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
isn't quite that clear cut.
If interpolation is used on demosaicing (100% sure it is) then you diffraction limit starts at app. 2x the pixel size.
Also don't forget, COC is based on print size and viewing distance. Pixel-Peeping at 100% would be the equivalent of printing A0? with viewing distance 50 cm?? (depends on DPI of Monitor) Ergo: diffraction limit for pixel peepers is probably evident at F8 already.
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review