Adrian Van: Google the following - Mythbusters Episode 104 to show why all these photos can actually be all True. They examine all the critics with tests. Including reflectors left on moon by astronauts proven true in a laser test. Interesting read. Video of microgravity test also true and not high frame rate film slowed down for moonwalk, as the motion is different than high speed film slowed down. Love watching the Mythbusters show.
Looks like we made it! or at least a few select astronauts did!
So who are your going to believe - be patriotic to your country and their space program, which developed in lots of new science tech advances, or keep thinking that space explorers never accomplished anything. Obviously you did not google the reference or watched the episode which is online. I would rather believe we as explorers accomplished a lot of new technology because of ideals of exploration (whether moon landing or not, rocket technology still advances, google Space X for latest rocket designs which are amazing for earth orbit and safe return back of rockets now reusuable in test flights. I do not need absolute proof as some do (regarding moon). Does it really matter?My "symptons" of rocket travel do persist, there you have it. Sometimes science fiction can become science fact, not all of it yet, but certainly some advances are made yearly. Count on it, we are using new technology today. Glad my comments are entertaining though.
Google the following - Mythbusters Episode 104 to show why all these photos can actually be all True. They examine all the critics with tests. Including reflectors left on moon by astronauts proven true in a laser test. Interesting read. Video of microgravity test also true and not high frame rate film slowed down for moonwalk, as the motion is different than high speed film slowed down. Love watching the Mythbusters show.
I would love to see a shoot out between this camera and the D810 in all kinds of extreme light and also action sequences with tracking and see which is the more ideal camera and if a bit extra resolution makes a difference. Also where is the full D810 review? Someday?
altafbusal: D.O.AWHY?1-AWKWRAD DESIGN AND CONECTIVITY2- IPHONE JUST GOT EVEN BETTER, WITH 4K VIDEO, WHICH IS A MUST THESE DAYS, THIS DEVICE IS MISSING IT.3-PRICE....IT IS NOT PRICE WISELY.
If you are going to buy a DXO One, and carry it along? Why not then buy a small mirrorless camera instead with compact zoom like em10 or gm series? I find the latter more attractive. However, some may like the bit smaller size of carrying a DXO one. Image quality significantly better than regular phone cam.
firstname.lastname@example.org: Raw: D810 vs A7R2 vs 5DR:I'd pick the Nikon for sharpness, noise, resolution, color.All good. Very subjective.
Sounds like a good topic for a new thread, on how many photographers think lenses have impact on colour, whether cheap ones or very expensive ones with multiple coatings like Nano or Fluorite L lens have anything to do with the final colour of the images captured. The colour difference may be less in a controlled studio with perfect lighting, however more obvious outdoors or in mixed light sources or extreme lighting. I know from my own eyes using different types of lenses on the same camera body on what results I see in images. (that colour not just clarity or sharpness has some impact with better lenses.) It would be interesting to see the results of common perception among many other photographers what they think on whether lenses impact colour with a new thread. Until then some of us will continue to agree to disagree. Cheers.
Here is an article showing a graph for Fluorite lens of Canon L series glass - scroll down on following link...http://www.kehblog.com/2013/02/an-overview-of-canon-l-series-lenses.htmlQuote from article is talking about improved light transmission of certain wavelengths of colour due to Fluorite lens. Draw any conclusion you like....Does it only correct chromatic aberration or impact the colour of the image (at least subtly) for bit more intense or richer colour? Quote from article-"For instance, Canon uses fluorite crystals in many of the L series lens elements. Fluorite is a great material for photographic lens elements because it transmits UV (ultraviolet) and IR (infrared) light well, has a low index of refraction and has a low rate of dispersion."Does that affect overall colour (a bit at least)? Depends how colour is defined. Article suggests lens corrects focal lengths of wavelengths of colour for absolute clarity of colour. Or is better colour just a perception of clarity?
breivogel: It appears that the A7RII has slightly lower noise than the D810 in RAW at high ISO. OTOH, at low ISO, the D810 looks a bit sharper than the Sony.
Sorry no link, it was discussed a number of months back when forum members were discussing why the D700 was considered a classic and was holding its price despite the arrival of D610. Superior body contruction of D700 and crisp files were discussed by a few members. Counter to this point was that more resolution in newer cameras offered better cropping ability for D610 or D810. So if you want more MP, then D810 and D750/D610 is the way to go. D700 is still a fine camera and files hold up well with great lenses and DXOmark of 2300 iso for low light, just less resolution for landscapers or extreme cropping. The Canon 5D3 has nearly same DXOmark for low light at 2293 iso as D700. Not bad for an older camera.In my own opinion, I think D810 has sharper files overall than D610 in all kinds of extreme light, from images I have seen online. Comments have been made by some members that D750 have bit crisper images than D610 as I think Nikon made some minor tweaks in D750 default profiles.
To my experience, using top lenses like Nikon 24-70 f2.8 and comparing to lower priced lenses on my other cameras, I see a more richness of colour with the better lenses, not just sharpness and clarity. Much like what UV filters can intensify landscapes or deepen skies. Manufacturers try to keep the colour shifting to a minimum, for maximum transmission of light using coatings to lower flare and ghosting.
So depends on how you define the impact of colour with each lens or dismiss it. Maybe the colour is not being shifted but it can be richer or more intense with coatings like Nano or other multicoatings on other brands. In my opinion anyway, I will take the higher quality lens for deeper tones as light flaring can lower intensity of colour density from poorer lens. Maybe not shift the colour hue. Does intensity of colour also define colour?
I will give it a read. Thanks for link.
Even cinema lenses have coatings on them that impact the final colour of the image. Coatings are like filters and can impact the richness of colour, tone, clarity, and sharpness. Does that not impact colour? Canon has fluorite lenses,to correct colour aberrations and fringing, but is that not impacting on colour accuracy and colour richness. Nikon has Nano coatings.
To add to the above, though, once sharpening has been added (or even before sharpening), the higher MP file, may appear to have more fine detail resolved due to its higher resolution 42 vs 36, which the closeup of studio scene show between these 2 cameras using pro lenses.
It has been theorized before, that a lower MP sensor can appear to have sharper pixels at pixel level, as the pixel pitch of each pixel (micro-lens) is larger than the more densely packed pixel MP sensor in light gathering of micro lens. This comment was mentioned in a forum discussion a while back mentioning how crisp D3 or D700 images are despite only 12MP compared to newer high MP cameras. At low iso D810 36MP could appear sharper than Sony 42MP probably due to larger pixel pitch.
Camera body and colour profile of camera have impact on colour. However, lens also has an impact. I have Nikon 24-70mm FX with Nano coating and this can have different characteristics than some lenses without certain coatings. Impacts contrast and richness of colour, ghosting, flaring, which can change colour (Nano coating is like a filter to a lens to keep colours rich and sharp and clean from stray light-flaring, ghosting). So yes, also about the lens. Nikon's colour profile, colour depth, and dynamic range, can impact colour in different ways in Raw, and its ADL Adaptive Dynamic Lighting can impact colour in Jpeg mode.
lorenzo de medici: Personal reaction: 1. The high end cameras from Sony, Canon, and Nikon are all superb picture taking machines. The only surprise there is how quickly Sony matched and then surpassed the companies with a much longer history in photography. Teaming up with Zeiss for lenses was a great move.2. File size. If you spend a couple of hours shooting 5 fps bursts, you go home with thousands of images to sort through. Then file size and battery life become issues. The D750 wins here. Sony trails the pack. The little battery is a deal breaker for me.3. What feels good to you. My D810 feels good in my hands and allows me to forget about the camera, think about the image. The best shots are taken in your mind's eye first, then hopefully captured as much as possible by the camera. One's own ability to use the camera successfully allows a great camera to capture your unique vision. That isn't included in the box that the camera comes in.
As you say Sony surpasses the competition with longer history. What is mostly being said is that a great sensor manufacturer is using a leading edge sensor. Other areas are maybe matched but not surpassed in my view. A few are indeed unique to Sony.
Nikon and Canon still have great ergonomics with their cameras (body layout and fast accurate AF systems, flash systems and lens systems). I prefer the fit and feel of a traditional Nikon DSLR for serious work. Nikon also knows how to get the most out of their cameras with great dynamic range and noise at low iso and the D810A matches the noise levels of this Sony up to 12800 iso in Raw in these studio tests. Check it out. Sony and Canon have higher pixel counts.
Sony has the compact body for photographers who want a small body. D750 is a very compact body as well, not far from Sony 7 series body size.
Ednaz: It's impressive, but I compared with Nikon D800E and D810, at ISO 1600, 3200, and 6400, all raw, and there's a little back and forth on which system does better depending on what parts of the test image you look at, but in general the Nikon gear doesn't lose anything on resolution, and is cleaner.
Lens systems have a lot of gravity... if I've got 10 top end Nikkor lenses that cover the types of things I shoot a lot of, there's a lot of pull to stay with that system. Switching systems and replicating the kit would be a huge economic hit. A system would have to hugely outperform, not just at the margins.
Sony's doing impressive things, but they're competing against 50 years of lenses: f1.2 lenses, f1.4 at every major prime focal length, 2.8 zoom kits, a set of super-telephotos. I acquired my lens kit over 15 years. It'll take a rocket ship to break free of that gravity, and sustained lack of innovation from Nikon.
Still, nice work, Sony. You're in the game of leapfrog now.
I actually prefer the body size of the D810 and fast accurate AF system capture of Nikon DSLRs and OVF. What is not to like?
misspiggy01: there is no significant difference in noise between the BSI sensor and the one in the D810.i´m wondering if the BSI concept has more to do with heat management for internal 4K recording. something that sony didn´t dare with the previous generation.
if the D820 will have that BSI sensor canon will have a real problem with the VDSLR crowd. if i were invested in canon glass, now would be the time to switch to a sony body with the af-adaptor. it is so much better.
Noise levels at 12800 iso look similar in D810A and Sony a7RII in Rishi's link above. Type in 6400 iso and the D810A looks sightly better to my eyes (smoother raw over Sony), but that is splitting hairs. Nearly the same.
The results look very good for Sony 7RII, however at 6400 iso, the increase in resolution may look a bit better detail capture than Nikon D810, however, noise levels are not far apart, and very close. BSI makes some difference of bit better performance, but not really huge like some say.
Enter in the D810 comparison to Sony for jpeg and Raw at 6400 iso, and check out various areas of scene for skin tones, or detail in cards, or noise levels and it performs very well at 6400 iso, and close to Sonys 7RII output. Sony has a bit of an advantage on resolution though. Buyers have to also consider what lenses they want with each camera, and ergonomics of camera. I like Nikon's lenses.
Took awhile to fix all the problems of the original M camera. Autofocus speed being the biggest one in the first model. Getting better for the Canon fans especially with latest 24mp, except maybe the body price to some commenters is more than they wanted. Maybe a built in evf will appear in M4. Compact cameras with reasonably good IQ can come at a premium because of compactness while very good at image making. More and better lenses maybe on the roadmap if there is a roadmap?
1080 at 60p is great for new em10ii. However can you connect an external mic adapter off the hot shoe or not? That would be ideal (which em5 has). The specifications page says no. Guess they did not want to give that away like on the em5 or em5ii at this great price. Could however, do audio to external recorder, or buy the em5 which does have the external audio port.
sh10453: Congratulations to Canon.No doubt they are now celebrating, and maybe having a "small" party.Quite an achievement to win both, the professional and the prosumer camera categories, as well as the professional lens category!!Let's hope that these awards will not make Canon overconfident and sleep longer on sensor development.Would be nice if Canon would surprise the world next year with a "pro image sensor of the year" award!!OK, it's wishful thinking.
For the guys who actually measure sensor performance on top Nikon or Canon: DXOmarks rates D810 better in every category (DR, color, low iso) over 5DS except resolution. And about resolution, a lot of people think that 36MP are plenty enough megapixels even for cropping into an image, and requires upgrades in computer and storage to maintain workflow. 51 MP are for very large photo prints, landscape prints, or bill boards, large scale advertising, or extreme cropping I guess. Who exactly is the 51 MP made for? Or was that it? What other features of Canon 5DS exceed the D810 to win an award. There could be some new ones.