gvr: Is it possible to set this camera to take a sequence of photos, for example for a time lapse? I looked through the manual pdf and didn't find anything.
It'd be nice if this was doable in the camera software - requiring an external cable/electric release for this when the camera already contains a computer is incredibly greedy by the manufacturers that do (for example Canon.) Aside from the cost and inconvenience factor, it's also very frustrating if you'd happen to forget or leave this piece of equipment at home while packing your camera bag and end up going *doh* in the field.
I take the point, but not all computers do the same thing. For instance, you have no problem buying a graphics card with a dedicated graphics computer on board, even though the computer already has a CPU. It would be nice to have this in-camera, but it's not unreasonable for it to be managed by a different chip. I also think modern cameras should include GPS and wi-fi - these should not be separate items, and certainly shouldn't cost as much as they do.
I love Leicas, but can't afford their digital offerings. If this really is a viable alternative to a digital Leica I'd buy one. Since Fujifilm were the manufacturers of the Hasselblad-badged XPan kit, they're clearly capable of producing quality lenses too. We'll see.
Sigh, sure miss my XPan...
vipo: I am just an occasional visitor but I alway come across some agressive comments from Adler1970. I am wondering why :( I don't think his comments are of any help to those who have Canon gear. Is it of any help to those who have Nikon gear? Or himself? Anyway, it brings no added value for the forum readers. I love dpreview for the facts. I respect and always try to follow opinion of other users. But adler is just taking space.
'Ferrari is better than Smart' - that's subjective. Each marque fulfils entirely different purposes, and each has its own niche. It's like saying a plane is better than a hang glider - not if you want to go hang gliding...
'Apple is better than Windows' - well, are you comparing the hardware or the OS? Apple have the luxury of making an OS that only has to work on their hardware, and the OS is superior in many ways, but falls short in others. But there are definitely PC manufacturers that produce superior hardware to Apple's. And a PC doesn't have to run Windows - it can run a variety of different operating systems, each of which has its own strengths and weaknesses.
'The richness of a Company, does not count' - in what respect? If you are measuring corporate success of two competing companies, turnover is a fairly good indicator. Ask any market trader.
Seems like you're not capable of a balanced, valid judgement on corporations, cars or computers either. Go figure.
copajaus: Ah, one last thing, I have as well upgraded the firmware (Not that I neeeded to) and it's all beautiful.
If you are a Canon user this is definitely a new type of imaging tool, I am impressed... don't listen to all the criticism on the web and if you can get one, I guarantee you won't regret it.
Did I mention as well that the pictures out of that camera look a lot better than the preview pictures on this site... no offense. It can be misleading if you judge only on what's posted on the Web.
As you can see I am very pleased with my purchase.
No, you prefer a camera that just stops working. Much better. :D
Five Piece: Canon 5D mark 3 people:Let's put this pixel count debate to rest once and for all... If I were to aquire a D800, it would be the E model, which would add another step in the post-processing to de-moire, not a big deal, I can push another button. What real-world scenario would put this much data to use? Perhaps a very carefully crafted landscape blown up to wall-size to put on an airport concourse would be a good use. Other than that, can't really think of anything... Let's look at the two professional 35mm DSLRs that are top line coming out now, the Canon 1Dx and the Nikon D4, 18MP and 16MP respectfully, six of one half dozen of the other. Both of these cameras will be used extensively by PROFESSIONAL photographers, makeing their livivg with them. Either of these I would LOVE to aquire, if budget allowed. The trade-off gained from less pictures is astromomical ISO performance, blistering frame rates, and excellent dynamic range.
I also understand your point on technology helping you capture the image. Like a world class autofocus system (take a bow Canon), or better video capability (Canon, another curtain call please), or better lenses (Oh, Canon again, please), and so on.
Nikon also make great cameras, but there's no 'revolution' here. If they beat the competition hands down in every department, I would agree with you. But they don't.
'Professional' means you make your living at it. 'Semi-Professional' means you make some of your living at it. Both choose better equipment to ensure more of their images can be sold. 'Commercial' photography is a specific field - that which is involved with commerce, such as advertising, product shots, etc. It seems you *don't* understand what it means Mr Adler.
I do understand your point about making money from photography without being a good photographer though - the sheer time you spend denigrating Canon and regurgitating the same DxO stats about Nikon would indicate you are paid to do it.
Jahled: Seem like a lot of highly strung Nikon-fanboys posting here. Hay guys, glad you like the D800, it looks like a fabulous camera, but it's a Nikon, and I hate what I have to do with my fingers using them, so I shall pass on this camera. Also: get a life, jeez, it's a camera, not a football team!!
Back to the camera featured in the review; SWEET! Quite tempted to get one. Basically everything I wanted with my 5D2, and a nice replacement.
Again, Adler, you are the only troll here...
Adler1970: Canon is giving you the minimum(really NOTHING NEW) for a high price, but Nikon is giving you the MAXIMUM for a low price.EVERYONE CAN SEE THIS TRUTH.The truth is that Canon is losing the REPUTATION. With all these trolls, Canon can not win the competition. Nikon and the other brands like Sony are moving into the Golden Age of digital PHOTOGRAPHY. Until now, digital photography has been a little baby, but gradually, thanks to technology, the digital photography is set to become much better than analog photography.
SENSORS, PHOTOGRAPHIC LENSES, PROCESSORS, PRICES: EVERYTHING IS DESIGNED TO IMPROVE DRASTICALLY.The Nikon D800, which is a sophisticated FF DSLR destined to shake even the MF cameras, is just the START.
The Nikon D800, is the beginning of a new era. The Canon 5Dmk3 has arrived too late. The 5Dmk3 is a Camera of the year 2008 released today in 2012, as a result of strategic WRONG choices made by Canon.BUT THE DIGITAL WORLD CAN NOT WAIT FOR THE WHIMS OF CANON.
So Adler boy,
What are your comments on the Nikon D800 and Nikon D4 now Nikon have finally admitted that they both lock up?
And the TIPA awards, in which the Canon 5D III was awarded Best Video DSLR, and Canon won more awards than Nikon overall, including Best Professional Camera?
What crap are you going to trot out now to excuse a Nikon fault causing catastrophic failures in both its headline models? Faults which don't yet have a fix? Having ranted on and on about a Canon issue which does have a fix?
Actually, I don't want to know - all reasonable people understand that faults can occur, regardless of the manufacturer, and having you vomit up more of your typical bile won't change that.
I just hope that you have sufficient intelligence to feel embarrassed, and finally pipe down with your stupid, mindless comments, and the CHILDISH CAPITAL LETTERS that you enjoy so much.
evogt500: What ever happened to quality control? Fuji, canon and now nikon.
Digital technology happened. It's far easier to test a mechanical device, but once you have multiple chips and software involved, most of which does far more than you are aware of, it's just not possible to manage every possible interaction between these devices (which carry out millions of instructions whilst you snap away), in every weather, being held in every plane, with every brand of media and battery, shooting every type of subject in all lighting conditions, in all humidities, in all temperatures, at all altitudes, from all distances, etc. All these things affect how the camera works, and how the images are processed during and after shooting, and the number of combinations is astronomical.
When we all shot film, there were far fewer variables that had to be considered. The more complex cameras become, the less realistic to expect it to be perfect on release.
As a consumer, I find it really annoying that photographers are expected to buy a new camera that simply doesn't work. With near £20K invested in the tools necessary to take a good photos, and I find it frustrating in the extreme when I'm hampered by dodgy equipment.
However, having worked as a professional tester, I recognise that it's just impossible to conceive of testing scenarios that will predict every way in which your product might be used - and in fact, no testing even attempts to. If they did attempt to, you could expect to wait an extra year for a new camera release, and expect the prices to be considerably higher to cover the additional costs incurred pre-release, still with no guarantee that they will catch every fault that could occur under any circumstances.
I'm glad I have access to new technology sooner, but it'd be easier to swallow the problems if the first takers (often a brand's most loyal customers) weren't fleeced by the initially higher prices.
seta666: As Canon user (5DmkII) I feel ashamed about the capabilities of Canon at developing sensors. Some people say " who cares abou sensors", I guess same people used to care about using best film available.
At Fred miranda a Canon user did a DR test between D800 and 5DmkIII, results are insulting showing that D800 has huge shadow recovery compared to mkIIIhttp://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html
Do not forget he is a canon user
That's an interesting comparison: the D800 images look much cleaner. The Canon seems to have better colour rendition though overall - the Nikon images looked a bit washed out to me.
I'm not sure I would use Lightroom conversion as a standard for comparison - I know it's popular, and it may be better now, but I was put off it after finding that an earlier version produced the worst RAW conversions anywhere. A better comparison might be to use each brand's own bundled conversion software.
And just who the flock are you?
Hansvdv: I'm a 5Dmk2 user and looked at the results on the test shots (mk2, mk3 and D800). What interested me is that the difference in the RAW files between the mk2 and mk3 was minimal. However the JPEG files of the mk3 on-screen appearance display a lot better than those of the other two - this doesn't make sense or is Canon using a new / different jpeg compression method with the mk3? Any explanations?
The DiGIC 5+ processor is the most likely reason. Canon image processors have improved dramatically since the 5D II was released.
Adler1970: The new Nikon D800 is the best selling DSLR camera on Amazon! Even the second most sold DSLR camera, is from Nikon.
You can see it on Amazon Best Sellers site (updated hourly):
No. 1: Nikon D8002 nd place: Nikon D5100
The most sold compact camera is the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX9V
And the Toyota Camry has been the best selling car in America for a decade. I guess that must mean it's the best car in the world then, if it sells so many...
igor_s: In RAW mode, the difference between MkIII and 600D is even less than 2 stops. Compared to MkII, there is no improvement at all. (Well, maybe half a stop if we reduce to the same number of pixels). Again, D800 does poorly, just slightly better than 600D (or less than 1 stop better if reduced).
I also haven't seen any mind-blowing results from the new Nikon sensor yet - it should perform better than the examples I've seen. I wonder if they are representative? If anyone has a link to more realistic comparisons I'd be interested to see them.
Er... no, the 5D Mk III is not 'the same as the 5D Mk II'. It's a huge improvement in almost every area over the 5DII, and I would have thought that someone who hovers over lists of technical specs as you seem to would know that.
Yes, the DxO mark of the Nikon D800 is very high. It's also not very important to me. As someone who has owned both Nikon and Hasselblad cameras, I'd take the 'blad over a D800 any time, despite Nikon's higher score. Who wouldn't?
Oh, and I don't need you to 'explain' anything to me, so please stow your CONDESCENDING ATTITUDE away with your INCORRECT DATA and LIMITED PHOTOGRAPHIC EDUCATION. See how annoying those capital letters are?
PeterQ: I wonder how everyone presents his/her pictures.Is it on screen (36 Mpix?)Is it on paper (20x30 inches or more)? Wat lights are used to present them?At the end, the quality is what I perceive when the pic is shown, not what the computer says.Some judgements appear to represent more emotions than facts.
I display my images on screen mostly, reduced to just a few megapixels in size. I print a few images for the wall, but they're rarely bigger than A4. I find that I don't use albums any more.
A number of my clients have printed my images large - the largest I've seen was 3m x 2m. It was shot at eight megapixels if memory serves, and it looked great dominating the wall of her living room.
I'm not sure I *need* 36MPs, but I'd sure be happy to have the extra editing power - so long as quality was maintained.
With regard to improving lenses to meet the demands of the sensor - I'm not sure how much further you can go without sacrificing affordability - that's already stretched, IMHO. I like my lenses a lot. There's more in-camera technology I would improve upon before worrying about lens resolution.
I'm not sure how many people buy pictures in a gallery based on the DxO-Mark of the camera used to take it either. And it seems clear who the 'fanboy' is here...
Adler1970: I explain to you what kind of digital DSRL revolution was created by Nikon, with the D800:
Until now, the lenses were superior to the sensor. The sensor had to run behind the lenses. And these lenses were out of breath. But now, WIHT NIKON D800, the lenses are running out of breath behind the sensor. Now, the sensor is more advanced than any lens. This is a revolution, this is the uterus of a new generation of LENS, of a new generations of fotos, of a new vision, of a new GRAPHICS, of new corporate identity and corporate design.
I'm often asked by others which camera brand they should buy. I advise them to handle every camera appropriate to their budget, and buy whichever feels most comfortable. IMHO, this means far more than the tech specs. I personally prefer Canon, and with tens of thousands invested in the Canon system I'm not tempted to switch any time soon.
Nobody chooses a garage to repair their car based on the brand of socket wrench they use, and nobody goes to a gallery to buy a photo taken with a specific camera, or a painting made with a specific brand of brush. Choose the tool that pleases you, and go use it.
The Nikon D800 is a very well specified product, and is sure to produce some fine images in the right hands. That said, you seem far too excited by a product that you haven't yet taken a single image with. Trolling about it to people who are speculating about a different tool they might use to perform their art is frankly absurd.
Adler1970: The Canon 5Dmk3 has some technical problems! Canon has just announced: unfortunately, the LCD light affecting the meter in low-light environments. This is a PHYSICAL problem, not a problem on the firmware.As far as I know, you can not fix this error with a firmware update.
Why can't firmware resolve this?
Cameras automatically deal with vignetting of known lenses (a partial absence of light under certain conditions), so why should a predictable excess of light in certain circumstances not be manageable in the same way. In fact, that's what the on-board computers do, period - process information that is gathered by the various sensors.
This is fine tuning and doesn't require a return to the drawing board, IMHO.
Tee1up: I am having trouble figuring out if this is best used as a studio, road warrior/sports or all of the above. I guess the kicker will be a few formal, in-depth reviews.
Yes, you can use any camera in a studio. But if you're shooting an image for a bill board, clearer, more detailed images are kinda nice to have. The studio version dropped features that weren't necessary in the studio, concentrated on features that were.
Initially I didn't like the idea of bringing them together, but the more I look at the product, the more impressive it seems.I'm still not completely sold on it. For a 1D user, prices have just soared for a camera that includes facilities they'll never need. For a 1Ds user, the price is more agreeable, but they are still paying for some features they'll never need, and some features have dropped. I think there may still be an argument in favour of two cameras from a user perspective - obviously it's better for Canon to do it this way - there are way more 1D owners than 1Ds owners, and they all now have to pay a lot more for their next camera. And I find that annoying.
amir_np: A large amount of money for these poor features in this monster body.... not worth at all
@amir_np It's a shame you don't make any useful or valid comments, anywhere.
@Henry Schobin and randellROWE photography - I'm not so sure about the fair price. It must seem like a good deal to someone expecting a typical 1Ds price, but for a 1D user like myself, it seems kinda expensive. Near double what I paid for my 1D IV, in fact. The more I look at it, the better this camera seems to me, but is it worth double the price of a 1D IV?
Also, saying it's less than previous 1Ds cameras is not really an expression of value - they've always been monstrously over-priced on release.
If someone offers me one as a gift, I'll be only too thrilled, but with this generation and for this money, I expected more. Key omissions for me are GPS and wireless as built-in functionality, and video AF, faster data transfer, a file management facility for a directly connected hard disk, and yes, more megapixels, would all have been pleasing additions, IMHO.