Did the Nikon D800 change the world?

[Scott O.]

Naw, the world is just as screwed up as it ever was.  But now we can take sharper images of it...

[ErikKaffehr]

 :-) That was a good one! :-)

Naw, the world is just as screwed up as it ever was.  But now we can take sharper images of it...

[Chris Pollock]

Naw, the world is just as screwed up as it ever was.  But now we can take sharper images of it...

That's a good point. As much as I like photography, I can think of many things that the world needs a lot more than a better camera.

[Keith Reeder]

Has it changed the world?

Yeah.

Apparently it's turned every photographer on every photography forum on the net into a low-ISO-DR-obsessed landscape photographer who couldn't take a picture worth a tinker's cuss until the D800 arrived...

[Chris_Brown]

Apparently it's turned every photographer on every photography forum on the net into a low-ISO-DR-obsessed landscape photographer who couldn't take a picture worth a tinker's cuss until the D800 arrived...

 

[Ellis Vener]

That's a good point. As much as I like photography, I can think of many things that the world needs a lot more than a better camera.

Bingo.

[jeremypayne]

Has it changed the world?

Yeah.

Apparently it's turned every photographer on every photography forum on the net into a low-ISO-DR-obsessed landscape photographer who couldn't take a picture worth a tinker's cuss until the D800 arrived...

I'm actually rediscovering my love of the D700 and will likely NOT upgrade as I had planned and will probably buy an OM-D instead.

[BJL]

I'm actually rediscovering my love of the D700 and will likely NOT upgrade as I had planned and will probably buy an OM-D instead.

Mybe getting off topic, but yes, maybe everything worth saying about the D800 has been said, and it is time to move onto the OM-D E-M5, which makes more of the opportunities provided by the change to electronic sensors to do things differently, rather than just making progress through "more of the same" (same format shape and size as 35mm film, same optical approach to the viewfinder, same body shape and size and weight as a high end 35mm film camera, same big lenses, no tiltable LCD, no VF well suited for video, despite having a video mode, no sensor based stabilization that works with all lenses ...)

For cost alone, this sort of camera might change the photographic world for more people than a $3000 Borged Nikon F100.

[Eric Brody]

I've been using my D800E for almost a week, using it a lot. I love it. Will it change the world (of photography)? It will in the sense that any new, better tool can improve the craft. It won't in that I am the same (lousy) photographer I was last week. All my cameras have been better than me, from my dad's Rolleiflex through my Beseler Topcon, Mamiya 7, Arca 4x5, D70, D700, and now D800E (I am sure I missed a few in there). I do love the impressive detail it can resolve. For an amateur like me, it likely saved me many thousands of dollars as I was seriously considering a used MF back for my Hasselblad V camera. I have no interest in whether the D800E is "better" than a MF digital back. I'll likely never have a MFDB, and likely will never need one. I was quite happy with my prints from my D700 with good lenses and I'll be even happier with my prints from the new camera. I'll still take sharp photos of fuzzy concepts, to paraphrase Ansel. For now, it is the camera I have wanted since I switched to digital years ago. With the tilt-shift lenses, and excellent live view, it approaches what I always loved about view camera photography, the opportunity to put the camera on a tripod, look around, find the image, adjust the camera to how I want it to look, and make the exposure easily. And... I end up with a result I can preview in the field and achieve "pre-visualization." The camera will not make me a better artist, perhaps it will enable me to be a better craftsman.

[Rob C]

I'm actually rediscovering my love of the D700 and will likely NOT upgrade as I had planned and will probably buy an OM-D instead.

I've not lost my love for mine, either, and I certainly have no intentions of upgrading to anything, ever again, just as long as the old D700 keeps on truckin'. Neither do I intend buying a lesser camera - already have a cellphone one.

Rob C

[Glenn NK]

Has it changed the world?

The pixel density of the Nikon D800 = (36 MP/24/36) = 42,014 pixels per mm2, I've heard of a body (don't have it) that has (18MP/22.3/14.9) = 54,173 pixels per mm2.  If it the sensor was enlarged to FF, it would have approx. 46.8 MP.  Is my math close enough (I did some rounding)?

[Rob C]

Has it changed the world?

The pixel density of the Nikon D800 = (36 MP/24/36) = 42,014 pixels per mm2, I've heard of a body (don't have it) that has (18MP/22.3/14.9) = 54,173 pixels per mm2.  If it the sensor was enlarged to FF, it would have approx. 46.8 MP.  Is my math close enough (I did some rounding)?

I don't know, Glenn, maths was never my thing, rounded or otherwise. On further consideration, 36-26-36 has a sort of divine rhythm to it, I suppose. Much as with true R'n'R, then, similarly dated but divine.

Where were you in '62? I guess I know where I was, more or less: entombed deep within an industrial darkroom producing prints of turbine blades; my Dark Age, so to speak.

;-)

Rob C

[Eddy M]

It changed people's opinion about megapixels. Previously, many believed that high mp sensor only generates more noise. D800 proved that it has very good noise control, even better when scaled down.

It's time for 100+ mp camera.

[uaiomex]

It certainly changed the look of forums. Especially the Canon froums. 
Eduardo

[luxborealis]

Erik, my take on the D800 is that it is an incremental step forward in technology that happens to have crossed a more significant psychological threshold, several in fact.  

1) It challenges widely held misconceptions about the utility of "small pixels"...

2) It provides a sufficient amount of MTF ... that one can clearly see enhanced rendering of fine textures and detail...

3) It can make an exhibition-sized print without perceptible compromise.

To add to LKaven's salient points, the D800 is step towards democratizing image quality. When the high cost of entry into any industry or industry segment is reduced, it opens up opportunities that were not there previously. Whether or not it results in better photography will depend entirely on who is using one, but at least now, those who could not previously enter the world of the high IQ offered by MF systems or backs can now get there a little more readily.

Don't underestimate the financial and psychological importance of this. While it can be argued that, to a professional, the difference between a Pentax 645D system and a Nikon D800 is only a few years of depreciation written off against income tax, to those who don't have the start-up income or the desire for business (proverbial "starving artists" amongst them), but love to create and express themselves through photography, this can be a game changer in many ways.

That being said, there is no doubt that the lion's share of D800s will, in fact, be purchased the those who have more money than sense and just want the latest, greatest, biggest, best, so it won't be a game changer there - just technically great, larger files of little lasting consequence.

At the same time, I am curious to know how well Nikon sales go over the next 12 months – not just of D800 bodies, but of their prime lenses and high quality zooms. I wonder if the D800 must just create a small resurgence in prime lenses.

[Fine_Art]

+1

[ndevlin]

Did the D800 change the world?  "Yes", if your world consists mostly of #firstworldproblems 

"Yes", if you make medium format cameras for living.

It also mates, for the first time, a level of IQ that would satisfy essentially any photographic craftsman, even those who specialize in large prints, with the ease and convenience of a state-of-the-art 35mm DSLR. That's pretty significant for some.   
 
It's simply the most 'important' technological advance in digital photography...until the next one.

- N.

[BJL]

In terms of technology/bang for buck, the D800 has changed the expectations of many. Game changer? Yes.

In terms of success as a photographer, ...

... the price of entry to some careers might be substantially less, if a DMF kit is no longer needed, which might enable some careers to get of the ground, or allow some talented but not yet well-financed young photographers to move up to a level of success and income that would not have happened otherwise. A worthwhile local effect rather than a world changer. Any lowering of cost barriers to entry should make a profession more "meritocratic".

[BJL]

...but a DMF has never been needed.

As I've said elsewhere, the vast majority of photographers earning their living in the industry are using <22MP cameras.

Firstly, I was clearly referring to the parts of professional photography that are still dominated by MF, and surely very few of those DMF users are using <22MP, and most seem to be buying 40-80MP these days.

Are you saying that most of those professional photographers using DMF have no real need for more than what 35mm format has been offering for about seven years, but do it out of habit, or preference for how the gear handles, or such? And arguing that primarily on 22MP resolution being sufficient? Are the higher resolutions only of real interests to wealthy amateurs and spec. snobs?

Isn't there meant to be more to sensor performance than resolution, amd so more to the significamce of the D800(E) than being the first 35mm camera to have more resolution than a 22MP back, even when cropped to 4:3 shape? Dynamic range used to be the "go to" sensor characteristic amongst DMF enthusiasts when arguing the inferiority of 35mm format sensors. One thing the D800 does is undermine that DR argument.

[BJL]

Sorry, I thought that my mention of _some_ careers, and my mention of DMF in that sentence, and the fact that we have been discussing the relationship of the D800 to medium format, made it obvious that I was talking about the sort of photographic careers that typically use MF. That and the fact that obviously a lot of professional photography is done with 35mm format, and has been since the film era, so it would be bizarre for me to be suggesting that all types of professional photography are still using MF.