Is the D610 sensor really the same as the D600?Isn't it supposed to have better high ISO performance than the Canon 6D?
Select "Low Light"Select "Image Size" -> PrintSelect "RAW" -> ISO 6400
Now compare in the dark areas the D610 against D800 and 6D.. you'll see a bit more visible luminance noise and significantly stronger color noise, which appears a lot blotchier than the other 2.What's going on?
Wimlex: Can't believe Canon came up with the 70D! I expected a 7D Mk. II, with fullframe sensor. I read on the web there maybe will be a 7D Mk. II, but with an APS-C sensor. I think Canon goes for the APS-C sensor because if Canon put a FF sensor in a 7D Mk. II the camera would be too similar to the 5D Mk. II. I guess?
A 7DmkII with full frame sensor is not going to happen.The 7D is a high frame rate "action" camera, at prosumer price.A fullframe action camera at prosumer price would kill both the 5D and 1DX.
Looks like a great camera, but launch price in € is too close to the D600 (which is now around €1500).But perhaps market price will drop quickly, around €1000 would be about right.
marike6: Well done review but the scoring is way off with the D800 scoring an 82% and D600 an 87%. I get the whole price/performance thing, but the D800 features the D4 AF module, better build quality and pro-level VF, better video quality including the ability to change aperture in Live View (a big one), et al, for only a bit more money.
DPR does really well with reviews, but they don't weight things like significance to the market. The D800 at 36 mp is a ground breaking DSLR prompting for the first time comparisons with medium format cameras costing many thousands of dollars more. It's the first DSLR with clean HDMI output in video mode. Add the D800E in the mix, which AFAIK is the first time there has been a FF DSLR without the low-pass filter. These kinds of innovations should always factor in reviews. Considering all these groundbreaking features and performance gains, the score of 82% is quite honestly a joke.
Good review, but huge fail on the scoring. No offense.
Not having an AA filter is NOT a technology, it's the lack of a technology.It is just a design tradeoff.And there are gazillions of sensors out there without AA filters, from mobile phone sensors to industrial cameras to Leicas, Foveon, etc.
walnist: I'd have wanted to see a couple of architecture shots with the lens wide open.This 24-85 is the kit lens for the D600, and it's practically the only affordable choice for enthusiasts migrating to full frame.Some tests on another photography website have shown this lens to have very soft corners unless heavily stepped down, so seeing some sample shots would have been helpful.
Sure you can get much better image quality per buck from prime lenses, but you miss the convenience of zooms.Having the wrong focal length lens at the wrong time may mean missing a shot completely.
Concerning the architectural shots wide open: agreed, but that wasn't my point.I mentioned architectural shots just because it's easier to visually assess lens defects.I could have asked perhaps for resolution charts, and that would have served the purpose even better.The point i was trying to make is: some reviews have slammed the IQ of this kit lens unless stopped down by a couple of stops.I just wanted to see with my own eyes how usable this lens would be wide open.
EmmanuelStarchild: I'm a little confused here. Dxo pretty much slammed the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II, while you guys gave it your 'gold' award. How exactly is the merging of your reviews going to rectify such a huge difference of opinion?
Why choosing DxO labs over Imatest?In the field of industrial cameras Imatest has been the standard for years, and i never found odd results coming out of it.
While sometimes I see scores published by DxO labs which do seem rather inconsistent, and the 70-200 2.8 IS II is just one example.
I'd have wanted to see a couple of architecture shots with the lens wide open.This 24-85 is the kit lens for the D600, and it's practically the only affordable choice for enthusiasts migrating to full frame.Some tests on another photography website have shown this lens to have very soft corners unless heavily stepped down, so seeing some sample shots would have been helpful.
JoeR: My opinion based on these raw images, the D600 clearly beats the D800. D600 is marginaly better than 5DMKIII.
However throw in the D4 and it beats them all by a large margin. It makes me wonder about the DXO ratings.
Does any of this have relavence to real world photography?
I also do not understand how DXO ratings are calculated (even though testing industrial cameras and sensors is part of my professional duties).
It is obvious that among the 3 new cameras, pixel level noise is highest for the D800, and that the D600 slightly beats the 5DmkIII.The 5DmkII also appears very close to the mkIII in raw output.
But DXO labs doesn't seem to measure pixel level noise, they do some sort of normalization with respect to a certain print output format, i.e. they resample the image.This way having more pixels in the source image gives a certain advantage, but without a description of how the score is actually calculated, and what resampling algorithm they use, it is difficult for me to judge the fairness and relevance of DXO scores.
Schonbeck: I just returned my Nikon D600 (and 85mm 1.8G) - was very dissapointed - the difference from the D7000 was close non existent. Look, feel etc. almost identical (now that is not something negative but when you pay twice the price you should get an improvement). Speed and general response was not as good as D7000. Image quality was solid but sharpness was huge dissaponitment and a step down from D7000. Same goes for exposure meetering that i thought was not as good as on D7000. Not sure if i got a bad example or if the firmware is not yet fully optimized. But as a D7000 owner i would never go for the D600. Instead i am starting to look at the A99 - i want something truly new and innovative that will challenge me to develop my skills. Just my opinion.
The problem is probably the optics.With full frame sensors you also need better optics to achieve consistent sharpness across the frame, so as of today even though the cost of FF camera bodies is becoming more accessible, you still need to invest a good $4000 on top of that to get optics to match (i'm talking about 24-70 + 70-200 F2.8)
Otherwise you can get great image quality on a budget using prime lenses, but you lose the convenience of zooms.
I don't understand all the disappointment for this camera.
For me it'll all boil down to the street price, which hopefully will quickly drop below 2000.Concerning auto-focus, we can't really judge it from the number of points alone, the tracking algorithms are even more important, and the center point is supposed to work down to -3EV.
I'm not action photographer and 99% of the time i focus using the center point only.
What's really a bummer instead is the maximum shutter speed of 1/4000, although that could be compensated by ND filters, and the slow flash synch speed.
If the price becomes competitive with a 5DmkII (they can still be bought new for around $1700) then this camera could find its market among enthusiast amateurs or as a compact second body for pros.
TAGRIFFIN: Hi. Perhaps this is an ignorant question...but why would I buy this lens if I have the Sony 18-250? Just wonderin'....Tim
I haven't seen tests of the Sony 18-250, but all tests of megazooms in the 18-250 / 270 / 300 mm range from Canon, Nikon, Sigma and Tamron have shown big compromises in terms of image quality, contrast, MTF, distortion, chromatic aberration, vignetting, etc.Generally, if you want to cover the 18-300mm range with good image quality, you'd need at least two lenses: a 18-70mm and a 70-300mm.If you use 3 or 4 primes instead, image quality will be even better.
ZAnton: As usual insane pricing: Price of the 18-55 STM > Canon 18-55 IS mkII + Mount adapter.
Hopefully IQ will be higher too?
There are many technical advantages for a pure monochrome sensor.Having no bandpass filters means each pixel will be able to capture more light, and the sensor coating could be optimized to enhance sensitivity in a certain spectrum (like for IR cameras for example).
Having no bayer array, the effective resolution is at least doubled (like on a Foveon sensor), and this is further enhanced by the lack of low pass (anti alias - moirè) filter.
So by having a monochrome sensor, theoretically you should achieve lower noise, higher sensitivity (iso) and much higher per pixel sharpness.
Then again, Leica's sensor technology is a bit outdated by today's standards.But I like the idea.
topstuff: This is an AMAZING WIN for Nikon. It's really very clever of them.
Unlike the powerfully built, macho type of pullitzer prize winning armchair enthusiasts that troll around DP, most people will be thrilled with this little camera.
It will produce better IQ than the Sony NEX7 that so many people seem to drool over, for less money and a much wider lens choice.
It will be a landscape shooters dream - equal or better IQ than a Canon 5D2 for peanuts money.
And with the wi-fi function, those huge files can be swept up and sent your PDA.
Fantastic little camera. I love it.
I want a red one.
If you think that this APS-C 24MPixel camera will have "equal or better IQ than a Canon 5D2 for peanuts money" you are seriously delusional.
The Canon 5D2 has a FULL FRAME sensor... large pixels, better dynamic range, less noise.
To have an idea at the performance of this new Nikon, look at the Sony A77 reviews.
Still it's impressive for an entry level camera.
marike6: All the Canon trolls are already out in full force, but it doesn't matter as they already know deep down that the D800 is an absolute home run.
And i see the Nikon ones are raising up from their bridges as well. :)
russbarnes: I have no idea where half of the comments below come from, it's absolutely laughable. The D800 image in my view is BETTER than the Pentax, but someONE shot it at f/18 so it's bound to be. As for the 5DMKII, it's nowhere near, plain and simple, it's not in the same class - the details are a mush where you want resolution and I don't expect any better from the 5DMKIII based on what has been shown across the internet so far.
What fact?The fact that everybody can see here is how the 5d Mark *2* is clearly better in terms of high ISO than the D800
raztec: Where is the D700 in the samples comparison so we can compare them together?
Even if The D800 had close to D700 iso capability it would be a penomenonal camera. But somehow, I doubt that will
Sure, I think I'd have more use for the D4 vs the D800 but size and price are huge deterrents.
I'm the typical amateur photographer that takes indoor and low light sport shots and of kids running around in the house. I do take some scenery shots but have never blown my 11x19. So I need a good high ISO camera in a small body.
Make the D4 in a smaller body and drop the price to the D800 range, and I'm sold.
Then why Nikon's own FLAGSHIP has only 16MPixel?Because smaller pixel mean more noise and less dynamic range!
EvilTed: For all you wishing you had more MP.
This comes at a cost that a lot of you are missing completely.This is from the Nikon Technical manual for D800/D800E posted on nikonrumors.com and available for download as PDF.
P4 - Shooting Techniques:At the high resolutions off ered by the D800/D800E, even theslightest camera motion can result in blur. The technique revealedin this section minimizes blur through a combinationof live view photography and a tripod.
P6 - Same Shot No Live ViewLive view photography was not used in creating the secondexample below; consequently, the mirror was not raised untilthe photo was taken and the results are blurred.
P9 - Shutter SpeedThe superior resolution of the D800/D800E makes smallamounts of focus blur more obvious. Select a shutter speedslightly faster than you would choose when photographingthe same subject with other cameras.
DiffractionWith the D800/D800E’s high resolution diffraction effects generallybecome noticeable around f/11
@Martin Kulhavy, yeah if you stitch several images to make a 100Mpix panorama, you'll get great results in a large print.Or if you use a medium format sensor.Now if you just shrink and shrink the dimension of the photosites, using the same sensor size (full frame), at some point you don't get any extra measurable resolution.Ever heard of point spread function, lens MTF, airy disk?Anybody could make a 100Mpixel full frame sensor if they wanted to, the technology is there as you have mobile phone sensors with less than 1micron pixel pitch.Do you think such sensors have the same image quality and per pixel sharpness of a normal DSLR?
Dear marike, where do you get the "less noise at high ISO"?Do you have any tests proving that? (and i'm talking about RAW files, i don't care if Nikon improves their NR algorithms for JPEGs, since no pro shoots JPEG anyway, and in-camera NR will always be inferior to NR done in specialized SW).Until then, let me believe that having photosites 3 times as big (D700) is a large advantage in terms of SNR and sensitivity. ;)
Canon a year ago demonstrated a 50Mpixel DSLR sensor.Nokia is about to launch a 41Mpixel PHONE.Don't know about you, but i have the slightest suspect this 41Mpixel sensor images won't be quite as good as the 12Mpixel of a D3s... :)MP war is just a stupid marketing trick.