«

On Apr 20, 2:47*pm, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <bf6b8918-7626-44c5-8688-33cc34f19f4e@
> 21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>, RichA says...
>
> > Go to this page, check the noise at 100 (you'll
> > see it in the Sony A77 images) and then dial it up to 3200 and look at
> > how it compares to the default cameras in the group.
>
> >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta77/14
>
> There is no visible noise at ISO 100 for the A77 on that page and if you
> look at the noise graphs, the A77 is as noisy as the other cameras of
> the group.
> --

NoisieR.

On 5/21/2012 11:15 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2012-04-19 12:38 , Alfred Molon wrote:
>> So do we all need 24MP and never knew?
>
> When the 24 Mpix Sony a900 (full frame) came out there were several
> around here saying "12 Mpix is more than enough and most lenses can't
> resolve more than that anyway."
>
> They were mainly Nikon fanbois, IIRC.
>
> Now that 36 Mpix cameras area available from Nikon, that crowd has gone
> mute on that issue.
>
> Amusing, really.
>


I suppose some people may see the issue as more like if 12 Mpix's and 24
Mpix's are progressively good, 36 Mpix's must be a hell-of-a-lot better.
Since I have no specific interest in just the 36 Mpix's, I'll not debate
the pro's and con's of the matter. As far as I'm concerned, for my type
of photographic interests, I'm very satisfied using my D700 and D300 as
a two camera set-up and see no reason to change. However, being very
satisfied doesn't sell more cameras.

Alan Browne <> writes:

> On 2012-04-19 12:38 , Alfred Molon wrote:
>> So do we all need 24MP and never knew?
>
> When the 24 Mpix Sony a900 (full frame) came out there were several
> around here saying "12 Mpix is more than enough and most lenses can't
> resolve more than that anyway."
>
> They were mainly Nikon fanbois, IIRC.
>
> Now that 36 Mpix cameras area available from Nikon, that crowd has
> gone mute on that issue.

I've got a 24x36 (paper size; image size somewhat smaller, maybe 20x30)
print from a 6MP digital original on my wall. It looks far better than
any film shot I've ever printed near that big.

I can see how more resolution in the original would improve the print
slightly, at least when examined closely, so I can't say (with a
straight face) that I couldn't possibly need more megapixels; but big
art prints are a total side issue for me, my equipment was chosen for
fast action and low light. The fact that equipment optimized for that
also does so well on big prints is a general commentary on just how good
the top DSLRs are these days.

I do have to say I'm terribly disappointed (personally) by the Nikon
D800; it's in no sense a "successor" to the D700 (which is my current
camera). On the other hand, it's a whole new thing in itself, and I see
why people are very excited about it. It's just people with a different
set of priorities than me.

It does seem to complete Nikon's total demolition of Canon, anyway.
Mind you, I expect that to be temporary, as Canon's earlier dominance of
DSLR digital was. The natural, healthy state is for them to be always
nipping at each other's heels, and passing each other periodically in
various areas. It'd be good if another company or two played at that
level, but that's not looking likely just yet.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-> wrote:
>I do have to say I'm terribly disappointed (personally) by the Nikon
>D800; it's in no sense a "successor" to the D700 (which is my current
>camera). On the other hand, it's a whole new thing in itself, and I see
>why people are very excited about it. It's just people with a different
>set of priorities than me.


The Nikon D600 will be the true successor to the D700.

Nikon took care during the launch of the D800/D800E to make it clear
that neither of them was a replacement for the D700. Nikon will not
be similarly reticent about the D600.

The D800 and D800E address a distinctly different market, one that you
are clearly not in. They are not aimed at you, so you have no reason
to be "disappointed" in them, "personally" or otherwise.

Bruce <> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-> wrote:
>>I do have to say I'm terribly disappointed (personally) by the Nikon
>>D800; it's in no sense a "successor" to the D700 (which is my current
>>camera). On the other hand, it's a whole new thing in itself, and I see
>>why people are very excited about it. It's just people with a different
>>set of priorities than me.
>
>
> The Nikon D600 will be the true successor to the D700.
>
> Nikon took care during the launch of the D800/D800E to make it clear
> that neither of them was a replacement for the D700. Nikon will not
> be similarly reticent about the D600.
>
> The D800 and D800E address a distinctly different market, one that you
> are clearly not in. They are not aimed at you, so you have no reason
> to be "disappointed" in them, "personally" or otherwise.

I'm hanging on to that shot. But the general pattern of adding one to
the most-significant digit for the successor model is very strongly
established in Nikon digital, so the concept of the D800 not being the
successor to the D700 sounded pretty weird. The D600 being the
successor sounds even weirder, that's *going backwards*.

Well, my D700 works fine currently. And maybe I can afford a used D3s
or something in a while.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-> wrote:
>But the general pattern of adding one to
>the most-significant digit for the successor model is very strongly
>established in Nikon digital, so the concept of the D800 not being the
>successor to the D700 sounded pretty weird. The D600 being the
>successor sounds even weirder, that's *going backwards*.


Nikon seems to have lost its way with model numbering. For example,
is the D7000 really a consumer-grade camera? It is certainly capable
of producing top quality results and many pros carry it as a second or
spare body.

In film days, the F801 and F801s (N8008 and N8008s) were
augmented/replaced by the F70 and F90 (N70 and N90) and later the F90X
(N90s). There was not much logic in any of that either.

Plus, I always thought it was silly to number both DX and FX DSLR
bodies in the same series, i.e. D100, D200, D300, D700 and now D800.

The anticipated price point of the D600 suggests that it will be a lot
cheaper than the D700. Perhaps that provides Nikon with a
justification for using a lower number?

The only conclusion is that Nikon is at least as confused by its model
numbering "system" as its customers.

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-> wrote:

[D800]

> It does seem to complete Nikon's total demolition of Canon, anyway.

Resolution wise, yes, and uncompressed HDMI "straight from
the chip" is gonna be /very/ popular with the DSLR-movie crowd
(Canon's gotta be fuming they missed that trick). 'Far as I can
tell, the D800 does have a better dynamic range at low ISO, too.
It certainly is a very good camera --- being a Canon customer
myself, I am glad it's there. Keeps Canon on the toes.

But there are some other values, like FPS, where the D800 is not
as competitive. How about the AF? Does it hold up? (And it
better does, if you want the 36 MPix to impress.) Canon put
their top model into the 5D3 ...

> Mind you, I expect that to be temporary, as Canon's earlier dominance of
> DSLR digital was. The natural, healthy state is for them to be always
> nipping at each other's heels, and passing each other periodically in
> various areas. It'd be good if another company or two played at that
> level, but that's not looking likely just yet.

Yep, 4 companies leapfrogging each other would be grand.
No competition means Microsoft.

-Wolfgang

Wolfgang Weisselberg <> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-> wrote:
>
> [D800]
>
>> It does seem to complete Nikon's total demolition of Canon, anyway.
>
> Resolution wise, yes, and uncompressed HDMI "straight from
> the chip" is gonna be /very/ popular with the DSLR-movie crowd
> (Canon's gotta be fuming they missed that trick). 'Far as I can
> tell, the D800 does have a better dynamic range at low ISO, too.
> It certainly is a very good camera --- being a Canon customer
> myself, I am glad it's there. Keeps Canon on the toes.
>
> But there are some other values, like FPS, where the D800 is not
> as competitive. How about the AF? Does it hold up? (And it
> better does, if you want the 36 MPix to impress.) Canon put
> their top model into the 5D3 ...

The D800 is a high-res camera, not a photojournalist camera. The D700
and the D3s and the D4 have the high frame rate. Both companies have
pretty much recognized that division at the very top of their line --
Nikon going back to the D2x and D2h models, Canon with the full-frame
high-res cameras in the 1Ds line vs. the photojournalist cameras in the
1.3x line.

Actually, the D800 AF is reported by all reviewers I've seen to be
first-rate; better thant he D700, which had the full D3 AF suite in it.

>> Mind you, I expect that to be temporary, as Canon's earlier dominance of
>> DSLR digital was. The natural, healthy state is for them to be always
>> nipping at each other's heels, and passing each other periodically in
>> various areas. It'd be good if another company or two played at that
>> level, but that's not looking likely just yet.
>
> Yep, 4 companies leapfrogging each other would be grand.
> No competition means Microsoft.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg <> writes:
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-> wrote:

>> [D800]

>>> It does seem to complete Nikon's total demolition of Canon, anyway.

>> Resolution wise, yes, and uncompressed HDMI "straight from
>> the chip" is gonna be /very/ popular with the DSLR-movie crowd
>> (Canon's gotta be fuming they missed that trick). 'Far as I can
>> tell, the D800 does have a better dynamic range at low ISO, too.
>> It certainly is a very good camera --- being a Canon customer
>> myself, I am glad it's there. Keeps Canon on the toes.

>> But there are some other values, like FPS, where the D800 is not
>> as competitive. How about the AF? Does it hold up? (And it
>> better does, if you want the 36 MPix to impress.) Canon put
>> their top model into the 5D3 ...

> The D800 is a high-res camera, not a photojournalist camera. The D700
> and the D3s and the D4 have the high frame rate. Both companies have
> pretty much recognized that division at the very top of their line --
> Nikon going back to the D2x and D2h models, Canon with the full-frame
> high-res cameras in the 1Ds line vs. the photojournalist cameras in the
> 1.3x line.

You should look at the Canon 1DX, which is both.
High frame rate, high resolution, good AF, high price.

-Wolfgang

Wolfgang Weisselberg <> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-> wrote:
>> Wolfgang Weisselberg <> writes:
>>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-> wrote:
>
>>> [D800]
>
>>>> It does seem to complete Nikon's total demolition of Canon, anyway.
>
>>> Resolution wise, yes, and uncompressed HDMI "straight from
>>> the chip" is gonna be /very/ popular with the DSLR-movie crowd
>>> (Canon's gotta be fuming they missed that trick). 'Far as I can
>>> tell, the D800 does have a better dynamic range at low ISO, too.
>>> It certainly is a very good camera --- being a Canon customer
>>> myself, I am glad it's there. Keeps Canon on the toes.
>
>>> But there are some other values, like FPS, where the D800 is not
>>> as competitive. How about the AF? Does it hold up? (And it
>>> better does, if you want the 36 MPix to impress.) Canon put
>>> their top model into the 5D3 ...
>
>> The D800 is a high-res camera, not a photojournalist camera. The D700
>> and the D3s and the D4 have the high frame rate. Both companies have
>> pretty much recognized that division at the very top of their line --
>> Nikon going back to the D2x and D2h models, Canon with the full-frame
>> high-res cameras in the 1Ds line vs. the photojournalist cameras in the
>> 1.3x line.
>
> You should look at the Canon 1DX, which is both.
> High frame rate, high resolution, good AF, high price.

I was not impressed; when that came out it looked like a total miss to
me.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info