Pedro Moreira: Contrary to what people are saying here, Yongnuo 50 1.8 its a very good lens for half the price of the Canon one.Yes, it has noisy autofocus but with very good acuracy, better than Canon!It even has better bokeh since it has 2 more blade than Canon has! (5 vs 7)
The lenstip review shows the Yongnuo 50.18 is quite poor compared to the Canon version. Given that the canon 50/1.8 is already very inexpensive, I definitely would stay away from the Yongnuo version.
I've been using Eye-Fi Mobi with my D800 with good success. I shoot with raw+jpg. Raw saves to my CF card while jpg goes to the eye-fi card. My main purpose is to allow for quick posting of snapshots to facebook from my iphone. My d800 jpg settings are small+basic which is good enough for facebook. I then import my RAWs into Lightroom after I have access to my main computer. I actually end up just erasing my eye-fi card and most of the pics I just imported to my iPhone after I've uploaded my snaps to Facebook. I think an improvement would be if could simply just choose the few pictures I want to import to my phone rather than everything. Overall, it's a pretty good solution for using a big dslr but still being able to post snapshots in a mobile scenario. I would be interested in hearing about the workflow of Canon/Sony/Panasonic who have cameras with native wifi capabilities.
RAG64: I'm disappointed with the lack of details in the studio images above 800 iso - IQ way lower than my old Canon 600D. Can that be right??
Are looking at RAW or JPG? If you are looking at JPG, then indeed it falls behind a bit in some parts of the studio image. However, if you look at raw 3200 or 6400, then the D5200 is clearly capturing more detail. The other thing to watch for is that the plane of focus for the D5200 is slightly forward of the Canon, so you get different results looking at playing cards versus the watch face. I've seen enough variation in focus that I wouldn't put too much stock in direct detail comparisons of the studio shots.
ProfHankD: Interesting. Go to the studio scene comparison tool. Add the NEX-7. Compare. Up to ISO 6400, the NEX-7 (out since 2011) clearly wins on both raw and JPEG. Above, the D7100 may be a bit better, although both look nasty and the NEX-7 seems to have both more noise and more detail.
Here's the point: the NEX-7 raw and JPEG image quality scores in the summary at the end of the review are POORER than those of the D7100! Huh?
Oh, I didn't mean to imply you were impolite. Sorry if I came across in an abrasive manner. I just wanted to point out that in RAW the D7100 compares favorably with the nex-7. However, Nikon's default jpg output is quite soft, so I get where you are coming from.
I just looked at the studio comparison and the NEX-7 doesn't clearly beat the D7100 at any ISO in RAW. I'm not saying the D7100 is better, just that it is focused a little forward of where the NEX-7 is focused. If you look at the watch face, the D7100 has a clear advantage. However, if you look at the writing and logo on the bottle in the upper left corner, then the NEX-7 is much better. My point is that if you are looking at things like sharpness, the studio comparison tool is not the best too. for the job. Lens variation and different focus planes will have much more influence on things like sharpness.
If you were talking about some other image quality, my apologies.
fdfgdfgdgf: I have checked the RAW ISO vs 5D3 its seems that 5D3 is better at one stop over the D600.
Why DPR concludes with "Outstanding low and high ISO performance in both JPEG and Raw files" and not just very good?
"Outstanding" as being related to which peer full frame camera?
I disagree. I checked the RAW files too and the D600 appears to my eyes to be slightly better at ISO6400 and above in terms of noise. The focus plane is slightly different in the 5D Mark III shot so some areas are sharper, but that has nothing to do with noise.
This is a good one! The trio of legs kicking is amusing.
Graystar: They're pointless. Can't tell anything. The artifacts caused by JPEG compression are too great to make any determination from the smooth gradients of the skies and other areas. And in typical Canon fashion, they're oversharpened for better printed results. Everything is covered in halos.
Can't you hand-process a few images from RAW for us?
In my opinion the jpg's at 100% look pretty good even with the artifacting. I too wish we could download RAW for each of the photos. I will be interested to handle G1 X to see if it small enough to make it worthwhile to carry compared to a small DSLR.
Wow, these look really good. Even ISO12800 might work for small prints or web viewing.