Well to me the premium of the D800E over the D800 still does not seem worth it, even after all of the millions of words and images written over the last few months. There is a tiny difference in image quality at specific apertures only, easily recovered through a small amount of sharpening. In fact in many ways I would say that you can control image quality far easier with the D800 over the D800E. I'd rather add a small amount of sharpening to a specific area in my image than be attempting to blur or remove moire and aliasing effects. I praise Nikon for their efforts and for once again innovating in the market, but I fail to see how the D800E can be given a higher score here based on "value" when the camera costs considerably more to get that tiny increase in resolution, which often comes with a trade off in overall image quality.
Forfie: "When a still image was captured while viewing existing images in playback mode, the monitor turned off, the memory card access lamp glowed steadily, and, in some rare cases, the camera ceased to respond to operations. This issue has been resolved."
I can confirm (D800), did a shoot this morning with the new firmware, no more occasional HUGE delays waiting for the monitor come back up, or having to power cycle.
Things are moving right along, thanks Nikon.
You're such a troll taikonaut why do you love to comment on the D800 so much when you spend your life in the Canon forum??? Ah that's right, massive product envy...... You will have such a hollow life for the next three years commenting on every D800 piece of information until Canon eventually offer something in the market that comes remotely close.
draculavn: Bye bye nikon. I will buy a 5D mark 3
But you told everyone you already have one Dracula. Oh that's right, you can't afford it though can you, and with the massive price premium for the 5DMKIII it's hardly surprising. And far better to have a firmware update to correct some minor issue than have someone take my camera apart and put some sticky tape to fix light entering the camera in all the wrong places like the 5DMKIII... What's the Canon solution for all of the dust stuck in the viewfinders Dracula?
facedodge: I keep hearing Canon Fanboys and Nikon Fanboys lumped into the same category here, but it seems to me the Nikon side has much more venom in them than the Canon guys do.
Go look at the 5D forum. It's full of D800 threads or threads that are quickly hijacked. The D800 forum is much less invaded if at all.
Nikon is the smaller company, so I suppose there is more niche' hipster type mentality over there.
What a lot of tosh. The D800 threads have been started in their hundreds in the Canon forums by paranoid Canon 5D owners and pretenders... Truth is no one is really interested in the 5DMKIII in the Nikon forums - the threads speak for themselves. Look closer to home for your issues I would suggest before spreading BS like this.
jackpro: Canon is the photographers choice with extremely good glass from amazing primes to amazing zooms. Nikon has the reasonably good 14-24 although soft at 24, which in most pro cases is too wide & struggles with flare, Canon skin tone is better. The 1DsIII has been shooting beautiful skin tone for a very long time with very little post processing. The 5DIII is a 1DsIII with very good video functionality at a 5D price. Canon lenses are flatter as well which is much more flattering in people shots (you can always add contrast but you can't take it away). Nikon has tons of resolution but just jump in to the Nikon lens forum & see the complaining about the lack of variety in the lens department (soft 24-70) griping about the primes, contemplating Sigma? for macro its sad! Go in to the canon lens forum very different with endless choices from the top of the line to 2nd & third even 4th tier lenses to choose from joy! A new 24-70II which appears to be amazing a 70-200ISII which is outstanding.
Your comments about Nikon lenses are WAY OFF the mark.
draculavn: Techradar review is much better than dpreview.
You're right about one thing today. That review is at least certainly more truthful. At least they had the guts to say it exactly as it is:
"the majority of the systems have been seen elsewhere in the Canon DSLR lineup, and therefore there is nothing really groundbreaking"
draculavn: here comes the impressive review by techradarhttp://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/digital-slrs-hybrids/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-1074186/review
lol. Techradar hold the same poor levels of credibility as DPReview does. When they reviewed the D800 they gave one of the pros as "large images" and one of the cons as "large file sizes". This is the stupidest pair of statements I've ever seen together. I really wouldn't rely on them for any credible information at all, they even regurgitate all of the information from the rumour sites.
AnHund: Very diplomatic to give 5DIII and D800 the same score :-)
You mean it's the most boring politically charged outcome this century. The D800 and 5DMKIII are so different I'm not even sure they should be in the same category. Everyone is more concerned with comparisons between Hasselblad or the 645D with the D800 rather than the 5DMKIII. No one even thinks of comparing the 5DMKIII in these terms because it's not even worth starting.
Taikonaut: Dpreview thinks the LCD screen rating for D800 is just as good as the 5DIII despite the fact the 5DIII LCD has higher resolution. Almost every reviews and users of both systems thinks Canon has better LCD by a country mile. Also D800 innacurate colour cast on LCD issue was disregarded.
Sorry, wrong again. The LCD of the D800 is matched to the sRGB colour space and I have tested this. You clearly don't know anything about colour calibration and just picked up a random comment from somewhere just like all of the other Canon fanboys who are so terrified of the D800. The LCDs Nikon used before now were not sRGB calibrated. Please stop spreading FUD about a camera you clearly haven't even touched. The LCD on the D800 is the most colour accurate I've ever seen.
russbarnes: No surprises here: " it is clear that even at base ISO some visibly destructive noise reduction is applied to the image. This results in very clean images which lack some of the low-contrast detail you would find in fine textures such as fur or foliage in the distance. A comparatively aggressive default sharpening leads to traces of 'sharpening halos' around high-contrast edges. Noise reduction increases as you go up the ISO scale but the destruction of fine detail becomes more obvious once you reach ISO 3200"
Mushy JPEGs with fine detail that's been "destroyed". Hmmmm and this was meant to be Canon's top selling point for this camera, a claim of a "2 stop reduction in noise". Everyone knew that statement was a joke when it was announced. This is all no real surprise though - anyone would come to this conclusion looking at any sample anywhere out of the camera.
Further still, I can only buy JPEG shooting in limited circumstances only: say a sports reporter who must stream images to a website or similar media outlet almost as events happen, you could excuse some loss of fine detail for that. But someone who's paid to shoot a wedding and then does so in JEPG is not providing the best output they can, pure and simple. It doesn't sound like a 5DMKIII is the right companion for that sort of game. As for everyone else who buys a 5DMKIII to shoot JPEG they might as well pick up any other point and shoot because JEPG shooting is purely for amateurs if you lose all of the power of the RAW file. Was this what Canon had in mind for the 5DMKIII - the purely amateur market? Sounds like you need to wait for the outrageously overpriced, non-existent and overhyped 1DX that is sitting in pieces in a Canon Developer's bedroom somewhere and prey the RAW output is better I guess but I somehow doubt they will have suddenly evolved the sensor even for the 1DX.
Further, what I think is stunning is that so many so called professionals continue to rely on JPEGs pouring out of their camera. I don't get this obsession. Is it that because RAW output from Canon is so unbelievably poor? Is it because their proprietary software does such a poor job of conversion? It certainly sounds like it...
No surprises here: " it is clear that even at base ISO some visibly destructive noise reduction is applied to the image. This results in very clean images which lack some of the low-contrast detail you would find in fine textures such as fur or foliage in the distance. A comparatively aggressive default sharpening leads to traces of 'sharpening halos' around high-contrast edges. Noise reduction increases as you go up the ISO scale but the destruction of fine detail becomes more obvious once you reach ISO 3200"
But there is no colour cast on the D800 screen. Not sure what you think you know but you're plain wrong.
Reality Check: @ numerous posts
Not bashing or soliciting a debate, the D800 is a great camera for Nikon to have in its stable, but it is not 'revolutionary' to the industry other than megapixel count - and the correct term in that regard is 'inevitable'.
As for the performance of the D800, any camera with a high megapixel count presents an opportunity to bin the output and increase the perceived noise levels and dynamic range performance. The 'advantage' the D800 provides is a ~78% binning as used by DxO (8mp image = 8x12 @ 300dpi) to achieve its 'record breaking' score - simply a higher compression than other sensors currently provide, not superiority of the sensor. Comparisons at the same compression ratio are not performed (24mp = ~5mp image, 22mp = ~4.5mp image, 12mp = ~3mp image, etc).
As for the sensor itself (per pixel level performance) there are several other cameras that have better performance results. Against its direct competitor, aside from pixel count, Nikon simply played catch up.
Run back to your Hasselblad forum - you're another Medium Format snob who can't accept that Nikon can produce something at a quarter of the price of anything Blad can and still produce an image that few if anyone can tell the difference between. You're post makes you as bad as the hysterical Canon faithful who are running round with a PowerShot in their hands.
Cue more jealousy and petty comments from Canon forum 'faithful' no doubt. This award is merely another endorsement of this class leading technology, nothing we don't know.
ddolde: I will NEVER buy a D800
Because he's small minded :)
The hysteria in these comments below from what look like teenage Canon flag bearers who have probably never picked up a camera of the quality of the D800 is staggering. What gives? All this energy and hate driven by total insecurity is what leads to world wars.
What is it about this site that breeds such contempt? I don't see it in the field - some of the best photographers I know shoot Canon, they have huge credibility as individuals and they're not immature deranged morons like much of the pack mentality on display here. Equally they respect my choice to shoot Nikon and pour over my D800 when I'm out there at the moment with a huge amount of interest in how it operates in the field. Equally I lusted after their 1DSMKIIIs and 5DMKIIs for years too. It's called MUTUAL RESPECT - it's time there was much more of that on here because there is no space for the small minded little pricks that have polluted a large part of the intelligent comment below.
russbarnes: Where is this 5DMKIII "low light king" blah blah blah? So much for lower resolution being cleaner - it's obvious the sensor is old tech now and shows nominal to no improvement over the MKII. No comparison to the D800 - it's light years ahead. The only improvement is JPEG noise reduction, whoopee doo, problem is most serious photographers don't use JPEG. MKII owners should be very happy indeed because there's nothing to upgrade for here at that ridiculous premium...in fact I'm expecting the MKII price to start increasing across the board because it looks like a bargain now.
That's what I meant Mr Nuts ;) For the D800 to get at least the same ISO performance out of a sensor that delivers at least 14MP MORE that the Canons is incredible. But at low ISO, it is a landscape photographer's dream.........the detail is off the chart.
Castle Cameras in the UK is selling the MKII at £1529 - you can have two for the same price as a MKIII. Looks like an awesome deal to me.... 5DMKIII price needs to plummet fast to sell all that excess stock everyone is tripping over in these camera stores.
MichaelK81: Ok, I admit, I pixel-peeped. Am I the only one who thinks 5D III has absolutely no advantage over 5D II when shooting RAW at high ISO? In fact, in some images, 5D III has noticeably more noise.
I think we're reaching a point where technology is limited by the laws of physics?
No, you're not the only one Michael!