I downloaded the 'tulips', added some noise reduction then resized and printed it at a few different sizes. For me, it's OK for 4x6 but not larger.
IvanM: Ok I downloaded a RAW 400iso image of the 'nightime' test chart. I converted it in LR, corrected colour balance, opened up the 'blacks' +100, pulled 'highlights' -100, then increased the 'exposure' by +2. I then darkened the right hand lighter side via the graduated filter to match left hand side with a few small tweaks. These tweaks are the max that I would normally do and also the max that LR allows and far exceed my normal DR requirements.
I experimented by increasing the 'exposure' even more by 3 and 4 and 5 stops. Result? Shadow noise only visible at 5 stops in deepest shadows. Up to 4 stops shadows are clean. I also corrected the lens profile which reduced the moire & CA. The only moire I could see was in the B&W sketch of the family scene, but less than in the DPP unprocessed raw sample. Even the colour fringing in the 'copy' is all gone
My conclusion? The image quality far exceeded my expectations and the resolution and sharpness is just astonishing. This camera is great!!!
not too deep but there are 2-3 stops down there in certain portions of the low-light pictures. Agreed a rough test, but it does give us an idea.
In Lightroom 6.0 I pushed the shadows of the 'tungsten 100 iso' image by 3 1/2 stops. I see loads of noise and purple horizontal bands.
edges and corners are quite blurred with a fair amount of CA. Which lens was used?? Surely not the same one as with the D800 ??
goosel: Just tried it on my 4 core imac loaded with memory... Slow Slow Slow.
Just tried it on a fairly new 15 inch Retina MacBook with i7 and SSD and 16 GB of ram.
Still way to slow when editing. Raw conversion is just about acceptable not very satisfactory.
i5 is plenty fast enough for Lightroom DXO capture1 C-NX2 etc...
I'm on a mac perhaps thats the problem.
I only tried D800 raw files. Extraction was OK, Any form of processing like WB adjustment was at least 3-4 times slower then C-NX2.
imac i5 with 16GB ramAll other similar products such as Lightroom and DXO are fast and responsive.
Just tried it on my 4 core imac loaded with memory... Slow Slow Slow.
Brian OReilly: Pardon?"Only Supports D7000 and later DSLR"
This is a really underhand way of saying thatAccording to the timeline on this page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Nikon_DSLR_cameras
That means it does not support:D3D300D200All D2 variants
This is really poorSo - to process Nikon NEF files with Nikon Capture NX2 I will need to keep 2 different versions of the SW on a machineSame applies with Nikon Camera Control Pro2
But, I do not believe you can have 2 different versions of the SW on the same machine - so you need to have 2 different startup disks.
So much for using Nikon products and the longevity of the NEF format moving into the futureDo we need to keep legacy hardware and operating systems and Nikon SW so we can access our images?
Sorry for the rant - but this is really disappointingBrian
the 'only supports' pertains to the Auto1 white balance option.
wolfloid: I'm seeing very smeared detail in the two portraits of the girl with glasses (303 &149). The eye detail is smeared away and the hair looks very unnatural and totally lacking in detail. Obviously this is with the downloaded JPEG at maximum size. I've never seen anything like this with my 5DII (but then I never shoot JPEG).
Is this missed focus, anti-noise smoothing or something worse. Is it just very bad photography, or is it something inherently wrong in the camera/sensor?
ISO 2000. It's strong noise reduction you're seeing
Thoughts: Nikon must have done a research and found that DX shooters just want an even longer superzoom, not matter how big, heavy and expensive it will be.
I, however, hoped Nikon would offer a couple of small primes for the DX shooters such as 18mm, 24mm or 28mm or even wider ones. I don't think they will do that based on their marketing research.
28 35 50 85 primes are already available wouldn't be surprised if more are on their way.
simon65: RIP Canon
If Nikon release a $1,500 FF DSLR then Canon's existing business model, product line up and pricing model is toast.
Canon have just released the 5D Mk III at $3,500 body only (!#!), and its near starter DSLR, the 650D at $950.
As someone who has always felt Canon are one of the more cynical manufacturers our there I can't but help feeling a touch of schadenfreude as I witness the increasingly tightening stranglehold Nikon and Sony have got them in. That even as I see the value of my Canon kit falling by the day on Ebay.
I'm selling and moving on, Canon have been offering too little for too much, for too long.
I think you are too harsh. Canon will probably catch up. AND, they have an enormous fan base that won't dry up.
simon65: Does anyone know if this is the same 24 mp sensor Sony is using in the NEX-7?
forpetessake: And the truth is that Sony is making a lot better cameras than Nikon with the same sensors. The latter are cheaper, of course, otherwise why would anybody buy them.
It is most likely that the D3200 sensor is not from Sony
goosel: Was seriously considering buying one until i saw the samples. These samples are all quit mushy, colors especially red seem wrong. Something is missing. I was expecting a lot more from the new sensor sans AA filter. :(
Perhaps the raw converter(s) still need work.
looks like we need some patience until other raw converters are available. Will defer my opinion till then.
Nikonworks: Your following words sound as those of a fan club participant, not as a formal reviewer at DPReview:
" Our first impressions are very positive though, and I hope this article will reassure and encourage anyone that has been watching the X-series and waiting for Fujifilm to 'get it right'."
Your use of the word 'hope' indicates your bias toward Fuji.
Your use of the word 'encourage' confirms the validity of my remarks posted here.
Oh well, what a shame to see DPReview take this road.
Samples don't measure up to the words of the review.
Yes I did.
I'm not a silkypix expert, but even with exaggerated sharpness the pics are mushy and lack micro contrast and details are smeared. The iso 200 pic of the cherry blossoms is surprisingly noisy.
all in all very disappointing.
Was seriously considering buying one until i saw the samples. These samples are all quit mushy, colors especially red seem wrong. Something is missing. I was expecting a lot more from the new sensor sans AA filter. :(
antoineb: Duly shot at f11 where diffraction must be a clear issue - why?
of course the test scene needs f11 for enough DOF - but surely this cannot take precedence over the need to deliver relevant results?
as it stands, these shots at f11 will suffer from diffraction BEFORE they show limits of the sensor resolution.
therefore these are cute test shots - but they're essentially useless.
These should be re-done at f5.6
sorry problems posting