Nikon d800 in 2018

[John Geerts]

I'm still operating D800s, one regular and one 'E'.  The finder optics annoy me, while they didn't on my previous D3/D2/D200.

You tried the DK-17M ?

[Airy]

note: I always use the DK-17M (on D700, D800, Df...)

[pluton]

You tried the DK-17M ?

I've owned a DK-17M since the DX DSLRs...it worked well with DX--it enlarged the smaller DX finder image to the equivalent of a large FX SLR field of view..  With the FX cams, I can't jam my eye close enough to the finder, through +2 diopter spectacles,  to see the entire composition. Taking glasses off to view and focus is not a practical option.

[Steven Paulsen]

I bought a DK-17M. Why didn't they make it a couple mm larger in diameter? I hated it.

I put it on my Lensometer, (Old AO.) There was 3 diopters of prism. (The ocular center of the eyepiece wasn't even close.) Basically, Nikon Ground or molded a +0.75 lens the size of a Frisbee & cut 100 eyepiece lenses, "cookie cutter" style out of the implied 12" lens.

I phoned Nikon direct, explained & their reply was, "I don't care."

[pluton]

I bought a DK-17M. Why didn't they make it a couple mm larger in diameter? I hated it.

I put it on my Lensometer, (Old AO.) There was 3 diopters of prism. (The ocular center of the eyepiece wasn't even close.) Basically, Nikon Ground or molded a +0.75 lens the size of a Frisbee & cut 100 eyepiece lenses, "cookie cutter" style out of the implied 12" lens.

I phoned Nikon direct, explained & their reply was, "I don't care."

Fascinating.
If one has had the pleasure of operating real professional 35mm motion picture film cameras (Panavision, Arri, etc) equipped with their money-is-no-object, best-technically-possible optical finders, one realizes that the finders in many SLRs and DSLRs are likely compromised by cost considerations.

[Airy]

That may explain why my first DK-17M (on the D700) left to be desired. There was visible CA.

[pluton]

It should be noted that the DK-17M is a multi-element lens system. It has, judging from the reflections from the optical surfaces, 2 elements.  2 elements doesn't rule out Steven's interesting hypothesis about possible shortcuts taken in it's fabrication, of course.

[longzoom]

  It depends, how you see it. In my experience, the D800 is absolutely unique machine. Its abilities to detailing is marvelous, and level of noise produced by its sensor is amazingly low. It is impossible to compare this camera to ANYTHING else - 800E, 810, 850, 750, DF, 4 or 5 are great, but completely different machines, with its own pluses and minuses, each.  There is nothing on the market like this old 800, its unique, it is not best, but simply unique.  Take a look at this  image, from vacation, and crops ,  20160609-060-2-2 by longzoom, o20160609-060-2 by longzoom, on Flic20160609-20160609-060-2 by longzoom, on Flickrkrn Flickrs,    Made for curiosity,   LR for crops only,  used to improve the given terrible light, nothing more was done, so, do not judge color in shadows, please!  The lens was  80-400G at 400mm, D800 body. ISO 2200, BTW!  THX!   LZ          Please forgive me this re-post, but I want to say my word on behalf of that old D800. It is my own opinion, based on my experience, somewhat contrary to other members opinions. But it is just me, everybody's way will vary. THX!  LZ

[Fons Baerken]

I agree with LZ the d800 is a fine camera great iq output however i sold mine in favour for a d850 again a different camera, my only issue was that with some lenses like the 17-35mm f/2.8, the af at the outer points was occassionaly unsure.



D800  58mm f/1.4g @f8