Pretentious d-bags at a marketing firm are burning all of Canon's R&D money again.
smafdy: Lord have mercy. Sensor size becomes a stand-in for who has the biggest . . .
Sensor size is irrelevant to the art of photography. If it were not so, the only photos worth looking at would come from only the largest sensor cameras.
To paraphrase the as yet indicted war criminal, Donald Rumsfeld:
You don't go on a photoshoot with the camera you wish you had — you go with the camera you have (and can afford*).
* Thanks to Mr. Rumsfeld's use of the National Credit Card, expense was no object, for him. Everything is cheap if you have unlimited access to money — especially OPM.
Not irrelevant. It is possible to take interesting photos with a camera phone from 2001 but you will be stuck with abstract shapes and kitsch images because you won't able to limit the depth of field or control the noise. Great photographers tend to use great cameras because they don't want their creativity to be limited by their equipment.
zsedcft: Don't tell anybody, but number 5 is doing it wrong. Maybe they are doing some kind of epic back-header.
You know that we are the only two people on here, right? This thread is weeks old. That person got about as much on that header as Gerrard did with his flick-on for Suarez in the world cup.
I am glad you have seen some sense. Trust me when I say that I have watched and played more football than you.
Holy Jesus, you are pedantic! They have clearly missed the header. There is no way the ball would end up there if they had made proper contact with the ball. If it was a flicked header, their head would be tilted up more because you generally need to be looking at the ball just before you head it to get a thin contact on the ball- also, they wouldn't be gurning so much. The only circumstance where this picture could show someone completing a successful header would be a back header, like I mentioned in my original post. That is a very rare move that not many people try so it is more likely that this person just miss-timed a run-of-the-mill center back clearance header. From the angle of the camera, it probably came just after a goal kick. I used the word soccer because I was questioning your knowledge. Sarcasm is obviously a little beyond you, though. Oh yeah - The game is called Association Football because it was invented in England. The less you mention FIFA, the better.
Who are you talking to Leno? 4 games in a world cup and you think you are an expert on "soccer"? It's not a good picture.
Don't tell anybody, but number 5 is doing it wrong. Maybe they are doing some kind of epic back-header.
zsedcft: How difficult would it have been for Nikon to implement a highlight-weighted exposure compensation as a firmware update for the D800? That is what I do with the histogram anyway.
The extra video modes are moot IMO. The whole idea of DSLR video with the 5dmk2 was that you could get super shallow DoF with a fairly inexpensive camera (compared to what was previously available). Nobody is going to buy a D810 over a Sony A7S for video because it lacks full sensor readout and 4k.
Quiet shutter and the other minor spec bumps are nice but I will not be upgrading my D800 for this. If I was buying new I think I would get a used D800 (after thoroughly checking the focus issues) because it is about a 24-70mm f/2.8 cheaper and will give you virtually identical images.
I get that, but it is obviously important enough that they held it back to implement in the D810. They could (pretty easily) ad a menu item for matrix metering where you set it to never clip highlights. Instead of that I need to put the camera in manual mode or play with the exposure compensation until I am not loosing some of the clouds. I am sure that is is purely a business decision so that there is one more feature to differentiate the D800 from the D810. Unless I am missing something, I am sure that every landscape photographer spends more time than they would like to messing with exposure compensation when all that they want to do is retain highlights.
select: nice improvements, but the lack of 4k video, wifi and gps, is a shame for a camera that costs over 3k euros
WiFi and GPS has always been a problem on metal cameras because of the reduced signal. I tend to log GPS on my android phone and use an mr3040 for WiFi. Integrated GPS and WiFi are still massive battery hogs, too.
rhlpetrus: Those interested in video certainly have other options, for those that are interested in stills, this is likely the best all-around camera available: best dslr at base ISO and almost top high ISO performance, with top resolution as well. Actually, I think DPR in this first impressions preview has downplayed the many small improvements in all areas, AF, LCD, higher fps, video, electronic shutter, likely base ISO DR (base iso at 64 indicates higher full-well capacity), and many other items. This may be an incremental update, but it covers all areas of performance. "Excitement" factor is not really relevant at this level of performance and to most of the public which this camera is directed at.
I didn't notice that drop in base ISO. The original D800 has 2 extended low iso modes but they actually reduce DR so only get used for longer exposures in bright light. It will be interesting to see if there is a small bump for DR at ISO 64 in the D810.
jaaboucher: The original D800 is a huge pain for daily news shooting. The insane file size and slow frame rate makes sports a pain and slows down the workflow in every part of the newsroom. Thank god Nikon put some thought into what journalists actually need, maybe people will upgrade their D700s.
Get a used D3s instead? I see the D800 as primarily a landscape cam. It can do other thing pretty well but if you don't need the resolution then there are cheaper alternatives that will do a better job for photojournalism.
Rbrt: That WT-5A Wi-Fi is not cheap. $900 or nearly a third the price of the camera body!
TP-Link MR3040 + the free DSLRdashboard app for android + an android tablet or phone (if you don't already have one) is a cheaper and better solution. It has been rock solid for me, only cost me $30 and took about 30mins to set up. It also integrates time-lapse and other advanced features. I probably wouldn't rely on it for the champions league final or the 100m gold medal race at the olympics but it is perfect for the occasional use it gets. The guy who makes DSLR dashboard has even put out a desktop client so that you can operate the camera wirelessly from your computer and pull RAW or JPEGs straight into lightroom. Probably the best $30 I have spent on camera gear.
It is annoying. You can pull so much out of the shadows at ISO100 on the D800 that a mode that just said "don't clip any highlights" would be a revelation. It's ironic that the best bit of the D800 is made by Sony. Maybe I'll ditch Nikon for an A8R if it has all of the features I need.
How difficult would it have been for Nikon to implement a highlight-weighted exposure compensation as a firmware update for the D800? That is what I do with the histogram anyway.
duartix: Long story short: A7S is better at preserving shadows and colors at VERY HIGH ISO but A7R beats it in DR at low to medium ISO (which shouldn't be happening).
Hopefully Canon do raise their game. Competition breeds innovation! The sensor in the D800 is pretty unreal so it is going to take a major upgrade for me to get another DSLR. I actually have an rx100, eos-m and D800 so I am not brand loyal. Whoever comes out with the best stuff (or offers the best value in the case of the eos-m) will get my money.
I think that is the most important point. Low ISO dynamic range is by far the most important thing to me. Good to know that my 2 year old D800 is still up there with the best. I am glad to see that sony are still innovating, though. Nikon just outsource now and I guess Canon fired their sensor development department a few years ago because they are miles behind.
I have just gone back to eos-m as my compact camera of choice. I bought an RX100 because the glacial focusing of the eos-m (and inability to focus is low light) was killing me. The RX100 is so close to being perfect but Sony, as usual, destroy their amazing hardware with stupid software. The two that I couldn't tolerate are the lack of interval timer mode (with no option for remote control, although I believe that the RX100 II does this with a smartphone app) and the pathetic max 0.7eV, 3 shot bracket. I just don't understand the second one; Sony had already gone to the trouble of making a bracket function but then they decided to arbitrarily limit it to 0.7eV.
The EOS-m can bracket much wider using the default firmware, but "tragic lantern" opens up a world of possibilities when it comes to timelapse etc.
I am pretty sure that canon are going to release a new version later in the year. I'll probably wait for the inevitable fire-sale and pick up a great camera for half off.
zsedcft: Number 3 looks like a bad photoshop job. I can't work out what is going on there.
Now I see! It was the shadow that was throwing me. I guess it is just a reflection. Thanks.
Number 3 looks like a bad photoshop job. I can't work out what is going on there.
Well... At least it has AF! Although I think I would just get an A7r for that money.