Summary Nikon D800

Prices Price
Body only $2,797 - $3,297 With 24-85mm lens $3,497 - $4,087
all D800 prices
Score Snapsort rank
Within its price range #n/a of 5 Among similar cameras #n/a of 8
details details
Specifications Key specs
Sensor size Help Full frame 35.9x24.0mm Screen resolution Help 921k dots
Megapixels Help 36.2 MP Movie format Help 1080p @ 30fps
Screen size Help 3.2" Light sensitivity Help 6,400 ISO
see all specifications
Lenses Lenses
Browse all Nikon D800 lenses at LensHero
Nikon D800Nikon D800

Replacement

Nikon has replaced the D800 with the D810.

Nikon D810
Nikon D810 announced June, 2014
Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
GPS Has a GPS
Battery life Longer battery life

Compare the new Nikon D810 vs the D800

Videos

Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D80...

The F%^&ing Nikon D800 vs. Can...

Nikon D800 Hands-on Review

Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800 - Hands-on
  • Review
  • Preview
  • Image quality
The F%^&ing Nikon D800 vs. Canon 5D mkIII Shootout
  • Review
  • Pro
  • Image quality
  • Weather sealed
Nikon D800 Hands-on Review
  • Review
  • Preview
  • Ergonomics
  • Image quality

Pros

Report a correction

The Nikon D800 vs other recent DSLRs

Low light performance Very low noise at high ISO Help
2,853 ISO
Dynamic range Wide dynamic range Help
14.4 EV
Viewfinder size Large viewfinder Help
0.70x
True resolution High true resolution Help
36.2 MP
Startup delay Short startup delay Help
200 ms startup delay
Movie continuous focus Movie continuous focus Help
Makes it easy to get in-focus movies
Sensor size Large sensor Help
Full frame 35.9x24.0mm
Viewfinder Doesn't use battery, see more detail Help
Pentaprism
Storage slots More storage slots Help
2
Overall image quality Incredible overall image quality Help
95.0
Color depth Good color depth Help
25.3 bits
Screen size Above average sized screen Help
3.2"
Weather sealed Weather sealed Help
Shoot in extreme weather
Focus points Many focus points Help
51
Viewfinder coverage Above average viewfinder coverage Help
100%
Built-in focus motor Built-in focus motor Help
Autofocuses with more lenses
Fastest shutter speed Fast shutter speed Help
1/8000 of a second
Report a correction

The Nikon D800 vs other recent pro DSLRs

Built-in flash Built-in flash Help
External flash not needed

Cons

Report a correction

The Nikon D800 vs other recent DSLRs

Screen flips out Fixed screen Help
Less flexible
Announced Old Help
December, 2011
Thickness Thick Help
3.2"
Weight Heavy Help
1,000 g
Image stabilization No image stabilization Help
Risk of blur
Light sensitivity Poor maximum light sensitivity Help
6,400 ISO
Panorama Lacks in-camera panoramas Help
You could stitch photos in post
Size Slightly large Help
Large 146x123x82 mm
Report a correction

The Nikon D800 vs other recent pro DSLRs

GPS No GPS Help
Missing geo-tagging
Light sensitivity (boost) Low boost light sensitivity Help
25,600 ISO
Continuous shooting Slow continuous shooting Help
4 fps
Battery life Shorter battery life Help
900 shots

dxomark

DXOMark

Appearance

front photo of the Nikon D800back photo of the Nikon D800angle photo of the Nikon D800

Discussion

Nikon D800
D800
Nikon

Report a correction

Showing 25 comments

Avatar for Rainer Lucks Rainer Lucks (0:02 AM, March 28, 2014)
No problem. Each to their own. Personal preference is that i shoot with high quality in mind and i expect no less for the Clients i serve. There for i will ALWAYS keep my ISO levels lower. There are times when there is a call for a higher ISO where i will need to make a choice of a must have shot or cop a slight set back in quality. As a general rule it's best to keep things under or up to 800 ISO. An ISO of 800 v 1600 when viewed at a 100% unedited will show a good comparison. You may find the use of an ISO at 1600 still adequate for your usage and there is no issue on that.
 
Avatar for Mike Svitek Mike Svitek (4:10 PM, March 27, 2014)
Image stabilization in the body is incredibly useful. I used to think the same as you, until I switched from a D700 to a K-5 ....... It makes a huge difference to have SR in the body. Neither is better or worse, just the SR is more convenient if, like me, you use a lot of old legacy lenses.
 
Avatar for Mike Svitek Mike Svitek (4:07 PM, March 27, 2014)
Hey, I use 51000 ISO at times too; I'm just saying that the George guy I replied to was dissing the camera for ONLY going to such high standards or what not. Most of it was to be sarcastic (Internet needs a SARCASM font). I have been shooting professionally for the past 3 years, and full-time this past one.
Also: we are all always in the learning phase. The second you think you know it all you will fail.

The FPS, however, is all true: I started out shooting sports on a DSLR that just BARELY reached 3fps and was unusable past ISO800... I made do with fast lenses, knowledge of the sport, and patience. Today's cameras make things simpler, yes, but my point stands: ISO1600 is enough for all applications, so long as you know what you're doing.
 
Avatar for Rainer Lucks Rainer Lucks (10:33 AM, March 13, 2014)
You are obviously still in the learning phase. Nothing wrong with that. I am a Pro and I had to start some where some 28 years ago. High ISO is very useful when in darker situations where one also likes to keep a reasonable shutter speed going. Then there are occasions such as star trail shots. Higher ISO - low noise is also very useful in such situations just to mention a couple of numerous reasons. ;-)
 
buzzkill (5:33 PM, January 17, 2014)
Really? None of you noticed that George was laughing at the cons listed above? Now I'm laughing at you guys...
 
Avatar for Viisshnu Vardhan Viisshnu Vardhan (8:21 PM, June 21, 2013)
I dont side with any brand because every company has good and not so good models. I known a Nikon D200 and a Sony a200. The sony I have is the greatest. and the Nikon is great in its own way. I use sony and nikon professionally in the studio and am happy with both.
 
tony (8:16 PM, June 05, 2013)
he must be a sony fanboy
 
Avatar for Nikos Chazaridis Nikos Chazaridis (8:50 PM, April 18, 2013)
Please correct the price tag, it messes the searches. When the amazon.it link redirects you, the price becomes 2300 euros
 
Marius (3:55 PM, February 28, 2013)
The price is 2399 not 1450??
 
Avatar for Mike Svitek Mike Svitek (4:36 PM, September 14, 2012)
Hey, I'm a Nikon fan through-and-through: I was only stating that I really want to see what Canon does to compete with the D4 and D800 (Well, the 1DX is the D4 competitor, so the only one left is the D800).

And you're right about the Medium Format comment... quite over the top and over exaggerated. I myself have shot with the D800 and do compare it to my H4D-50MS quite a lot, simply because its the closest in terms of resolving power.


My whole comment could be re-stated like this: "Canon and Nikon are always playing catch-up to one another... I wonder what Canon will come out with to compete with the D800"
... ...
 
GT Adventurer (8:46 PM, July 22, 2012)
Random note way late, I find it funny that a sony fan boy would dis a sony sensor, which is what the nikon runs on.  To bad sony can't make a camera that can use it.  :P
 
Shenoy Studio (9:18 AM, June 20, 2012)
2012 very best & cheapest FX  camera
 
Lamboram (0:23 PM, May 08, 2012)
so, Sony's A99 should be interesting as D800 has the same sensor and quite literally its brilliant !!!
 
Avatar for Sean Molin Sean Molin (11:23 PM, April 28, 2012)
By definition the 5D didn't topple Nikon because Nikon is still here. When it came out, I'd agree it was on top of it's game. Nikon didn't really have anything similar to compare it to. The D200 compared to the 30D, and even the D2x was different. It wasn't built nearly as well as the D2x, had typical crappy Canon AF, had terrible battery life, and it was slow. It was a good camera for the time, but hardly enough to knock anything out of the park.


The 5D MkII did not destroy the D3. The D700 was a step down and is the more logical comparison. Video aside, I found the D700 to be the superior machine. The 5D couldn't come close to touching the D700/D3 in ISO and AF performance, not to mention as with typical Nikon, their pro-build.

The D4 and D800 are different animals and really neither is a fair enough comparison to the MkIII. One is a no-expense-spared photojournalism and sports monster, and the other is... well, all sorts of things. The 35% more resolution is just the tip of the iceberg in amazing things. Say what you will about DxO, but they showed the D800 is an incredible game-changing camera. The D3 sensor changed the game. The D3s sensor changed it again. And now, yet again, the D800 shows the world something new. ISO and raw resolution aside, the D800 SMOKES the Mark III in dynamic range and shadow detail... and it shows very obviously. It's nearly three whole EV. While the Mark III's AF system is excellent, that doesn't put it on top. It has just caught up.

I am excited to Canon's promised 1DX, but they've pushed the release date back over and over and over again. We're looking at, what, June now? If they are lucky they'll get them into some hands before the Olympics. If they don't, you are looking at a mass exodus of professional photographers from Canon.

And in all honesty, what the hell kind of statement is your last one? All things equal, more pixels is better. And why on earth would I want to spend $10k, $20k, even $40k on a medium format digital system when I can get 95% of it for an absolute FRACTION of the price? What an absolute asinine thing to say. "Why bother with a Z06 Corvette? If you want a nice sports car go to a Ferrari, Bugatti, or Pagani."
 
Tony (7:17 AM, April 13, 2012)
> You want high resolution go to a 645 Medium Format (Hasselblad, Cloverleaf, or Pentax).

Yes, because I have $10,000-50,000 laying around.
 
Avatar for Mike Svitek Mike Svitek (2:28 AM, March 31, 2012)
H4D-200MS ... 200MP camera. I think they needn't have worries. Yet. 
 
Avatar for Mike Svitek Mike Svitek (2:27 AM, March 31, 2012)
Slightly rude... I see no point of ISO levels above 800 (1600 on REALLY good circuit noise control cameras) and a flip-out screen... really? Why, you need to shoot self-portraits alone or something?
GPS is also quite useless as I'm sure you will know where you are at all times (If you don't, you shouldn't leave your house).
Oh, and: It DOES use a contrast detection for shooting video. Nikon does this because the focus sensor heats up when using Phase Detection much faster than when using Contrast (Phase uses the edges of the sensor, contrast uses the image on the sensor itself).
Next up; 4fps is more than fast enough. I don't know why someone wants anything above 3 anyways: 4fps is already fast enough to capture ANYTHING. If you're good enough, you only need to take ONE SHOT AT A TIME ANYWAYS!

So don't diss a camera for going above and beyond. I don't like Nikon myself and believe the D800 to be overloaded as it is, but EVERYONE should be able to respect the achievement Nikon made. General point: Think things through before typing them.
Thanks  :)
 
Avatar for Mike Svitek Mike Svitek (2:14 AM, March 31, 2012)
Oh, Canon will top this within the year... They always do;
When the 5D came out, it toppled Nikon.
The 5D Mk2 destroyed the D3 soon after.
And now, even though the D4 and the D800 seem like they can compete with the 5D Mk3 (Which they can, easily) I'm just waiting what kind of monster Canon will come up with next.

In all honesty though; Who the hell needs 36MP on a Full-frame sensor?! You want high resolution go to a 645 Medium Format (Hasselblad, Cloverleaf, or Pentax).
 
Mvsheat (2:06 PM, March 30, 2012)
for the money D7000 is just Right ! 
 
Apr (8:31 AM, March 20, 2012)
Hey George, how is your Sony A33 working for you? ONLY 4 fps @ 36.3 MP is thousands of years ahead of your Cybershot... ONLY 25k ISO? I guess you're off with your friends at NatGeo to the dark jungle to shoot bats with your Nex3. Oh, be careful no bats fly against your useful flip out screen, be sure to take a photograph with your screen down so you and the bat can see how the picture is gonna end up. Maybe you'll like to take a look at that small tv on top of your alpha... It's called viewfinder, try it really... GPS? Well, get one at nikonusa.com... Who cares fanboy, you are just trolling and I spent way too much time typing this...
 
Jon D (9:35 AM, March 19, 2012)
I agree with Tom!  VR should be on the lens and not the body!  The video does have auto focus.  This is not the camera for sport shooters.  And why would you want a flip out display on a semi-pro body?  If it did have it, it wouldn't be as durable and is one thing that I would think would break off!  Maybe George should stick with a point and shoot!
 
Avatar for Snapsort Snapsort (4:18 PM, March 05, 2012)
Because the D800 has not been released yet, so the image quality has yet to be independently tested.
 
Sagayadavid (4:13 PM, March 04, 2012)
why is there no image quality rating
 
markiv (7:04 AM, February 26, 2012)
what is the value of kr against us dollars. 1us dollar= how many kr
 
Avatar for Tom Tom (10:34 PM, February 19, 2012)
VR is on the lens, where it should be.  Panorama is a gimmick.  You're wrong about the video autofocus (Live view has full time auto focus), ISO > 6400 is a gimmick, GPS is an add on for this class of camera.


So what's your point aside from trolling?