ABM Barry: I,m answering the shallow minded "Laslen." He quotes:
" you absolutely do not need to spend $1,700 on a camera to take pictures of your children. A smaller, cheaper camera will work just as well"
That depends on your family values, .... Obviously, Children are not worthy enough in your small self-centered mind!
I was responding to the assertion that somehow NOT spending $1700 on a camera to shoot your kids is tantamount to parental neglect.
When growing up I don't remember my childhood being ruined by the poor quality of my dad's old Kodak. That $1700 is for your benefit, not your kids. If you cared about your kids you'd put the money towards their hobbies and interests, or perhaps their future. You wouldn't waste it on a camera.
ThomasSwitzerland: I cannot help. Those samples do not communicate anything what the D750 should be.
They could be taken with almost any camera, even 1” sensor or smaller, by any snap shooter.
I trust <dpreview> as a prime source. But on some of their sample galleries they communicate only one thing: Nonsense. Or said in a diplomatic way: Much room left for optimization.
And a good weekend to you too.
You can read what you like into a comment, but ad hominem insults are not very grown up, are they?
This is a free site. You don't own it, though you seem to act otherwise.
FYI I have been around since the review of the Coolpix 990. That's around 14 years. I changed my login after forgetting my old password, but I don't feel an extended tenure or impressive gear list confers any special privileges.
There is a limit to how much sample images can help you, since only a side by side comparison will show you any real differences, and they provide this with a review. What kind of post processing do you think they should use though? All the same or maximise each one?
I suggest if you need so much help making a decision, you create your own review site, and then manufacturers will give you samples for free. There comes a point when you just have to try it for yourself. C'est la vie.
Donnie G: Is it possible that more DPR people have expressed a strong opinion about Canon's new marketing campaign today than have expressed any interest at all in a weeks worth of non-Canon product related Photokina news? Yeah Baby! This is how the big boys, (Apple, Canon, Google, H-P), generate buzz in the marketplace that gets people to constantly say their name over and over again while lesser players quietly wither and die.
The sheeples' choice?
It depends on the words they use immediately before and after...
Canon just wiped 90% off their credibility rating.
It's quite hard to tell anything from these samples except that the kit lens is not very sharp and/or the default JPEG processing is not very sharp either.
But I don't think it says all that much about the camera itself. Have to wait for the RAW samples.
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.