Biowizard: It's coming soon ... heaven help us all ... the "mirrorless" iPhone with interchangeable lenses! But do we want it? NO!!!!!
There's a reason "DSLRs" work - and its no longer because the bodies were modified from film versions. Rather, it's why 35mm SLRs were SO much more successful in overall sales and market penetration than any other form of serious camera.
Yes, the 6x6 and 6x4.5 medium format Hasselblads, Mamiyas and Pentaxes gave even better resolution, depth of field control, and so on - but they were too "big" for most uses.
Yes, the 110 SLR (Pentax, remember it?) or even APS (where I have I heard that acronym of late?) SLRs appeared and then vanished like sparkle-dust: why? Too small. Too small to handle, too small to use, too small, period.
The 35mm is simply the "right" size to hold, adjust, plug things into, and shoot with.
So LONG LIVE the 35mm-sized DSLR! And away with these micro-sized system cameras. I already have an iPhone.
Neh, DX is about the size of the old cameras. The current 35mm cameras are much larger than its film counterparts.
Mick G: how can the public vote the D800 as the best camera, when you can't buy one ? yet something not quite correct me thinks !
The D800 is widely available. They are just not in stock online. You can buy them locally.
micahmedia: ...uh, on the final "Conclusions" page DPR states:
"Relatively slow 4 fps continuous shooting in FX mode (5 fps with optional battery grip)"
This implies that you can get 5fps in FX mode with the MB-D12 and the right batteries--is this really the case? If true, this might change my opinion of the entire camera...
D800 is full frame...
ama1: What do you mean by "Outstanding high ISO performance..." When I look at the crops of shots at ISO 3200 or 6400, they look horrible. Some point and shoots are better than D800. Am I missing something?!
Looks like you're looking at them at 100% crop. Pixel peeping is useless for comparing different cameras.
bigdaddave: Yes, looks a nice camera and DP always drool over Nikons
But not to put in the option of a smaller RAW format is just so stupid
It's not possible. Canon's version of SRaw and MRaw are more like TIFFs than Raws.
Bevardis: Rangefinder system is outdated? Please, with some training you can be just as fast as any SLR lens, if not even faster. And also >100% viewfinder is such an amazing thing.
Taking pictures with RFs is nothing like SLR in many respects- not better, not worse, but just so different.
It is such a shame no affordable camera exists.... Even at $9000 M9 body offers inferior performance to entry level DSLRs for $500. Solution- do the film and dream of Canonet D :)
Show me a SLR that doesn't hunt.
babart: Oh, great. So what the hell is an HDMI port? High-Density Mitigating Instrument? Hot Darn Miniature Input? HillsDale MIchigan? Holy Demons Maintenance Incubator? I'm sorry. But can I ask you put in the real English translation before spitting out reams of acronyms. And thank you. Though I'm not holding my breath.BAB
lol. This stuff have been around for some time. Looks like you need to be slightly more techy.
Der Steppenwolf: Just another example of how stupid it is to actually buy first batch of cameras from ANY brand today. One becomes a paying beta tester for manufacturers. It is a truly sad and unfortunate development.
The problem is, no manufacturers wanna be late in the game, so they'll have to rush schedules.
Model Mike: Thanks for the very useful summary. The elimination of halos resulting from aggressive use of Fill Light in PV2010 is pretty impressive. Slight nitpick is the suggestion that Clarity increases mid-tone contrast - I understood it to mean local (rather than global) contrast enhancement.
It's basically sharpening the Lightness channel in LAB mode with a high radius. You can do that in Photoshop with more flexibility.
Jun2: 4K basically is about 8M per image. For most of purpose, you don't need to take still. Just take the video and extract 8M still from that.
Focus will be slightly off, composition won't be as good, motion blur would be stronger, and it will be noiser.
Edmond Leung: Although most people feel this camera is too expensive, it still created a new benchmark for Nikon, Olympus and others.
This is already the trend, if Nikon, Olympus and others still hope to survive, they must introduce 4K DLSR too. Otherwise, there is no way for them to compete in the market.
Ever compared the cameras in DxOMark?
Dave1308: There seems to be a lot of consternation over the pricing of the 24-70 ii.
With regards to the 24-70 ii the price is only relevant to the quality of the lens, which is still to be confirmed. You don't see too many people complaining about the price of the 70-200L IS ii.
I am not really sure what people were expecting given Canon's current lens line up.
Interestingly the L series is often referred as professional grade and I would argue that depending on the quality of the 24-70 ii, it is potentially a winner for serious amateurs as well.
The reason being that if the optical quality is a step up and the lenses are more consistent than the mark i versions then the versality of that focal length combined with optics that may be well get somewhere near (but probably not all the way) to some of the well regarded primes - most of which sit between $1400 and $2000.
It depends. Nikon seems to be better in the trinity.
OldZorki: In a bit of a separate note I would like to complement DXO team. Some time ago I requested support for Tokina DX 35mm 2.8 Macro. Those lenses where not in official "queue" - however they add it in March 28 release. Dunno if it was just me or some other people requested it - but nevertheless, it is included now.Well done DXO - nice to see a company who actually listening to customers.Appreciated.
If only Adobe Labs and DxO Labs would work together. I tried the demo of DxO Optics Pro and the lens correction is way more accurate than Adobe Lightroom's. But DxO Optics Pro lack a lot of features Lightroom has. I couldn't integrate DxO Optics Pro into my workflow. I tried to use DxO specifically for lens correction and leave other corrections to Lightroom, but for some reason they cook all their photos once you export them. Is there any workaround for this?
ARTASHES: It would be interesting to see how Sony made Foveon sensor would look like
D7000 noise performance + SD1 resolution = not awesome and really expensive.
Leo: The LR3 Brightness was very useful for me. I have used Brightness/Exposure to keep highlights and brighten the mid-tones. Transferring the images processes as 2010 to 2012 may dramatically change my images end results. How I can brighten mid-tones without Brightness adjustment? :-(
Also, I do agree with zeroing the defaults values. I always set Brightness, Contrast and Black lever to zeros at the very beginning. The set Brightness=50%, Contrast=25% and Black lever 5% is equivalent to +1EV. The opened image would be always shown overexposed when opened with 50-25-5.
The added soft-proofing with Before and After is great!
Looking forward to upgrade!LeoPS Thank you for the update!!! - very helpful!
Increasing exposure and decreasing highlights has a similar effect, you could try that.
kuklukklak: Hahaha, poor Nikon folks, they must force themselves to "see" the D4 images any better than D3s at Jpeg and equal at raw.
The D3s is still the low light king honey. We'll see how 5D3 and 1Dx jump in.
And I'll reply, Canon cameras have very good dynamic range, 2 stops lower than Nikon!
diforbes: Never thought I would see Canon's pricing higher than Nikon's in the same camera class. This is concerning.
And Nikon's spec is actually slightly better.
Zafar Kazmi: Unless the sensor IQ knocks the ball out of park, this is pretty disappointing in the context of D800.
And about low light, the D800 wouldn't lose to 5DMiii because at the same display size, a higher MP isn't likely to increase much noise level.
Telefoto: "In a perfect world, I would have loved to have seen the 24.5MP of the D3X harnessed with the speed and low light capabilities of the D3S. Neither the D4 nor D800 are that camera..."
Yes! As a D3x user, that's my feeling exactly. I've been mystified why no one else seems to voice that view, but I guess it's because there are very few D3x users on the forums. So, for all the 12 MP shooters here, I guess the D4 looks like an upgrade (stills wise) and the D800 looks like ... I dunno exactly, but it's some kind of step forward even though it breaks with the purpose of the D700 (high ISO shooting). But, I can't help thinking this strange D800 broke the bank. Witness for instance that even in DX mode, it's a step back in FPS from the D3 generation. That's strange and rather unwelcome to me.
D3X actually has better low light ability than D3S. It has one time more pixels, so if you were to display/print both images you got from both cameras at the same magnification/size, you'd get better performance from D3X. That's the reason why DxOMark selects the scores for each sensor when the images are resized to 8MP.