Rosember: Interested in small sensor tech or not, every photog should be grateful to the smartphone industries. Compared to photography alone smartphones is a BIG revenue business - and lots of $$ are spent in making these little cams better. Bigger sensors will benefit from this development, too - and get cheaper as well as the development costs will be returned mostly by smartphone buyers (uhh, us again?). :)
I don't think there are any BSI m43, APS, or FX sensors, either.
shutterbud: This is a beautifully-made camera with wonderful AF, good ergonomics and a sensor waay behind the times- an APS-C flagship from the biggest gun struggling to compete with u4/3 in IQ? Come on! The fact is, many photographers do NOT shoot BIF or F1 cars and for them, this camera is too compromised, despite the loveliness. The benefits from Canon's back-catalogue of parts do nothing to improve many shots. I like the idea of this camera and IQ is 'good enough', but I would never spend so much money on something so big that I know will give me inferior IQ in most circumstances to a Nikon D5300. A GH4, XT1 or A7 offer far more benefits to more photographers than this "Second Flagship". I've said it before and I'll say it again. It is a real shame Canon didn't use a Sony sensor. If they had used the D7000 sensor, this would be King of the Crop. Sadly, it merely confirms what many have suspected for a long time. Canon tech is not improving. This is bizarre
According to the DxO tests, the 7DII has less DR than the D7100 at low ISOs, but its DR is equal at medium and high ISOs, where the sports and wildlife shooters will be using it the most. Looks like Canon shooters have themselves a gem.
nemark: To David Wentworth:"a 35 mm equivalent f/1.7. The camera would not allow me shoot at f/1.7 when within a certain distance to a subject. Instead, the aperture would automatically "correct" to f/2.2 or f/2.8, even when in full manual mode."
I suspect that it is the same reason why did East Germany Jena Zeiss do the same thing with some of their lenses (2.8/35mm Flectogon and 3.5/135mm Sonnar at least). And the reason is simple: as you focus closer and closer, your lens moves further from film/sensor surface becoming "a longer focal length, while diameter of the hole ("aperture") that passes light to the sensor remains same. The ammount of light that reaches sensor is reduced. That is also why 2.8 macro lens when set to 1:1, becomes actually f5.6 (in other words, you`ll need for 2EV longer exposure).
He said the effective focal length changes, not the external length of the lens.
ThomasSwitzerland: Ken Rockwell has just published snapshots on the D750 with the 20mm f/1.8.
To me this represents outstanding journalistic quality in time and precision. Why cannot the so much larger <dpreview> deliver?
KR always shoots in jpeg basic. He says all pros do.
His family shots are almost always in small-basic and landscapes in large-basic.
"I never shoot raw. Why would I? Raw is a waste of time and space, and doesn't look any better than JPG even when you can open the files."
"The 7DII is clearly at least as good as any existing APS--C at high ISO, and better than most."
I've seen no evidence yet that it's as good as the D7100/A77. It might very well be, but we'll have to wait for the test results to come in.
Of course, given the 7D II's superior buffer and autofocus, a little sacrifice in DR might be worth the compromise, depending on your application.
Maybe somebody doesn't want to shoot wide open while taking pictures with their "super fast sports camera". Or maybe they want to use a teleconverter? Or maybe their zoom lenses are f/5.6 at the long end? Or... you get the idea.
It's not hard to think up advantages for clean data at high ISOs...
munro harrap: I disagree with the assessment of 2004 (the 1Ds MkII) as THE moment. Great camera, but no. So far nobody has equalled the realism film brings to photography- not even the latest generation of 36MP sensors- except Hasselblad and medium format.
The colour is still inaccurate. It is VERY inaccurate. Its actually rubbish compared to what we see. All machines still oversaturate and all machines have LCD TV reds oranges and blues are always overdone.
Are manufacturers colour blind,since it is possible in post-production to get much more accurate colour.
If this can be done, then the corrections should be applied in camera- the sensors colour balance should be corrected in-camera. Only then can any real progress be made, but it is not even being attempted.
I think manufacturers could readily produce more accurate colours in their defaults, but the resulting images would lack 'pop', and the average consumer would gravitate to the cameras that produced the more punchy images.
It was the same in film. Fuji Reala and Velvia sold for a reason.
Kevin RAR: Which image sensor is the best, this is just like asking which car engine is the best. Different people have different answers.
I think low ISO DR is just like horsepower. It doesn't matter at all once beyond a certain number. For most people, those 14 stops DR number means nothing in their daily pictures. On the other hand, color rendering is much, much more important. That's why Canon produces a lot of best selling cameras.
Of course, I understand there're always muscle car fans who demand more and more horsepower. They for sure think the engine with the most horsepower must be the best. How could an engine with less horsepower be the best one? :LOL
The DxO Optics Pro RAW converter can imitate colour renderings for different cameras.
"I love the idea of the D750. It has everything I want my D600 to have and I'd be ready to sell and upgrade but of course Nikon killed the resale value of the D600 by releasing the D610. Just typing this post infuriates me. I know this is old news but seeing an upgrade I want and can't manage b/c of Nikon's greed really hurts...thanks again Nikon!"
The spread between a used D600 and D610 is <$200 on eBay. It's not that big at all. I think you whine too much.
Cane: Does Nikon try to make all their lenses as big and plastic as possible? Someone needs to serve them pancakes for breakfast and see if anything clicks in their heads.
Retrofocus designs are necessary for any focal length < flange distance. They're basically inverted teles. So, yes, they're going to be longer than your nifty fifty.
I myself wouldn't mind seeing them at f/2 or even 2.8 to save a little on the size, but I can see the logic in their having a consistent set of primes from now from 20 - 85 mm.
sderdiarian: The real plus is being able to use your smartphone's 5.5" screen (LG3) to compose pictures, what a joy compared to the 3" screens "cameras" are still hobbled with. People wonder why camera sales have fallen off the chart, it's assuredly in part due to their primary interface being so much less easily seen, certainly a perceived step-down to many smartphone users.
Sony deserves great credit for continually churning out innovative ideas. Now if only an mFT manufacturer ran with this one; size could be reduced (smaller mount, smaller battery) and the user would have access to a large line of much smaller primes and zooms.
Imagine the Panasonic 12-32mm zoom or 20mm prime combined with a 5.5" screen. I'd buy one in a heartbeat for $500, not to replace my camera, but to supplement it and just have a lot of fun.
Yep. And you get to hold onto your... phone? That sounds very steady. And your controls are... where? And the lenses how big? So... it's not like the combinations are pocketable. Who in their right mind would buy one of these ahead of any of the Sony A's or RX's, or the Fuji X's, or the m43s, or *gasp* a DSLR?
3systermuser: read DXO mark on this one, you will see the IQ is the same or extremely similar to that of the D800E.and considering the price difference between the D810 and the D800E, there is no point getting it if you do not need a touch better AF, a bit better LV,etc over the D800E.I think this is what D800E should have been, but it is now already dated even at this point, Nikon should focus its very limited R and D money onto FX mirrorless.for me , the Sony A7R wins over all this extremely old dated D-SLR.
A7r has inexplicable 11+7 bit compressed RAW, and ridiculous shutter slap.
Mirrorless fanboys should concern themselves with the pictures and not the specs.
beavertown: Dear Nikon,
The only two way to solve the 1 problem is:
A: Bring down the price like the V1
B: Use a bigger sensor.
BarnET: I disagree totally. So does Thom Hogan.
Yes, I know. My point was that it will still track autofocus with each frame. Still does 20 FPS with that tracking. 60 FPS without. For those of you wondering, the 1DX tracks at 12 FPS and the 4Ds at 11 FPS (yes, with far more points and options - I'm not saying the V3 is 'better'; I'm pointing out its strength.)
There are reasons the V cameras sell at all. I just gave what I thought was the most relevant one.
"Ditch the ridiculous FPS"?
20 FPS with full autofocus while using adapted FX Nikkor glass is the single reason this camera sells at all. There's nothing else remotely like it for sports and BIF, which explains why users put up with all its, ahem, quirks.
hrt: Will DPReview be posting a comparison report between D810 and Sigma DP2 Quattro ?
That would be an interesting comparison.
chaos215bar2: "Naturally though [the slight blurring due to the OLPF] also means that in terms of raw resolution, you're never quite seeing the potential of your camera's pixel count"
That isn't entirely accurate. The true resolution of a 36 MP Bayer sensor is 18 MP in green and 9 MP in red and blue. You could store the result in a standard 18 MP file without losing anything and still have 50% more pixel data than you need. A 36 MP sensor does not have the potential to produce an accurate, sharp 36 MP color image.
The point of the OLPF is to distribute each color of light over the corresponding pixels so there are no holes. That means you won't get super sharp, aliased lines, but you also won't end up with artifacts (moire) by trying to imagine details that the sensor can't actually resolve. Without the OLPF, you're just taking the 36 MP grayscale image, throwing away some colors at each pixel, and hoping you don't lose anything important.
It would appear that for cameras of sufficient resolution, lens sharpness (or rather, the lack thereof) serves as the OLPF, as the sensors can out-resolve the lenses.
samdim: Many new features like Split zoom, Face detection, Lower ISO simulation and Clarity PC slider - are purely software based and could be added to other Nikon cameras in an update.I'd like them very much on my D7100...
At least Nikon got their firmware to the point that the camera was a very good performer right from the start, unlike Fuji, who had to release updates to bring their camera up to par. You fan boys make me shake my head.
noirdesir: Higher frame rates, lower base ISO, better AF etc. are all welcome but the area were the D800 had a real deficiency is manual focus via life view due to its line-skipping sensor read out - any word on whether that has been improved?
Unconfirmed, but looks like they fixed it. If so, I don't know why they aren't shouting it from the rooftops.http://diglloyd.com/blog/2014/20140627_0844-NikonD810-LiveView.html
"Marcel J writes to say:
'Just tried the D810 in the Nikon center in Ginza, Tokyo. The Live view looks much better. See attached photos of the D800e and D810 screen I took with my phone (sorry, I was in a hurry and didn't think about taking a picture with my D800e).
In any case, none of the triple pixel nonsense, and much less noise in the Live View display. The screen seemed whiter and brighter as well.
I didn't check any other features, but the cleaner Live View is enough for an upgrade for me.'"
JKP: Weird they lied about the quality of their lenses knowing they would be caught sooner or later.
Nonetheless, I'm not a big fan of adding corrections to RAW files.