Nikon D800E price...

[ChristianRandwijk]

Now, this is just a thread about a mystery. I am a (happy) Canon shooter, so I've been watching the Nikon craze about the D800 with some remote interest. I used to own a Nikon D700, wonderful camera, just wasn't right for me (the files that is, the camera body... gorgeous). I am very happy with my 5D2 (files), and not really looking to upgrade to a mark 3, unless something amazing and unforeseen happens (don't know what that should be, though, obviously). So, the mystery I was being mysterious about is this: Why is the Nikon D800E without AA filter more expensive than the D800 with an AA filter?? I don't get it, how can it be more expensive not including a particular feature? Ofcourse I know why people would be interested in a camera with no AA-filter, I shoot landscapes myself, so, getting rid of the AA filter could be great. But is the, somewhat substantial, price difference just a matter of, well, ripping off the landscape photographers? I don't know, and maybe I don't care, I was just a bit confused by all this.

[BarbaraArmstrong]

Rob Galbraith's site explains that there is a filter in the D800E that has two layers (other AA filters also have two layers), but that the D800E filter layers send the incoming light on a path (actually, paths) that are different from the usual AA filter and which Nikon says will give the effect of no AA filter at all. --Barbara

[BernardLanguillier]

So, the mystery I was being mysterious about is this: Why is the Nikon D800E without AA filter more expensive than the D800 with an AA filter?? I don't get it, how can it be more expensive not including a particular feature? Ofcourse I know why people would be interested in a camera with no AA-filter, I shoot landscapes myself, so, getting rid of the AA filter could be great. But is the, somewhat substantial, price difference just a matter of, well, ripping off the landscape photographers? I don't know, and maybe I don't care, I was just a bit confused by all this.

As mentioned, more than a lack of AA filter, what we have is a substitution filter without anti-aliasing effect.

Other than that, it can be expected that the D800E will sell in much smaller numbers and that Nikon decided to focus the extra cost of its development and smaller series production on the guys willing to use it. On top of that, I believe that they are probably trying to prevent uninformed people from buying it since they know that they will have to deal with complains from some customers when they find out moire in their files.

Cheers,
Bernard

[ternst]

I'm actually quite surprised that the non-AA version did not cost more than just $300 - that is a great move by Nikon....

[bill t.]

The E versus non-E thing strikes me as very odd.  It's exactly the kind of thing marketing, distributors, and retailers loathe.  It's like different colored point&shoot cameras and you can't sell the Purples.  I can fantasize that there might have been some interesting power struggles at Nikon over it, and this is the compromise.

[John Camp]

The E versus non-E thing strikes me as very odd.  It's exactly the kind of thing marketing, distributors, and retailers loathe.  It's like different colored point&shoot cameras and you can't sell the Purples.  I can fantasize that there might have been some interesting power struggles at Nikon over it, and this is the compromise.

You mean, they may have made a decision based on photographic practice, rather than marketers, distributors and retailers wanted? GASP!

Thom Hogan on his website mentions that his assistant shoots with a D3x that has the AA filter removed, while he shoots on with the AA filter intact...and that at that D3x pixel pitch, there is very little problem with moire. I also read somewhere that the Nikon software will have a moire-removal tool, just in case.

[Michael West]

I don't get it, how can it be more expensive not including a particular feature? 

Think food and cigarettes for that matter without additives. They always cost more, and for "less"

[bill t.]

You mean, they may have made a decision based on photographic practice, rather than marketers, distributors and retailers wanted? GASP!

But if it were a well-designed decision based on practice, it would be possible to easily remove and replace it, like a focusing screen.  (Yes I know the special problems with that, but this is supposedly a pro camera.)  There's just something a little half-baked about dual, almost identical models from an industrial design point of view.