ddolde: I will NEVER buy a D800
@KSVDont follow your logic at all - the D800 sensor is better than the D700 sensor even with video so why would you wish for an inferior sensor just because it can do videoBlack and white only without the bayer array is going to give you < stop improvement in light - you can increase the ISO to compensate and then downsize and you have your B&W D700
So what if some people are making video lenses - dont buy them
Sounds to me like you want to give the image of a no compromise photgrapher but what you are railing against is not worsening stills photography - it gets better all the time despite any video technology inclusion
The D800 is hardly compromised in it's ability to take top class still photography
Vladik: I like Nikon, but it doesn't really have any advantage except being 500 dollars cheaper. Other than that 5D3 looks cleaner and smoother at low ISO and virtually no difference in high ISO. A real advantage would be if Nikon used D3X sensor and made base price 2600, not that would be awesome IMHO
D800 sensor beats D3x sensor in every way
5D3 isn't even in the comparison and 5D2 doesnt match at all to d800 unless you like smearing of detail
Debankur Mukherjee: D800 has more high ISO noise then the D700...if thats so I would like to keep my D700 for now........I dont need large prints or cropping so no MP for me......
No it doesn't. You want it to so yo0u dont feel too bad about your d700
Confirmation bias amongst all
Strange that those who see something different than most have a vested interest in a different piece of kit
I have neither d700 nor canon so dont care which is 'best' but I can see that D800 is better than d700 at high ISO and the charts show it scientifically
Slatan: So, in short - high iso images look much worse than on 5D2 and low iso images look like an upsized 5D2, no real advantage.
OOOh let me guess
You have a 5D2!
Forever Young: Interesting to add the NEX-7 to the comparison... Amazing!
nex7 isn't being limted as much as the others via diffraction (esp 645), but look at the noise at 1600 comparesd to the others
tampadave: I downloaded the ISO 200 samples of the D800 and canon 7D (which I own). I had to increase the image size of the 7D sample to match the size of the D800 sample as it appears on my monitor. Some parts of the Nikon image look better, but other parts of the Canon image look better too. To my untrained pixel peeping eyes, overall, it's a push.
You're viewing on a monitor with what, 72dpi and a dynamic range of what, 8 stops
Print both to a decent size (but same size to compare) and then you will see the difference
If you're not printing large and only looking via a screen then nobody really needs a D800
Nuno Souto: Hmmm.... Put the D800 against the EM-5 and the Nex-7 and quite frankly, up to 1600ISO there is no major diff... Of course: higher ISOs, things change dramatically. But do I need to take all my shots at nose-bleed ISO? No way. It's looking very much like the EM-5's all-lens compatibility and in-body stabilisation is winning the day. Ah well, roll-on the SD1 test, that might be a true eye-opener... Sorry, just realized this is dpreview and they don't do Sigma!
The scene doesn't highlight an important consideration in where the D800 excels and that is dynamic range
Haven't seen another camera that performs as well in this area and for me it's massively important
Understand the D800 to be something like 11 stops at iso100 - massive benefit
Stabilisation is equally available on lenses and usually stabilisation is needed when the shutter speed is less than optimal, either that or... higher ISO
but you're quite right, the difference between cameras now at 'normal' conditions is minute
William Belvin: Good to see these , but they're not great for comparing resolutions. They were shot at f/11, and are badly affected by diffraction. Nikon recommends shooting at f/8 or lower for best results. I'd suggest f/5.6 would be a better test. Incidentally the 645D is shot at f/18 and is also affected by diffraction, even with its large sensor.
Agreed, should all be limted to the same, say f8, for meaningful comparisons
mholdef: Just curious, but does anyone know what lenses were used on these tests ?
it's shown on each image - just click the icon for detail
Uncle Bob III: I have been using PS Elements for years but my ignorance of post processing is incredible. I tried an older version of LR and found it less capable than Elements. Is this LR4 as capable in image processing as Elements? Does it use Elements organizer or something similar? Also, I often have major problems with my color output vice the screen version as mentioned in the article. Will LR4 help? Finally, when my program asks me what should control color output should I choose Adobe, my program, or Epson (my printer)?
Elements will probably do more via layers and type tools etc - LR is simply an organiser and catalogue with ability to do adjusments to photographs but not so much manipulate as PS or Elements
Example you cannot merge 2 photo or swap somebody's head on to another body etc but can do 99% or the typical adjustments a photo would need
If you have problems with colour oputpuit then LR will give no advantage over Elements
Get your screen right and calibrated. If you dont want to spend to calibrate then carefully follow all the instructions for maximising contract and colour - the basic system followed very carefully is better than nowtIf you dont understand colour spaces and you dont have a calibated monitor then forget them - put everything on Prophoto (camera and manipulation device) - or just keep everything ion RGB and forget it
If you monitor is not a specialised one then you are only seeing RGB anyway Let your printer decide the settings is the easiest
Dan4321: Too much fluff, I really just want something to develop the raws in the least amount of time and with the least amount of 'tweaking' required. Book mode, map mode, print-to-whatever mode, all those things are totally lost on people like me and probably 95% of the users out there. This is why a lot of people still use Digital Photo Professional over adobe camera raw for 99% of the photos out there. Make the raw development engine quick and intelligent with as much automatic setting as possible and only then will people like me be willing to pay that much for it.
As AussieAndo says- just use jpg out of camera - if you are going to process raw automatically or with the auto settings then the camera does that for you any way - JPGs
What is the point of using a raw convertor on it's auto settings?
raztec: This review is bang on. DPR know what real photographers want. I coudn't agree more.
If Nikon didn't have it's proverbial head up it's ass when it comes to good quality P&S, then it would have realized that they missed a great opportunity to capture the entire m43 market.
Had they put in a slightly bigger sensor, good lens selection, F-mount lens adapter, better price point and way better ergonomics with accessible controls photographers need, they would have had a home run - especially given its auto focus system.
This system will die a rightful death once the soccer moms realize a camera alone doesn't make for great photographs.
It seems many want a big sensor small camera - so why dont you all buy NEXs?
Me, I dont fancy a small camera with a massive lens - kind of defeats the objective really doesn't it? The NEX is ridiculous IMO, you can't focus properly (unless the camera is determing where the focus will be - I prefer to focus on the eyes, I can do this with a viewfinder and quick central AF - I can't do this with the camera at arms length using a screen or indeed rely on the camera to choose the optimum focus point)
A bigger sensor means bigger lenses.
I do however want a P&S that you can use like an SLR in terms of focus aquisition and speed of response, sounds like the N1 is ideal
I have an SLR for those moments when I can carry a large camera and want optimum quality
What I do not get is complaining Nikon has chosen to go for smaller lenses (and therefore sensor) when you can go and buy a bigger sensor elsewhere. Dont criticise Nikon, buy a SLR instead, same size lenses just 1-2cm thicker body