oldalaskan: Almost no color shifting through iso 3200 or even 6400. At iso 12800 though, many areas suddenly show a lack of blue in the blue channel resulting in an ugly, strong, saturated color cast. But at iso 25600 there is, again, almost no color shifting! Lots of noise, true, but only a small drop in color saturation in some of the colors and the blacks are no longer as black as they should be.
I agree. Colors remain intact.
Color accuracy is a lot more important than noise.
Essai: does it have Flash support ? :)
Maybe, but that does not mean every Flash based website ever made is converted into HTML5 in a ... flash.
Paddy MBA: I was quite interested in the replies to my previous contributions. Some were very thoughtful. Some, obviously, were not.I spent my whole business life in marketing. Specifically, I specialized in the development of products that fit into identified market niches. No product can be everything for everyone. Camera companies tend to develop their products forwards; that is, they develop the products from a tech / design standpoint rather than identify the market first and develop the product to meet needs / opportunities (the proper way to do it). The D4 and the D800 are engineering marvels, to be sure, but that's all they are. The Nikon engineers are in love with their technology at the expense of the marketplace. Specifically, what market niche does the D800 fit into? The D4, with its speed and low light capabilities, will be great for indoor sports. But, the D800? Perhaps, the D700 is still a better option.
I don't think Nikon is reluctant to listen to the market. That would be a very silly thing to do for such a major corporation.
The D800 has a one major USP: 39 MP on his sensor.
That is one way to enter the market. You can make or break a deal by aggressive pricing or impressive features. The D800 does both.
You say the D4 & D800 are 'only' engineering marvels. But that is exactly what the market wants: high performance & new technology. So I don't feel you have a strong point, especially if you don't see the potential of the D800 and claim de D700 is still a better option.
profdeming: What a bitter disappointment this camera is. We waited three years for a sensor that has 22 instead of 21 MP? I can't believe the way people are swooning over this. Unless Canon comes out with a high resolution pretty quickly, they are going to lose a big market share to Nikon.
@Micheal_13.Really? I find it so extraordinary that people still hold on to older specs 'because it is enough'. For them. Imagine that companies would listen to those instead of the market (=majority of users). We would still have noisy 6MP sensors. "Because 6MP is enough".
Instead of saying that the D800 has too many megapixels, you should state that people who don't need those megapixels, should look elsewhere - but of course they won't. Makes more sense too me, than criticising the D800 directly.
Cellphones have IQ very close to compact digicams, bridge camera's have the IQ that DSLR had 5 years ago. DSLR's are stepping into MF territory.
I can't see the wrong in that. You?
@ MichaelYou mean sensor instead of sensors? Or is the bump from 12 to 16MP with the D4 also "heavily critiziced" in your imagination?
Petka: Those sample photos are good for a compact camera, but not as good a true FF pro cameras, 41 MPix or not.
41 MPix at f:2.4 is just about the diffraction limit with a 8x11mm sensor size, as extrapolated form the table at the end of this article. And that requires a "perfect" lens.
@ZodiacfmlHave you even looked at full res samples at 41 MP? Even at 41MP, they are a lot better and sharper than most smartphones or cheap compacts.
M1963: The madness has gone too far. Phones are for phoning (and texting, OK), cameras are for photographing. The sample image on flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nokiaofficial/6788333052/sizes/o/in/photostream/) is appalling: it's unsharp and noisy. I don't even care if it's far better than any other cell phone at shooting. It's a bad image, that's all there is to it. If you want to make photos, buy a camera, not a phone.And no, I'm not 108 years old...
Oh you mean calling others who do see the glass as half full and are positive about this - undeniable - step up in technology, I quote, "the ones whose brains are formatted to buy whatever is marketed as the next big thing?" is a fine example of exchange of opinion?
Embarrassing. Like I said. Good day.
You're completely embarrassing yourself. You should stop now.
pait: The writing in this article is not at the level we have come to enjoy and expect from dpreview. The alliterative use of the pronoun "you" is annoying. Come to think of it, Nokia's idea of pushing the megapixel myth this late in the game is also annoying.
Well in that case, I guess the megapixel mythe is ... confirmed.
I am not the one having trouble seeing very good new technology with a lot of potential at very good quality or narrow-mindedly yelling out how very wrong it is that a good picture can be taken with - blasphemy! - a cellphone.
Phones are for calling and texting only? It's your right to skip the new digital age and keep your old Motorola from 1997 for texting and calling. Everybody happy. In the meantime, we'll use smartphones for browsing, connecting with people all over the world, music, HD recording and taking great photographs.
True, you're not 108. But you do your very best to act as one.
Look at the samples in this article. How on earth can you call those "appalling"? Are you blind? Or do you have a medium format Leaf sensor in your own phone?
Even at full res (38MP), it's very impressive. This is more "wow" than the difference between a D3 and a D4 in my book.
Remember, this is just a phone.
Octane: I don't like the imposed question if Nikon 'got it right or wrong' with these cameras. These guys have never touched these cameras. But more important: It really doesn't matter what a pro with a specific need thinks when it comes to my own camera decisions.
I have my own needs/requirements when it comes to cameras. I happen to be a pro as well, but that's irrelevant. Everyone has their own needs / budget / goals. No 'right or wrong', there is only a match or not a match of a camera and what you need.
Not that I find their opinion uninteresting, but it has no influence or weight on what I need. A Reuters news reporter is certainly a pro, but he shoots stuff I don't shoot, he works differently and doesn't have to worry about what his gear costs for the most part.
The D800 will sell mostly to non or semi professionals. Their 'needs' are much more driven my what they want rather what they really have to deliver, so they will decide more based on their gut.
The fact remains: with the D3 and D700 it was all very simple. You are a pro, you want/need it all and can afford it? You buy the D3. You are somehow less pro or a pro who wants backup body or on budget? You buy the D700 - a.k.a "90% D3". Everyone was quite happy, generally speaking.
Things got a bit complicated now. Not if you only wanted a high res body or need a really fast machine with money to spend. In that case you are one happy camper. But I mean, the D800 and D4 are two very different beast, unlike de D700 and D3. If the price was the same, the choice would be simple again. But it is not. For a lot of people de D4 is not an option and they don't like the D800 (maybe not yet).
So I can understand the opinion from the crowd falling in between the D4 and the D800. A vacuum.
Time (and proper reviews) will tell.
Sdaniella: D4 = ExpSim LV (maybe; most likely for stills and video); more MP than past 12Mp but only a bit; allows for fast fps still; but not fastest; video now 1080p, but DR poor, too contrasty, blowouts hard to control, not good for cinematography.D3s = ExpSim LV (stills; video, but only 720p); resolved less than 5D2, a given; but had better hi-ISO IQ; good AFD3x = ExpSim LV (stills); hi-MP (but IQ iffy; resolves less than 5D2 at higher ISOs); AF iffy.D3 = ExpSim LV (stills); lo-MP (but IQ superb at higher ISOs; but resolves less; a given; offers higher fps (for lo-MP; this is a given)); AF good.
D800 = NO ExpSim LV (for neither stills or videos; like D700, but D700 only lacked video); but now has very hi-Mp; IQ will only be good at lower ISOs; lesson learned from D3x, and best left for studio. video only as good as D4 or less; also too contrasty and hard to control DR unremarkable for cinematography. AF be similar to what D3x faced for hi-MP. Much cheaper than non-ExpSim LV 645D or any MF
Why do you call the AF of the D3 good, but the AF of the D3x "iffy" ?
It's exactly the same AF.
Extremely impressive. I very much like the design and ergonomics.
And the OM-D E-M5 itself is not bad either, but the name is really unattractive. Can't believe nobody said "hey guys, shouldn't we use a catchier name, something that looks and sounds less like a chemical formula"?
Cy Cheze: It looks as though the NEX system can't provide a fast lens unless it is also rather big. If the E50mm f/1.8 sample is any indication, a 35mm or wider lens with f/1.8 would be very big. Both the 200mm f/6.3 lenses are too slow for sports at the long end, except maybe with the ISO juiced up.
@aliquisLeica lenses don't have electric AF or IS/VR motors built around the glass. So, bad comparison.
TheEye: Everybody wants a blurb in the form of moving pictures. No wait, not everyone does. ;-)
Motion picture and still picture are very different from each other. A still picture has to capture something of significance or of interest in the form of a slice of time. Many people prefer moving pictures because those don't tax their brain as much as looking at a photograph and trying to make sense out of it. Looking at a photograph is an active process. Watching moving pictures is exposure to a constant stream, which is for the most part a rather passive process.
I think that's a bit too simplistic. There are many motion pictures that make people think about the images and what they imply as there many photos which are very straight forward.
The basics are the same: lighting, composition and focus. But I do think motion pictures are more forgiving, generally speaking. Time is more on your side. A photo is just a (very) brief moment. It's either good or bad. Missed or nailed. Simply put, a very bad recorded shot of a very important event will still be used or published, but a very bad picture mostly ends in the garbage bin. On the other hand, a motion pictures project tends to give more editing work afterwards.
I could be wrong of course.
pabloman: It should've been FULLFRAME.
It just doesn't make sense to put a 3/4 year old crappy PANY sensor into a new camera.
Again the same crappy Pany sensors route. Again watch the NEX line from behind.
The sensor was first used in de G3, about 6 months ago. How can you even call that "old". It performs very much like a Nikon D3100 sensor.
If you fail to see the benefits of m4/3, that's your loss.
maxz: Canon's days is over. I own a boatload of canon L lenses but their struggling is too obvious. They are still relying on their aged stepper and fabs that cannot compete with Nikon+Sony alliance. In order to do so they need to shell out two billion, heck they need to sell a few more trucks of old cameras to achieve that. 18MP as the 'all-in-one flagship', i can hear crickets in my house laughing.
@ Revenant.I wonder what makes the D800 not pro, but semi-pro. Is it the professional body with professional video qualities, professional AF unit and a professional highest resolution sensor in it? Or the targeted professional studio and landscape photographers?
"ISO 100-6400 extendable to ISO 25,600 equiv (compared to ISO 200-6400, extendable to ISO 12,800)"
This is wrong of course, the D700 tops at 25.600, just like the D800.