mosc: 12mp sure isn't much resolution for a stills shot these days. Comparing the detail in the A7S shots to the A7R at base ISO is... staggering. The A7S is a very specialized camera to me. I have much less interest than I did.
Was the D3x NOT a pro camera? Were MF cameras not professional? Isn't a 50MP Phase 1 back useful for pros?
D4 series, like the D3, was specifically for photojournalism and sport. 16MP is more than enough for a good double page spread in a magazine, but it's a bit of a stretch for an advertising shoot or a 4" landscape print.
Sure, enthusiasts tend to buy more camera than they need, but last I checked a D800 is much cheaper than a D4. 20 million free pixels?
I am really struggling to see any difference to the detail levels between the D800 (RAW ISO100) and the D810, though I do see a lot more moire.
Not sure I could use this camera for a fashion shoot, or even a studio portrait.
Wow, on average this must be the most idiotic bunch of responses ever.
Some great photos here, nobody died, calm down.
If you don't like it, rent a helicopter.
57even: Hmm, can't see many early adopters. Nikon, get a decent sensor, quick!
Better still, put all this excellent technology in an APSC body. You would probably sell millions.
The raws are fine, but don't compete with APSC ones. Nikon have some great technology in a camera that deserves to compete head on with DSLRs, but it won't do it. In the end, it will hurt them.
I can only think they must have a model on the blocks, but are waiting to see what happens to the DLSR market. At the moment, it doesn't look too promising.
Hmm, can't see many early adopters. Nikon, get a decent sensor, quick!
steelhead3: Not a Nikon 1 user, but I thought the review may be a little harsh...this camera has possibilities if it came with the 20 meg Sony sensor, which Nikon can do easily since Aptina is into automobile products now.
That's the problem. It didn't.
Best photo job on the planet? Probably....
57even: Perfect. Such a relief. I have no need to upgrade my D800.
Now back to the 1980s when I only had to upgrade a camera every 10 years because I wore it out. That's worth spending $3k for.
You cannot capture more photons than there are.
I have upgraded in the past for many reasons, but no longer feel any need to. Advances in IQ are now mostly incremental. Small improvements in IQ or operating speed are great, but not a reason to upgrade. When I wear my camera out, it's nice to know I will have something even better to upgrade to, sure, but I don't feel I am missing out much in the meantime.
Another "disruptive" technology is unlikely in the short term. The D800 is already at a point where optics are limiting. 50MP would not make much difference in overall resolution, even without an AA filter.
I agree. My point is that the D800e does not do anything I need that the D800 does not do. The market is now in a zone of small incremental improvement, just as it was in the 1980s.
People wear cameras out at different rates. My point is there is little point in upgrading until you wear it out.
Perfect. Such a relief. I have no need to upgrade my D800.
tesch: How is this news?
You tell me.
Because this isn't exactly NEW information....
Maybe Canon have a better idea of their average customer?
onlooker: Some of the comments here like "have the decency to afterwards ask for permission, and if not given, delete the photo right there and then" drive me crazy. It is not about THE human, it is about A human in a given situation. It is about human condition.
This reaction may be partly because this site is polluted by portraits of grinning street kids. It may be because, despite protests, DPR condones sick photo challenges like "A file I would like to punch".
Look at the work of many of the photographers whose names I posted earlier, and you may understand. Do you think Henri Cartier-Bresson should have chased some of his subjects? Really?
Or perhaps it is because you think that someone wants a photo of your face and wants to stare at you later? Then you need to get over yourself. It's not about you.
If it's the law in Germany it's a pretty dumb law. All my street shots have several recognisable faces in them. Am I supposed to ask 30 people each time I press the shutter?
Provided someone is not deliberately embarrassed or compromised then I don't see an issue.
In the UK it IS a requirement to ask permission (signed on a release) if you intend to sell the picture or use it in association with branding or advertising. Hence no agency will buy a pic without the release, or the "model" could claim part of the remuneration. Reasonable IMO.
MarshallG: The new Microsoft tablet is "noticeably thinner than most laptops." Amazing new discovery!
Considering it has the same components, a high res display and decent battery, this is actually quite an achievement.
Niklas Ramstedt: I'd actually consider this one. My Dell Precision M4700 is starting to get a bit heavy.
Nonsense, a 1 weights less than a 0. Just look at it... ;-)
DarkShift: No, I would never use a 12" touch screen for anything as complex piece of software as Photoshop is. Plus the screen would get too greasy already after 30 minutes use.
And an external monitor.
I would not use anything less than a 27" screen, but you can always attach one to the mini-DVI port. I always use my laptops docked when at home, but I like them as small as possible when mobile. This fits the bill.
I can't help wondering if this wouldn't be more applicable to video....
Guess Sony could do with some good news, but they deserve it. This is what they do best. I like the novel approach to the EVF. All round a pretty big camera in a small package. Nice going.
Amount of processing and data to do something useful = x.
Amount of data and processing to make doing the same thing completely idiot proof = 10,000x.
Using F11 and a small sensor and writing some software to do intelligent blurring would probably be easier and less wasteful.
57even: Dear DPR - JPEG "dynamic range" is not dynamic range. It's a post RAW applied tone curve. It is actually quite irrelevant.
Please, don't keep calling it "dynamic range" because it isn't unless it's shot in RAW and opened in a non-profiled RAW converter.
I have no problem if you call it JPEG contrast range, but dynamic range has a specific definition which you have (sort) of explained in your own glossary. The problem with JPEG contrast range is it is a poor indication of the recovery potential of a shot you have deliberately underexposed to maintain highlights - something that RAW shooters do as a matter of course.
I am not saying it isn't useful (for JPEG shooters such as sports photographers and quite a lot of wedding/event shooters) but it is applying the incorrect definition to the measurement you are actually making. This in turn makes the conclusion quite confusing because most cameras expand JPEG latitude by boosting ISO and underexposing... which actually reduces real DR.
A RAW measurement would be great, but again it is not DR unless you establish the actual noise floor.