I couldn't really get the 'impressions' part from this article. It is more like a tutorial of a sport shooting than a personal feedback.I couldn't see any comparison or criticize. Mostly it goes like I did this, I did that. Actually I already know 36MP gives better results when you crop compare to lower pixels.
I would be happy to see, how it performs compare to D4?
(shots are excellent and definitely good work by the way; no offense to your job)
I have been waiting for this review for a long time..I think it deserves the gold spot! I own one.However camera ISO level sensitivity is not reflecting the truth.It is mostly half or 2/3 stop darker than my Nikon's results... Moreover I still found Nikon D700 WB is more realistic than Fuji's... But D700 is not that great in this area as well.Last more point.. LCD screen gives more warmer/yellowish results than it is actually... D700 was giving more cooler results either... ayway, still very good camera.. and I wam desperately waiting for 23mm f1.4 Fuji lens.. I believe it will also be most successfull combination set available in all photography market alon with this camera...
zos xavius: This review seems to be stacked in fuji's favor, though I realize it may be unintentional. I do read some of these reviews pretty thoroughly and this was one of them. A few things of note. Since they are lying and overstating iso, it would be valid to compare these sensors at true iso value. I'm guessing 3200 is more like 2000. That's a pretty big difference. 6400 is probably more like 3200 on the other cameras and I'm thinking it might not look so much better if all things were equal here. Also the foreground part of the studio shot is much closer in the xe-1 shot. Was the 35 used vs 50s on the k-01 and nex-7? It is either different focal lengths and perspective or the studio shot was moved at some point. My point is that it makes many of the detail parts of the shot look better because they are taking up more of the frame. I think it is is intriguing but its hard to make apples to apples comparisons when things are different. I'm always interested in noise and resolution first.
Hi Nixda, I have also X-E1 and D700. My friend has D7000. I checked. Most daylight situations, same settings X-E1 is delivering 2/3 stop lower EV results. No way D7000 comes darker. We tested many times... zos xaviuos is totally right about this issue. It is behind common ISO sesnsitivity. So all marketing about its high iso performance is not fair at all and can be considered as either lie or tech disabilty of Fuji to measure standard iso levels.... It's a shame.Moreover with kit lens, my 12 mp Nikon still gives more detail in same focal length equivalent shots... Also Fuji highlights are not strong as D700 or D7000... Nikon has some edge...
now I understand well, why there was high demand to my D700 when I put it on sale from internet.. :) due to high demand but not high price offerings I decided to keep it yet... I just need this great Sigma lens 35mm f1.4 :)
by the way, I remember sensor stain issue with Pentax K-5 which I replaced it with Nikon D700 and decided not to go any adventure other brand again (my fist one was Nikon D40 the good oldy or old goody).. However I see sh.t happens.. even for such big brands, tomorrow to Canon maybe.. so still there is no alternative to Nikon or Canon yet!
Anybody interested with my D700? :)) haha lol
I wanted to be there too :)
HarrieD7000: What is the problem?Not the selling party, but the buyer decides what he or she want to pay.The market decides what the price will be. As soon as a seller does not sell his stock, he will lower the price. If his margin is to small he stops selling the article. The same will happen with Nikon. When in the coming weeks the selling from this cameras drop dramatically they will lower the price. The professionals don't care what they pay, because they just add something on the price they are selling.
problem is so called internal system error.. so funny.. why not being open, after Canon MIII price we also decided to increase. still ugly but at least honest.
if you are greedy, satisfaction price shall be minimum of your competitor.if you are big, you put your own prices, you rule the market.by coincidence, for greedy ones ,system errors are there to save the day.for big ones, there is no system error, if needed there is just price increase... honest and clear.Nikon shall be shame themselves to follow up Canon.This means Canon rules the market prices...
muratime: guys, pls check out iso 100 image crops taken from imaging-resourcehttp://i44.tinypic.com/13z4fp.jpghttp://i44.tinypic.com/350lbug.jpgat iso100 markIII is not able to give detail, however not due to pixel size it is due to strange highlighting abilities, as if HDR applied. D800 is very much okay.in second image you'll see the violin player.. check out his arm and his face.. markIII brough some white shades to vilon player skin, I am curious if they were supposed to be there or not? since D800 gives more mono color with a smooth surface.. in impression, D800 process images with strong highlight and extra clarity of sharpness, which 'extra' word is critical here, makes photo not real!!!???regarding iso performance, MarkIII is the best upto now as far as I can see, in higher iso, result is extremely smooth unexpectedly despite HDR like processing..so MarkIII will please us with most if photos, however a bit question if it is really the correct image?
I agree but low iso is important than iso6400...
for me according to this results Nikon's is best anyway, JPEG conversion of MMArkIII is painting the eyes of poeple.. which is not correct even...
fpl1966: I think this forum is too much full of Nikon's funboys. It's useless to read it.The D800 will be a nice camera (especially for studio, adv, still), but I think that the resolution will be useless for most of people, and it will be requiring big expences for computers, store hard drives and higher- end lenses. All this to publish some pics on Flickr for most of you?. I don't know but before everyone was criticising Canon because too much higher resolution and YOU was glorifiing Nikon because of its 12 Megapixel sensor of D3s (best camera ever built in my opinion), and D700. Now YOU are changing your mind again, pretending to convince us that the strategy of higher megapixel is the winner. This is ridiculous.
http://i44.tinypic.com/13z4fp.jpghttp://i44.tinypic.com/350lbug.jpgcheck this coomparison for iso100 pls.. pls tell me Mark III is not making something strange, in first link MarkII can not give fabric texture at all, but not due to its Mp size.. check out cilon player in scond link, why the hell his hand painted in white shades?? this is iso100, which photo is realistic?
guys, pls check out iso 100 image crops taken from imaging-resourcehttp://i44.tinypic.com/13z4fp.jpghttp://i44.tinypic.com/350lbug.jpgat iso100 markIII is not able to give detail, however not due to pixel size it is due to strange highlighting abilities, as if HDR applied. D800 is very much okay.in second image you'll see the violin player.. check out his arm and his face.. markIII brough some white shades to vilon player skin, I am curious if they were supposed to be there or not? since D800 gives more mono color with a smooth surface.. in impression, D800 process images with strong highlight and extra clarity of sharpness, which 'extra' word is critical here, makes photo not real!!!???regarding iso performance, MarkIII is the best upto now as far as I can see, in higher iso, result is extremely smooth unexpectedly despite HDR like processing..so MarkIII will please us with most if photos, however a bit question if it is really the correct image?
as a D700 user, considering D800's insane MP count, or D4's video skills.. we need to preview a new Macbook Pro's as well ;)
so we shall not consider non of above without new PC investment..
so D800 comes for attractive
if you are only for Photography, then go for D4, even if it is double price you don't need to invest for a new computer... you will solely pay for the camera..because D800 sure comes with new PC cost..
Sam Carriere: Still can't figure out for the life of me why someone who wants to shoot video doesn't get a video camera.
Good Question!no answer is clear or correct here.. bla bla bla..answer is lens investment!Today if you have good lenses in your hand DSLR gives you a very expensive edge compare to a similar cost videe camera.. creativity will be endless.. depth of fields, wider angles... artistic videos.. if you really wanna do similar with a real video camera? you need prof grade and investment on lenses, result is great but cost is not compareable what we are talking here...
I know I am not so fluent, but hope you got the point.. :)