Ivan Lietaert: "a top notch fast 35mm autofocus prime without breaking the bank"Priced £900, the author obviously must be making a fortune writing for DPreview! This lens is priced at a working man's monthly income. I wouldn't call that cheap! Please think twice before you write this kind of thing!
Get it for £535 from Hong Kong. Absolute bargain!
Please just use vbulletin or something standard.
JackM: Hmm, so lower pixel density really does equal lower noise, nice.
Pretty sure the d800 won the shadow pushing noise competition...
LSE: so, if I add up the bar's lenght on the final score, the nikon has more higher bars than the canon....yet the overall score is the same?
shouldn't the lower canon bars be offset by the higher canon bars for the score to be identical?
I wish dpreview would provide numeric values instead of bar charts so we could take the average ourselves and figure out how they arrived to the 5DmkIII score.
if the bar size is taken to be 100% and one averages the lenghts, it looks like the 5DmkIII really scored a high 70's and was padded to please advertisers/audience.
I tried this too. The bars don't add up at all. Unless some bars are weighted more than others, a joint score of 82 doesn't make sense.
malebocks: Is it technically possible for Canon to improve its JPEG engine via firmware?
Probably. But the thing is, this is a really bad problem with cameras.
My X100 puts out amazing jpegs. And if dSLRs could have better processing to give us what we want, we wouldn't need raw. If the white balance, colours, shadows and noise reduction in camera were all excellent, the vast majority of us would never need raw.
The only reason i shoot raw is because my camera frequently gets the white balance wrong, is inconsistent shot to shot, and often I want to fill in shadows or retain highlights. If it did it all for me in jpeg, I wouldn't shoot raw.
So we should definitely be asking for better jpeg engines. "Just shoot raw" isn't much of an answer. It's a compromise.
The Fuji X100 is awesome! I posted my own review with 20 real-life full-size downloadable sample images here:
Münchhausen: To Amadou Diallo/dpreview: Thx a lot for your very usefull review, but could you please post: a) a viewinder comparison/review sectionandb) an evaluation of the crop mode with some real-world samples(I´m very excited about this double possibility to use the D800 in FX and DX: how is the image quality, and DR? With a AF-S Nikkor 35mm 1.8G the D800 transforms in an D7000 with almost 16MP...)
You want to review the crop mode?
Do you understand how "crop mode" works?
If so, just get the raw file and crop out the middle area. That's your answer. I don't see how you need samples for this since you already have them in every single full-res file that you take.
Samuel Dilworth: Page 1 of the review says, "Both cameras share very similar proportions and the D800 weighs only 50 grams less [than the 5D Mark III]."
As I pointed out in a Feedback message yesterday, that is wrong. Although the D800 lost weight compared to the D700, and the 5D Mark III gained weight compared to the 5D Mark II, the Canon still weighs substantially less than the Nikon. About 50 g less, in fact. It's unfortunate that thousands of people will forever think the Nikon is lighter because of this mistake. Canon should be given credit for making the lighter camera.
Since you have the cameras, and you're reviewing them, you'd do us a favour to weigh them instead of presenting the manufacturer's claims. The claims are often slightly inaccurate or downright wrong – the latter because the people running the various manufacturer websites aren't technical experts, and there is often confusion about what exactly is being weighed (CIPA standards, with or without battery and memory card, etc.).
Ken Rockwell did:Canon 5d3 with battery and card = 956gNikon d800 with battery and card = 994g
Nikon d800 is 38g heavier. The end.
The only thing that matters is this generation, so their weight gain or loss compared to the d700 or 5d2 doesn't matter.
That said, I don't think 38g matters either. You could reduce that amount of weight by not carrying around spare coins in your pocket, or getting a lighter keyring for your keys.
CLEANSHOT: For those of us deciding between Nikon D800 and Canon 5D Mark iii, Canon has probably lost hundreds if not thousand's of potential sales with their "tape fix". Just not acceptable, considering the price tag.
I think the 5d3 costing more and having worse image quality in every measurable way was what decided it for me.
HiRez: I can't think of a worse, more confusing name for a filter-making company.
So do B&H.
EVERYBODY called them B&H, but their website is "bandh" which looks more like Band H to me.
maico: It's worth remembering most pro photographers are VAT registered and can reclaim the 20% VAT. The D4 at RRP (before any dealer discounts) would be £4408 GBP.
I have a feeling Nikon USA will quietly put the D800 price up 10% in the near future.
You say that, but of course being registered for VAT means that you have to charge VAT on sales, or deduct the 20% from every sale you make. i.e. a wedding for £1000. You either charge VAT and charge the couple £1200, or you absorb the cost, and pay £200 tax and take home £800.
So on the d4 you save £800, but once you've had more than £4400 of income, you'll be at a net loss. So it would only work in your favour if you weren't a very successful photographer :P
Otherwise you can turn over up to £70k before needing to be VAT registered!
Utter BS. System error my ass
They priced THREE cameras wrong. Not one, but ALL of them.
And people were pre-ordering for 5 WEEKS before Nikon UK noticed that the price was too low? Rubbish. That's a total lie. I could maybe understand if they realised after 1-2 days, but not 5 weeks and thousands of pre-orders.
And then they have the cheek to call it an "unfortunate mistake" and make it sounds like they're doing us some good by correcting it- paying £200 less doesn't sound unfortunate to me.
Deeso: "If you're planning on purchasing a D800, some extra RAM for your PC should probably also be on your shopping list..." Thankfully RAM is cheap these days. 32GB configurations wont break the bank.
I think that hard drive is more important. In Lightroom, you're needing to load those files but also write the preview data into a folder. It's why Lightroom is sometimes laggy and delays when you try to view at 100%.
And of course, exporting files means that you are creating and writing a ton of jpegs, tiffs, psd or whatevers.
Faster hard drive = faster picture editing.
Crucial M3 is a good bet for a main drive. I do all of my picture editing on one. Then a few 2Tb HDDs are storage and backups.
munro harrap: I can open D800 RAW files on a 3Ghz dual core antique Athlon with 4GB RAM, to my amazement. It ain't fast, but until I double the RAM it'll do-cost £200 s/hand..
Of course. The whole "I'll have to upgrade my PC" thing is so over-stated.
When I travel I use my netbook to edit Sony a850 files (24.6mp, and a raw file is around 40Mb). It isn't fast, but it gets the job done.
My i7 920, 6Gb memory and SSD churn through them no problem. And they're 1-2 years old now.
Damn.. in the UK it is £2999. A d800 is only £2399
If you want the new 24-70L it is £2399.
So for the price of a 5d3 with 24-70 I could buy a d800 and two Nikon 1.4 primes.
Also, the samples on the Canon website look rubbish. Very plasticy. The one of the girl in the red jacket is gross. Very mushy even though it's ISO100. Tons of noise reduction on the higher ISO samples too. The northern light photo looks like a screenshot from a computer game. Maybe it's jpeg compression, but they really aren't a good representation of a camera.