Nikon D90Nikkor 18-55 DXNikkor 70-300 VRNikkor 50 f/1.8Nikkor 35 f/2Tamron 28-75 f/2.8Nikon SB600
Is this Digital Sociology Review?
I don't believe this report. Is my 36MP D800 better at low-light ISO than the the 22MP Canon? The only thing I don't like about my D800 is low-light ISO (compared to the competition) and they say it's actually better.I think they are either lying or these numbers don't mean anything in the real world.
I don't know how bad this camera is but it doesn't seem like DPReview cared to take some decent pictures with it anyway...
BMWX5: Where are the real sample photos for Sony A99?
Sony uses the SLT technolgy which means that about 30% of the light isn't used by the sensor so the same sensor should give better results on Nikon (at least in terms of IQ).
Andrei Todea: What about ISO 12800 and 25600?
Thanks. You are now visiting the "Updated with full ISO range series". When I asked this question the highest ISO was 6400. Thank you for your help anyway!
What about ISO 12800 and 25600?
(unknown member): I've been excited for this camera since the first rumors began. I've been on Nikon my whole life and have a pile of Carl Zeiss glass - but am on the verge of jumping ship to run Zeiss on the a99. Video I can care less about (really wish the pro models would come without video - but that's just me). I fell in love with the IQ of the a900 - but never switched over as my D700 was new.
Nikon annoyed me with the choices of D800 jammed with MP or the D4 jammed with high cost. I am also underwhelmed by the D600 so far.
But what I really want to see is landscape and portrait shots with the a99 - that where the rubber hits the pavement. You can blow all the smoke and BS you want about features up someone's butt - but in the end, I want the highest quality image bang for the buck. If I can't see the difference between a 35mm Zeiss shot on my D700 VS the a99 - I'll stay put. RAW vs RAW is what will make me decide - not fanboys trying to convince their brand is better without real facts.
I don't think the D600 will cost $2700 (while the D800 costs "only" $3000). I guess we'll have to wait one more day to find out.
Jan Kritzinger: Nokia is back.
Yes... but why? :)
I wonder who designed their website!
GeorgeZ: Finally they bring out a new entry level camera and it has many things I wanted (stereo sound is missing) and people complain about the MP.This is a new sensor and let's wait what it can do before jumping to conclusions. 18MP on this sensor size looked good in 2009, this is 2012. Maybe it's not bad at all.
I missed that. I also thought it MUST be old the Sony sensor. This could still be a mistake in the press realease.
If Nikon is making new 24MP sensors for entry level cameras then we (or at least the people waiting for D7100 or a D700 replacement) are probably doomed :)
JackM: I'm in. But Canon, didn't you get the memo? The D800 only costs $3000.
The explanation was there ("unless you are shooting...")If that is not enough then just look at the low-light ISO samples.
You can't really compare these cameras until you see the samples. Before seeing the samples I believe that a new 36MP camera doesn't stand a chance against a new 22MP camera (unless you are shooting landscape or you are a cheap studio photographer)
justmeMN: As a Conclusion Con, DPR writes "Conservative Auto ISO behavior can result in dangerously slow shutter speeds indoors (especially frustrating for social photography and continuous-advance shots of indoor sports)"
The Nikon 1 is a (point and shoot) snapshot camera, that does a poor job of taking auto-indoor snapshots. Inexcusable.
Nikon should be ashamed of itself, for screwing up something so basic/obvious.
@AnHund You may be right but you do realize that for $1000 you can't even make a call with this thing!
Graystar: 800 bucks...I just don't understand the pricing of this breed of camera when they can set an ERP on a Rebel T3 of $550...and that's got a bigger sensor and mechanical swinging mirror and pentamirror assemblies in it.
This camera doesn't replace DSLR's. A cheaper DSLR will take better pictures but you may not carry it around so often.
However, IMHO, since shutter lag will be smaller every year, AF speed will improve... this system might replace the new mirrorless systems at some point.
Kaipix: If this has bigger buffer and better high ISO quality as in my M9, I certainly want to test it. Lenses should be good enough.
I guess it's not very hard to beat M9's high ISO quality (even if this is not FF).
The film company is dead.OK... but isn't this the company that made the first DSLR, too?!!
Solarcoaster: Fish and water drop look photoshopped. So much for real photography.
The drop seems OK to me. That fish is very small. It may be important to mention that the bird in dvmrp's picture is probably 10 times larger.
While I don't think it's PS'd and I think it's a great, great capture, I don't really think this is a great photo.
jhowell39: Long time lurker here and old film guy getting back into it.
Its seems like Adobe might be attempting the 'Netflix' solution -- a rather large caliber, metaphorical handgun is pointed directly at right foot.
The solution is quite simple and is a four letter word -- GIMP.
I agree. Actually, the only reason I still use Windows is that I can't find good replacements for Photoshop and Flash. I believe Adobe knows that too (and maybe they deserve to earn money for this).
Things may change... I didn't think there will be an Office Suite that could replace Microsoft's solution and then came OpenOffice (and now LibreOffice). GIMP is not ready to do this to Photoshop. Not yet but it will :)
ozan yigit: it is unfortunate that a sizable portion of the professional photographers and the comic book industry digital ink and color still depend on this beast and feel the need to keep up with the upgrades as if the difference between (say) cs4 and cs5 made *all the difference* to their art and craft. as more and more processing moves to capable workflow software, where adobe has good competitors, including a good open-source solution, it is not surprising adobe is trying to eek out as many dollars as possible from its rapidly shrinking user base. i'm kind of surprised that adobe hasn't introduced a per-core license for creative suite yet.
Thank you. I will test it tomorrow.... and congratulations / thanks for helping with the development!
Which open-source solution?(Anything that is close to let's say CS2 is good enough for me).Thanks.