Looks terrible. This is why people would rather go with a 4/3rds than a D3xxx class. I think it's hilarious and have actually sometimes laugh out loud when I go to Disney World, and I see people with D3xxx cameras and the generic strap around their necks. It's a point and shoot with a big lens, but it cannot compensate for a crappy sensor. I would give this a do not buy rating. A D5000 will perform better and costs less at this point. A 4/3rds camera will perform as good or better, and is much smaller.
Dimitri Khoz: Actually, IPhone can take pretty artistic pictures;just have a look here:http://campl.us/posts/amazing25
Obviously, one can not print them big,but they prove one more timethat skills/creativity are more important than the tool/camera.
Sorry, but this is a typical comment from someone with little photography experience. I looked at every photo, and they are composed and focused well, they are artistic, but they are all heavily processed which anyone can do with any photo and they aren't good looking. You cannot get around the physical limitations of a small lens with little dof, no sharpness, no zoom, no portrait compression, no cropability, and lots of iso noise without softening the image in pp. It's a tiny camera with a tiny lens dude. Those photos look bad.
And for the record, the iPhone did not TAKE an artistic picture. It took a basic photo, and some software whether on the phone or on a computer, post processed the images. to MAKE an artistic picture. Just like instagram.
And.....here we go again DPReview. You basically copy and pasted the advertising from Canon's press release onto your "Review" site. Only problem is, when you "review" something, isn't the point of the site to take another, more objective view of a product? You should call yourselves, DPAdvertisers.
Problem? Well, besides apparently being the only person here with an iq over 100, how about the fact that hydrogen-alpha light is NOT the true color of the cosmos. You know those galaxy and nebulae that you see on science shows in awe striking color? Yeah. Thats false color. That's not TRUE color, I don't care how subjective it is. The human eye does not see colors that way. This article's main title should read "CANON ANNOUNCES MODIFIED 60D (60DA) WITH STRONGER INFRARED SENSOR THAT PRODUCES FALSE COLOR IN ORDER TO MORE EASILY PHOTOGRAPH THE COSMOS".
So basically you just pasted NEWS and FALSE ADVERTISING onto your "review" site, that is just chock full of adverts really.
Ohhhhh, now I get it, this is an April fools joke!!!! (should be)
The cornflower shot looks very unrealistic in the sense that the dof to distance is not accurate on the flowers, since both flowers should not appear with the same focus plane, the stem on the taller flower has no graduated dof moving vertically, meaning that it is not leaving forward into the front flowers focal plane, I guess that is the idea, to make the impossible, possible.
I'd rather exaggerate already existing dof, not make the impossible, possible. I'm not into abstract or impressionistic art, I'm into realism with a bit of lucid dream mixed in, hence why I bought a camera, to reproduce a scene, not to make up a scene.
Looks like the Canons shot of a red object at 25800 is about twice as good as the D800, what do you think? See here: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/1829158/bk6a9785?inalbum=canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-preview-samples
Wow!!!! Really?! This is a world away better than the D800. I've used Nikon all my life, and I am officially impressed with the performance of the 5DM3. This is 25600 iso, sure you see some banding, but take a look at the D800 and D4, they are no where near this good. Wow. Bravo Canon. You've created a camera with a nice balance of mp, detail, color range, dynamic range and iso.
marike6: People critical of these samples must not be downloading them because web-size samples don't do the photographs justice. I downloaded all the portraits, the shallow DOF of Zooey D, and the gentleman, and on my MacBook full-screen they look absolutely stunning. Clean as a baby's bottom with beautiful Nikon colors.
Kudos DPR. The photographic community thanks you and I thank you.
Sorry Marike6. I disagree. There is so much more noise in these photos at high iso than in the D3s that it's almost unbearable for me.
I agree Taikonaut. I'm not sure which demographic Nikon was aiming for with this camera. I'm a wedding photographer, but I don't stage my shots and I cannot control them without using the ISO. I also don't get the whole 36mpxl thing? Why so much? More detail? My clients don't ask for 60 inch prints of themselves. Also, it's fake dynamic range to use large mpxls to get higher range. I guess Nikon has never heard of levels in Ps or Lr which increases color depth and dynamic range.
Interesting. TERRIBLE ISO at 6400. Looks like the D5000. Blown out magenta again. Just like in the shots taken by another popular site run by a guy with an afro. I won't advertise which site. At it's highest native iso, it should look way better than this if Nikon ever wants wedding or concert photographers to take this camera seriously. They market towards staged wedding photos of models in controlled lighting conditions, like those taken by Cliff Mautner, but the average wedding photographer, like me, does not get to pick and choose the lighting. We use ISO to control our other settings.
Nikon would do well to create a dial option for ISO priority (I know you can control it in the settings but). Then come out with a new camera that has the D4 sensor, but with the D800 feature set to keep costs down.
Sam Carriere: Does anyone else get really tired of attention payed by sites like this to announcements of products that will be available nine months from now or, more realistically, in a year? Manufacturers can dream up any hype they want and the reviewers, lemming-like, respond with publicity.
Let me just add that I experience nothing less than utter amazement that these sites exist. They don't specialize in anything, and instead try to capture every market at the same time by gorging themselves with too many things on each site, and the menus and navigation of these sites is completely useless and confusing. I think dpreview must have no less than 5 places you could consider photo gallery forums.
I agree Sam. They are trying to turn Photography into a consumption market, like phones, where you have to buy a new one every year or basically not be able to keep up with anyone else. But it doesn't work. They end up talking about items that are coming out in almost a year from now, if they ever will come out. That nikon rumors site annoys the heck out of me. He spent all last year guessing with no accuracy at all, when Nikon was going to announce a D800.
If I were President of DP Review, I would fire the person that walked into the weekly meeting with their Brooks Brothers suit, perfectly positioned hair and Fresh Star Bucks, and said, "you aren't a proper businessman unless you dress like a salesman, you aren't a proper professional unless you are a great communicator, you aren't a proper company unless you hire only people with college degrees, you aren't a proper corporation unless you insult people celebrating CHRISTmas, ON CHRISTmas, by saying Seasons Greetings on CHRISTMAS DAY and not even a random non-holiday, or even on the first day of Hanukkah, but instead ON CHRISTMAS DAY. lol.
I'm pretty sure DP Review is still not an American company, so why are you being so politically correct? News Flash: We Americans find your and other countries commitment of purpose the single most attractive attribute about any foreign country.
I was lucky enough to get the download.
Hey guys, don't waste your time complaining about what I would honestly consider a $1.99 ebook.