Another preview of a Nikon camera. I wonder whether we will every get a finished review of this one? We never got one for the D800. Others have done their reviews of it. As said before (others and myself) dpreview is gong downhill
doctorbza: can anybody link me to the page on adobe's website where i can sign up for a $20/month photoshop membership? their site is terrible.
It's no good complaining here about Adobe's revamped website. Complain to Adobe direct. Agree, it's a truly horrible, customer unfreindly site; been getting worse for years.
panteraaa: won't u need a high quality glass for that 24MP??? how good will that kit lens be in this camera?
Yes, Nikon's kit lenses are very very usable, unlike Canon's bottle glass kit lenses. It's only the more expensive lens range where the two makers lenses match up quality wise.
lindner: You guys should test less cameras and test those quick. Huge amounts of previews (and 'overviews' and shootouts and whatnot) in the 'recents' but very few actual reviews. Fewer but actual 'reviews' would be So Much Better.
Agree, dpreview do seem to resent any criticism. It actually went downhill when the yanks took over. This isn't a dig, it's just an observation. And they still don't review anywhere near enough lenses. However, it is still the best review site on the web, but they do need to take notice of the people who use the site (we can stop using you guys you know).
4x5View: The 5DMKIII may have a great jpg engine, but it seems to be adding artifacts to the images, please note the dark outlining around the "The Original" text on the Baileys bottle. Note that this is not visible in the raw image on the 5DMKIII. It does not show on the other default cameras in this list. It does not seem to be ISO dependent.
Also notice the noise or artifacts in the green patch on the color chart to the left of the Baileys bottle. This is quite visible on the 5DMKIII 100 ISO raw image.
This new generation of cameras are awesome, but, may have some firmware problems. In both of these cases the Sony, D800 and the 5DMKII look fine.
But Canon always had a tendency to overprocess and add artifacts. Surprised to see that noise in the green patch in Raw though.
seta666: Nikon did it again, best sensor DXOmark has ever tested. The per pixel noise very similar to the 5D mkIII but with more pixels.
14.4 EV DR, 25.3 bit color depth, almost 1 stop ISO advantage over 5D mkII in Raw
I own a 5D mkII, just in case anyone thinks I am a nikon fan boy ;-)
Canon shooters shouldn't worry about the Nikon D800. It's a good camera. But, hey! so is the 5D Mk III. So it's got a few more pixels, so what. The 5D Mk III has enough for anything I can think of: stock, big images, landscapes... It's not the camera... PS: I'm a Nikon shooter, who also respects Canon for also making great cameras.
n1zr: I'm a Canon shooter and necessarily have to stick with their bodies because of my investment in their glass. These pics confirm (when compared to the D800 samples especially) what I believed all along. They're both great tools, and it's the eye (and brain) behind the lens that matter most. There's megapixels-a-plenty to go around people. Enjoy the next generation of cameras! (and long-live the healthy rivalry)... Now drop the prices of those 1Ds3's!!!
Someone who knows about photography. Well said n1zr. Agree with you 100%.
xml5000: These sample images fail to impress.
My Canon G2 is a match for some of these photos. IMO, DPR should employ a photographer to take future images. Canon, Nikon, Sony etc.. would then have to ensure the quality of their 'new kit' before peddling 'improved' models at us.
Hey! I've had a G2. Great camera in its day. Canon swapped it to a G3 cus I was messed about. And the G3 was a great camera in its day too. But seriously, a match for the 5d Mk II/III or D800. Forget the crap phoitograhy, just look at the image quality. Or perhaps get a new pair of glasses, lol.
gl2k: why can't dpreview provide us with professional photos ?they all look like snapshots.actually they are.
what about pro portraits ?what about difficult to shoot fabric ?what about high glossy surfaces ?...
those images don't tell anything at all ... sorry guys
Have to agree with you. About time dpreview took more professional pictures (Are you listening dprevew?).
Guidenet: Nice selection of images and it looks like you're doing a good job of rounding out the reviews of these new cameras.
I'm not sure I totally understand the people who seem to want to compare Nikon's D800 to the 5DMKIII. They are different cameras with somewhat different ways to get to the same thing.
Secondly, they are both at a serious enough price tag where most will have already owned a full frame model and already have lenses. The aren't switching brands. Pros often are no different. They still have budgets and overhead.
Also, different cameras are designed to appeal to different types of photographers. If I were a sports photographer and needed to upgrade one of my bodies, it would be with a Nikon D4. I'd look funny trying to mount my Nikoln 500 f/4 on a Canon. ;)
Guidenet, I would say that some of us who intend at some time to swap up to full fame do buy full frame lenses. They work pretty much the same, they just tend to cost more (but not always). There is a slightly different philosophy between Canon and Nikon. Both make cameras for a range of customers. But in this case I suggest that the D800 targets the same photographer who would otherwise buy a Canon 5D Mk II / III: However, I think landscape/stock photographers will find the D800 the more appropriate while wedding/portrait photographers may prefer the 5D Mk II/III or even the 50D/60D.
Tape5: Well these are all great cameras, fine. That is however not the point. The point is how Canon in my view will lose the edge in SALES over D800 and will suffer for years. Why?
1 Canon marketing thinks one out of every three human beings in this world is a Pro or a journalist or a wedding photographer. My guess is 90% of buyers at this level never sell a photo. This is not a forty grand MF market.
2 Canon got cocky with their 5D mark II and wanted to have a double dip
3 Canon does not appreciate that there are kids out there with five grand a week pocket money and their numbers are increasing by a thousand a day
4 Canon thought if they lower the resolution, people will think there is some genius behind it
5 Canon got caught by Nikon’s clever alliance with Sony who was making video and broadcast sensors for decades before Canon or Nikon did
6 You must be loaded or working for Reuters 24/7 to upgrade to mark III from II. But most Nikon owners want an upgrade with D800.
Sorry Tape5, I can;t agree with you. Most people who buy a dslr camea buy into a system. It is relatively rare for photographers to swap systems just because one maker has a temporary edge. There is too much money and expertise invested in that chosen system. The only people likely to swap over are the type of amateur who must have the latest, best piece of kit, in other words: the nutters. The Canon 5D Mk 2 remains a great camera with a usable pixel range. If I was a Canon shooter I would be more than happy. The Mk 3 may not have the same kind of massive upgrade that the Nikon has, but I'm sure that quite a few will upgrade. The reason why a lot of Nikon users will upgrade is simply because Nikon have lagged behind for several years now, so the jump to an D800 is because this camera, at last gives Nikon users the opportunitiy to get a full frame camera with very usable pixels at a (just) affordable price. Canon users would be stupid to swap from an already great camera system.
docfink: I gotta finally shout this out to all the whiney, geeky, pixel-peeping ninnies out there who love to tout one brand over another and make these photo forums the MOST ANNOYING AND UNINFORMATIVE areas for discourse on the net:
The D800 is sweet. The 5D3 will kick ass too. Your lenses will work beautifully on the D800 and the focus will be sharp--even when wide open. Geeks and pixel peepers will be annoyed by certain things, but clients and family will think you're the second coming of Ansel Adams. Got that?
Again, as someone who has several other hobbies for which I frequent Internet Forums, these photo forums ARE AN EMBARRASSMENT and a turnoff to those who actually want to learn. It's hard to filter out the useful with all the whiney crap posted in between. Police yourselves, please.
Let's get a moderator here to delete annoying comments that have nothing to do with the original post or go off topic.
Seriously--consider what I'm saying before you cry and post junk.
Like your post; but there are worse out there. One learns to just ignore the crap. What annoys me though is the stupid Nikon/Canon fanboys rivalry.
Deeso: "If you're planning on purchasing a D800, some extra RAM for your PC should probably also be on your shopping list..." Thankfully RAM is cheap these days. 32GB configurations wont break the bank.
Am I wrong, but doesn't Photoshop only use a max of 8gb memory and that on a 64bit machine/OS?
atoz: Excuse me if this sounds harsh, but, if you're taking pictures like the ones posted, you should be using a simple point and shoot camera or your phone. It's like owning a Land Rover Defender 110 and using it to drive to the local 7-11 to pick up a six-pack of light beer.
Stupid post. Am I supposed to buy another (cheap) car just to pick up my 6 pack.
Lofi: OMG, finally more megapixels do make sense! :D
No Ivan you are wrong. I think Nikon got really fed up of my emails to them telling them that unless they came out with a camera that matched the 5D Mk 2 very soon I was going to change brands, hahaha. Other Nikon users have also been frustrated by Nikon's slow response to Canon's higher pixel count advantage for some time. The 5d Mk 2 is a great camera which even though it's old is still very popular. Finally Nikon have come out with something that not just matches it, but is superior. I'm not into this Canon/Nikon which is best nonsense. Both companies make great cameras.
The same focusing problem exists on any high pixel count camera. The new Hasselblads models have a feature which allows for automatic correction when you focus on one point (say the eyes) and then reframe for the shot. At these high pixel counts/high resolutions/large frame, coupled with wide open apertures which give a small DOF, it will make a difference. It always has; even with film. Back then I always closed down 1 click to allow for focus error. And I suggest the fix remains the same as it always did. Also note that some cameras/lens combination are not necessarily that accurate. Sigma has suggested that where the camera does not have focus correction that the lens is matched to the camera. They offer a free service to do this.
CameraLabTester: "photography related"?
Isn't Photoshop mostly about photography and then some?
It used to be years ago. Now mostly not. As Ken Rockwell said you really only need version 5.5 for photography ( although I disagree; I think version 6 which has current colour management system is the one to go for).
ryansholl: I don't believe it. A sequence could tell more of a story than a single shot?
Just wait til he discovers there's something called "video" now!
I don't know why you are rejecting this idea. It isn't new. Photographers have been using sequenced images for years. Think in terms of 'Slices of Life'. Freelance photographer, Lious Peek, did a very good sequence of a girl and boy together shot in Paris I think, back in the late 1960s. The effect is different to a movie; the story is told differently. And with the still sequence the deliberate gaps can be used to create tension,and work on ones own imagination to fill in the gaps.
Mostly Lurking: The author might do well to look up the definitions of 'Macro Photography' and 'Close-up Photography. Some of the so-called 'macros' he's included in his article are decidedly close-ups, and perhaps more of them are as well. Macros require that the size of the subject image be equal to or larger than it is in real life; i.e. a size ratio between 1::1 and 10::1. Close-up photography is where the subject is between 10 times larger than the captured image to the same size; i.e. 10::1 and 1::1. in Micro-photography, the captured image is more than 10 times large than the subject. Everything else is simply 'plain' or normal photography. With that in mind, it's really a stretch for lens manufacturers to term their macro lenses as such; they're really just close-up lenses (1::1).
And you sir should look up the credentials of the author before posting this kind of criticism. If you had done so you would have seen that that Erez Marom knows his subject inside out.
This is good advice for everyone. I just nearly made a similar mistake when criticising a review of a book on Amazon recently. The poster had criticised the photographs in the book; which were quite good. I assummed the poster was a beginner and wrote a criticism accordingly. However, before posting I checked. The poster's work was really good and was actually better than the pictures he was criticising. I still wrote a (modified ) comment criitcsing his post which I still felt was too harsh though.
If you had reworded your ciriticism and just pointed out that there is a difference without reference to the author's expertise then I suggest your comments would have been received more kindly. It's always best to engage brain before mouth :)
Great book, even if you shoot Nikon, like me. And if you shoot Canon, It's a must.