Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have a question. Wouldn't camera makers stand a better chance of getting more buyers if they sold a version of their latest camera without movie-making capability? How much do you think it would knock off the price if there was a Nikon D800F that had all of the features of the D800E without movie making capability? Do you think there is a market for those of us that just do still photography?
I'm tired of paying for the great features of something I don't use.
Unrelated, is this feature of the 800E something to be really excited about?
"In addition to the standard D800, Nikon is also introducing a special edition version – the Nikon D800E – which features a low-pass filter without anti-aliasing properties to facilitate maximum sharpness levels when shooting RAW files."
I have a question. Wouldn't camera makers stand a better chance of getting more buyers if they sold a version of their latest camera without movie-making capability? How much do you think it would knock off the price if there was a Nikon D800F that had all of the features of the D800E without movie making capability? Do you think there is a market for those of us that just do still photography?
I'm tired of paying for the great features of something I don't use.
That is certainly an interesting question! It does seem that market pressure is driving in the direction of including video or suffer lower sales. The Canon 5DII success appears to be significantly related to video capability, and valid or not Nikon has very clearly decided that video is at the top of the priority list. We can probably assume that Nikon and Canon do know what they are doing... :-)
I'm relatively certain that they have a valid point for a body like the D4, which is targeted at photojournalist style photography. It will be interesting to see where the D800, which is at first glance more aimed at studio and landscape work, will fall. I suspect that in many ways it is equally a replacement for the D700 and the D3X, and may have appeal as a "budget class" body for photojournalism. It does have a 6 fps capability when using the MB-D12 battery pack, and apparently has weather proofing though it isn't known if it approaches the ruggedness of the D4.
It's also very possible that economies of scale for both R&D and production actually mean that non-video users still do benefit from a lower priced model that includes video just because producing multiple versions with lower production runs might not be economical. I don't know.
Quote:
Unrelated, is this feature of the 800E something to be really excited about?
"In addition to the standard D800, Nikon is also introducing a special edition version – the Nikon D800E – which features a low-pass filter without anti-aliasing properties to facilitate maximum sharpness levels when shooting RAW files."
In one word: no.
It has two important effects from a marketing point of view. One is that a lot of people who don't understand the significance of aliasing except for moire (which is only the most obvious artifact produced by aliasing, but not the only one), will get very excited and buy it for that reason. That's wonderful, but technically not very astute. The other is that there actually are a few limited uses for such a camera. That's probably not a very significant market, but added to the first group it is apparently enough to get Nikon's attention.
There actually is one other significant technical point, but it's pretty much an unknown too. The filter in the D800E is apparently virtually the same as the filter in the D800, except the low pass functionality in the area of the sensor's Nyquist Limit is "turned off". Nikon has developed some kind of new technology, and has filed for patents on it but hasn't explained it publicly otherwise. So there is probably more to it from a technical point of view than we know about at this time. For example if this filter can (now or in the future) be configured so that a user can switch it on and off, that is one exceedingly big deal!
I have a question. Wouldn't camera makers stand a better chance of getting more buyers if they sold a version of their latest camera without movie-making capability? How much do you think it would knock off the price if there was a Nikon D800F that had all of the features of the D800E without movie making capability? Do you think there is a market for those of us that just do still photography?
I doubt the price differential would be enough to warrant a separate trim especially in that market. Besides, I would guess that more people would like to have it and very few would rather not have.
Quote:
Unrelated, is this feature of the 800E something to be really excited about?
"In addition to the standard D800, Nikon is also introducing a special edition version – the Nikon D800E – which features a low-pass filter without anti-aliasing properties to facilitate maximum sharpness levels when shooting RAW files."
Just Out
For most, it is unlikely to be worth the price (assuming that is the difference). In rare cases, some may want to take advantage of the feature. As long as it can be turned off/on, it should have an appeal.
I have a question. Wouldn't camera makers stand a better chance of getting more buyers if they sold a version of their latest camera without movie-making capability? How much do you think it would knock off the price if there was a Nikon D800F that had all of the features of the D800E without movie making capability? Do you think there is a market for those of us that just do still photography?
I'm tired of paying for the great features of something I don't use.
Unrelated, is this feature of the 800E something to be really excited about?
"In addition to the standard D800, Nikon is also introducing a special edition version – the Nikon D800E – which features a low-pass filter without anti-aliasing properties to facilitate maximum sharpness levels when shooting RAW files."
That is certainly an interesting question! It does seem that market pressure is driving in the direction of including video or suffer lower sales. The Canon 5DII success appears to be significantly related to video capability, and valid or not Nikon has very clearly decided that video is at the top of the priority list. We can probably assume that Nikon and Canon do know what they are doing... :-)
I'm relatively certain that they have a valid point for a body like the D4, which is targeted at photojournalist style photography. It will be interesting to see where the D800, which is at first glance more aimed at studio and landscape work, will fall. I suspect that in many ways it is equally a replacement for the D700 and the D3X, and may have appeal as a "budget class" body for photojournalism. It does have a 6 fps capability when using the MB-D12 battery pack, and apparently has weather proofing though it isn't known if it approaches the ruggedness of the D4.
It's also very possible that economies of scale for both R&D and production actually mean that non-video users still do benefit from a lower priced model that includes video just because producing multiple versions with lower production runs might not be economical. I don't know.
In one word: no.
It has two important effects from a marketing point of view. One is that a lot of people who don't understand the significance of aliasing except for moire (which is only the most obvious artifact produced by aliasing, but not the only one), will get very excited and buy it for that reason. That's wonderful, but technically not very astute. The other is that there actually are a few limited uses for such a camera. That's probably not a very significant market, but added to the first group it is apparently enough to get Nikon's attention.
There actually is one other significant technical point, but it's pretty much an unknown too. The filter in the D800E is apparently virtually the same as the filter in the D800, except the low pass functionality in the area of the sensor's Nyquist Limit is "turned off". Nikon has developed some kind of new technology, and has filed for patents on it but hasn't explained it publicly otherwise. So there is probably more to it from a technical point of view than we know about at this time. For example if this filter can (now or in the future) be configured so that a user can switch it on and off, that is one exceedingly big deal!
Thanks for this response. I'm thinking if I didn't know enough about what I should be excited about it probably wasn't meant for me.
Certainly not with the D800/D800E or any other known camera.
I don't know if Nikon is doing that with the D800e or not, but it has filed for a patent with On/Off switching of AA filter. The one design, that the article covers, and where AA filter doesn't exist is in Sigma SD1 (and hence cannot be turned on/off). In case of Sigma, the drawback from lack of AA filter (moire) is addressed in the sensor design itself.
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 02-08-2012 at 07:50 AM..
I don't know if Nikon is doing that with the D800e or not, but it has filed for a patent with On/Off switching of AA filter. The one design, that the article covers, and where AA filter doesn't exist is in Sigma SD1 (and hence cannot be turned on/off). In case of Sigma, the drawback from lack of AA filter (moire) is addressed in the sensor design itself.
The Nikon D800 has an AA filter. It cannot be switched off.
The Nikon D800E does not have an AA filter at all. It does have an IR filter, but the portion of the filter pack that affects spatial frequencies at the sensor Nyquist Limit have been removed.
Hence saying the Nikon D800 AA filter "as long as it can be turned off/on, it should have an appeal" is a moot point and not accurate either, as it is going to have appeal anyway.
The Nikon D800 has an AA filter. It cannot be switched off.
The Nikon D800E does not have an AA filter at all. It does have an IR filter, but the portion of the filter pack that affects spatial frequencies at the sensor Nyquist Limit have been removed.
Hence saying the Nikon D800 AA filter "as long as it can be turned off/on, it should have an appeal" is a moot point and not accurate either, as it is going to have appeal anyway.
I am basing my argument off patent filing by Nikon, which involves a mechanical on/off switch for the Anti-Aliasing filter, not necessarily what they have put in the 800E (being a higher trim, I expect it and not 800, to have that feature) and that I don't know for sure. Chances are, THAT is the design that is making it in 800e.
If Nikon D800/800e is using Sony 36MP sensor, then the only other way I can imagine getting rid of AA filter (as Sigma has with Foveon sensor) would be in the design of the sensor itself. And I don't see a patent filing along those lines (yet), either from Sony or from Nikon.
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 02-08-2012 at 09:09 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
