Richt2000: Thank you DPR for a great review.Wow what a camera. Canon and Sony have a new benchmark to work to!I'll stick with my 5DII and see what Canon offers over the next 12 months.
Cant believe the negative comments on here - some very sad people hang out at DPR forums these days.
Sony made the sensor so if sony were to try to come out with a directly competing body some of the work's already done.
Gesture: The real question may be, where do digital SLRS go from here. I think the next frontier could be bringing full-frame down to the lower-priced models in each line.
A $1500 full-frame would be a market changer. Sony's making sensors for cheap enough now it could probably happen. I don't know if Canon can keep up with Sony's sensor volume, though.
openskyline: why moire on Video is not mentioned in the review?????? it's a big CON.
colour balancing issues weren't mentioned either
nikonf2as: Hopefully this observation of D800 vs OM-D E-M5 will prove helpful to some.
Downloaded the 2 jpgs (switching the pentax 645 for M5) and up-ressed the M5 to match the D800 in Ps.
Firstly, the D800 FF inevitably has shallow DOF at f11. At f6.3, 4/3 M5 has focus front to back - have a look at the Queen of Hearts, or the text Eastman Kodak Company, 1997, top left on the greycard - the D800 is simply out of focus (as is the A900 and 5d mkIII at this focus point).
Secondly however, the D800 clearly has huge DR (compare the purples on the Q-60 colour target, and the highlights on the globe with the M5), and when it hits the spot focus-wise (the gauze to the left of the card, underneath the hairs) it trounces the M5 - as you would hope for and expect.
So what would you rather - a sharp result, with less fidelity, or an out-of-focus one (DOF-wise) with smooth colours? As a studio camera on a heavy tripod the D800 will excel - but forget hand-holding it at a 60th at f8 with a non-IS prime.
I've hand-held some ultra-sharp shots from a 4x5 camera, even. This "can't hand hold it" debate is kind of silly.
AbrasiveReducer: I can understand wanting to know how the D800 compares to the D700 but why would someone with a decent Nikon outfit care what the 5D III does and why would somebody with a bunch of good Canon lenses care about what the D800 does? This is like sports teams with people painting their faces and getting into fights. I have both because the Nikon bodies are nicer but the Canon TS lenses are a little better. But neither the D800 or the 5D III will change any of that.
The jump from 12mp (a 5d classic) to 21mp (a 5d Mk II) wasn't huge and it would require much better glass than I owned a while ago. I cleared out my low resolution canon glass (non L lenses) and sold the 5D classic. The D800 was announced and the jump from 12mp to 36mp sounded very attractive to me so I ordered one. Will I see much of a difference between it and a 5d mk iii in the real world? Probably not often but I didn't want to wait even longer because I'm kind of without a camera right now.
It's to be expected that the journalistic photographers they interviewed are excited about the D4 but dont know how the D800 would fit into their needs. It would have been nice to hear what some product, architectural and landscape photographers thought of the D800.
Antony John: Ok so Nikon now have:1. DX 5000 etc for beginners2. D7000 for more advanced beginners3. D800 for the wedding etc photogs4. D4 for the sports photogsWhat about the wildlife photographers?I think there are quite a few out there.From my viewpoint what is needed in a suitable camera are:1. DX format for reach2. High Iso/low noise for high shutter speeds with telephoto lenses - tripods are not always suitable for mobile 'hunting' but are useful to the larger predators as toothpicks.3. Min AF at f5.6 for telephoto plus TCs (non-pros cannot afford the exotic telephoto lenses).4. Improved/better DR
Please add additional requirements as deemed necessary - or disagree as is your want :-)
I also noticed the automatic, 16MP crop when using DX lenses. I said good bye to my 5D classic a couple months ago in preparation for the next gen of full frames. Now I could say good bye to my Nex-5N and it's extremely mild bayer filter, too? Hello D800E!
ekh2: For me, the video functions are nice-to-have. I do fine art and landscape work using a Mamiya 645 and p25 back. The back and camera are both wildly out of date and I can't afford to upgrade them, so welcome D800 (I use a D700 for routine shooting). I am hoping the e-version will come even remotely close to the quality of medium format ... and the D800 is going to get a whole lot more expensive when you upgrade lenses to match the resolution and sharpness of the sensor.
Anybody want to get into medium format? I can help you out;)
I shoot 4x5 film frequently and do optical enlargements with a Mamiya 7. The D800E is the first camera to get me excited about digital. I'm not selling enough prints to justify a medium format, digital system but this camera's at a price point that makes sense for me.
The only question I have is where are the wide angle lenses, Nikon? Looks like I'm going to have to turn to Zeiss for good, prime WAs.
Jmmg: The most inspirational Photographer/Artist i ever came across up to this point in my life was when I was travelling in India couple years ago I met this street photographer whose only tool is a old nikon FM2 with a 50mm 1.8 E lens plus a beat up Nikon Coolpix 4MP digital, the images which this gentleman produced blew me away and I will never forget the imagery and his creative sense of subject matter. Really, we need a 36MP camera to produce good photo? even if you are a Pro, really you need a 36MP to create your master piece? Come on, people, you really Needed it or wanted it is completely different thing...
This camera's aimed at pro-sumers and fine-artists. There are fine-art photographers that sell 20x24 prints at $1200+ easily and when they command prices like that equipment such as this is practically required.
rude: sounds good but there will be always a dslr with a mirrored ovf from someone. lisa
Let's see an aps-c dslr sporting an optical view finder give a viewfinder image the same size as a full-frame or medium format camera...
Calvin Chann: Update: Now recalled due to imcompatability issue with NEX-7 and NEX-5n
Where'd you hear that?
Octane: Time after time the reviewers get stuck and stubbornly elaborate on what they consider such a big con that they completely loose sight of the whole picture. This camera has groundbreaking features and performs amazingly well for a very reasonable price. Giving these cameras one of the lowest overall scores for comparable cameras is just a major fail on dpreview's side.
A very reasonable price? If somebody doesn't need the high framerate then the V1 is completely outrageously priced compared to the competition. Sure, they're breaking new ground in a few areas but there are other manufacturers breaking ground in other areas and they aren't charging the ultra-premium price that Nikon's demanding.
sesopenko: Have a look at the sample shots floating around. They completely lack the ability to define fine texture, just like the X10 did. Fuji needs to give up on these experiments with sensor patterns because they're making crap cameras at expensive prices to do so.
I would never pay this price for something that resolves so poorly. Real shame.
These are the sample shots from fuji's website.
Funny you mentioned the DP2, HBowman. I used to own a DP1 and I think the example shots from this camera look a lot like DP1 shots uprezzed with perfect resize: interpolated. Real shame.
And Cassano it may look nice downscaled to ~1200 pixels wide on your monitor but look at the full-rez image. It looks like mud and that kind of definition will print like mud.
nobile: Sounds good. But the price is a big shocker!!!!I'm not interested.
Faintandfuzzy: rangefinder STYLED.
There's no real rangefinder on here to justify the high price tag. Manufacturers are going to EVF's because they're cheaper than mirror boxes combined with optical TTL finders. So saying that this camera has a big price is a perfectly justified criticism.
ZoranC: IMHO with X100 and X10 Fuji has been overpromising and underdelivering while justifying their appetite for extreme pricing not with quality of result but with fancy brochures and other PR materials. If, as they say, history is any indicator of the future, what are the chances this new X from Fuji will follow that pattern?
For now I am passing. For $3K X-Pro 1 and two lens cost one can get new D700 and two lens.
This right here. Fuji's been perpetually over-promising and over-hyping their products.
This xpro-1 has the same lack of clarity that's found in the X10. I don't care what people say the X10 I used to own made prints like crap compared to my wife's old G11. And I'm seeing the same clarity troubles in the sample images provided by fuji that are going to plague the Xpro-1 to overpriced doom.
sporty883: "The X-Pro1's price will be around $1700, with lenses in the $650 region." doesn't necessarily mean $1700 for the body only. My guess is that it will be $1300 for the body, lenses around $650 and a kit (with 18 mm or 35 mm) for $1700.
Well, please don't ruin my dreams just yet ;) I was dreaming about this exact camera for nearly 15 years now. Thanks Fuji.
And I do wonder why Leica hasn't come up with the magnifying glass for it's rangefinder. They had 50 years to find a solution... *sigh*
Magnification cuts the light down. If an optical viewfinder is to be bright and provide a large image it needs to be physically large meaning the camera would be larger.
kwojdyna: Dear DPReview and readers,as I can see there's a strong accent to convince us that this camera is worth it's money because it is "cutting edge etc.". No - it is a way overpriced - as Leica, though it offers maybe something more that we do not know yet.
For that price I could get another D700, which gives so far the best results on the market (except of landscape photography). I've tried Pentax K-5, to which I switched from various EOSes I've owned. I've tried Sony's FF also - still D700 is unbeatable, (unless You take D3S). All these cameras are DSLRs with good or great functionality and so the picture quality though...
I do not doubt it maybe good - I am a Fuji lover myself. But with it's price... I bought less-than-$300 mirrorless kit Samsung NX100 for my wife and use it myself since then, it gives such great RAWs. How much better can this Fuji be to cost 8-10 times more with lens? Controls and looks is less important, I guess, than photos themselves, aren't they?
Tons of people are dumping their X100's because their honeymoon phase is over. I suspect people are going to be dumping these cameras too because I don't think this sensor is going to be able to resolve detail well enough to justify the price. I mean why the hell spend this amount of cash on something that doesn't look capable of printing a 13x19 that matches the current landscape of camera systems at the same price point?
slaughtr: As the owner of a Canon 7D, a Sony NEX 5 and a Fujifilm X100, I can honestly say I get the most fun shooting and the best color reproduction when I use the X100. I still need the 7D for numerous reasons, but I'm excited as hell to sell the Sony for the X-Pro 1. An X-100 with interchangeble lenses is a dream. The X-Pro 1 should be even better.
The x100 has a traditional bayer pattern sensor, though, so I'd agree it should be capable of taking good pictures.
I owned an X10 for a while which has an experimental sensor (not unlike the Xpro-1) and it's pictures looked like crap.
So hold on to your gear until you see what the pictures look like from this untested sensor design. Already, judging from the sample shots provided by fuji, they lack the ability to define texture which was the problem I had with the X10.
glacierpete: To expensive and to big. It hink it is not a good idea to copy Leica price wise, just because the body is Leica M shaped. Fuji's medium format rangefinder cameras where placed more reasonably, including my Texas Leica, Fuji GSW690.
This isn't at a $7000 leica price point so that comparison doesn't have a whole lot of merit. Also did you buy your GSW690 used or new? In 1978 when the GSW690 came out it was the equivalent of $1866 USD, which when adjusted for inflation comes to $6166. So youre GSW690 is no poor man's leica. It's only cheap now because it's almost 30 years old.
d3xmeister: Is it just my monitor or do I see very strong posterization in the first fuji image sample, the one at night. An I also see moire in the second sample
There's also a strange noise pattern happening in the example image with the books. Overall they lack the ability to define fine texture, too.