Tal Shachar: the man holding the statue is blurred, it would be more impressing if the photographer used narrow aperture so both would be in focus. Most photographer think that its always good to have the bokeh effect, but it really depends on the background.
and now my respond for the technology:it seems to me that this technology will also be used for characters in 3d animated movies (maya, daz, poser,blender, iclone etc.) so in future animated movies you will not be able to tell if those are real actors or animated characters based on photos of actors
Maybe he didn't want to make YOUR picture, but one that he liked himself.
roustabout66: "And how do you judge those images?"I did the "Compare Images Raw" above and loaded the cameras I described. I then moved the box around to different parts of the scene. Belittle it if you will, but I am still amazed that the NEX 7 looks sharper at low ISO than cameras costing almost 3 times as much...and a crop sensor at that. It is also clear to me that in this comparison the D600 fares the worst. Would it matter in prints, probably not but most of this hair splitting would not show in prints.
I don't question your opinion, I question the way of comparing. If the differences are not visible in large prints, and not visible in large projections on a normal viewing distance, then what is the use of comparing this way.I'm a professional photographer with a small professional photofinishing lab. I sell printed pictures of weddings, products, events and schoolportraits. I don't sell pictures of test files or screens with 100% crops.What counts is brilliance, natural colors and good lightning.In workshops I show 2 prints on 30x45cm. One file is 350 dpi, the other is 35 dpi. At a distance of 1,5 meter nobody has ever seen the difference.......When differences in pictures are only measurable, but not visible, then for me there is no difference.I'm a photographer in practice, not in theory.
When will the increase of pixels end? And what will more pixels add? There is a point that more pixels will have no positive effect because lenses can't give more detail.Less pixels with a top lens gives a better result then more pixels with a poor lens! With 24 to 36MP I think that even top lenses are at the edge of what they can produce on detail. More pixels will give a larger image, but no more detail.
Mannypr: We should not be defining which is better using the default sharpness of the manufacturer as we see it as this does not have anything to do with image quality but rather design philosophy . Some camera manufacturer prefer to give their images more sharpness at default then others . This is just a design decision on part of the manufacturer , so to say this one is better because it is sharper is missing the point .
If only more people had your vision.....Very well said.
roustabout66: In comparing different places on the scene with the D600, D800, 5DM3, and Nex7 at ISO 100 RAW the Sony and Canon seem to consistently be the sharper images to me. The D800 is obviously larger but not as crisp. The D600 seems to be the least sharp in all the spots I checked. I am really shocked at how well the NEX 7 does at low ISO.
And how do you judge those images? At 100% in your screen with your reading glasses on at 20cm distance? If your screen would be big enough those images would be about 2 meters wide !Look again at 1,5m distance and there will be no difference at all. Also read the sensible comment by Mannypr here above.
"Canon is the king", "No, Nikon is the king". Both childish nonsense.Display 100 printed wedding and product pictures on 30x45cm and I dare every "expert" to name the right camera and lens with every picture and they will all fail !!!You may like ergonomics, feeling or handling, but they all produce great pictures if the capable photographer is behind the camera.I read judgements here based only on what is read on internet and prejudice ??!!Opinions are important, but please, based on facts.
Sjakie1956: 1) Nikon presents the D300(s) as a semi-pro camera. If I would get $ 1,- for every D300(s) that is used professionally, I would never have to work again.
2) Nikon seems to have a name for the group of users for every type of camera: - classic photographers (don't know what they use) - enthousiasts (D600) - high end users (D4) - pro's (D800) - amateurs (D3200) - and finally the semi-pro's (D300)The answer that you can't compare the D600 to the D300 is a hint that the D400 will come. If Nikon takes its customers serious, its impossible that will ignore a huge number of "semi-pro" users.
@Anastigmat:1) You don't know my age2) You obviously underestimate the number of D300(s) sold.
Today I was at the Photokina, the largest exhibition in the world of Photography.Adobe wasn't there.............Arrogance or ignorance?
1) Nikon presents the D300(s) as a semi-pro camera. If I would get $ 1,- for every D300(s) that is used professionally, I would never have to work again.
cesaregal: I wanted from Lumix superzoom with:1) sensor 4/32) RAW3) LEICA lens f/2.8
You forgot: and for $ 50,-Be realistic, this is a traveler-zoom camera, not a body builders tool.
Steve oliphant: These are great cameras the contrast and sharpness is outstanding .what a perfect travel camera ,they make very good stuff I sell them at our store and every body loves them even when the get bad pess do to not paying off the review sites,you can,t beat the Leica lens.
I don't work for Panasonic, I'm a professional photographer and I like them as well. Great cameras, great pictures, only you do have to know how to take a good picture. And that's where the problem is, people who can't take good pictures blame it on the camera.
Sjakie1956: I'm always so impressed that some people can place a negative verdict about a camera they have never seen, held, or seen results from it.If you look at the quality of the camera's of today then it's very hard if not impossible to make huge improvements.Take 5 top camera's, make the same picture and print it on 1x1,5 meter and I dare every "specialist" to see the difference at a distance of 1 meter. I'm sure that no one can tell with picture comes from with camera.We all have preferences for one brand or another, but that doesn't mean that "not my brand" can't be good as well.
I own a small professional photo lab and in workshops I teach people how to set any camera so that you get a perfect balanced shot that needs no Photoshopping afterwards (in color and density). After taking pictures from a model I print the pictures on a Noritsu lab without corrections and believe me, no one can see which picture comes from which camera (and I'm doing this for quite some time).Most characteristics in pictures are made afterwards in Photoshop and depends on the personal preferences of the person behind the screen and the quality of the monitor and how well it's calibrated.If I take 100 random photo's made in DPreview tests from 10 different quality cameras there will be no one who can place the pictures with the right camera, except for a few lucky hits.
cbaphoto: I've had money set aside for this release for a damn long time, and I'm just not impressed enough to spend it now. I've loved Nikon products since I was a kid. I was expecting something a lot grander out of the D4. Not sure what exactly, but I know I'm not seeing it. Frankly, I couldn't give less of a sh!+ about video. They should release two cameras when they do these things; A great camera for videographers who wannabe photographers but they're too lazy to capture the damn shot the right way, and a great camera for still photographers who already know what they're doing behind the lens. The D4 reminds of working on my '77 Chevy versus my '00 Chevy: I'll bet they could really do something great if they ripped out all that extra crap and put in something truly useful to compliment the drive train rather than bogging it down. I'm sure the D5 will have a pretty ridiculous price tag on it, but maybe it'll be worth it. My money will just have to keep gathering dust for the time being.
I'm always so impressed that some people can place a negative verdict about a camera they have never seen, held, or seen results from it.If you look at the quality of the camera's of today then it's very hard if not impossible to make huge improvements.Take 5 top camera's, make the same picture and print it on 1x1,5 meter and I dare every "specialist" to see the difference at a distance of 1 meter. I'm sure that no one can tell with picture comes from with camera.We all have preferences for one brand or another, but that doesn't mean that "not my brand" can't be good as well.