Joed700: It interesting to see Canon loyalists and Nikon fanboys here debating which camera is better that the other. Some are naive enough to defend the overpricing of the Canon 5D MK III for its imaginary/untested super sensor. The true to the matter is each camera has goods and bads, and so are their lenses. I think as consumers, we shouldn't defend certain brand but to demand quality from the manufacturers. We pay so much money now-a-days for lenses that are made of cheap plastics. Why should we pay over thousand dollars for small sensor cameras like the D7000 or 7D..? They should make full frame DSLRs standard and do away with all the DSLRs with crop factors. Why keep these sub standard cameras around when the technology is readily available? I guess we all know the answer; they do it because they can! Remember the days of the film cameras? Everyone used 35mm and that was the standard.
Lenses.The larger the sensor, the bigger, complex and expensive the lenses have to be to correct aberrations in the areas away from the center of the picture.With APS-C sensors you have great lenses (also from Sigma and Tamron) for less than 600$.With full frame, you need L-class lenses in case of Canon, and similar high end lenses from Nikon or Sigma.
VidJa: 25600 is usable, 51200 way less. I'm really looking forward to a side by side comparisson of the D800 at 25600, we might be surprised
What kind of surprises?The D800 goes up to ISO6400.ISO25600 is a Hi2 setting, meaning that you're just pushing up via sw the native ISO6400.The D800 will be 1.5-2 stops worse than the 5DmkIII in terms of ISO.
How is the D800 better than this?The 5DmkIII has better high ISO performance, and faster shooting rate.What the D800 has going for it is the higher pixel count, but it has to be seen whether this translate in any higher effective resolution as measured in lp/mm.With such tiny photo sites only the sharpest primes will likely be able to achieve decent pixel level sharpness in the center of the image (see Canon's 7D which has the same pixel density, for comparison), and the borders will be soft no matter what.The D800 can be a good cheap studio camera (but for true 36 Mpixel you'll have to go medium format anyway), but the 5DmkIII seems more versatile and better all-rounder.
Psycho_McCrazy: Uh-Oh! The fanboys are going to be very unhappy! At least in the current conversion of the RAWs by the Beta ACR, the D4 doesn't really outshine the D3s, even at 1600 ~ 12800!
Maybe the D3s Sensor was Magic! I'm quite sad that it is going away!
People have unrealistic expectations.They think that everything which is made of silicon will have to double performance every two years, like PCs do.
But silicon technology for photo-sites has already reached a level of maturity, and SNR is now largely dominated by photon noise.Unless a technological break-through happens, sensors will have to get larger to increase resolution and SNR and high ISO performance.Oh wait that already exists and its called medium format.. :)
Dragonfire: D3s is so goooood... would love to see the 5Dm3 comparison, all the JPGs seen from 5Dm3 looked like a properly cooked and sharpened 4mpx images blown up to 22mpx... poor JPG processing as usually, looks like plastic with powersot like shaprening...
imho D800 will be the best player under 4.000$, if I take a look at the D800 factory samples... WOW! and high iso samples are promising too... 5Dm3 will be a good allrounder, nice AF finaly!
Wait for the reviews, but if you expect the D800 to have the same high ISO performance as the D700, with pixels which are 1/3 of the size, you're in for a major disappointment.Well maybe that could happen for JPEG, the D800 being newer will have better noise reduction.But which pro uses jpegs?In RAW data, the D800 will be at least a couple stops worse in terms of high iso noise.
profdeming: What a bitter disappointment this camera is. We waited three years for a sensor that has 22 instead of 21 MP? I can't believe the way people are swooning over this. Unless Canon comes out with a high resolution pretty quickly, they are going to lose a big market share to Nikon.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about.You probably would buy a point & shot with 20 Mpixel, because more megapixel = better, right?Canon a while ago demonstrated a 50 Mpixel DSLR sensor...And if you'd think for a moment, Canon's 7D sensor is 18 Mpixel, at HALF the area of a full frame sensor.So making a 36 Mpixel full frame sensor would have been a no-brainer.
Instead they decided to give the same resolution of the 5DmkII with better ISO, frame rate and auto focus.How is that bad?
Joed700: I think Canon is a month too late and a dollar to short. With the Nikon D800's having 36 mp at $3000 a piece, why would Canon expect customers to pay $3500 for a 22 mp body (hardly any differences compared to the 5D Mark II in terms of megapixels)? Someone is really screwed up at the marketing dept in Canon...
Interesting to see that in 2012 still megapixel is all that matters, at least in internet forums full of "enthusiasts" who'll never buy one of such cameras.
At this round, Nikon thought about bumping up the megapixel race, while Canon tweaked their high ISO performance.
Nikon sensors are more "extreme", on one hand you have D700 / D3 with low megapixel count (12Mp) and ultra high ISO; on the other hand D800 has ultra high megapixel (36Mp) but ISO will suffer a lot more than the specs seem to suggest.Because when the technology is already mature, it's the laws of photon physics which are the limiting factor.Think about it, the D800 should have similar ISO and IQ as the Canon 7D, which has a sensor half the size (APS-C) with half the number of megapixel.
Canon with the 1Dx and 5DmkIII has chosen two different intermediate settings instead, at 18Mp and 22Mp.
The question will be, who chose the best tradeoff on the Pareto-front IQ Vs Resolution.
And only the tests will tell.
Jmmg: 36MP? Really!? When is this My DiXX bigger than your DiXX cold war going to end? Why don't they just simply made a digital back with different MP counts for all the people believe the more MP=better photographer they will become...Few people could use a P & S camera less then 6mp to get great shots, many people paid ridicules money but their photos still looks like crap...Money and MP do not = better photographer or better pictures, just my humble 2 cents.
Another thing to keep in mind in comparing this to MF is that, just because you have "nominal" 36MP doesn't mean that you'll get the same effective resolution.This because you'll need lenses with a much higher MTF and little to no aberrations to make use of the high resolution of such a small sensor.
Taikonaut: "Multimedia" is so 90s.The 1Dx not only better but put some distance between itself and the D4.
@marike6Can you point out to any review which compares Canon's 1Dx IQ and ISO noise with the best of Nikon?
Otherwise, stop trolling.