Anybody considering purchasing either of these? Which way are you leaning?

I'm ready to buy a new camera. My primary interest is sports photography (for fun, not pro), but I can not rationalize the cost of a D4 (and would be a little conflicted about the size even if the cost were lower) - though I might rent one from time to time, so what I buy need not be the ultimate sports machine.

I think I need to move to full frame - in part because I need a bigger brighter viewfinder to mitigate failing eyesight (am I correct in thinking the 100% full frame 0.7x D800 viewfinder will be bigger and brighter than the DX (97%?) of D300/400?). In fact, I'm willing to give up frames per second for better viewfinder experience. I realize that I am giving up "reach" in the transition to FX (still wrestling with that. a TC would put upward pressure on my desired ISO capability and reduce viewfinder brightness).

My current camera is a D80, so there is no question that any new camera will be a step up. The aspects I would most like to improve are cleaner images at high ISO and more than 12 megapixels (with my 10MP D80 I have not been happy with anything above ISO 640. When renting D3 and D3s I was happy with ISO as high as 6400 - if I can get to 3200 with a new camera I will be happy).

I shoot almost exclusively in raw, not afraid to spend time on an image (could use some lessons, but that is a different issue). My computer is more than ready to handle increased file size. So no worries there.

So I think the question is whether to buy 800 or 800E. I'm leaning toward the 800E (pre-ordered it, in fact).

Are the potential problems with moire something only a studio pro can mitigate, or can a nerdy enthusiast learn to manage it?

I'm grateful to hear what others are thinking.

if looking into sports, I'd actually suggest the D700. Still way faster and an amazing camera, presuming you need the fullframe. Else the D400 when it comes out, since the crop factor and better megapixels should lend itself to being a solid fighter.

I'm pretty sure the D800E is more for studio work more than anything.

I'm also currently researching new camera bodies and I am also giving the D800 strong consideration, unless the D400 fits my needs better. I do shot sport for USF's newspaper but I am willing to give up the FPS for a better image.

Originally Posted by catspaw if looking into sports, I'd actually suggest the D700. Still way faster and an amazing camera, presuming you need the fullframe. Else the D400 when it comes out, since the crop factor and better megapixels should lend itself to being a solid fighter.

I would like "meaningfully" more megapixels (not sure what that number is, but moving from 10 to 12 doesn't seem like enough). I've printed some 16x20 and would like to that more often (and some bigger).

The D400 (if it exists, has more MP than D300, and is designed as the functional successor to the D300) would seem a good fit, except that it is not full frame.

Maybe I'm wrong in thinking this, but I suspect full frame would help me see through the viewfinder. D800 has 100% coverage of 861 square millimeter image area shown at 0.7x, for 'Effective Viewfinder Presentation' (EVP, my made up terminology) of 603 square millimeters. The same math for a D300 yields 351 square mm. My D80 is 337.

This suggests to me that a full frame viewfinder is 1.7 times brighter (though I am prepared to be proven a fool). For that reason, I have placed FF as a top priority.

So, while it wouldn't be the first choice of others doing the same mix of photography, I think I end up back at the D800 - but unsure about 800 or 800E.

Originally Posted by FearNothing321 I'm pretty sure the D800E is more for studio work more than anything. I'm also currently researching new camera bodies and I am also giving the D800 strong consideration, unless the D400 fits my needs better. I do shot sport for USF's newspaper but I am willing to give up the FPS for a better image.

So you could live with the FPS of the D800. The 800E doesn't interest you?

What little I have read made me think it (the "E") would also be preferred in landscape photography.

http://mansurovs.com/nikon-d800-vs-d...-d800-vs-d800e

Originally Posted by divamum http://mansurovs.com/nikon-d800-vs-d...-d800-vs-d800e

That is a good read. Thank you.

In the comments, the author says he would choose the 800E for sports (if choosing between 800 and 800E, not instead of D4).

Originally Posted by T. Bombadil So you could live with the FPS of the D800. The 800E doesn't interest you? What little I have read made me think it (the "E") would also be preferred in landscape photography.

I could live with the FPS, because I would be using the DX crop mode (I've been shooting sports with my D3100 learning to be more selective when I press the shutter release, the D3100 only has 3 FPS)

I'm going to look into the D800E a little more though

If its for sports, a d700 will be a better camera. Getting a d800 for the increase in mp is overkill. Most sports shooters I know shoot jpg and some like me, don't even shoot at the best quality so we can have more shots on one card. Get the d800 if you like the viewfinder, but for getting a sports camera, there are better options.

I don't know what meaningful mp upgrade means. The d700 would be a meaningful upgrade over the d80 you have now. For sports, a d800 over a d700 is not a meaningful upgrade. There is more to a camera than mp.

Am I missing something in all the excitement about the D800? If you're looking for a major step-up from your D80 (for sports) why don't you look at the D7000? I've shot with a friend's, and quite frankly didn't even think whether the viewfinder was darker or smaller than my D300/D700. It's a helluva camera for less than half the cost of the D800, and gives you a better frame rate at 16MP than the D800 in DX mode, unless you grip the D800 for another $250-300 or so. So now we're talking about a smaller, lighter body, with equivalent low light performance and similar "chops" for sports, for closer to A THIRD the price.

The fact that the D7000 production line is still a problem due to the flooding in Thailand means I will probably wait 'till the D400 is announced to make a decision. In the meanwhile, the D300 & D700 will serve quite nicely, thank you.

Originally Posted by jonh68 If its for sports, a d700 will be a better camera. Getting a d800 for the increase in mp is overkill. Most sports shooters I know shoot jpg and some like me, don't even shoot at the best quality so we can have more shots on one card. Get the d800 if you like the viewfinder, but for getting a sports camera, there are better options.

hmm. I shoot raw, and plan to continue doing so. I agree that a D800 brings more MP to the party than I need/want/whatever. With a battery grip it will reach 6 fps, still less than D700's 8 but probably enough for me (or maybe more to the point, I will just continue to try to time the shot and get no benefit from continuous firing because the D800 is still too slow).

Originally Posted by jonh68 I don't know what meaningful mp upgrade means. The d700 would be a meaningful upgrade over the d80 you have now. For sports, a d800 over a d700 is not a meaningful upgrade. There is more to a camera than mp.

A meaningful MP upgrade is, in my view, more than the 10% linear improvement a D700 gets me from D80. Totally agree that there is more to a camera than MP, and in most/all other ways a D700 would be a huge step up. If I could have a D4 in a smaller package, I would likely buy it (definitely would if price were a little lower), but just trying to sort out what compromises I will make and which I will not.

So I am at peace that a D800 will be good enough at sports to keep me happy even though there are other cameras that most photographers would prefer for sports. The real question is whether to go 800 or 800E. I think I've decided on the "E".

Originally Posted by Icebear Am I missing something in all the excitement about the D800? If you're looking for a major step-up from your D80 (for sports) why don't you look at the D7000? I've shot with a friend's, and quite frankly didn't even think whether the viewfinder was darker or smaller than my D300/D700. It's a helluva camera for less than half the cost of the D800, and gives you a better frame rate at 16MP than the D800 in DX mode, unless you grip the D800 for another $250-300 or so. So now we're talking about a smaller, lighter body, with equivalent low light performance and similar "chops" for sports, for closer to A THIRD the price.

I've explained myself badly. My objectives are not just a step up from my D80, but substantial improvements in some specific characteristics. I have settled on the D800 as meeting my needs, but am trying to determine whether to get the 800 or 800E version. That is my real question. Whether moire in sports photography will be an issue.

I don't doubt that the D7000 is a great camera (it certainly has many fans). It has enough MP to satisfy me. It has sufficient fps (not sure I care about fps). It is not a "pro body", in that its control layout includes scene modes, etc. - which is something I plan to avoid in my next purchase. So my short list is D4, D800, D400 (if/when), etc. I've continued to use and enjoy a D80 all this time because I was interested in learning to get the most out of a camera, and to avoid chasing the latest gear all the time. So my move to a D800 or D4 or whatever is certainly to a different price point - but I'm fine with that. In fact, I don't really have any hesitation about the D4 beyond ostentation - it is just too conspicuous where I would be using it.

Originally Posted by Icebear The fact that the D7000 production line is still a problem due to the flooding in Thailand means I will probably wait 'till the D400 is announced to make a decision. In the meanwhile, the D300 & D700 will serve quite nicely, thank you.

Have you ever noticed that your D300 viewfinder is darker and smaller than your D700? I suspect that it is, and that the difference would be enough for it to be a problem for me (I have eyesight issues that are worsening). I could be wrong, or perhaps this is just not something that is on your radar because your eyes work better than mine - and I'm glad your 300 and 700 serve you well.

Originally Posted by T. Bombadil ... I have settled on the D800 as meeting my needs, but am trying to determine whether to get the 800 or 800E version. That is my real question. Whether moire in sports photography will be an issue. ...

The simple truth is that we don't have enough information from any practical experience regarding the Nikon D800E.

Remembering that sports photography involves sports uniforms, and some of those have patterns but all are made of cloth, moiré will almost certainly occur occasionally using the Nikon D800E for sports photography. The questions are, 'How bad will it be?' and, 'How effective are the software solutions?'.

I have not seen any demonstration that addresses either of those issues in any solid and conclusive fashion.

I did use a camera body in the past that did not have an AA/low-pass filter in front of the sensor; the Kodak DCS 460. This was a $16,000USD camera body, that my employer really did pay $16,000 for in 1995 from Calumet, and it did not come standard with a filter to prevent moiré. For product photography it was not so much an issue, but for general photography it was a persistent occasional problem.

The good news is that while the Kodak DCS 460 had only 6 megapixels, the Nikon D800E has 36 megapixels. This will greatly reduce the practical problematic effects of moiré for many uses. Whether that means that the camera is problematic for sports applications is yet to be seen.

Edit: I should add that we did decide to add an AA filter to the Kodak DCS 460 just so it would be better for general photography, and the AA filter stayed on until the camera was retired in 2004.

Originally Posted by ziggy53 The simple truth is that we don't have enough information from any practical experience regarding the Nikon D800E. Remembering that sports photography involves sports uniforms, and some of those have patterns but all are made of cloth, moiré will almost certainly occur occasionally using the Nikon D800E for sports photography. The questions are, 'How bad will it be?' and, 'How effective are the software solutions?'. I have not seen any demonstration that addresses either of those issues in any solid and conclusive fashion.

So I guess we wait. Here's hoping that someone does the analysis soon (recognizing there aren't any in the wild yet).

Originally Posted by ziggy53 I did use a camera body in the past that did not have an AA/low-pass filter in front of the sensor; the Kodak DCS 460. This was a $16,000USD camera body, that my employer really did pay $16,000 for in 1995 from Calumet, and it did not come standard with a filter to prevent moiré. For product photography it was not so much an issue, but for general photography it was a persistent occasional problem. The good news is that while the Kodak DCS 460 had only 6 megapixels, the Nikon D800E has 36 megapixels. This will greatly reduce the practical problematic effects of moiré for many uses. Whether that means that the camera is problematic for sports applications is yet to be seen. Edit: I should add that we did decide to add an AA filter to the Kodak DCS 460 just so it would be better for general photography, and the AA filter stayed on until the camera was retired in 2004.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing this experience.

Ziggy, that is a good point about uniforms, especially ones like football,lacrosse, which will have tiny holes. For sports, I would not get one without a AA filter. It wouldn't be an issue for full body shots, but when you get the close up shots, it could be.

Check out example shots from the Fuji X100, X-Pro 1, or Leica M9. They don't have AA filters. Here's a post with some good info and links: http://nikonrumors.com/2012/02/04/wh...on-d800e.aspx/

...I'm looking at the D800 also, and as a D700 *and* D300 owner my reasoning is still a little fragmented, but becoming more coalesced by the day . I do alot of sports-like shooting (marching bands and such)and love the reach the crop-sensor gives me, but when day turns to night my D700 rules, reach or no reach. I've solved the dilemma somewhat by renting a 200-400 F4 (that is a GREAT lens) that allows me reach *and* the ISO advantages of the D700, so my D300 sits alot (although, during daylight, it's wickedly cool to hook that huge lens up to it and get 300-600...gawd!). In the D800 I see better resolution on the full-frame end, and full use of all of my DX lenses *with* resolution all in one body. VERY tempting. Not-to-mention the addition of video...I think that might just do it for me...the cost of the camera, considering all these improvements/advantages, is absolutely dirt cheap!

cg

What about sensor dust on the D800E? (Sports shooting has a lot of dust)

No AA filter over the sensor, so your going to be cleaning the sensor itself

Originally Posted by rwells What about sensor dust on the D800E? (Sports shooting has a lot of dust) No AA filter over the sensor, so your going to be cleaning the sensor itself

Can't find the link right now, but I've seen a diagram, and I think there IS an IR filter over the sensor. Scary if not!

There is a filter, it is just configured differently - in such a way as to provide no AA effect.
Thom Hogan has a note about it.
www.bythom.com