Previous news story    Next news story

Just posted: Nikon D800 test samples

By dpreview staff on Mar 20, 2012 at 00:38 GMT
Buy on GearShop$2,796.9514 deals

Just Posted: studio test samples from the Nikon D800. We're running the 36MP D800 through our standard set of studio tests and have completed the shots of our test scene. These have been appended to the D800 preview and include all the Raw files for download. You can also access the shots from other reviews or the standalone comparison tool.

1305
I own it
402
I want it
64
I had it
Discuss in the forums
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.
Nikon D800

Comments

Total comments: 440
123
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Mar 21, 2012)

reading all the nonsense here... i wonder how nikon shooter have managed the last decade.

12 or 16 MP cameras... barely enough to shot a head portrait not to mention landscapes..... if you believe what is written here.

now everything below 36 MP is suddenly "low res" for the low pixel preacher from yesterday. LOL :)

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
GiovanniFoto
By GiovanniFoto (Mar 21, 2012)

why does that bother you ? at the time that was what Nikon was capable of doing. they would never put out a 36mp camera 5 years ago if it was gonna look like crap. so things change... what are you gonna do ? enjoy photography and dont worry about what others say. i dont care what camera i have as long as it performs the way i like it in every way. nikon or canon.. or dare i say.. sony lol

0 upvotes
Kinematic Digit
By Kinematic Digit (Mar 20, 2012)

I have serious concerns how DPReview does their testing. In all fairness they test 135 format camera with an 85 F/1.8 lens at F/11 and the Medium format with a 120mm F/4 macro at F/18.

Looking at the samples, it looks like the D800 rivals the Pentax... well DUH, the sensor sites are 6.1 microns on the Pentax 645D which has a Diffractive Limit Aperture of F/9.3. The D800 has a sensor site of 4.88 microns, with a DLA of just under F/8. Both examples are soft, but the Pentax has been imaged at F/18 while the D800 is at F/11, which is hardly a fair comparison for either. F/11 is not twice as much as F/18 on the Medium Format.

I would seriously question that this rivals even digital medium format based on the way they tested it. I always wondered about the softness of the 645D tests, and knowing that they imaged it at F/18, it's no wonder no more.

It should also be noted that Pentax 645D is only 44mm x 33mm, quite a bit smaller than a full sized medium format sensor (1.3x crop)

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
11 upvotes
Andrew Booth
By Andrew Booth (Mar 20, 2012)

THIS IS AN EXCELLENT POST

DPReview needs to reappraise their testing methodology to avoid running into diffraction limit problems on super high-res cameras.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Mar 20, 2012)

the DLAs are two stops higher but the loss of frequency can be felt approaching it (DLA says line-pair (cycle), not line (half-cycle), you need two pixels to sample one cycle).

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Mar 20, 2012)

YEAH YEAH lets give no credibility to people that tested hundreds of cameras for thousand of hours. They have a clue what they are doing. They are the 1% and we are the 99% and we know better! DERP

1 upvote
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Mar 20, 2012)

no matteer if diffraction sets in at f5.6 or f8.... the question is... how is that affecting all the landscapers who think the D800 is the new born christ.

do they shoot all landscape with f4 from now on?

or did they just waste more HDD space for a images that have no real resolution gain over 21-24MP cameras.

well i know that i need more dof for my landscapes then f4 can deliver.....

in the end all the calculation is futile... i have to make my own images to judge.

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Kinematic Digit
By Kinematic Digit (Mar 20, 2012)

Mssimo, it's not about giving credibility, its about looking at their testing methods that may have been fine 2 years ago, but has not evolved to high density sensors. Even the competitors know that and to their tests at F/8 which yield far better results. "They" are human, and like doctors, scientists and engineers, they also can make mistakes. The concern I have is that their testing method is flawed, and does need revisiting.

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Mar 21, 2012)

@Hertz All photographers have to weigh DOF vs Diffraction, and there a always trade-offs. The idea that the D800 will require more compromises than other FF cameras is nothing but absurd wishful thinking by the Nikon haters filling this board. With so much trolling, do you ever have time for photography?

Comment edited 57 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Mar 21, 2012)

serious concerns? I cant imagine them looking much better unless its a sigma SD1 (on a per pixel basis) Like I said before, they don't just select at random what settings the camera should be set at. They bracket focus/aperture/shutter speed and shoot multiple redundant shots just to be sure they are consistent. I'm sure they also shoot at f18 (on the 645) to get the DOF they need. MF is not very forgiving. Anyway, I trust them, and the results are where they should be.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Mar 21, 2012)

> unless its a sigma SD1 (on a per pixel basis)

no matter what you define a pixel, as long as you use the same definition, Foveon won't be able to match Bayer sensors in resolution except narrow band red or blue lights.

in fact resolution is one of the biggest shortcomings of stacked sensor.

agree with marike6 that lens performance is not decided by any single factor.

0 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Mar 21, 2012)

DOF has greater effect than diffraction on the MF. I can't even find the point of focus in the MF or FF cameras.

0 upvotes
XmanX
By XmanX (Mar 20, 2012)

Canon is playing it conservative, expecting their loyal base to just lap it up. And I don't much care for Nikon's color palette; Canon colors are more to my liking.

Waiting for Sony to fire the last salvo in the Full Frame space. If they deliver the goods, I'm willing to get rid of my bag full of L lenses and move to Zeiss glass. I don't use T/S or telephoto over 200mm anyway.

Innovation trumps brand loyalty in my book.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Mar 20, 2012)

think Canon just wanted to maximize their profit by using mutual technology. myself may still invest more in Canon products that are the best, but if you decide to jump the ship, I recommend Nikkor lenses instead of the shame Zeiss. after all Leica and Zeiss are the biggest losers in camera history, that they were forced to quit the industry near half a century ago and their business now is not much more than lending their names to third party, third class makers like Cosina.

6 upvotes
Midnighter
By Midnighter (Mar 20, 2012)

I disagree yabokkie, the Zeiss 16-35mm full frame lens is as good a reason to buy into the Sony full frame platform as the Nikor 14-24mm is to buy into Nikon, or the Panasonic 7-14 to buy into micro four thirds.

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Mar 20, 2012)

problem is the company results from sony do not look as good as canons.

who knows what sony will do in a few years.
it´s not impossible at all that sony dumps the DSLR camera business.
maybe they will just sell sensors in the future.

some think sony is a giant but in fact canon has more employees and makes more profit (if sony makes profit at all).

@yabokkie... well look at the new zeiss 15mm f2.8 and you will see what complete bulls*it you are talking.

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
1 upvote
PhotonBurst
By PhotonBurst (Mar 21, 2012)

Completely agree with XmanX re Sony + Zeiss. Though I would love the higher fps of a new Sony flagship, I just can't wait another year.
The D800 will suit my needs despite my preference for Zeiss glass. Who knows, maybe there'll be word from Sony before my D800 ships ...

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Mar 21, 2012)

I know people who use Consina/Sony lenses and hide the embarassing Zeiss markings on them.

I think it's okay to see Zeiss on cheap Sony point&shoots, but it's really funny to see Leica and Zeiss brands on third-class Japanese SLR lenses that neither Leica nor Zeiss can make.

0 upvotes
Gasman66
By Gasman66 (Mar 20, 2012)

The samples are no better, and no worse than I would expect. But don't get me wrong - this is one superb camera. I have been a Canon user for 30 years and this is a Nikon that would make me switch allegiance - were it not for my array of EF lenses (which I believe is better than Nikon's, both individually and as a range). The D800 is not badly priced in my view, ergonomically looks excellent (another Nikon forte) and they've also acknowledged that built in flash is occasionally useful for those of us who venture outside the studio.

All kudos to Nikon for this one - I think it trumps the 5D MkIII.

6 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Mar 20, 2012)

Sorry, but Canon lenses are not any better than Nikon lenses. Both companies make very good lenses and some not so good lenses.

7 upvotes
Lionel Lam
By Lionel Lam (Mar 21, 2012)

I don't think Canon lenses are any better than Nikon ones. I shoot both Canon and Nikon and it is hard to tell the difference. Comparing Nikon to Canon would be like comparing apples to, well, apples. I think at the end of the day it depends a lot on the subtleties. For me personally, I prefer Nikon's menu layout and shutter/aperture dial locations. To be overly critical of either brand would be missing the whole point. People take pictures, not cameras.

1 upvote
Tape5
By Tape5 (Mar 20, 2012)

Whatever it was that you guys wanted to photograph, after all this arguing, is either dead, or has moved on, or if it is still standing there, is not worth photographing.

I suggest you think of a new subject for the masterpiece you wanted to create with your new camera.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
backayonder
By backayonder (Mar 21, 2012)

The subject was the Titanic but unless you have an underwater housing you are 100 years too late

0 upvotes
Biowizard
By Biowizard (Mar 20, 2012)

To me the D800 genuinely does enter into former "Medium Format" territory. Seriously amazing detail in that shot!

Brian

7 upvotes
Lionel Lam
By Lionel Lam (Mar 21, 2012)

I agree with you Brian. I cannot understand why there are some people who get so critical of the high resolution coming at the expense of noise levels. I own a D7000 and I can conclude that the D800, despite having pixels that are only slightly larger than the D7000, fares of significantly better. More pixels means a wider latitude for doing post processing. =)

0 upvotes
Stanley zheng
By Stanley zheng (Mar 21, 2012)

Medium format??? really??? Dont mean to sound a bit condescending but, seriously???? I dont know how you judge but its like comparing 400 horse power mitsubishi evo and a 400 horsepower ferrari or porsche..... C'mon man....:) lets not blow this out of proportion...:) Let's be more realistic...

0 upvotes
Stanley zheng
By Stanley zheng (Mar 21, 2012)

then I guess its time, to switch to nikon, after all its more sensible, y would you wanna spend 13000 dollar for an entry level hasselblad when you can spend only 2999 dollar and can get, hmmm welllll almost as good of an image... hahahaahhahahha I guess the people at hasselblad must be a little bit twisted, or hit themself pretty hard on their head a day before they established the market price for their product.
Ok .... guys its about time to come back down to earth, and be real....

0 upvotes
Stanley zheng
By Stanley zheng (Mar 21, 2012)

@Lionel Lam, Well, is it because noise is bad....??? and No noise is good??? I mean seriously, who would wanna have a small size image with enuf detail and clean no noise, than as it is to big ass size image with noise? WEll maybe clean image is overrated here...:)

1 upvote
Biowizard
By Biowizard (Mar 21, 2012)

Take a REAL 35mm SLR (ie, one that accepts that funny old stuff called FILM), and grab a shot. Scan this on the best SCANNER money can buy, and compare the detail of what you see with what comes out of the D800 ...

... Guess what: even my 5Mp Olympus E-1 pretty much trumps scanned Kodachrome 25 trannies. You'd need to scan a 6x6 trannie from your old Hassleblad to get anywhere close to what the Nikon D800 is producing right in front of your eyes.

So YES, as I said before, the D800 is into _former_ Medium Format territory (do you understand the word, "former", Stanley zheng?!!)

Brian

Comment edited 39 seconds after posting
1 upvote
panstas
By panstas (Mar 21, 2012)

Stanley zheng
<< I guess the people at hasselblad must be a little bit twisted, or hit themself pretty hard on their head a day before they established the market price for their product. >>

strangely enough but you are right here, in any event Phase One already reduced prices on 25 %, and probably Hassleblad prices will fall down the nearest time .

0 upvotes
gl2k
By gl2k (Mar 20, 2012)

Most versatile DSLR ever !!!

Use it a ISO 100 and you get perfect noise free shots at ultra high res.
Use it at ISO 3200 and simply reduce the image size until noise becomes acceptable.

Use it in FX mode on payed jobs ... use it in DX mode (with 15 MP still !!!) when snapping around.

Compared to what you get this cam is by far not expensive.

I'll definitely buy one.

12 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Mar 20, 2012)

it is to slow to be the most versatile ever... it just has an awfull lot of MP.

1 upvote
Fred Beck
By Fred Beck (Mar 21, 2012)

I totally agree with gl2k. I have a 700 and a 300 and cannot see any downside to the switch, although I see a lot of upside. I have never shot a serious image at even ISO 1600, never mind ISO 6400. I simply don't care. I shoot portraits with a 24-70 and 70-200 at ISO 200 or 400 and I shoot wildlife with a 400 2.8 (x2) at ISO 1200 (max). I don't understand folks that really care about ISO 12K. Seriously? I did get pretty frustrated with shooting high school football games on dimly lit fields about 25 years ago. ISO 25K might work very well for that. Oh yea, I could also use it for catching cheating husbands through a window. That would be just perfect. I have been wanting to improve my quality on those shots.
Grins to all.

1 upvote
GiovanniFoto
By GiovanniFoto (Mar 21, 2012)

a positive thinker..

1 upvote
Fullframer
By Fullframer (Mar 21, 2012)

Most Versatile DSRL? Nope.. Not good enough for low light pictures and sports compared to a D3S or D4.

0 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Mar 20, 2012)

The D800 files looks great. Photos are probably taken using default settings, where Nikon never turns up sharpening too much.

With a little sharpening they are on par with the 645D at ISO 1600. Also looks much better than 5D III at ISO 6400 (well maybe not much better, but still better).

Comment edited 13 minutes after posting
1 upvote
plasnu
By plasnu (Mar 20, 2012)

5D II.
They would not be so much different, though.

0 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Mar 20, 2012)

No I actually mean 5D III. Sorry.

0 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Mar 20, 2012)

Also the D800 has better high ISO performance than Nikon D700/D3 which is also better than 5D II.

Comment edited 17 seconds after posting
1 upvote
R Vaquero
By R Vaquero (Mar 20, 2012)

Opened D800 files on NX2 and IQ is really fantastic, a 1600 ISO file is widely usable for me for high quality purposes. Seems to be a fantastic camera that will change our working mind.

5 upvotes
Carlos AF Costa
By Carlos AF Costa (Mar 20, 2012)

I said VERY GOOD BUT VERY EXPENSIVE!.
WE JUST WANT FULL FRAME, BUT AT FAIR PRICES!

1 upvote
rjx
By rjx (Mar 20, 2012)

That's what used or refurbished D700's, 5D's, and 5DII's are for.

Compare the price of the D800 and what you get for it compared to the price of the 5DIII and what you get for that. The D800 is fair. Which is why it will be hard to find for a while due to it selling out everywhere.

3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Mar 20, 2012)

You don't think $2995 USD is fair for a 36 mp FF Nikon DSLR w/ 1080p24 video? Wow, I wonder what you think of the Canon 5D Mk III.

3 upvotes
CriticalI
By CriticalI (Mar 20, 2012)

Whats a fair price? $10? Meaningless statement.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Mar 21, 2012)

A fair price is what people are willing to pay based on the performance and quality of the item. If it's not fair in your mind, that's another matter. But for the majority of Nikon shooters it is fair. Especially since it's only $300 more than the price the D700 was released at. Still meaningless?

Comment edited 41 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
draculavn
By draculavn (Mar 20, 2012)

high resolution brings big but low quality photos. That's D800 will do

4 upvotes
Carlos AF Costa
By Carlos AF Costa (Mar 20, 2012)

Sorry!, but are you blind or what?

14 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Mar 20, 2012)

Carlos, don't worry about this guy above. He's been trolling throughout this whole comment board. Must be really insecure about whatever camera he shoots but nobody is buying the nonsense he's selling.

5 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Mar 20, 2012)

the other day there was a parade in the town when I saw a "blind man" trying to make his way to a reserved place for disabled carrying two big Canon cameras over his shoulders.

5 upvotes
draculavn
By draculavn (Mar 20, 2012)

you nikon guys here should go to canon box to see nikon fans make provoke and rubbish comments. How do you feel about that?

1 upvote
lensberg
By lensberg (Mar 20, 2012)

To be fair to the D800, this extraordinary resolution will only proove beneficial under good lighting conditions... beyond ISO 1600 the image quality deteriorates rapidly...

1 upvote
puneetvikramsingh
By puneetvikramsingh (Mar 20, 2012)

you seem to be canon's marketting manager...lolz

0 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (Mar 20, 2012)

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=40961961

0 upvotes
Devendra
By Devendra (Mar 20, 2012)

looks like dracula is blind, but he certainly can wire up and take advantage of d800's high iso sensitivity to bring back his vision :)

(all in pun)

0 upvotes
Lionel Lam
By Lionel Lam (Mar 21, 2012)

I didn't think the D800 fared that bad. I studied the full-resolution samples and I was totally stunned. I was a bit skeptical about the camera when the 5D MkIII's high ISO samples were released, but then I realized that the image quality at high ISO (plus high pixel density, perhaps?) depends on the lighting quality. I own a D7000 (my first DSLR) and I am very happy with the low-light and high ISO image quality, but the D800, despite the pixel density and pixel size being only slightly larger than the D7000, performs remarkably well. Thumbs up to Canon as well for their 5D MIII. The more intense the competition between the two, the better the cameras will be. For me, I'm sticking with Nikon =)

0 upvotes
GiovanniFoto
By GiovanniFoto (Mar 21, 2012)

lol you love to get people going.. but i know you love the d800.. infact you told me you were one of the first people to preorder it.. good for you man... i know u will enjoy it lol

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Mar 20, 2012)

I can understand wanting to know how the D800 compares to the D700 but why would someone with a decent Nikon outfit care what the 5D III does and why would somebody with a bunch of good Canon lenses care about what the D800 does? This is like sports teams with people painting their faces and getting into fights. I have both because the Nikon bodies are nicer but the Canon TS lenses are a little better. But neither the D800 or the 5D III will change any of that.

7 upvotes
sesopenko
By sesopenko (Mar 20, 2012)

The jump from 12mp (a 5d classic) to 21mp (a 5d Mk II) wasn't huge and it would require much better glass than I owned a while ago. I cleared out my low resolution canon glass (non L lenses) and sold the 5D classic. The D800 was announced and the jump from 12mp to 36mp sounded very attractive to me so I ordered one. Will I see much of a difference between it and a 5d mk iii in the real world? Probably not often but I didn't want to wait even longer because I'm kind of without a camera right now.

2 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Mar 20, 2012)

I agree with you.
But Nikon wide lenses are nicer than Canons, IMO.

1 upvote
Carlos AF Costa
By Carlos AF Costa (Mar 20, 2012)

Very good, but still very expensive. Definitely we do not APS-C, but only full frame cameras. Democratize prices!!!

1 upvote
EliasT
By EliasT (Mar 20, 2012)

A photographer just needs a D700 with 16MP, nothing more! Bells and whistles are marketing that cost $$.

5 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Mar 20, 2012)

I'm glad you know what other photographers need, but I'm pretty sure nobody is complaining about the fair price of the D800. This camera is a lock for a Gold Award, plain and simple.

7 upvotes
Faintandfuzzy
By Faintandfuzzy (Mar 20, 2012)

Well, the D700 has 12mp. The D7000 has 16mp. And neither will produce a 24x36 print as detailed as the D800. That's not maketing....it's a fact.

11 upvotes
leshka10
By leshka10 (Mar 20, 2012)

I would add to it the 100% viewfinder as well.

2 upvotes
Hughesnet
By Hughesnet (Mar 20, 2012)

Hello, Elias. Thank you for honoring us with your need to express your own superiority though the canned expression that if only others were as good as you they could take a great photo with nothing more then a shoe, some glue, and a string. Us poor saps unfortunatly still appreciate the benefits that better tech can give us.

6 upvotes
EliasT
By EliasT (Mar 20, 2012)

Wow, it seems that there D800 supporters are willing to throw some of us in the fire just for the shake of supporting Nikon's new tech diamond! Just for historical purposes, I own a Nikon and I'm not claiming to be a pro. This won't make me ignore (and neither should you) the fact that D700 is a "winner in the dark" since 2000' and that Nikon should have bulit on that. Similar, or a little worse, to my opinion, behaviour or the D800 isn't what I expected. Apart from that, I use my shoes for walking, and a camera for shooting, I don't know about you though..

2 upvotes
Charlie Jin
By Charlie Jin (Mar 20, 2012)

Hughesnet, what a stupid sarcastic remarks without any merits.
EliasT has a point. But you don't, except the ill-mind set.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Mar 20, 2012)

Similar, to you. But for everyone else who has seen the comparisons vs D700, with D800 showing better high ISO performance, improved DR, and obviously higher resolution, and considering things like 1080p24 video, 100% finder, better AF, they are only similar in that they both start with a D.

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
lensberg
By lensberg (Mar 20, 2012)

Are you serious when you say that the D800 has superior ISO performance compared to the D700...? This statement is a far cry from the truth... The D800 looks just "okay" at best from ISO 3200 + ... There is way too much noise reduction at play... which is clearly visible...

Why do people always talk about downscaling the image to 16 or 12 MP files in order to get acceptable noise results...?! If i bougt the D800 i'd want to shoot at the full 36.3 MP ... and preserve my files at that resolution too. Of cource this is a personal preference... but still...

And regarding DR... I cannot understand how a pixel crammed sensor like the one found in the D800 can produce exceptional DR... My comment is only based upon the sample test & real world images i've seen... and dynamic range is good, but definitely not great... or in any form visibly superior to either the D700 or 5D Mark III

3 upvotes
EliasT
By EliasT (Mar 20, 2012)

I can only agree with lensberg; having seen photos (in RAW format, if we are discussing about sensors and not noise reduction algorithm software..) between D700 and D800 for higher ISO my opinion is that the D700 has better performance. If D800 was performing at least equally to D700 it would be undoubtly my choise today (I still haven't checked 5D mk III yet).

0 upvotes
pwilly
By pwilly (Mar 20, 2012)

@Elias,
Look at the performance, Nikon got better results AND three times the pixels.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=40917922

0 upvotes
Rubenski
By Rubenski (Mar 20, 2012)

Can't believe this, I've just learned that 5DMark III sensor is way behind, even worse in DR than the older Nikon sensors! And Sony is kicking Canon's ass too! And all thanks to posts about all kinds of techie stuff (read: I've got nothing else to do than pixel peeping and concluding from that I indeed prefer the camera I already preferred in the first place). I'll tell you one thing: the pro's warn you: don't read the posts on THE BIG WEBSITES, there're filled with the usual BS!! (coming from a fan of photography, not a fan of a brand, couldn't care less).

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
11 upvotes
draculavn
By draculavn (Mar 20, 2012)

where did you get such rubbish? from nikon fan like you?

3 upvotes
altenae
By altenae (Mar 20, 2012)

How I wish we could respect eachother.
Canon is superb
Nikon is superb

Why ALWAYS ALWAYS this Nikon vs Canon HATE !!!!!!

6 upvotes
Zerg2905
By Zerg2905 (Mar 20, 2012)

@altenae: because it's the perception war, and this is a very cleverly induced one. Now, before DPR posted the "results" from the super-amazing-miracle camera (D800), I started to think that the 5D Mk III was a complete failure. Now I will restate this: it is just a failure, but only from one point of view (my opinion): the price!!! the price!!! the price!!! From all other angles, for those who wanted the ultimate 5D II supremacy (as all rounder), here it is: 5D Mk III! Sorry Nikon, you did an amazing camera (and by this I mean: no joke, armada of Nikon fans -not fanboys-, TRULY AMAZING!), but not amazing enough for me. IQ in all photography situations is king/key/critical. For me. P.S.: Canon, please start to think - why your marketing failed to launch in parallel a "super MP version" of 5D? Why? I'm really, really curious...

0 upvotes
pwilly
By pwilly (Mar 20, 2012)

@Rubenski
Go take some pictures and stop reading the stuff on websites. Your camera didn't stop working because somebody came out with a new one.

1 upvote
Jacques Cornell
By Jacques Cornell (Mar 20, 2012)

I can't believe it, either. In fact, I don't. Where'd you "learn" this stuff? Talk radio? Let's reserve judgement until we have thorough tests of D800 and 5DIII RAW files. In the meantime, Sony's not kicking anyone's ass in the high-ISO noise department.

2 upvotes
BJL
By BJL (Mar 20, 2012)

To those worrying about storage costs, don't panic: 1TB costs under $200 these days, so under 2c per D800 raw file. Storage costs have been going down faster than pixel counts go up. (Not that I need nearly this many pixels!)

0 upvotes
ianz28
By ianz28 (Mar 20, 2012)

Hard Drive costs are extremely high still. Western Digital and Seagate (2 of the major hard drive manufacturers) were both flooded in Thailand last year.

Pre - flood 1TB drives prices were around $75.

0 upvotes
Sebit
By Sebit (Mar 20, 2012)

Not sure what type of storage you have in mind (RAID 1 or single drive, or else), but today I can buy 2TB Seagate for $140. Pre-flood it was $100 (for 2TB!).

0 upvotes
Hughesnet
By Hughesnet (Mar 20, 2012)

They arent all that expensive.

0 upvotes
KitHB
By KitHB (Mar 20, 2012)

2 cents per raw file?

The clear plastic sheets with six slots in we used for keeping strips of 35mm trannies cost a lot more than that. (I'm not even going to think about how much we spent on those GePe glass slide mounts for projectors)

1 upvote
Petka
By Petka (Mar 21, 2012)

I have stopped complaining about the memory prices after I realized that shooting slide film is about 5 times more expensive than shooting digital, and ARCHIVING THE MEMORY CARDS! Using them just once...

Not to mention the cost of good projectors, slide frames etc.

1 upvote
cleverinstigator
By cleverinstigator (Mar 20, 2012)

wow this image makes the E-5 and OM-D look awesome.

1 upvote
petrocan
By petrocan (Mar 20, 2012)

+1, the om-d is amazing, maybe not just sensor related, the lens has surely something to do with that.

Thank you for posting image of the d800, to confirmed I should buy the OM-D :)

2 upvotes
D200_4me
By D200_4me (Mar 20, 2012)

I suspect it will make great photos, like many other cameras available today. That is, if someone will actually pick it up and use it as intended. Heck, even my crappy old Nikon V1 seems to do ok (there's photographic proof of that in my postings here on dpreview). People...pick out a descent camera and go enjoy your hobby or job (whichever photography is for you) :-)

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Mar 20, 2012)

Seem a bit down on your V1, but I don't consider it crappy or old. Far from it.

0 upvotes
D200_4me
By D200_4me (Mar 20, 2012)

I was just joking about the V1 Marike6. I love the V1.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Mar 20, 2012)

I know how much you like your V1. And I bet you will like this D800 as well. It's all good.

0 upvotes
D200_4me
By D200_4me (Mar 20, 2012)

I'd love to have a D800...but I just can't justify spending the money for it. I'm not sure I really need it...but I would love to have it :-)

0 upvotes
Richt2000
By Richt2000 (Mar 20, 2012)

Gulp. With diffraction limiting the benefits of this sensor to f8 then, as a landscaper I'd need a suite of tilt shift lenses for anything over super wide angle.

1 upvote
DarkShift
By DarkShift (Mar 20, 2012)

Optimal aperture depend on the lens used. Its not fixed wall some people make it sound. And optimal aperture might be different for center and corners for same lens.

Anyway extra pixels help to dig more IQ even for weaker lenses.

That said, tilft & shift lenses have larger imaging circle so their optimal aperture tend to smaller.

0 upvotes
Richt2000
By Richt2000 (Mar 20, 2012)

Yes but with a Tilt-shift you can get front to back in focus at f5.6 in situations where you would need to shoot at f11-f14 on a 'regular' lens.

0 upvotes
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Mar 20, 2012)

@DarkShift
do you know what is diffraction limit? instead of trying to give somebody some lesson..

"Anyway extra pixels help to dig more IQ even for weaker lenses"

really? that's why most P&S are high MP...
are you saying more MP is better IQ? hum...

0 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (Mar 20, 2012)

Yes, but diffraction limit will kick in gradually and depends on the imaging circle of the lens and other properties.

Even some m4/3 lenses has their edge/corner sharpness top at f5.6 even though its past their "diffraction limit".

0 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (Mar 20, 2012)

@Mtsuoka

If pixels are clean and the lens is reasonable good, then yes. Fe. the Nokia 808 produces excellent 38MP images in daylight with its tiny pixels.

Remember mr. Nyquist's law: Sampling must be done atleast two times higher than _highest_ frequency to preserve all details.

1 upvote
Petka
By Petka (Mar 20, 2012)

Diffraction limit can be calculated from sensor/film size only, it does not depend on the lens at all. Diffraction limit is the f-stop where even the perfect lens starts to resolve less than the given sensor resolution. With D800 the diffraction limit is somewhere between f:5.6 and f:8 depending on the wavelength. There is no way in the world to build a lens which resolves 36 MPix on a FF sensor at smaller apertures than f:8. For landscape photographers a tilt lens would give some relief. But remember: even with diffraction limiting this camera is as good as anything before it, so diffraction just sets the resolution limit, it does not make things worse than before.

In Nokia 808 the lens is f:2.4, which is quite exactly at the diffraction limit for that size sensor for 38 MPix. Engineers designed that phone/camera, not marketing people, who would have stuck a f:4.5 lens on it and claimed 38 MPix in the same sentence.

0 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (Mar 20, 2012)

"Diffraction limit can be calculated from sensor/film size only, it does not depend on the lens at all."

Well, usable imaging area depends on size of imaging circle of a lens. A tilft-shift capable lens have naturally much larger imaging circle than normal lenses for same format. Its possible to use a medium format lens on a small sensor camera. That won't change the optimal aperture of the lens at all.

If a lens resolves theoretically N number of lines, then a digital sensor must have OVER 2 times more resolution to get it right. Imagine a diagonal line with width near one pixel. It will look jagged if sampled at the same resolution.

There's examples of the such fine details on DPR studio shots which looks much better on a high resolution camera (like D800) with the same lens shot at f11.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (Mar 20, 2012)

To further illustrate my point of view, take a look at this forum post:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=40897558

And my eyes don't lie...most of the time.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Mar 21, 2012)

Diffraction is a function of the size of the aperture and the distance from the sensor/film. Thus it is directly proportional to f-stop. Focal length or the size of the imaging circle do not play any role in this.

With films there was not much talk about this, because film resolution was the bottleneck, but now sensors are so sharp that we have actually reached the limits posed by physical laws of optics, and for some of us that seems to be difficult to understand and accept.

0 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (Mar 21, 2012)

"Diffraction is a function of the size of the aperture and the distance from the sensor/film. Thus it is directly proportional to f-stop. Focal length or the size of the imaging circle do not play any role in this."

Look. I'm not actually denying the role of diffraction.

However its clear by the DPR samples that already diffraction limited 85mm/f11 lens produces much more detail on D800 than 16-22MP models with similar lens/aperture combo. You must be blind not to see this.

0 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (Mar 21, 2012)

Ok, I made this comparison from DPR studio shots, and upsampled D4 and 5DII to 36MP besides D800. Shot at horrible f11.

So which one do you think shows most image detail? I hear mr. Nyquist calling...

Look at full size please.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (Mar 21, 2012)

The link:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=40974126

0 upvotes
Ssempa
By Ssempa (Mar 20, 2012)

Here's no resize for bigger difference

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/1623/99119266.jpg

0 upvotes
Ssempa
By Ssempa (Mar 20, 2012)

D800 vs 5D Mark III 6400 ISO Detail and Noise Comparison:

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/7368/31024752.jpg
Ding ding ding, D800 victory to me

Credits to imaging-resources.com

5 upvotes
SpinThma
By SpinThma (Mar 20, 2012)

Fully agree, the imaging-resource shots to me are more informative;
/K

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Mar 20, 2012)

Victory over what? I think they are both very good although I can't recall ever needing more than ISO 2000. So far, and based on very little, I'd give Nikon a glorious victory over Canon if you own Nikon lenses. On the other hand, Canon scores a big win over Nikon if you own a bunch of Canon lenses.

2 upvotes
Ilkka Nissilä
By Ilkka Nissilä (Mar 20, 2012)

Nikon's rating of the D800 up to ISO 6400 and D4 up to 12800 seems justified; the D4 gives much lower color noise at ISO 12800 than the D800.

Nothing new under the stars.

1 upvote
SpinThma
By SpinThma (Mar 20, 2012)

Indeed and the D4'S target was ISO Performance and the D800's resolution. You will not shoot for highest resolution with D4 and not for highest ISO Performance with D800;
cheers
/K

0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Mar 20, 2012)

You need to post this on the innumerable threads where self-described experts describe at length why more megapixels mean LESS noise. No, I am not making this up. Read the micro four thirds and Olympus fora if you think I'm kidding.

1 upvote
Ilkka Nissilä
By Ilkka Nissilä (Mar 20, 2012)

I don't have to go that far. The D4/D800 forum is inundated with people who claim that higher pixel density is always better.

0 upvotes
Rubenski
By Rubenski (Mar 20, 2012)

Once again, some common sense in all of this:

'The bottom line is that neither the D800 nor the EOS 5D MkIII sensor is "better". They are different. The Nikon sensor should have higher resolution which will be desirable for those making very large prints or who need to significantly crop their images. On the other hand the EOS 5D MkIII sensor will produce images with lower noise and higher dynamic range in lower light conditions where the use of higher ISO settings are desirable.
It should be remembered that the Nikon D800 has larger pixels then the Canon EOS 7D and the 7D isn't exactly a noisy camera! However the EOS 5D MkIII is said to be a couple of stops better than the EOS 5D MkII (at least for camera JPEGs), and the 5D MkII is maybe a stop less noisy than the EOS 7D, so it looks like the 5DMkIII will probably have a couple of stops lower noise then the D800. Significant importance at ISO 6400.

Source: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/pixel_matters.html

1 upvote
pwilly
By pwilly (Mar 20, 2012)

They are different. The Nikon sensor will have higher resolution which will be desirable for those making very large prints or who need to significantly crop their images.
?On the other hand the EOS 5D MkIII sensor will produce images with lower noise and higher dynamic range in lower light conditions where the use of higher ISO settings are desirable.
This is not correct. The Canon sensor has lower QE and does not have the Sony Exmore architecture that gives 14.5 stops of DR. The end result is the Nikon sensor has substantially better dynamic range.
It should be remembered that the Nikon D800 has larger pixels then the Canon EOS 7D and the 7D isn't exactly a noisy camera!
If you shoot only out of camera jpegs the Canon will have more sharpening and less noise. The end result will be the Canon will have less noise, and all the artifacts that come with too much sharpening.
Have you read any of the threads in the 1D forum? Or only the fanboy posts?

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
Rubenski
By Rubenski (Mar 20, 2012)

Common sense is missing...you don't know this for sure.

2 upvotes
pwilly
By pwilly (Mar 20, 2012)

Compare this post
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=40875293
With this post
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=40876891
Your eyes can see the Dynamic range and signal to noise.
Or if a chart works,
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=40917922

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Anfy
By Anfy (Mar 20, 2012)

How can many, commenting the studio samples from D800, claim that the samples from Canon 5D mark III are better WHEN DPREVIEW HAS NOT YET POSTED THE STUDIO TEST SAMPLES FROM 5D MARK III?
Please...

9 upvotes
Sebit
By Sebit (Mar 20, 2012)

I guess it's the same with true believers of any religion. If your camera becomes a cult, you don't need any freakin samples to prove it's best ;) I know that we should ignore this subject, but this is so funny I just couldn't resist commenting, just like you.

6 upvotes
Rocker44
By Rocker44 (Mar 20, 2012)

This is a logical argument, therefore, has no place in this rabid comments section!

3 upvotes
Alizarine
By Alizarine (Mar 20, 2012)

Canon has its own priests? :)

2 upvotes
bongoyes
By bongoyes (Mar 20, 2012)

...and also the other way around, how can many here categorically state that the D800 is way better than the 5D III without studio samples from the 5D III?

2 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Mar 20, 2012)

According to the table published at the Luminous Landscape site, f11 with FF sensor is diffraction limited to 16 MPix in green and 10 MPix with red wavelengths. This test should be redone at f5.6 (116, 60 and 38 MPix with B, G and R resp.). With f11 all FF cats are gray, no wonder there are no real resolution differences in these samples, they are all about 16 MPix no matter which camera.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml Scroll to the end.

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
cesaregal
By cesaregal (Mar 20, 2012)

It is theory.
Can they tell us which is the best lens for each camera?
So we shall exploit all MP.

0 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Mar 20, 2012)

Nikon has published a list of lenses good enough for the D800, so yes, as far as Nikon is concerned.

0 upvotes
cesaregal
By cesaregal (Mar 20, 2012)

Thanks Petka.
Then DPR should test D800 with NIKKOR 85mm f/1.4 G at f5.6 for best results.

0 upvotes
Sebit
By Sebit (Mar 20, 2012)

Looking at those and other web-available NEFs from D800 I must admit that this camera is great.
Initially I was disappointed hearing of 36mp, hoping for D4 sensor in D800 body, as low-light photography is very important for me.
However, looking now at the benefits of having 36mp in a camera with shorter lag and viewfinder blackout, 100% vf, supposedly more sensitive and faster AF, capable video AND better hi iso performance (perhaps even at pixel level, not mentioning comparing same size prints - which is BY FAR better than currently owned D700), fantastic DR (I was blown by imaging resource image @100iso ability to recover both highlights and shadows) I think that a D800 is a fantastic deal for the price. It will be fun to go and try to use all of its mp from time to time, in right conditions (lens, technique, subject) - quite a challenge! Knowing that it will perform in less optimal conditions, too.

2 upvotes
Sebit
By Sebit (Mar 20, 2012)

I'm not saying that everybody should get one, and that no other camera can do the job. This seems to be popular interpretation of opinions like mine presented above. Everyone has different needs and priorities, size of the cam, weight, base iso, workflow (size of the files, for example) - that's why we have so many makes and models available on the market. One needs to understand that in order to avoid trolling. To me it seems a briliant move by Nikon, and it will drive the sales of their premium lenses, too. You may laugh at high mp, but times are changing, look at Nokia using 41mp in a phone cam. I was laughing at it, too, until I saw samples from this sensor at screen size (one can say print), incl. low light. Amazing for a phone! And again, don't get me wrong - I don't think my photography will suffer from me using an "old" D700. I just know that when my wife will finally persuade me to give her my old FF (she would love to use it),I'm now sure I've got something I can upgrade to.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Mar 20, 2012)

You might not be saying everyone should get a D800, but apparently they are. The waiting lists are phenomenal. Wonder if I will ever get mine. Hopefully before a new model comes out.

0 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Mar 20, 2012)

DPR: ISO 100 settings for D800: 1/15s, f/11. For D4: 1/8s, f/11. That's one full EV difference, how come?

3 upvotes
NektonFi
By NektonFi (Mar 20, 2012)

I was wondering the same thing. At ISO 6400 it is f/11 and 1/1000 for D800 and 1/500 for D4.

Unless lighting has changed it seems that D800 is a stop more sensitive at same ISO settings than the D4.

0 upvotes
SLRist
By SLRist (Mar 20, 2012)

How about the likelihood that it's just a typo?

0 upvotes
NektonFi
By NektonFi (Mar 20, 2012)

Typp on EXIF all over the ISO range? Seems extremely unlikely. You can download the raw files and see the same typos over there as well.

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Mar 20, 2012)

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

read that.... and start to think about REAL WORLD BENEFITS of a D800.

i think 99,5% here will never make real use of the 36 MP files.
with that i mean prints that have a visible better appearance then a 3 year old camera.

1 upvote
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Mar 20, 2012)

Unless you really need the DR and some other fantastic abilities of this sensor.

2 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Mar 20, 2012)

well im speaking about the MP race.... of cource.

so my sentence above should be:

start to think about REAL WORLD BENEFITS of the 36 MP on a FF sensor.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Mar 20, 2012)

you also get more scope to crop with the higher resolution. I know 'digital-zoom' has always been a dirty term for 'serious' photographers, but that was becasue it was implemented first on VGA phone cameras. But ultimately, if the article is saying that 10Mpix is enough for a decent print, then I see no harm in 'digitally zooming' (or cropping) down to 10Mpix level.

1 upvote
antoineb
By antoineb (Mar 20, 2012)

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

0 upvotes
Midnighter
By Midnighter (Mar 20, 2012)

No need to go down to f5.6, its still clear of diffraction at f8 and would be up to 46MP.

0 upvotes
Bomple
By Bomple (Mar 20, 2012)

Since the D800 is full-format, it should not be diffraction limited at f11

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Mar 20, 2012)

sensor:

pixel size 4.9 µm
maximum COC 12.25 µm

at f11:
airy disc size 14.7 µm

so the sensor is diffraction limited at f11.

at f8:
airy disc size 10.7 µm

so it´s not diffraction limited.

but it´s not like you hit a solid wall.. diffraction increases.

many camera lens system show best perfomance near the f-stop where diffraction sets in.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
1 upvote
goosel
By goosel (Mar 20, 2012)

@Henry,

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.

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Mar 20, 2012)

well i have already calculate for viewing at 100% on a monitor.

circle of confusion based on pixels gives an indication of when diffraction will becomes visible at 100% on a screen.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Mar 20, 2012)

According to the table published at the Luminous Landscape site, f8 with FF sensor is diffraction limited to 29 MPix in green and 19 MPix with red wavelengths. This test should be redone at f5.6 (116, 60 and 38 MPix with B, G and R). With f11 all FF cats are gray, no wonder there are no real resolution differences in these samples, they are all about 16 MPix no matter which camera.

0 upvotes
goosel
By goosel (Mar 20, 2012)

sorry problems posting

Comment edited 60 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Richt2000
By Richt2000 (Mar 20, 2012)

So if it needs to be used at f8, landscapers are going to need a full set of tilt shift lenses to benefit from that sensor. Ouch, the cost just went up !!!!!!

0 upvotes
FOTOINFORMATOR dot PL
By FOTOINFORMATOR dot PL (Mar 21, 2012)

D800 is great camera but 5dmarkIII maybe is better.

0 upvotes
dholl
By dholl (Mar 20, 2012)

The Depth of Field (DoF) is tiny on the D800 studio samples. The 5DII appears larger. I didn't see the focal length and aperture used for both cameras...anyone know this?

0 upvotes
danieljp
By danieljp (Mar 20, 2012)

Why don't you guys arguing over the Nikon / Canon "thing" wise up and stop cluttering the thread. The difference between this board and a pay board is quality of comments. If you have something to say about Canon verses Nikon do it in such a way (has some have done here) that is constructive and get over the "my thing is bigger than your thing" bologna. They are both great camera manufacturers and either is a great tool. I personally am happy for the competition.

4 upvotes
Rubenski
By Rubenski (Mar 20, 2012)

People trying to conclude from this test wether this camera of 5D Mark III is 'better' are only subjectively giving their own preferences based on......nothing. Most comments are firmly stating things nobody can know at this point, only extensive testing will reveal the weak and strong points of any camera.

2 upvotes
russbarnes
By russbarnes (Mar 20, 2012)

I have no idea where half of the comments below come from, it's absolutely laughable. The D800 image in my view is BETTER than the Pentax, but someONE shot it at f/18 so it's bound to be. As for the 5DMKII, it's nowhere near, plain and simple, it's not in the same class - the details are a mush where you want resolution and I don't expect any better from the 5DMKIII based on what has been shown across the internet so far.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
draculavn
By draculavn (Mar 20, 2012)

nothing to prove your comment true. But one thing all people can be sure that 5D mark II launched 4 years ago. any comparison with d800 is ridiculous. Open your eyes to see photo samples of 5D mark III. d800 has no chance to match this quality

3 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Mar 20, 2012)

russbane.. i think you need a eye or a brain doctor.
do yourself a favor and visit them!!

the 800D shows more detail of course... it´s 36 MP... BUT it´s only a marginal resolution increase.

your "not in the same class" idiocy can only come from a blind, dumb or nikon fanboy.

2 upvotes
lensberg
By lensberg (Mar 20, 2012)

@ draculavn - totally agree with your comment!

The 5D Mark III kills the D800 at every ISO setting... there is absolutely no question about it. Even the RAW samples (from a Polish website) look outstanding all the way uptill 25600.

Heck, the 5D III is clearly better than the D4 in JPEG's for sure... resolving far more detail & preserving fine details much better across the spectrum...

This website - ephotozine has posted D4 ISO test samples at all sensitivities... and quite frankly they look horrible from ISO 3200 and beyond...

Anyone trying to insinuate that the Canon 5D III will merely emulate the 5D II in terms of image quality... yeah right... thats just wishfull thinking on the part of naysayers...

Even from the early samples of the 5D III there is clearly a 2 + stop advantage over its predecessor...

The fact of the matter is that the 5D Mark III beats nikons flagship D4 & D800 by a decisive margin... its a fact you're going to have to accept...

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Mar 20, 2012)

@lensberg - You can say it, but it doesn't make it true. The fact of the matter is the D800 is equal to the 5D III at every ISO with better DR. This is just a fact. Not to mention the little matter of price.

4 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (Mar 20, 2012)

I bet you haven't looked at the RAW files yourself. There's raw files from both available at the Imaging Resource. D800 is not really "killed" by 5DIII and has superior detail.

5DIII might be one stop better in noise than 5DII. Definitely not magical 2 stop difference.

1 upvote
walnist
By walnist (Mar 20, 2012)

What fact?
The fact that everybody can see here is how the 5d Mark *2* is clearly better in terms of high ISO than the D800

0 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (Mar 20, 2012)

@walnist

You must be trolling or we are looking at different RAW files. Not so much different shadow noise between those.

1 upvote
russbarnes
By russbarnes (Mar 20, 2012)

lol. Canon has taken over the photography world with the 5DMKIII...we shall kneel before it in its magnificent presence. One thing is for sure, Canon users have sure become obsessed by this poorly performing D800.

1 upvote
lensberg
By lensberg (Mar 20, 2012)

@ DarkShift - yes i have indeed compared RAW samples from both cameras - and there will be little doubt in anyone's mind that the 5D III samples are much cleaner with better detail retention at all sensitivities.

What samples are you looking at...? The 5D III is definitely 2 stops better than the 5D II ... maybe you're hoping for a different outcome... but even reviewers commenting on early samples have stated that there is a 2 stop difference between the two cameras.

D800 does not have superior detail... all it does it produces a larger image... but that does not necessarily translate into greater real life detail...

the D800 smudges out most of its initial resolution advantage into an attempt to control noise levels... If your sole purpose is to use the D800 for studio photography... then i'm sure it will make for a great piece of equipment...

But as far as low light, sporting events, party / concert photography is concerned... the 5D III is much better suited...

2 upvotes
lensberg
By lensberg (Mar 20, 2012)

Actually a large number of people are just point out the fact that the Nikon D4 isn't even on par with the 2½ year old D3S - and that the Canon 5D Mark III produces cleaner images than the D4...

2 upvotes
Rocker44
By Rocker44 (Mar 20, 2012)

Good lord, you are all so annoying. Stop making sweeping statements, they are irrelevant.

2 upvotes
lensberg
By lensberg (Mar 20, 2012)

@ marike6 - the level of detail in shadow areas is is sharper and better identifiable in the 5D III as compared to the D800. The nikon is just applying extra sharpening to try and give an impression of detail... when in reality if you scrutinize the image, you'll notice a more heavy handed approach at noise reduction...

1 upvote
DarkShift
By DarkShift (Mar 20, 2012)

@lensberg

Imaging Review as I said. Somebody said 5D2 had "killed" D800. And 5D3 was claimed 2 stops better performance than 5D2. Looking at those RAW files gives really different outcome ;)

I own Canon system, but some one has been smoking something if claims that mkIII has 2 stops better noise. Maybe compared to OM-D yes.

On DPR samples take a look at red fabric to the left of queen playing card. D800 has superior detail to 5D2 there. No contest.

2 upvotes
kewlguy
By kewlguy (Mar 20, 2012)

Now I can't wait to see how the d800e performs!!

0 upvotes
Barbu
By Barbu (Mar 20, 2012)

Can't wait for direct comparison shots between D800E and the mundane version :D of D800.

5 upvotes
etid
By etid (Mar 20, 2012)

Guys remember to look at the RAW before talking.
ISO noise is far better than mkII and so are details.

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (Mar 20, 2012)

I think Nikon did a good job. Excelent resolution and this isn't even the D800e. High Iso noise is very acceptable once you look at the images on the right scale.

1 upvote
goodgeorge
By goodgeorge (Mar 20, 2012)

Why are these shots taken at f11?

Even at 12mp D3 f8 is too much and diffraction affects the sharpness according to your tests. This proves, that central sharpnes of a high end lens does not improve from f4 on: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=17&fullscreen=true&av=3&fl=70&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&&config=/lensreviews/widget/LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F4

0 upvotes
kimsch
By kimsch (Mar 20, 2012)

That is what I am curious about as well. And the Pentax 645 is at f18!

0 upvotes
ZAnton
By ZAnton (Mar 20, 2012)

I'll give you a hint:
DOF on a FF camera.

@kimsch
Pentax has larger sensor. Diffraction comes later.

Comment edited 59 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Anfy
By Anfy (Mar 20, 2012)

Good question. According to Nikon D800/D800E Technical Guide,
"with the D800/D800E’s high resolution the effects" [of diffraction: loss of definition] "generally become noticeable around f/11".
Source:
http://www.nikonusa.com/en_US/o/Y6wrkA9OU_z04IreazIXl_22UII/PDF/D800_TechnicalGuide_En.pdf
(page 13)

1 upvote
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Mar 20, 2012)

so what?

the sensor is useless above f4 because of diffraction?
that is what you are telling us?

an kimsch.... you talk but something you don´t know nothing about.
f18 on a MF is not f18 on a FF sensor.

guys get some knowledge before talking.

0 upvotes
kimsch
By kimsch (Mar 20, 2012)

The genious Henry M. Hertz is back in town...

Please quote where I say that f18 on a MF is the same as f18 on a FF sensor? My point is that I cannot see why you have to shoot a bottle of Martini at f18 when diffraction is clearly visible on the 645D even at f16.
Read this genious: http://www.cmp-color.fr/pentax_645D.html

0 upvotes
ZAnton
By ZAnton (Mar 20, 2012)

Noise-wise it is better than Canon 5D mk2. DR (and shadow noise) is probably either. Good for Nikon, bad for me =).

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
mholdef
By mholdef (Mar 20, 2012)

Just curious, but does anyone know what lenses were used on these tests ?

0 upvotes
RP McMurphy
By RP McMurphy (Mar 20, 2012)

it's shown on each image - just click the icon for detail

0 upvotes
Louis_Dobson
By Louis_Dobson (Mar 20, 2012)

Point made that the IQ war is won. On the basis of those unless you shoot in the dark there is no point in buying that over an OM-D (or whatever floats your boat) and giving your back a rest.

Or unless you push and pull load of stops in PP at base ISO of course, which I do. So the D800 is still on my radar - but for people taking fairly un-manipulated pictures, they're just wasting money and wearing themselves out lugging round something with bragging rights.

4 upvotes
NektonFi
By NektonFi (Mar 20, 2012)

D800 raws seem to be one of the best for manipulating as well. There is no banding at ISO 6400 even if you push it 2 stops. These studio samples are obviously easy to push, but based on other raw samples as well the D800's IQ is phenomenal.

2 upvotes
Louis_Dobson
By Louis_Dobson (Mar 20, 2012)

Yes, if you push, which I do, this would seem to be a winner. If one doesn't push, it would appear to be an expensive waste of time. In other words the extra pixels are great for latitude, but don't seem to be doing anything exciting for resolution.

I wonder if the D800E will be any different?

1 upvote
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Mar 20, 2012)

Louis, if people take "un-manipulated" pics certainly almost any dslr is a waste of money. Any under-600USD dslr or ml would do.

Comment edited 12 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Mar 20, 2012)

i agree that the resolution increase from 21 to 36 MP is nothing that impresses me.

but i do think for the huge amount of MP the 3200 iso pictures look good. i thought the D800 would be doing worse.

0 upvotes
Louis_Dobson
By Louis_Dobson (Mar 20, 2012)

More MP the better. You can sacrifice them to NR, so more res means less, not more, noise in the overall picture (even if more on a pixel by pixel basis).

I agree with rhlpetrus above actually. A handful of people who want to, and can, do heavy PP will get an IQ benefit from cameras like these. Most people are just wasting money and carting around a brick. Or to put it another way "if you don't understand a mask, this camera is a bad choice".

1 upvote
plasnu
By plasnu (Mar 20, 2012)

I dont understand why so much negative comments here. This is a fantastic camera and absolutely a game changer. No question about it.

I'm also very impressed how good OMD is. Do I really need FF? That's the question for me.

4 upvotes
NektonFi
By NektonFi (Mar 20, 2012)

I don't understand bad comments either. I am sure D800 will have the best imagequality if the best medium format backs are not taken into account. Best IQ under 20 000 eur/USD for sure.

1 upvote
DarkShift
By DarkShift (Mar 20, 2012)

@NektonFi

Sorry, not as good as the Pentax 645D which is around 10 000 eur with VAT.

Though from usability viewpoints the D800 wins easily with live view and much faster frame rate.

1 upvote
NektonFi
By NektonFi (Mar 20, 2012)

Ok, maybe under 10k then :) We'll have to see how D800e compares to 645D

0 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (Mar 20, 2012)

Just select Pentax 645D from the dropdown menu.

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Mar 20, 2012)

Re Pentax, it must be better, even though in some aspects the D800 is very very close and I'd like to see DR comparisons in RAW. Let's wait for D800E re detail.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Mar 20, 2012)

Pentax 645D maxes out at ISO 1600. This may be a factor for your photography and might make you choose the D800. That, and the huge price difference.

0 upvotes
NektonFi
By NektonFi (Mar 20, 2012)

D800 vs D4 at same shutterspeed and f-stop: 1/1000 and f/11
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4096871/D800vsD4-samat.JPG
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4096871/D800vsD4-samat2.JPG

D800 on the left. Now, I don't know if the light setup has changed, but it seems that D800 is equally sensitive at ISO 6400 as D4 is at ISO 12800.

0 upvotes
draculavn
By draculavn (Mar 20, 2012)

I will buy 5D mark III soon

1 upvote
William Belvin
By William Belvin (Mar 20, 2012)

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.

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
9 upvotes
h2k
By h2k (Mar 20, 2012)

Interesting remark. Am not a specialist, but would like to hear others' qualified opinion on this.

0 upvotes
SpinThma
By SpinThma (Mar 20, 2012)

Not only the Aperture but also the studio scene, much better visible on imaging-resource use comparometer ...

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
RP McMurphy
By RP McMurphy (Mar 20, 2012)

Agreed, should all be limted to the same, say f8, for meaningful comparisons

0 upvotes
ZAnton
By ZAnton (Mar 20, 2012)

most of the unspharpnesses on these pictures are due to shallow DOF, not diffraction. Using f/5,6 will make only the focusing cross in the center sharp, while everything else will be totally blurred.

0 upvotes
William Belvin
By William Belvin (Mar 20, 2012)

Lenses are designed so that everything in a plane is in focus simultaneously. If the center of the image is in focus and the subject is exactly perpendicular to the sensor then the entire image will be in focus. There is no DOF issue here whatever the aperture.

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Mar 20, 2012)

a perfect lens would be the way you describe it.
BUT REALITY shows us that lenses have a curvature.

that only as info. not to say it would be an issue here.

1 upvote
JacobGreen
By JacobGreen (Mar 20, 2012)

I want to know when it released.
It looks great.

1 upvote
Nuno Souto
By Nuno Souto (Mar 20, 2012)

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!

2 upvotes
RP McMurphy
By RP McMurphy (Mar 20, 2012)

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

0 upvotes
jorgeysusa
By jorgeysusa (Mar 21, 2012)

Nuno, you must be looking at jpeg samples. Try RAW instead and you'll find out that Sony samples are a lot noisier.

0 upvotes
tampadave
By tampadave (Mar 20, 2012)

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.

0 upvotes
dkord
By dkord (Mar 20, 2012)

To be fair don't you want to down size the larger image not interpolate the smaller image?

0 upvotes
tampadave
By tampadave (Mar 20, 2012)

The problem was that the 7D image was too small. Actually, I increased both, but far more for the 7D image.

0 upvotes
RP McMurphy
By RP McMurphy (Mar 20, 2012)

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

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Mar 20, 2012)

please tell me genius..... what paper has a higher dynamic range then my eizo monitor?

when printed... the differences will be even less.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ovrebekk
By ovrebekk (Mar 20, 2012)

The sample shots doesn't seem to be in focus everywhere. Certain parts are much sharper than others.

Crop cameras have more DOF and should have more parts in focus, making them look sharper in comparison.

0 upvotes
nathantw
By nathantw (Mar 20, 2012)

The 645D looks so much better when it comes to the label on the bottle. You can actually tell it's a printed label at ISO 50 since you can see the little dots. I might bypass the D800 and just get a medium format back instead.

0 upvotes
dominikov
By dominikov (Mar 20, 2012)

Sounds like a tough decision considering how close they are in price. You know, $3000 vs. $10,000 :)

4 upvotes
obeythebeagle
By obeythebeagle (Mar 20, 2012)

Forever has a good point. Substitute the Nex7 and Leica M9 for the two bottom comparisons. They all take exceptionally beautiful pictures. Only one is small and relatively inexpensive.

1 upvote
Total comments: 440
123