orpheo: The tendency of the outcome is hardly surprising, after all it is no news that high-density sensors demand the very best glass to show (some of) their potential. Yet the D800 shows a somewhat lower efficency than expected with many good lenses - only around 50%, where the D7000 reaches around 63%. The 5Dmk3 on the other hand scores better than expected compared to the mk2.
However with a little time and the inclusion of more of the newer lenses (Nikon, Tamron 24-70mm) one can probably choose lenses between 14 and 200mm in the range of 19 to 25 P-Mpix for the D800. Still not all that impressive when the 5Dmk3 ranges between 17 and 21 P-MPix (ignoring the extremly expensive glass).
Of course one can obtain much higher results with the D800E (or even the D800) under optimal cirumstances and in the center of the image. But for consistantly higher edge-to-edge detail there is still no way around Middle-Format. Would you call that a surprise?
Both is true, I guess. Cause once you reach "the last bit of resolution" from a poor lens. thats it - and you'll need a better lens to get a little more.
In my book efficency is also part of the equation, not only the (theoretically) achievable. Pixels may get cheaper fast and so does the computing-power to work with those huge amounts of data. But I just don't want* to buy a new computer every year or two just to get a tiny bit more detail-resolution out of my pictures. *(financial AND ecological reasons).
The tendency of the outcome is hardly surprising, after all it is no news that high-density sensors demand the very best glass to show (some of) their potential. Yet the D800 shows a somewhat lower efficency than expected with many good lenses - only around 50%, where the D7000 reaches around 63%. The 5Dmk3 on the other hand scores better than expected compared to the mk2.
This beautiful portrait sticks out. I see a young woman, seemingly not very happy - perhaps she has been crying only minutes ago. She looks like she's seen a lot for her age, yet can handle it. But also her gaze touches my heart and makes me want to do my best, to avoid ever hurting her.Now technically this may be "just a lucky snapshot", which lacks a certain "professional flair" and is not rated very high here. But it is cropped nicely, has lots of "soul" and fits the theme very well.
Interesting and promising picture. But I'm afraid 'The Andy G' below is right again...
AC1: I'd have thought it was pretty damn obvious to most normal people that the title suggests it should be an adult female human being who has attention-grabbing or above-average looks as measured by the average man-in-the-street.
'Beauty in the eye of the beholder' is codswallop.
Any other interpretation is deliberately being obtuse and making complications out of something that should be simple.
There you go. Define 'adult' - 18 years+? 'Attention-grabbing looks' - or rather 'eyes'? The 'average man-in-the-street' - where, India, Japan, US or NZ? I think, I know what you mean though. Let's see...Winner: looks like 15 years, beautiful eyes but no stunning gaze. (And: good pic but composition not really perfect.) Runner up: Aha, there we go (at least, we caucasions?). Third: a child - should've been DQ'd.You already don't agree? Maybe that's because I'm not average... ;o)
That is a real-life woman looking at you and one could drown in those eyes. Then there is that little smile, almost a little mocking... Once I managed to look at the whole of the picture, the chin seemed to be chopped off a bit too hard, maybe.
I'd rather not, else I'd think, I'd probably gone to heaven already ;o)
How about cropping a bit tighter to make it look better in preview?Mainly kidding - though it does enfold its qualities much better in full view. There is lots of personality, often missing in doll-like studio pics. Do I see surprise, some protest and beeing flattered at the same time? And as for the eyes - oh well, do you you still dream about her? ;o)
I agree, should be a bit brighter. Perhaps the crop a little bit too daring? But other than that? Congratulations!
Oh yes, lots of magic here. Nice crop, nice everything - personally don't care much for the framing, though. With this theme it should have been among top five. At least.
dblili: Comments used to be interesting and helpful to read until they recently have been bombarded by rants about tyrannical Canon.
Seems like there is always "the voice" that tends to monopolize and degrade things for everyone.
I'm sure this will be just fuel to the fire, but it would be great to get more into the constructive comments and eliminate the rants and conspiracy theories.
@Adler1970: Sorry, wasn't very clear - in comparing D800 and 5D3 I meant featurewise, trying to find out what's so innovative in the D800.But, what is your problem? You're all over this thread and not exactly in a constructive manner (not to say a bit insulting at times).
@Josh152: That's what I meant by "richer feature-set" and yes, I think Canon should have offered more of the kind already with the 5D2. But why should I be angry, now they finally catch up? Because of the high price? That's a bitter pill... I regretted beeing on the Canon-side when I compared the D700 to the 5D2. The D800 is surely a wonderful camera, but 36MP is just to much for my use and my computer - and I don't want to buy a new one just now. So here comes the 5D3 which finally delivers and, judged by itself, is a wonderful camera too (plus let's me keep my glass).Thats why I think it a bit exagerated to rave about the D800 and put down the 5D3 as "nothing".
I'm slowly getting a little bit tired of the hype around the D800. What's the big "innovation" here? The sensor is a bigger version of the one in the D7000 and behaves more or less like it. What else? If I compare the D800 and the 5D3 side-by-side there isn't all that much difference (finally), but the higher MP. Maybe I'm missing something...Now don't take that personally and I do think, Nikon builds fine cameras, lately often with a richer feature-set than Canon. But this time Canon finally catches up in quite a few areas. So what's all this divine-mediocre stuff?
Yes, 5D3, 5D2 and D800 and even D700 seem very close in noise at high ISO-RAWs and in the shadow areas the 5D3 seems best - although it's a bit tricky to say with the different sizes.
Speaking of shadows and high ISOs: I remember the 5D2 having severe (banding?) problems in larger shadow areas. The D700 was way cleaner, even after downsampling. I cannot detect that in this kind of scene, so I really wish DPR would offer a dark scene for high ISOs. That would be more revealing to anyone who needs high ISO for things like dance/stage or streetlife at night.
I don't think the 5D3 offers only better AF and (probably noticeable) better low-light-performance, but wether or not these "little" things like (not mentioned yet) 100% VF and usable Auto-ISO make it worthwhile, everyone will decide themselves anyway. As for myself, coming from a 5D classic (I like that too ;o) and with some nice glass, it looks like I won't have to switch after all. Which would be the most expensive way to go...
Bluetrain048: Is it just me or is the test scene like a small child's nightmare?
Except for the little pie-thing on the right, but do you dare go get it? ;o) Improvised it may be, but that kind of test scene makes a lot of sense when it comes to high ISOs. It's much closer to the real situation where you need those - i.e. worst case conditions like street-scenes at night or stage with colored lights. The usual studio shots don't really have that quality.I think it would help a lot if DPR would ad that kind of test for high ISOs and would also regularly put some real world night shots into the samples (as with the 5D3).Hope you guys still read this after so long...
Thank you, jezsik, and you're right. But I didn't even think of that, when I chose to put in this one.
And thanks all for the favourable votes :)
You mean, if she'd let you "sneak her in", dear SMacDuff... ;o)
Absolutely agree with you, although it depends a little on the kind and amount of tatoos, the kind of clothing and the whole attitude.
But this picture is clearly my favourite!
Nice smile, nice picture. But nothing bad, nothing freaky or trouble at all.
The title says it, so why place it in this challenge?
Can't see a bad girl nor anything freaky here...
garyknrd: I moved to Asia after I retired. And I hate to say this but if you go into a computer shop here and want windows 7, CS5 or whatever is is 10 dollars. They hack everything. It must be costing the software giants billions of dollars. I had a glitch in my laptop the other day and wanted windows reloaded. When I got it back it had CS5, windows 7 and several other programs added just for bringing it in. 10 dollars. I asked the software guy what was up. He said and I quote.The Americans make the best software and we haven't paid for any yet.I kinda see where PS is coming from. But I think they need to fix there software where it is safe from hackers. Then it would be cheaper to all.
How do you mean? In the US Adobe Online Store PS costs $699 while in Germany it's €1010, equals $1292! Here in Switzerland, I can buy either an English-Version for $884 or a German-Version for $1163 at my favorit discount-shop! I guess someone re-translates every single menu-item with every new version of PS...