Amateur Canon user talks himself out of Nikon D800 – here’s how

Started Apr 10, 2012 | Discussions thread
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,093
Are those comparisons real?
In reply to hunk, Apr 10, 2012

I can't verify the truthfulness of those comparisons or the reliabilty of the source. However, if this is true, it's bad news for Canon. It might mean that yet another intellectual property for improving dynamic range has been recognized and licensed by one of Canon's competitors. I've been complaining about the poor DR of digital for years, and in spite of all the hoopla about MPs, there's no doubt in my mind that this is where the market will track in the future. I've been hoping Canon would be incentivized by Fuji's early technological success in this area, but they're obviously on a different path. I won't buy Nikon under any circumstances, but I would have to think long and hard about the inconvenience of carrying a DSLR if all this high-end glass can't be coupled to a better sensor soon.

hunk wrote:

This number is realistic, well, I can only compare my D800 with my 5DmkII but the difference is huge in the deep shadows. In the low iso's you can brighten the shadows an incredible amount. To be honest, I found the the difference between 21 and 36 MP rather small, it's nice but still. The amount of extra information in the shadows is a far bigger difference. Have you seen this magazine website?

filmluvr wrote:

breamer wrote:

The reputed 2 to 2.5 stop improvement in DR

Is this number real? Or has it been skewed by biased reviewers and/or Nikon fans?

Just asking...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow