you're a good photographer". Although I'll remind you again that is you strive for perfection you should look into medium format film.  

This post is to adress the worries of a lot of people complained that so much pixels would run low light sensitivity.

Well technology evolves. The facts are: 

- The pixels are a bit larger than the D7000, a camera praised for its low light performance.

- To compare VS a D700, you have to downscale to the same size file (as in here)

- Unless you shoot wildlife or warfare at night, you got no reason to shoot at 6400 or above. And in that case, you get a D4.

Now verdict on those samples: 

That is pretty clean to me, more than enough for 99,9999% of what I do. I have to admit the D800 seems to suffer for color noise in particular, but that's the easiest to remove during post processing. Considering the video capabilities of the camera, the large prints for commercial work, the price tag significantly lower than the 5D MK III, Nikon's superiority in lens making, built quality and metering, I think the 5D / D800 match is a no brainer. But once again, go try and see for yourselves. I'll make my final call when I get a chance to shoot both.

You can order your D800 on Amazon.

JPEG ISO 6400 downscaled to 12MP

this is 1:1 view ISO 6400

Nikon D800, FINALLY !!!

And great news ! It is 1000$ cheaper than originally rumored at 2999$ :D

It is available for pre-orders on Amazon. Here is the link to the official brochure. The D800E is a little more expensive at 3200$ without antialiasing.

Here is the promotion video:

Joy Ride from Sandro on Vimeo.

F@#&in' Finally ! Nikon D800

The D800 will be announced on February the 7th.

It's aiming at pros doing landscapes and fashion, requiring very large prints, hence the 36MP sensor. It will indeed cost 4000$ more or less.

Since it's totally useless for the casual art shooter, I'll be waiting for the D400 announcement. I have the secret hope that it will be a full frame (although I have absolutely no insight)...I want to use my 35mm as a 35mm, not as a 50.

Until then, the best DSLRs for a non pro remains the Nikon D7000 , and I have to admit, the Canon 5D MKII . At this price tag, the Canon 5D MKII is no less that a Nikon D800 with a little less innovation for half the price.

I am actually a bit skeptical about the price, why would anyone want to pay 4000$ if Canon pulls a 5DMKIII at 2500/3000$?
According to recent leaks, the 5DMKIII would be a 22MP camera, which makes a lot more sense for an amateur than the 36MP D800, also leading to better low light performance.

Last interesting piece of intel: the D700 and D300S are officially discontinued. It may be time to search for a cheap D700.

Wait and see...

Nikon D800 pictures

Here it is. From the pics, unless some spent a week on photoshop, those pics are real. They at least correspond to a real prototype. It's in the details. I can only hope that means Nikon is getting closer to refresh their digital lineup.

Damnit Nikon !!!

Ok it's not really their fault, but that D800 seems like it's never gonna come out. Due to flooding of the Thailand factory apparently, announcements planned today have been postponed to...whenever.

Now I got a interesting piece of information from a Irish reseller who was originally invited to an announcement in the UK (very likely it was going to be a SLR announcement).

Well his "informed guess" is that the D700 will be maintained for 2 reasons:

• to justify a high price for the D800
• because a D700S or something like that (basically the same + video, similar to the D300 / D300S change) could come up

That's all I got so far, so I'm thinking getting a FE2 as a complement to my FE, to allow 1/4000 shutter speed. Then, instead of wasting money on an expensive body, I might get the 50mm F1.2 AIS Nikkor...

Why? because the lens makes a bigger difference than the camera body, and you'll keep it forever so overall, it's always a better investment :)

Nikon D800 rumors ?

According to Japanese site digicame-info , the future Nikon full frame would have the following features:

• 36MP FX sensor
• 4 FPS (6 FPS in DX mode)
• the usual full HD video
• dual slot SD / CF
• 300 000 yen price tag...i.e. 3900$ !!!
• UPDATE: ISO range up to 6400. It confirms my fears: too many pixel affects low light performance.
• OTHER UPDATE: I forgot it's a Nikon's policy to push people not to shoot above 3200 iso, so performance at 1600 / 3200 might still be good. Overal I don't believe it will be priced at 4K. There is no real market here, and it would leave too much room to the Canon 5D...

Now my OWN SOURCES (yes, I do have some, local distributor contacted by Nikon for an announcement), the D700 will remain at a slightly lower price tag, in order to allow a slighly more expensive D800 (around 2900€ / $).

Those cameras are for action, sports....please FPS + low light performance !

Those are rumors, but nikonrumors.com give the 36MP a 99% credibility...they are usually pretty accurate close to announcements.

What DSLR to buy in October 2011.

Ho! Ho! Ho!

Ok I'm a little early, but Xmas is on the way, end of the year bonuses of Gran'Ma money too. Time to start deep diving into that DSLR market, have a look at the freshest products, and make up your mind !

DSLRs are a great way to get into serious photography. Costs are fixed, they are the most multipurpose cameras you can find, and unlike compacts the huge choice in lenses allows you to specialize your gear into whatever you like, portrait, macro, landscape.

Part 1 / Things to be aware of.

1. Picture quality comes from 3 things: the lens, the sensor (its size in particular) and your talent.
2. There is no such thing as a lens that is good at everything. Buy specialized. Multi purpose will be average at everything at best.
3. Don't get the kit lens. Buy body only. Apart from top of the range DSLRs, the kit lens is usually very average, a cheap multipurpose lens. A great all purpose lens doesn't exist, a good one cost 1200$. If you'r happy with the cheap kit lens, you probably shouldn't buy a DSLR.

As you can see, none of the fancy marketing crap you are bombarded with is among them. Forget built in HDR, shooting 80 frames per second, or rotative screen with plutonium based night vision with Cylon detector.

When you choose a camera, well don't choose the camera only, choose the package:

- What will I shoot? Out of the answer to that question you will decide what lens(es) to buy. Look into the lens range of different manufacturers first to eliminate those who can't get you what you want. You want to spend most of your money on lenses. Those will last 20 years, not your camera body. Some great lenses I have are older than me, they are still the best on the market. I know the camera body is sexier, all those buttons, screens...but don't be fooled. A great lens on a cheap body will give you a better image than a great body with a poor lens.

- Then choose the camera. Now there is something to be aware of that is not explained anywhere apart from customer service when you take back your lens to the shop: entry level DSLR don't have a built in motor, so they can't autofocus most prime lenses (35mm and 50mm fix lenses). Be aware of that ! You will end up getting one of those lenses one day, they are must haves. Would be too bad you need to buy an other body. Some manufacturers started making those with an engine, to adapt on those cheaper bodies. Have a look at the offer before you buy.

Part 2 / An overview of the main brands.
Whatever brand you pick, you won't really make a mistake. The short story for the ones in a hurry: if you intend to progressively level up your gear, and commit, go Canon or Nikon. I'd go Nikon, they are on top technology wise and in terms of built quality. But going Canon makes a very little difference.


Other wise, Sony and Pentax are not bad choices. I'd go Pentax over Sony, they know photography, but overal I don't see any reason why not go Nikon.

• Canon: a lot of marketing in the past decade at Canon, allowing them to position as the number 1 amateur DSLR brand. Now looking back at 50 years of camera history, Canon is not the top camera facturer, far from it. All great film SLRs are Nikon made, from the FE to the F5 / F6. All best pre digital era SLRs are Nikon made. However, in the nowadays market of DSLR, Canon will give you the same range of cameras and lenses than Nikon. Price wise, Canon is always in between 2 Nikon cameras (or Nikon is, it's all the same). Nikon will have a 500$ and a 900$ DSLR, Canon will have one at 750$, etc.  Feature wise, it'll be about in between too. Overal going Canon or Nikon makes a very little difference for a non pro, but here is why I'd go Nikon...

• Nikon:  the best SLRs, digital or film you can get. Period. Why that? The build quality is the best, the ergonomic of aperture and shutter speed control are the best, the metering system is the best since 1995 on the F5, and still far ahead of competition. The sensors and software behind it are the best, performing amazing in low light. All pros shooting digital or film top or the range SLRs are shooting F5 or D3. Finally, all your lenses will work with a brilliant 90$ Nikon film SLR. The D700 outperforms the 5DmkII. Not by much, but it does. Sorry Canon fanboys. Keep in mind that whatever brand you have, we're debating crumbs here, it won't change anything to your ability at taking great shots if you have it in you.

• Sony: the key benefit of Sony SLR bodies is the compatibility with (RIP) Minolta lenses. It's also the only other brand with a full frame offer, though I believe the camera is a bit old now. Their camera bodies are not bad at all, I just don't see why you would bother going at a brand that has no history in photography, a more limited lens offer (lenses are good though, no match from top of the range Nikon or Canon but good enough).  It's also harder to resell.

• Pentax: often disregarded by amateurs, Pentax is actually much more of a true hardcore camera manufacturer than all of the above. Their professional medium format film gear simply rocks the photography world. The 67II, 680II are pure marvels of the top level camera world, competing with Mamiya, Hasselblads and Rollei. Pentax knows better than Sony how to make cameras and lenses.  Pentax SLRs are very good. The recent K's have been praised by critics, but this one I admit I didn't have the opportunity to try (I tried 1 to 4 models of each of the above mentioned brands). I would still go for Nikon, for the same reason I'd get a coupe from Porsche and not from Audi, or food from a French restaurant rather than English: buy what someone is best at. Nikon is best at SLR. Pentax's key strength remains film medium format.

Part 3 / My advice for this winter !

My overal preference : best value for the money ratio (around 1000$).

1. It's a draw ! Nikon D7000 & Canon 600D. The Nikon is my last year's choice. There is nothing better for the money on the SLR market for photography (not for video). Of course D700 and D3 are better, but with the price tag of the Nikon D7000? No thanks, I'm not paying 5000$ for a 5% difference. Ultra high ISO performance, Nikon ergonomics, even the kit lens is decent. The Canon 600D has flaws, ergonomics and control can be crap (some essential part only accessible deep dive in the menu), but picture quality overall will be close to a D7000. Very good in low light too, articulated LCD is great for video (the D7000 doesn't have that). If you know video will be a key part, you might prefer that, it's also a tad cheaper (about a hundred). Be aware that focusing in live view (when looking at the screen, not the viewfinder) is always slower.

The Nikon D300 and Canon 7D are out of question: the D7000 is better than the D300S and cheaper, period. The 7D I had for a day was a great disappointment. At this price range, low light rendering and ergonomics were crap. D90 is too old and can't compete feature wise.

The low budget choice (around 500$)

1. Nikon D5100. AF system of a semi pro camera, not even really slow in live view. Great image quality. Can't AF with non DX prime lenses ! Make sure you lens is motorized, entry lever DSLRs don't have a built in motor.
2. Pentax K-r. The best for photography in this price range. High frame rate, good iso performance, small, good built quality etc. Sucks at movies (files are too large due to old jpeg format. For low budgets, the best.

D3100 is just so on cheap side that...I mean if you really can't afford more, I'm sorry but you won't be able to get the lenses either. Just get a good compact, or a used one (no shame, ALL my gear was bought used).

The high budget choice (full frame, 2000$-7000$)

1. Nikon D4: I know it's not out yet, but it will be before Xmas. My sources (a distributor) told me they will have a huge Nikon announcement in a week, i.e. early October. The D3X and D3S are overpriced, it's ridiculous. Yet they are the best DSLR cameras. Period. However they are not that young, spending that money on them now would be a little dumb. I would bet an arm the D4 is going to be the best you can get in 35mm format, and will remain the best for a while. It will stratospherically expensive, but if you can afford it...
2. Nikon D800. Same story, not out yet, but the D700 being the actual best full affordable full frame, its replacement should be quite the top of the range machine to own. I will buy one.
3. Leica M9. Ok that's not a SLR, it's a rangefinder, but if you read the price tag of a D3 and didn't blink, you might want to look into that. It's about the same price, you loose the AF and a lot of  feature (forget action shooting), but lenses will be at a all different level. Low light performance is great too, it's rather small in comparison, and resells value is unbeatable.

Canon 5D mkII ? No, built quality is disapointing, metering system is poor compared to my 1995 Nikon F5, and the low light noise is not as good as a D7000. Simply too old. Canon should announce a new top range camera soon too.