The Nikon D700 was the last great pre-video DSLR. It was an excellent and very boring camera. Nikon’s newest, a $US3000 body called the D800, introduces two major features: HD video and a 36MP sensor.
That sensor is what’s on everybody’s mind. Studio photographers will love its rich details, and for the hack on the street, it’s the sharpest sensor in this price range. Let’s be clear from the start: this is one of the best cameras you can buy for three grand, period. But it’s been overshadowed by the standard-bearer in this category, the Canon 5D Mark III. At a $US500 lower price, could the Nikon D800 be a better buy?
Why It Matters

The other big change is Nikon’s introduction of video. Until now, if you wanted a DSLR to shoot professional video, you bought a Canon like the Mark II — an upstart embraced by the filmmaking community, because at $US2500, you couldn’t beat the quality. That evolved into the $US3500 Mark III, a refined movie-making machine. The HD-shooting Nikon D800 enters the field with specs that, on paper, could challenge the Canon at a cheaper price.
Using It
The Hardware: Sturdy and Perfect for Tweaking
The ergonomics and build of the D800 are excellent. For a professional camera, it’s lightweight and compact. The textured grip is perfectly shaped to be carried one-handed. And its sealed magnesium alloy body can survive some abuse. The camera’s LCD went from 3 to 3.2 inches, and it gained a new plastic “anti-fog” protector, but the resolution, like the D700, remains at 921,000 pixels.
Like the D700, the D800 uses two-handed adjustments for many camera settings. That’s ideal for photographers who want to quickly tweak shots. Hold down a button for white balance, ISO or auto-focus on the left side of the camera, and adjust each with a click of the wheels on the right side. The notable additions include a programmable manual function on the front of the camera, and controls for video on the camera body.
As with the Canon 5D Mark III, the camera has dual CF/SD card slots. These are programmable in several configurations — for example, it can back up all the images on only one of the cards, or it could set the RAW files to write to one slot and the JPEGs to another.
Image Resolution: More Sharpness
The D800 is all about resolution. The 36.3MP, full-frame sensor produces huge, 7360×4912 images. Studio photographers love these big images because they capture a huge amount of detail. For photographers who aren’t shooting under bright lights, though, these images are still really useful because they offer a lot of leeway to crop usable sections from the larger image.
There are drawbacks to the D800′s high-resolution sensor. Recording huge images to memory cards slows down the camera’s performance. While the 12MP D700 could shoot 5fps, the D800 lost a little speed, as it only takes four. When dealing with the images on a computer, the D800′s RAW files are a whopping 33MB, which makes processing files very cumbersome. Working with the images in Photoshop or Aperture can be maddeningly slow. Trying to convert hundreds of RAW files to JPEGs? You better have a couple of hours to spare. That said, the camera’s JPEG quality is very good, so you don’t always have to shoot RAW.
Low-light Performance & ISO: Surprisingly Excellent In the Dark
The megapixels that do such a great job of capturing detail and dynamic range during the day are your worst enemy at night. More pixels means smaller pixels, and smaller pixels aren’t as good at capturing light as the larger light-buckets on the 23.1MP Canon 5D Mark III. Hardcore photographers love the D700 because its 12-megapixel sensor does such a good job making the most of low-light situations.
On specs alone, those megapixels on the D800 clearly affect light sensitivity. Its weak sensitivity constraints are a generation old — the D800 shoots at up to a standard ISO setting of 6400 and at up to an expanded range of ISO 25,600. Still, it’s impressive that Nikon has tripled the resolution of the camera without hurting ISO ratings. But how do images at that sensitivity look?
Turns out, the Nikon D800 is a monster when it’s pushed to its limits. Under decent light with all noise-reduction turned off in our still-life ISO test, the camera held up very well within the standard range. If you zoom in very closely, the noise becomes obvious to the untrained eye above ISO 1600. But at a reasonably scaled resolution, those images are very usable. The noise patterns are uniform, a problem that can be dealt with in post processing. As for actually shooting with the D800 at night, the camera is capable of some great things, assuming you can get them in focus. More on that below.
Auto-Focus & Metering: The Devil’s in the Details

So you get a camera that feels fast in your hands but needs a little more TLC when shooting. The bright spot is the metering. It’s very accurate, and by toggling between the centre-weighted, matrix and spot metering systems, you can get the right exposure without any hassles. You’ll hardly ever need to use exposure compensation.
The rehashed auto-focus performed well on the D700. It finds focus fast — instantaneously, basically — even when the lighting is terrible. Unfortunately, the results weren’t always great. Finding good focus with a very shallow depth of field can be a challenge for any camera, but the D800 would occasionally run into problems above f/5.6 — generally considered safe territory. The AF is tweakable in the settings, so you can match it to the profiles of your lenses, but it should work better out of the box.

Videography: Welcome to the Party, Nikon
Nikon arrived late to the HD party, but the delay allowed the company to take advantage of the Canon’s shortcomings.
From a hardware perspective, the camera’s main distinguishing feature is the clean HDMI output. This can take unprocessed video from the image sensor, feed it into a recording device, and do the processing there. That means you can record raw video and process it later — a useful, if niche, advantage over the 5D Mark III. The camera is also a healthy competitor on the audio front. It has both a stereo mic input and a headphone jack, which are essential to monitor and adjust the audio as needed.
The D800 shoots HD footage on par with comparable DSLRs out there. In Gizmodo’s initial test, pitting the D800 against the Canon 5D Mark III, the camera held its own against the 5D. The D800′s video performance mimics its photography skills: It’s a very good all-around shooter, but it’s much better suited to daylight shooting than night. During the day, footage was noticeably sharper than the 5D Mark III’s video. After the initial test, we even swapped out the $US2000 lens we were using for a Nikon DX lens designed for Nikon crop sensor cameras. That’s a major no-no, but the Nikon’s quality remained sharper than the Canon 5D. Using any lens, the D800′s nighttime performance could not compete with the 5D.
The D800 has the same video problems as other DSLRs: rolling shutter. Rolling shutter occurs when either the camera or something in the shot is moving quickly. In the recording, some portions of the shot will appear to move more quickly than others, causing a weird warping distortion. It’s the proverbial runner that moves faster than the camera. It’s the biggest complaint against both the 5D Mark II and Mark III, and it’s no different here. It sucks. In our test, the Nikon camera also suffered from terrible moire interference — this is the trippy-looking distortion that occurs with detailed, repeating patterns.
Like
The Nikon D800 takes beautiful photos in nearly any situation. In daylight, the camera is completely satisfying. It shoots minuscule details and vivid colour like no other camera out there. In the dark, the high-resolution sensor holds up impressively in its standard ISO range, and photos taken at up to ISO 1600 and often ISO 3200 have so little noise that they’re usable without editing. The camera is built to survive, and manipulating your shot with the buttons on the camera without ever going into a menu is smart, streamlined and intuitive. As for video, the D800 delivers what the D700 lacked: versatile filmmaker-quality footage in a DSLR package. The clean HDMI output opens the door to a new world of post-production.
No Like
When a camera is fantastic — and expensive — the small shortcomings get frustrating. The D800′s biggest disappointment is the auto-focus. It works, but not as fluidly as the rest of the camera. The high-resolution sensor was an awesome and potentially visionary addition to the camera. Nikon should have developed an auto-focus tailored to make it work. Instead, they reused existing technology. Yes, this is a pro’s camera, and most photographers won’t expect it do all the thinking on its own. But this feature just seems sloppy.
Given how well that sensor does in daylight, it’s disappointing that the camera doesn’t quite hit that level of excellence in the dark. It fizzles out at just ISO 6400, which doesn’t really push the boundaries of what came before.
As for the video, the camera upgrades to the status quo. It adds the usual benefits and drawbacks, without the bringing a whole lot more to the table. The results are very sharp, thanks to the sensor. But if Nikon wants to get serious about video in its DSLRs — and it should — the company has to introduce something new.
Should I Buy It
If you’re toting around a D700 and tons of nice glass, this is as close as you’re going to get to an essential upgrade. You, Nikon devotee, you should buy this camera. It’s a better still camera than the D700, it adds video, and the fantastic image sensor takes images to a new level of quality. The high-resolution sensor was a gutsy move, and it paid off, as Nikon proved that you can pack pixels into a camera without ruining its performance in the dark.
But for the camera consumer with a budget over $US3000 and no brand loyalty, it’s a tough call between the D800 and the 5D Mark III. They’re both excellent cameras, and they’re good at different things. After testing each for a week apiece, we’re still asking whether the benefits of the Nikon’s high-resolution sensor outweigh the Canon’s versatility.
The best way to tell could be to consider how you’ll use the tool — for a pro photographer shooting portraits in a studio, or a Nat Geo correspondent capturing the landscapes of Yosemite, the Nikon could be the clear choice. For a photojournalist on an unpredictable news beat, or even a young professional taking on a wide range of work, the Canon could be a better option. Answering the question for yourself could be a matter of just picking each one up and seeing which feels right in your hands.
We’ll keep testing these cameras, and we’ll keep you posted with the results.
Nikon D800
Price: $US3000 (body)
Sensor: 36.3MP, full-frame (35.9mm x 24.0mm) CMOS
Processor: Expeed 3
Max ISO: 6400 (standard), 25,600 (expanded)
Max Image Size: 7360×4912
Video: 1080p (24/30 fps), 720p (24//60 fps)
Display: 921,000-dot, 3.2-inch LCD























Interesting that the key complaint here is about the autofocus system that you've incorrectly noted is the old system from the D700/D3s (which was industry leading anyway).
The D800/E has the same new autofocus system as the D4 - Advanced Multi-CAM 3500FX.
Honestly I found the overall tone of the review to smell of bias shoehorned to align with this kind of misinformation.
I agree with biased bit but than again im a Nikon guy so im probably biased the other way
as far as photography goes D800>MarkIII by long shot
re video functionality cant really comment since I havent tried markIII in that area and on nikon got nothing really to compare it with since I had d700 before .... to be honest I really dont care about video at this stage : )
I agree, the tone is indeed odd. Well put. And it is based on what seems to be a factual error. Very odd.
There is a problem comparing D800 and 5D3 1:1 noise wise because the amount that falls on the sensor is different because of the large different number of pizels. With the D800 it will only be slightly more 60% of the light that falls on the 5D3. We end up comparing a smaller part of the sensor in the D800. The two cameras should NOT be compared at 1:1 but 1.6:1 - and then the noise of the D800 will be much finer and we will be comparing the same amount of light.
I have downloaded some images taken with both cameras and resizing 1.6:1 shows that the D800 is doing better than otherwise indicated.
I know the above may not be easy for some to understand. Keep also in mind that the finer noise in the D800 also means we can use small amounts of smoothing and that this smoothing will arguably be more effective than 5D3.
These are early days yet - I am sure all this will be discussed more and a clearer picture emerging for everybody as they continue to read and learn. I have pre-ordered my D800 and everything I have seen and heard so far has not disappointed and while no camera is perfect, I am looking forward to getting it.
true reviewer doesn't know much about camera's, he doesn't understand how better d800 video capabilities compared to canon
first guy to say the d800 loses in low light. . . other tests, even the lab test stated that the d800 won . not by much . . . . . but still. .. you still have the sample shots?
Triple the resolution or three times the number of pixels? Big difference! Get a new computer to keep up with technology! Lastly , Should you be doing reviews on new tech. marvels?
I can imagine this camera being a popular choice for the Paparazzi photographer for it's huge crop factor.
Not a good thing to do...resting the camera screen down on the stone pavers,lack of respect for fine equipment
I apologize in advance, but I am no pro when it comes to photography - I just love taking great pictures. If I get 1 out of 100 shots that are "good", I'm happy. My question may sound silly, but do these cameras allow for depth of field, or should I rely on my old film cameras for that? Thanks for answering such a non-professional question!
Oh yes, any digital SLR will let you experiment with depth of field, especially when shooting at wide apertures. Just like your film cameras.
Has the reviewer ever shot with the D800. I think NOT. Please stick to reviewing simpler things like mobiles and stuff .
only 6400 iso.
PAPERWEIGHT IMHO.
The reviewer seems lost here. There are several other reviews on the web and so far this is the only one which rushes to judgement. Frankly very few of us really care how it compares with Canon. This camera is too expensive and complex for a first time buyer. Everyone who buys or considers it will almost certainly have made a system decision. The only purpose for a comparison is bragging rights. Childish really. It IS about photography NOT the comparative technology. I use Nikon, many of my friends use Canon. Surely the task for the reviewer is to accurately look at how the technology and implementation opens up creative options. In this case the reviewer does seem way out of his depth, in approach, priorities, expertise and judgement.
Anyone thinking about buying a D800 as their first DSLR clearly has too much money therefore MGriff is correct in contending that it will be mainly committed Nikon users who will buy it. This being the case, please spare us the bloody comparisons with Canon. I'm sure that Canon make cameras every bit as good as Nikon - perhaps even better - but I and many others will never find out because we have too many $$$ invested in Nikon gear to even contemplate a change. I expect that serious Canon users are in the same boat.
I totally agree with MGriff and John T.
"The only purpose for a comparison is bragging rights. Childish really. It IS about photography NOT the comparative technology."