Just received an email to pre-order this in Australia, very impressive specs.
How is Canon going to respond.
http://camerapro.net.au/nikon-d800-a...er-p-4933.html
Open link and click on specifications, not bad.
Come on Canon, where is your 5DX???
Printable View
Just received an email to pre-order this in Australia, very impressive specs.
How is Canon going to respond.
http://camerapro.net.au/nikon-d800-a...er-p-4933.html
Open link and click on specifications, not bad.
Come on Canon, where is your 5DX???
Ruh Roh! Nikon made a bad decision. Look at and zoom around on their full res sample images. Looks pretty okay for the ISO 100 images.. But look at the ISO 640 and even the ISO 320.. Reminds me a bit of my 7D in lower light. Should you REALLY have to put up with that on a $3,000 camera? Here's hoping the next 5D stays around 22mp.
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/sample01.htm
My first thoughts:
HOLY EFF, 36MP!
My second thoughts:
Surely anyone with a real need for that kind of resolution will be looking at medium-format?
My first thought...
"A 51-point AF system for improved subject acquisition and focus performance under dim lighting. In addition, 11 focus points (five at center with an addition three to each side) are fully functional when lenses with a maximum aperture of f/8 are used."
Take that, 1DX.
Also:
Continuous shooting at 4 (FX-format/5 : 4 image area) or 5 (DX-format/1.2x image area) fps*
*When powered by a Rechargeable Li-ion Battery EN-EL15
When the MB-D12 is mounted on the D800, high-speed continuous shooting at approximately 6 fps* using the DX-format image area is possible.
So given you need to add a battery grip to increase the fps like other nikons, and it does dx-cropping to get to 6fps, it's not much faster than a 5D2 for the most part.
- CompactFlash and SD dual memory card slots
- Support for SuperSpeed USB (USB 3.0)
Nice, but I just bought a nice usb3.0 card reader for $20, so don't care.
15 MP and 6 FPS APS-C mode - definitely adequate for birds/wildlife, then coupled with multiple cross-type AF points at f/8, a wash with the 7D? A lot more resolution than the 5DII, ISO range equal to the 5DII, remains to be seen if ISO noise and DR follow the Nikon pattern of being better than Canon, but if ISO 3200 has the same noise at 36 MP as the 5DII at 21 MP, it's a win for Nikon.
I wasn't particularly interested in a 1D IV, because the APS-H sensor is not the sort of compromise between FF and APS-C that I am looking for. OTOH, a high-res FF sensor coupled with good AF and a decent frame rate - that's my ideal compromise between the two. To me, it seems that the D800 would successfully replace both my 5DII and 7D, and do it for less money.
@Rocco - you may be falling into the common trap of looking at images at 100% for comparison. That's why lots of people complain that their new 7D sucks because it's so much noisier than their old 40D. An 18 MP image from the 7D does look noisier than the 40D's 10 MP image when both are viewed at 100% - you're viewing a much smaller area of the 7D's image. To compare fairly, downsample the higher res image - the 18 MP image, downsampled to 10 MP, looks cleaner than the 40D. So...what does a 36 MP D800 image downsampled to 21 MP look like?
Those were my subsequent thoughts. My first thought? Honestly...a bit of remorse that my thousands of dollars worth of Canon lenses won't work with the D800. :(
Neuro, go back to bed. The remorse will get lost in that wonderful morning sleep.
What I'm most disappointed in most is that the newly announced 24-70mm f/2.8 L II doesn't have IS. Canon = FAIL.
Potential fire sale, L glass must be sold???? LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
If the D800E is as good as some people think, do you think Canon might have a rethink about the 5DMK3 or 5DX, if it is significantly behind or below in spec to this offering from Nikon? Would they have time to make changes?
Will people start wishing for an upgrade of the 5DMK3, before it is even released?
Any thoughts?
I think we just got a preview of the 5D III (or whatever number they use as the next generation)
To match this, Canon will have a 36mp, 6fps camera with the AF system of the 1D IV. We should see the release in the next month. That is my prediction.
I sure hope so, Rick. It would save me a lot of money on a 1D X!
If Canon planned on waiting for the 5D III release for after the 1D X, this will force Canon to rethink that plan. If they do not answer soon it will be a major marketing win for Nikon.Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Provided Canon has an answer for this, and I think they do, it appears to be what they were posturing for with the 1D X replacing the 1D IV. (and the 1D X appearing to not fully replace the 1Ds III)
Exactly my thoughts which makes me very sad :-(Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Again, my sentiments exactly :-(Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
I agree. The only upside is that it should at least shut down the 24-70mm f/2.8 IS rumor mill for at least a year :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
No IS on the new 24-70, everyone is disappointed that Canon doesn't have a match for the new D800...Canon lenses wont work on Nikons...it is sad:(
Well, any one selling their Canon gear let me know, I will give 20 cents on the dollar so you can make the switch to Nikon :p
Wow. I'm very curious to see some raw files from this thing. If it doesn't have all the problems that my 5D2 does (most importantly, poor dynamic range caused by pattern noise), I'm definitely going over to the dark side.
Does anyone feel like the D800 is exactly what everyone's been asking for in the 5D Mark III?
Daniel, can you explain what the D800E gains with the addition of the anti aliasing removing feature, which I think helps image sharpness, but is a big plus for the astral photographers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
Sure. Basically, you have to choose between softness and artifacts. Most camera manufacturers have chosen softness, especially since sharpening can improve things. Very few manufacturers have chosen artifacts instead, since those cannot be removed in post. However, if you are shooting under conditions where the image is already soft (e.g. due to seeing with astrophotography), then the additional softness of the anti-alias filter only increases softness further, for no benefit. In such a case, shooting without the filter will improve sharpness.
Plus, it will really help astral photographers capture ghosts and spirits. ;)
And we thought nobody was listening ...obviously someone from Nikon was!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
Ohhh, that makes sense, now I get it, so this camera is even more desirable to someone like you. I think you need to go to that Sushi bar and give your mate from Canon a good hard shake. Ask him what's going on and tell him the faithful are getting nervous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
We engineers like the removal of the anti-aliasing filter as well though not so many of us use SLRs for imaging (though maybe more so in microscopy). Most scientific-grade sensors simply record the charge level. It's up to the operator to remove dark field effects, characterize hot/cold pixels, etc. The moire patterns one gets when shooting a repeating pattern that does not line up in an integer ratio with the pixels are simply an expected outcome. I disagree that such features cannot be removed in post - but it requires intimate knowledge of the repeating pattern and a smidge of math. It's not the sort of things you're going to expect a wedding photographer to be able to do (since every dress' pattern is slightly different). The other thing you've got to understand is that 99% of the time, scientific (and industrial) images look like crap. Its the statistical representation of what you're looking at that matters. And anything that you cannot characterize in the process (like the AA filter element) makes life difficult.
Yep, spec wise, it sure seems like it. I've read some posts from people that are finding issue with the images Nikon has posted. Personally I think they are good, but I do find it suspecious that the highest ISO of an image they posted was ISO 640. Also, native ISO100-6400 expandable to ISO 50-25600...isn't that the spec on the 5D2? Have to be shooting in DX mode to get the 6 fps. It would be a little funny if we are watching Canon and Nikon switch roles with Canon having the DR/ISO performance and Nikon the high MP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
Overall, it looks like a great camera. The biggest thing I see, besides the MP, is the AF. Nikon set the bar pretty high for Canon. So, here is to hoping that Canon meets or exceeds the bar with the replacement to the 5DII (and 7D)....I am also happy about the price point. I doubt Canon will be much different than $3,000 to stay competitive. I am a few years off from FF (if ever), but I like to think that it would be within range if I ever did decide to make the jump.
One thing I am wondering, how did they get the FF mirror to work with DX lenses? I thought that was part of the deal, that EFS/DX lenses were positioned too close to the sensor and the mirror would hit them. I am sure I am missing something, but maybe it is just about image circle.
Hmmm...I think that I must have a scientific sensor some of the time....maybe an AA filter that can turn itself on and off randomly? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by ChadS
Ahhh! I'm so confused! If you took two identically framed images, one 18mp and one 10mp, did a 100% crop on both.. wouldn't you be looking at the same area of the image? And how does down sizing an image from 18 to 10 reduce the noise? I mean.. obviously less pixels= less noise. But isn't that just because there are less pixels to become noisy? Also, how do you go about down sampling images?Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
When zooming in on those sample images, is that really a 100% crop?
I trust that you know a thing or two. Help me understand? I'm obviously missing something. (And my head hurts trying to make sense of it now. It was so cut and dry for me last night. Heh.)
I've always wondered about that myself. An EF-S lens is too close to the sensor to flip up a mirror if it's a simple hinge. However, if there's any sort of linkage in there it's quite possible that the mirror could clear. Imagine that the back/top of the mirror translated forward and the bottom/front of the mirror swung up at the same time. That would prevent smashing the close-in lens. It's an expensive (and probably loud) solution so there may be a more elegant one than that - but there are solutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kayaker72
@Rocco You've got to decide: same framing or 100% crop?
Let's say you have the identically-framed portrait of a model on a 10 MP and 18 MP 1.6x sensor. They'll look mostly the same if you put it up on the computer screen.
Let's say that if you zoom in on the model's eye you could count the number of pixels that make up that part of the image. For the 10 MP sensor that might be 10,000 pixels whereas that would be 18,000 pixels. So at this level (all other things being equal) the 18 MP image would look better. However, if you zoomed the 10 MP image so that you saw 2 MP worth of pixels on the screen and zoomed the 18 MP image so that you saw 2 MP of pixels on the screen you'd actually see less of the image in the second case (it would appear to be more magnified).
Now, at this higher resolution you are approaching (or well past) the ability of a lens to resolve detail with sharpness. So you will think that the second image looks softer than the first only because you're zooming in on the softness of the lens when in fact the second exposure can have more detail (can - not will). This is all for perfect sensors. Throw in less light per pixel for the 18 MP and you get more noise - hopefully balanced by better generation amplifiers and A/Ds. Throw in the vagaries of AA filters and you've got a convoluted mess.
The only way to know if you've got a softer sensor or not is to use something like the USAF resolution chart and shoot both. If you do that with the 40D and 7D you'll almost certainly be able to resolve tigher linepairs with the 7D.
Edit: noise and pixel size and statistics...
Ideally we'll have so many photons hitting our sensors that we don't have to amplify the signal very much and we get an overwhelming signal. Grand - but not practical. As we have to amplify the signal more (read: higher ISO) more noise is introduced into the signal as a consequence of the reality of physics of amplifiers. You've also go to consider the the number of photons that reach a sensor for a particular intensity is a statistical process. Even shooting a uniform white field you're not going to get exactly 10,000 photons of the same energy level on each pixel. Some will get more some with get less. However, the more photons there are the less this variation represents as a fraction.
As our intensity drops the number of photons registered by each pixel is a lower number. The pixel-to-pixel variation is therefore a larger fraction of the overall. Now, since the number of photons that strike a pixel is proportional to the area of the pixel the pixels on a 10 MP sensor will be larger than that of an 18 MP sensor. This is also why FF cameras of the same # of pixels have less noise than APS-C sensors. I'm simplifying because there are some other things in play like quantum efficiency of the sensor, coverage fraction, etc. but the main idea holds.
What John was saying is that if you Photoshop to reduce the 18 MP image to a 10 MP image using some sort of resampling the reduced-pixel image will appear less noisy than the original - simply because the pixel-to-pixel variations will be averaged out to a certain extent.
I think the D800 is just lipstick on a pig. Wait a few days I am sure Canon will have something....if not a new camera release they will have allot of unhappy Canon followers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
Did any one notice the 29mb jpg files they posted for sample pics.....I wonder if you buy the D800 will they throw in a few external hard drives for storage.
Contrary to popular belief (and contrary to Wikipedia), the -s in EF-s refers to small image circle. Canon's EF-S have a smaller image circle *and* a short back focus. Other manufacturers' APS-C-only lenses have only a smaller image circle. In fact, 3rd party Canon mount lenses (Sigma 8-16, Tokina 11-16) can be mounted on Canon APS-H/FF bodies with no risk (but severe vignetting, obviously).Quote:
Originally Posted by ChadS
@John but my idea would still work! :)
Yes, and I believe Sony already uses that sort of mechanism (the mirror moves more up than forward).Quote:
Originally Posted by ChadS
Do you gain that much by having a 36 MP sensor versus a 18 MP sensor? At what quantity of pixels do even good lenses begin to get max'd out as far as resolving power is concerned?
Dave
It depends. If someone never crops, never does any post processing, and never prints larger than 8x10, then they wont benefit from the difference. But the more of those things they do, the larger the difference will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Throgmartin
Most of the cheap ones (e.g. $100 50mm primes and $400 macro lenses) max out at only 500 MP or so, but the more expensive f/2 lenses can hit 1500. Of course, the aberrations and contrast will not be as good as lower spatial frequencies, but some of them can be corrected to some degree in post (e.g. C.A. correction and sharpening). Many lenses have a "long tail" MTF curve, so that although contrast goes down faster than diffraction at first, it flattens out at the highest spatial frequencies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Throgmartin
Good point. Cropping would appear to be a big benefit if the lens used can take advantage of the higher pixel count sensor. Based off your other comment it sounds like most lenses will be able to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
Well Nikon is upsetting the apple cart.
Did save the landscape photo to open in PS. When I softproofed at the largest sheet size my printer will handle (13x19) the noise disappeared. So did a lot of the other fine details that I would have preferred if they stayed. Come to to think of it the same thing happens with my now inferior camera bodies. I guess I don't need that much resolution after all. Better low light capabilities would be nice. Better AF in 5D package wouldn't hurt either.
Guess I won't start scouring the internet to find an adaptor that allows Canon lenses to speak Nikon after all.
Just some food for thought.
JRW
As for the photographer, that's a whole different story. :) Focus, camera shake, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Throgmartin
It occured to me today that the 7D has a greater pixel density, and therefore more pixels on target for those doing more intense cropping. 18MP*1.6*1.6=46+MP if the same sized pixels were put onto a full frame sized sensor. If only current technology would allow eliminating more of the noise inherent in converting photons to electrical charge we could have a much better signal-to-noise ratio for even better high ISO performance.
So, looking at those Nikon photos again, I am starting to wonder if their RAW conversion favours sharpness over smoothness which could help to explain why some are questioning the noise levels of the D800 with its larger pixels when compared to 7D shots at similar gain (ISO) settings. Without having shots of the same subject with both cameras to compare detail sharpness and noise it is of course all conjecture and speculation, but winter nights are long, the temperature is dropping, and more snow is coming tonight.
Safe to say I favor greater pixel count in 95% of my still shooting settings - it just simply provides me with greater flexibility. For those with consistent low light or very low light needs this pixel density becomes a problem.
I am also old enough to remember the Olympus 1/2 from 35mm camera, am thinking the comparision might be for density might be viewed as turn the d800 vertical and either half would be roughly equivalent to a 18mp frame on the 7d-550 sensor - not sure of the precise dimensions but that would provide a 2x focal length conversion at the same pixel count.
I am a little surprised at the video side of the d800 if I understand it correctly. I do enjoy the 60fps on my plastic t31i and HDR rendering that it provides using Magic Lantern (get if you dont have it yet) - takes awhile for the computer to crunch through it - coffee break - I also like the 60 fps as 2 mp still (jack the shutter speed up) for the kiddo's soccer newsletters, etc.
I am looking forward to the Canon equivalent coming out - it really would be something if they put a stepped up HD resoltuion into the video capabilities similar to the 7.6mp capture in c300 - at 30/60 fps (lots o data & I am off my meds but it is only 2x for current density (4x data flow)
my 2 pennies.
This is where physics vs. resolution matters. I can give you amazing ISO low-light performance OR I can give you lots of megapixels (and noise) for any technology level. It's engineering not art. There are tradeoffs and optimizations that cannot be short-circuited.Quote:
Originally Posted by jrw
Assuming the same sensor size as the 1Dx (at twice the number of pixels) each pixel should be sqrt(2) smaller than the 1Dx. That's 4.8 microns pixels vs. 4.3 micron pixels on the 7D. So yes, the 7D is slightly more pixel-dense than the D800. Of course, pixel density is not all good. Any cell phone has smaller pixels than this - and noise to match.
Perhaps John can answer this - I cannot without investigating the amplifiers used per pixel. If you downsample an image from high resolution to low resolution is the result any worse than simply having a lower resolution sensor to begin with? I'm guessing the answer lies in the dark noise of the sensor - and I'm guessing that noise is the same for large or small pixels. So smaller pixels will have lower SNR to start with than larger. Averaging those together helps but you always end up with more noise averaging two subsamples than if it were one sample to begin with. So with that assumption, the 1Dx is going to have superior low-light performance than the D800 even after resampling (if their sensors were of equal performance to begin with). Thoughts John?
I think that's only half the story though. You're probably right that you'd get extra noise from averaging the two smaller pixels than from a large one, but that's only the whole story if you're shooting a flat color.
For any object with a shape and edges, the extra resolution also gives you better shape definition, and the resampling to a smaller image may give a nicer anti-aliased edge that using the lower res sensor. Since images often have areas with edges AND areas of flat (or nearly flat) color, you need to find the resolution/noise sweet spot for the imaginary "average picture".