LTZ470: f/1.2 = f/1.2 = f/1.2 = Shutter Speed...f/1.2 w/ f/2.4 DOF gives faster Shutter Speed which is THE critical factor...I'll say it again faster shutter speed with increased DOF which is advantageous in many applications... ;-)
You are saying that the shutter speed on crop camera's is faster with a F/1.2 lens.
gstadter: So, if I use cardboard or something, to block light from getting to left 1/2 side of the FF sensor in my D610, the resulting picture taken by the right side of the sensor will, in fact, have more "noise" because the camera had less total light to measure? (and not just 1/2 of an image) I've not tested this yet, but it would be a shock to me if the resulting image(right side of picture) actually became noisy just because I put cardboard over the opposite side of the sensor.
It will have the same noise at pixelpeep level. This noise is relatively more. Because you use only half the sensor you will inflate the noise more when viewing the picture. If you would have used the full frame the noise would be only half the size in viewing.
Great now I´ll just have to reference this article in future. Did anyone notice the APS-C 85mm F1.2 equivalent is more compact than the m43 one?
marc petzold: Since the release of that lens, i was interested when DPR would review this, thanks for this. :) a cheap alternative, for a DSLM: Get a Helios 44-2 58/2 Prime Lens, it does have a swirly bokeh, too. ;) Great as a portrait Lens onto a Sony E-Mount DSLM via M42 Adapter. Shot it at F2 or 2.2, and >2.8 w/o the swirly effect. Old mf lenses also have their very own "character" other then today's typical DSLR lenses...for instance, the older Zeiss T* coatings rendering a picture looking more "organic", unlike today's Zeiss T* coatings on current lenses...i prefer that older look.
The Cooke Kinic 25mm F1.5 will work well on m43
SeeRoy: An absolutely hilarious product. Testament to a luxury goods marketplace that can best be described as decadent.
Best described as cool!
Great results, they are screaming for some post processing though. Black and With this lens looks great as well.
Isn't this simply a name change and will photo's for os-x be as capable as aperture?
more clarity is not always better. Portraits and Bokeh e.g.
what is shutterspeed in movie mode anyway.It's not like there are actual actuations of the mechanical shutter. Purely electronic.
fmian: So will they be replacing mirrors for D800 users? Or free upgrades to the D810? Sounds like D800 was a premature release if early reviewers noted how difficult it was to get sharp results but Nikon didn't pick up on it during their own testing. And now the D810 fixes that and pads it with features that could have been in a firmware update anyway...Oh look over here at this shiny new camera while we sweep the old one under the rug...
Manufacturers will never improve anything anymore if improvements render the previous model faulty and they have to replace them all. Stop bitching please.
Zoron: 2014 is transition year to 4K, and this is the last chance for Nikon to milk money from 1080p, in 2016 when D900 is released with 4K.....D810 will be obsolete..
There are people who will use this camera just for shooting photo's you know. The majority of users in fact. Expeed 4 doesn't do 4k anyway. It will probably be in Expeed 5.
Thsoft: Why No 4K Video ?
Because photographers do not want to pay for shidt they don't use. There will be a D810v with 4k video at a $1000 more.
tom1234567: Not worth the monies total rip of from Nikon 3299$ not worth a quarter of that,souped up d800Pentax K3 is a better camera
Obviously you are not a true Pentaxian and stumbled into the brand quite by accident on your way over to Canon or Olympus.
D1N0: Band wagon product.
I am not getting the idea that there is a usp about is this camera. So it has gotta be price. Which means there will be compromises making the camera worse than comparable pana and oly offerings.
Band wagon product.
Adam2: There's something which doesn't add up in these tests. When comparing the image crops against the same scene shot with the 5dmkIII the sony blows out the white structure (very little detail) and the interior part of the building is likewise blown out. In contrast the 5dmkIII preserves the detail in both areas. Is this a DR issue or something to do with exposure?
You are forgetting fan boys. They will jump on the slightest piece of evidence and blow it up to a unshakeable reality. Doesn't matter it is easily falsified, the other fan boys will like it to the top.
onlooker: DXOMark's claimed 1.5 EV dynamic range advantage of A7S over 5DIII does not seem to be reflected in this test. If anything, it appears the other way around.
Just try the lightroom noise reduction on both iso 25.600 pics and see what the result is. A7S gives an much cleaner image.
David J B.: I've taken better photos through my car window.
because you were at the bikini carwash?
email@example.com: So much more detail in the Canon image; Canon is the winner here at high ISO.
You are talking about the Seattle Centre Arches. The lighting of those arches is different in the Canon shots. Just look at the Space Needle. The highlights hardly differ between sony and canon.
ngtszhodavid: to the reviewer: why isn't the d4s review done yet.
The D4s is not really in the scope of dpreview public. It's expensive and big and heavy. It's a pro's tool. Overkill for most every amateur.
eyeswideshut: I take away two impressions from this comparison:- The Canon beats both cameras (just look at those arches in the back - or are they Klingon Birds of Prey?)- Stay away from high ISO if at all possible. Tripod anyone?
Those arches are blown out in the sony's and not in the Canon. Not a resolution difference but dynamic range or lighting. Since nothing else is blown out more in the sony's i guess the lighting around the arches was differrent during the canon-shoot.