MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)  (Read 11111 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: March 22, 2012, 02:30 »
0
@lagereek

Absolutely, Canon we can trust to make a 36MP body, Nikon not so much ;)


« Reply #51 on: March 22, 2012, 02:59 »
0
Just saw this.  I would love a full frame camera in a more compact body with an EVF that didn't cost as much as a Leica.
http://photorumors.com/2012/03/21/canon-mirrorless-camera-concept/

« Reply #52 on: March 22, 2012, 03:51 »
0
Just saw this.  I would love a full frame camera in a more compact body with an EVF that didn't cost as much as a Leica.
http://photorumors.com/2012/03/21/canon-mirrorless-camera-concept/


Looks smashing!

« Reply #53 on: March 22, 2012, 06:22 »
0
Just saw this.  I would love a full frame camera in a more compact body with an EVF that didn't cost as much as a Leica.
http://photorumors.com/2012/03/21/canon-mirrorless-camera-concept/


The thing about compact systems is that its the lenses, especially telephoto, that really add to the weight, not so much the bodies. If Canon do come out with a new mirrorless system this year, which is highly likely, its unlikely to be FF, and will need an entirely new set of lenses because a lens optimised for traditional AF won't work nearly so well if they AF from the sensor.

velocicarpo

« Reply #54 on: March 22, 2012, 09:50 »
0
I just did a little (superficial) research about XXL file sales and the result was surprising even to me:
- Only 5% of sales is a XXL file.
- BUT the income generated by XXL files is 42% !!!

Somewhat logical giving the high price of the XXLs. One has to sell oftenly like 20 Subs to get the same share as with one XXL credit sale. I looked at the stats of 8 Agencies.

lagereek

« Reply #55 on: March 22, 2012, 10:19 »
0
Buyers do noit consult micro agencies for XXXL, files. They come here, mostly to buy as cheap as possible and thats that. I can easily see that the very few buyers who go for an XXXL, have previously DLd, the same file as a comp.
However, thats not to say that one shouldnt strive for perfection and optimal equipment but for me,  one DSLR, after another and another is pointless. The logical step is actually to go MF, then the sky is the limit, ofcourse depending on type of photography.

« Reply #56 on: March 22, 2012, 10:26 »
0
Just saw this.  I would love a full frame camera in a more compact body with an EVF that didn't cost as much as a Leica.
http://photorumors.com/2012/03/21/canon-mirrorless-camera-concept/


The thing about compact systems is that its the lenses, especially telephoto, that really add to the weight, not so much the bodies. If Canon do come out with a new mirrorless system this year, which is highly likely, its unlikely to be FF, and will need an entirely new set of lenses because a lens optimised for traditional AF won't work nearly so well if they AF from the sensor.

They could make a full frame version of the G1 X.  A bit like the Fuji GA645 film camera.  That used the big 120 film but was quite nice to travel with.  The Mamiya 7 is another film camera that could inspire a digital version.  It seems very popular today.  Perhaps Fuji or Sony, who took over Mamiya are more likely to try this than Canon?

rinderart

« Reply #57 on: March 22, 2012, 12:52 »
0
Buyers do noit consult micro agencies for XXXL, files. They come here, mostly to buy as cheap as possible and thats that. I can easily see that the very few buyers who go for an XXXL, have previously DLd, the same file as a comp.
However, thats not to say that one shouldnt strive for perfection and optimal equipment but for me,  one DSLR, after another and another is pointless. The logical step is actually to go MF, then the sky is the limit, ofcourse depending on type of photography.
  Agree , Im waiting to try the Fuji X1 pro.

« Reply #58 on: March 22, 2012, 19:10 »
0
I just took the first few shots with our D800, and so far, I'm extremely satisfied with the image quality. Straight out of the box (no custom settings, yet). I'm impressed with the low noise levels at higher ISO, and it's dynamic range. Image sharpness is fine, but I can't wait to compare it with the D800E we also ordered. (It'll be a long month waiting) Zooming in to 100% on a 36MP image is awesome, although I think that thrill will wear off soon.

Despite its Magnesium alloy body, it does feel a bit cheaper than the D700. The buttons and dials feel less sturdy than those on the D3x and D700, but it handles identical (which is no surprise).

As Expected, you'll need to update the Camera Raw. Standard issue PS CS5.1 can't read D800 RAW files, nor can Lightroom 3. However, Adobe issued a pre release ACR 6.7, which does the job, and so does Lightroom 4. Apparently, so does the latest version / update of Aperture, but I can't verify that.

Two high res snaps (Each ~19MB JPEG):
800 ISO: http://www.corepics.com/D800/D800_DSC0016.jpg
100 ISO: http://www.corepics.com/D800/D800_DSC0018.jpg

I didn't buy it solely for stock. In my commissioned work, I notice an increase of image size with quite a few of my clients for various reasons. Covering large office walls with a photo is one of them, ability for clients to crop themselves and still make a decent sized print is another. I bought two, because I work in camera unfriendly environments, where switching lenses can be challenging, and my other bodies are wearing / have worn out. I thought of getting one D4 as substitute for one of the D800's, but decided against it, because I expect the difference of a future D4x to a D4 to be similar to the difference between the D3 and D3x. I much prefer the D3x, and not to mention the additional costs.

Now it's time to take this puppy out for a real spin and let it earn it's money back :)

velocicarpo

« Reply #59 on: March 22, 2012, 19:35 »
0
I just took the first few shots with our D800, and so far, I'm extremely satisfied with the image quality. Straight out of the box (no custom settings, yet). I'm impressed with the low noise levels at higher ISO, and it's dynamic range. Image sharpness is fine, but I can't wait to compare it with the D800E we also ordered. (It'll be a long month waiting) Zooming in to 100% on a 36MP image is awesome, although I think that thrill will wear off soon.

Despite its Magnesium alloy body, it does feel a bit cheaper than the D700. The buttons and dials feel less sturdy than those on the D3x and D700, but it handles identical (which is no surprise).

As Expected, you'll need to update the Camera Raw. Standard issue PS CS5.1 can't read D800 RAW files, nor can Lightroom 3. However, Adobe issued a pre release ACR 6.7, which does the job, and so does Lightroom 4. Apparently, so does the latest version / update of Aperture, but I can't verify that.

Two high res snaps (Each ~19MB JPEG):
800 ISO: http://www.corepics.com/D800/D800_DSC0016.jpg
100 ISO: http://www.corepics.com/D800/D800_DSC0018.jpg

I didn't buy it solely for stock. In my commissioned work, I notice an increase of image size with quite a few of my clients for various reasons. Covering large office walls with a photo is one of them, ability for clients to crop themselves and still make a decent sized print is another. I bought two, because I work in camera unfriendly environments, where switching lenses can be challenging, and my other bodies are wearing / have worn out. I thought of getting one D4 as substitute for one of the D800's, but decided against it, because I expect the difference of a future D4x to a D4 to be similar to the difference between the D3 and D3x. I much prefer the D3x, and not to mention the additional costs.

Now it's time to take this puppy out for a real spin and let it earn it's money back :)


Thanks for the great review Corepics! The sample shot are quite useful too and confirm my first impression of excellent image quality. What glass would you recommend for the D800? Is there any decent wideangle of 11mm or below for such a excellent camera?

« Reply #60 on: March 22, 2012, 19:47 »
0
Thanks for the great review Corepics! The sample shot are quite useful too and confirm my first impression of excellent image quality. What glass would you recommend for the D800? Is there any decent wideangle of 11mm or below for such a excellent camera?


These shots were taken with a 24-70 f/2.8. Haven't tried out any other lenses, yet. Tomorrow, I want to give my older DX lenses a go, especially my 10.5mm, haven't used that one in a while. Although FX lenses should provide the optimal performance, I figure with 36MP, the 1.6 crop factor should still provide a useful file size. I'll have a go with some pre-digital primes as well.

Perhaps this would be useful? http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/compatibility02.htm

« Reply #61 on: March 22, 2012, 20:56 »
0
"Let's not forget: It's not about resolving details, it's also about resolving color! A 12mpix (bayer) sensor has 3mpix red pixels, 3mpix blue pixels and 6mpix green pixels.
You might not get much more details with 36mpix vs. 21mpix, but you will get more exact colors on pixel level.

If quality optics resolve detail suitable for a 21mpix sensor, we would need 84mpix to get more exact color for each pixel.

(does anyone understand what I'm trying to say here? Smiley)"

No clue at all. 12 mpixels is that many groups of r,g, and blue. One red receptor does not a pixel make.

« Reply #62 on: March 23, 2012, 01:25 »
0
I just took the first few shots with our D800, and so far, I'm extremely satisfied with the image quality. Straight out of the box (no custom settings, yet). I'm impressed with the low noise levels at higher ISO, and it's dynamic range. Image sharpness is fine, but I can't wait to compare it with the D800E we also ordered. (It'll be a long month waiting) Zooming in to 100% on a 36MP image is awesome, although I think that thrill will wear off soon.

Despite its Magnesium alloy body, it does feel a bit cheaper than the D700. The buttons and dials feel less sturdy than those on the D3x and D700, but it handles identical (which is no surprise).

As Expected, you'll need to update the Camera Raw. Standard issue PS CS5.1 can't read D800 RAW files, nor can Lightroom 3. However, Adobe issued a pre release ACR 6.7, which does the job, and so does Lightroom 4. Apparently, so does the latest version / update of Aperture, but I can't verify that.

Two high res snaps (Each ~19MB JPEG):
800 ISO: http://www.corepics.com/D800/D800_DSC0016.jpg
100 ISO: http://www.corepics.com/D800/D800_DSC0018.jpg

I didn't buy it solely for stock. In my commissioned work, I notice an increase of image size with quite a few of my clients for various reasons. Covering large office walls with a photo is one of them, ability for clients to crop themselves and still make a decent sized print is another. I bought two, because I work in camera unfriendly environments, where switching lenses can be challenging, and my other bodies are wearing / have worn out. I thought of getting one D4 as substitute for one of the D800's, but decided against it, because I expect the difference of a future D4x to a D4 to be similar to the difference between the D3 and D3x. I much prefer the D3x, and not to mention the additional costs.

Now it's time to take this puppy out for a real spin and let it earn it's money back :)


Not trying to be negative, rude or anything - but to me both images look a bit soft and somewhat smudged/hazy, some CA on the ISO800 one aswell but as you say these were "snaps". Could be down to post-processing - details about that would be interesting. Size and details looks fantastic though, slightly jealous ;)

Noise levels at ISO800 looks ok even in the shadow areas, on par with the 5D MKII at the same ISO at a quick glance.

« Reply #63 on: March 23, 2012, 02:25 »
0
DPReview has lots of new preview sample photos now.  The detail on some of these looks great.
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/nikon-d800-preview-samples

« Reply #64 on: March 23, 2012, 03:07 »
0
I just took the first few shots with our D800, and so far, I'm extremely satisfied with the image quality. Straight out of the box (no custom settings, yet). I'm impressed with the low noise levels at higher ISO, and it's dynamic range. Image sharpness is fine, but I can't wait to compare it with the D800E we also ordered. (It'll be a long month waiting) Zooming in to 100% on a 36MP image is awesome, although I think that thrill will wear off soon.

Despite its Magnesium alloy body, it does feel a bit cheaper than the D700. The buttons and dials feel less sturdy than those on the D3x and D700, but it handles identical (which is no surprise).

As Expected, you'll need to update the Camera Raw. Standard issue PS CS5.1 can't read D800 RAW files, nor can Lightroom 3. However, Adobe issued a pre release ACR 6.7, which does the job, and so does Lightroom 4. Apparently, so does the latest version / update of Aperture, but I can't verify that.

Two high res snaps (Each ~19MB JPEG):
800 ISO: http://www.corepics.com/D800/D800_DSC0016.jpg
100 ISO: http://www.corepics.com/D800/D800_DSC0018.jpg

I didn't buy it solely for stock. In my commissioned work, I notice an increase of image size with quite a few of my clients for various reasons. Covering large office walls with a photo is one of them, ability for clients to crop themselves and still make a decent sized print is another. I bought two, because I work in camera unfriendly environments, where switching lenses can be challenging, and my other bodies are wearing / have worn out. I thought of getting one D4 as substitute for one of the D800's, but decided against it, because I expect the difference of a future D4x to a D4 to be similar to the difference between the D3 and D3x. I much prefer the D3x, and not to mention the additional costs.

Now it's time to take this puppy out for a real spin and let it earn it's money back :)


How do you think the D800 compares to the D700 for noise and dynamic range?

« Reply #65 on: March 23, 2012, 08:02 »
0
How do you think the D800 compares to the D700 for noise and dynamic range?

Our D700 died a year ago, so I haven't taken a close look at those unprocessed images in a while. Comparing them from memory, I think the D800 has improved, but not significantly.

« Reply #66 on: March 24, 2012, 06:28 »
0
What will be if agencies change size and prices one step backward? From XXL to XL and XL to L etc.
So maybe we don't need now extra MPs, but tomorrow who knows...

Also if a have great details on ISO 100 , that probably  mean these 36MPs allow me certainly better framing (maybe panorama look), or even two pictures from one...
If I have less details on image due to bad lighting or higher ISO, I am able to downsize image to 20MP or less and still get excellent image...
Unfortunately, I've had many potential "best sellers", made from a hand in crucial unexpected moment, but because low sharpness or noise and less MPs they were ended in recycle bin...
So more MPs isn't just story for amateurs with compact camera..

Also there is another big thing here! Price of the best optics from both, Nikon and Canon....
« Last Edit: March 24, 2012, 06:30 by borg »

Uncle Pete

  • Evidence please...

« Reply #67 on: March 24, 2012, 14:33 »
0
Just saw this.  I would love a full frame camera in a more compact body with an EVF that didn't cost as much as a Leica.
http://photorumors.com/2012/03/21/canon-mirrorless-camera-concept/


Looks smashing!


Looks like a 1960s FT! (and I want one!)

That's why I'm watching the G1x, because size and simple would be a winner for general purpose. Darn Canon should have taken naming from the military and labeled it the GP1x  :D

So lets see what I learned today, I don't need a 300MP camera, (or was it 400MP?) lenses will resolve enough for the current ginormous sensors, and it's a myth that the lenses can NOT resolve well enough for the new 28 or 36MP cameras. Human eyes can't tell the difference and most printers can't resolve enough to make a difference? Oh boy.

"if you put a 15 lp/mm print next to a 30 lp/mm print, a high percentage of viewers will select the 30 lp/m print as being sharper, although most of them won't be able to tell you why they did. But, if you put a 30 lp/mm print next to a 60 lp/mm print, they won't be able to see any difference." And then he points out that the best printer available may give us 15lp/mm which would mean a 45MP image needed for an 8x10 to use all that resolution.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/02/why-80-megapixels-just-wont-be-enough.html

I feel much better about printing my little 4x6s, occasional 8x10 for the wall, and the quality of my MicroStock 5MP uploads, coming from a 10-12MP camera. Ah it's so nice to rest at night without "Pixel Envy".  ::)

PhotoDuneMicrostock Insider

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
1735 Views
Last post May 09, 2008, 15:18
by anonymous
8 Replies
4302 Views
Last post June 05, 2008, 22:36
by helix7
7 Replies
1771 Views
Last post July 19, 2009, 23:23
by microstockinsider
94 Replies
11554 Views
Last post February 25, 2012, 00:11
by luissantos84
17 Replies
2286 Views
Last post May 03, 2012, 10:14
by tab62

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors