fz750: Very impressive results for the D800 in my opinion, clearly the best bar the 645d although a test against the 5D3 would be more useful/interesting (and no doubt will be done asap).
The 645d is absolutely amazing - in another league, wish I could afford one without selling one of my kids.. (actually, not sure even that would buy one..:-)
Yes, the 645D is in another league. One which gets to use a 100mm lens instead of the 70mm used on the FF cameras, or the 50mm used on APS-C.
dizzysann: No one noticed that the coin on the bottle from Petax 645 is HUGE (40 Mpx) and the coin from D800 is much smaller (36 MPx)?????
This cannot reflect the truth between the Pentax 645 and D800 due the different magnification size (the files have different ratios, but still, if you look in the JPG you will see the files are almost the same pixel size (aprox 7000 x 5000) but the objects in the Pentax 645 file are muuchh bigger!! and of course MORE details lool. After the the a** kicking of Leica S2, now the D800 is kicking the Pentax 645... :)) And we're not even talking about the D800e :)
This will be beautiful to watch in the coming months :))
Yes, I noticed. It is strange. But I also noticed APS-C and 4/3 comparisons show even smaller coins. This is in addition to the fact that they use 50mm for APS-C, 70mm for FF and 100mm for 645D. Nothing like an effective 1.4x TC to improve resolution!
Scottelly: I just can't understand why people think that APS-C is NOT worth more money than full-frame! If the camera gets better resolution out of the same lenses, then APS-C is actually BETTER than full-frame (unless you plan to shoot at ISO 800 or above most of the time - who does that?), because you get the advantage of a multiplication factor with your long lenses. Now that there is a very high-quality 8-16mm lens from Sigma, there is no reason to go full-frame, except to use old lenses. If you are considering a Sigma camera, then you probably aren't considering that anyway. Old lenses SUCK! (for the most part) They are not auto-focus. They do not have image stabilization. They don't even produce high resolution images! (I'm not talking about $5,000 Leica lenses here. I'm talking about $75 Nikkors and Minolta lenses.) Sure, if you have a lovely 50mm f1.2 AIS, then you will have to get an adapter and you won't have the advantage of full-frame. SO. Get a D700 and get crap quality details then.
I can afford a 1Dx or a 1Ds3. However, for birding, I almost always heavily crop, even with 800mm. Crop a 1Dx to APS-c size and you have about 7Mp. Crop the 1Ds3 (or 5D2) to APS-c and you get 8Mp, same as 20D. Crop the fabulous D800 to same and you get 14Mp. The 7D is still the king of pixel density, and best for FL limited situations. At 7D pixel density, FF would be 46Mp, so they have a way to go.If the SD1 has superior AF, I would consider it. But I doubt it will. It does output super clean images compared to others.