For what it's worth
For what it's worth
I can´t wait
If you check different sites it seems that August 24th 2011 is most likely as release date. Any other thoughts / news ????
The release of the D4 AND D800 would be a change for Nikon. Historically, they release the Pro FX body with a pro/semi-pro DX body followed in 8-12 months with a pro/semi-pro FX body. It would be more logical to release the D4/D400 and the D800 later. Granted, the market for the D4 is much more rarified than the D800 so maybe this change in tactics will be a good thing. I, for one, am keenly interested.
Sony's upcoming Alpha offerings (the A77 and the rumored FF A99) are set to radically alter the playing field price-wise and performance-wise. The A77 should be able to keep up with the Nikon D3s and outgun it in most respects.
So far, the only thing that is reasonably sure is that something will be released on 24 August, probably two DSLRs. A D4 seems likely, but a D800? What if it is an FX D8000 in a D7000 body? That way, Nikon won't have a head-on competitor for the D4 from day one, and they would open up a new market segment, compact full frame DSLR, that many have asked for, and they will do it before the mythical A99 is even close to the market.
WRT D800 or D8000 or D4 - I think that a FF follow up is urgently needed from Nikon (as from Canon and Sony). The reason this takes so much time is obviously because this cannot just be a simple MP increase, but also better high ISO, better HD video, better DR etc etc. And mostly better AF as higher resolution requires more accurate AF.
I could not care less how Nikon names their FF bodies but I am almost sure there will be a follow up to the D700 as well as the D3s and D3x. The D700 follow up is actually urgently needed, as the main competitor - the Canon 5DMk2 is better in almost all features except AF. As Canon is about to release a 5DMk3 pretty soon (next 6 -10 months) I am very sure Nikon will not want to miss out this market segment, as it is the largest for FF DSLRs. And there will of course also be the high end D4xyz bodies, but agreed this segment is much smaller.
WRT Sony - sure their TM technology is nice, but I still cannot see that I would like to just look to an electronic image instead of a real image on a mirror. So I do actually hope that in their FF pro models they keep mirrors - at least this is my hope. And I think I am not the only one wanting this, as in all discussions with serious photographers and pros I found that the majority votes for a real mirror in a pro DSLR! At least there is hope that Canon and Nikon keep that path
WRT resolution - all the rumors say that the next step in FF DSLRs will be between 28-40MP depending on which manufacturer and which model. I would think that the D800 (D700 successor) would have 24MP, while a D4x would get the same as the A99 - something around 36MP. This would also allow Nikon to clearly distinguish between the prosumer D800 and the pro D4x. The D4s would have same 24MP as the D800 but with more features, faster and better high ISO (which I personally would not need).
Canon is rumored to come with a 5D3 and 28MP and their next 1DsMkIV with around 36MP (some even talk about 40MP).
There is another main issue I see with Sony - their lens lineup. Canon and Nikon have meanwhile a perfect lineup from widest wide to longest tele and all updated with latest technology. Compared to that Sony does not really offer to many choices. So even if Sony can brake the ice with pricing, I am not sure if i would go Sony just because of lower price, because I could not get the lenses I would like which I can get from both - Nikon and Canon. And BTW - if Sony will stay in the FF DSLR business is still questionable, as they obviously concentrate much more on APSC cameras - DSLRs and NEX, so at least lot of their development and engineering power goes into non FF!
Just my 5c predictions looking into the 10c crystal ball
A Sony DSLR/SLT camera will fit every sony-minolta autofocus lens made since the early 1980's...
The list is plenty long and this doesn't include 3rd party lens makers...
AF zoom lenses
Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 16–35 mm f/2.8 ZA(Sony SSM motor)
AF 17–35 mm f/2.8-4 (D)
AF 17–35 mm f/3.5 G
AF 20–35 mm f/3.5-4.5
AF 24–50 mm f/4 (Original, RS)
AF 24–70 mm f/2.8
Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 24–70 mm f/2.8 ZA(Sony SSM motor)
AF 24–85 mm f/3.5-4.5 (RS, II)
AF 24–105 mm f/3.5-4.5 (D, Minolta)
AF 24–105 mm f/3.5-4.5 (D, Sony)
AF 28–70 mm f/2.8 G
AF 28–75 mm f/2.8 (D)
AF 28–75 mm f/2.8 (D Sony ASM motor)
AF 28–80 mm f/3.5-5.6 (RS, D)
AF 28–80 mm f/4-5.6 (xi, RS)
AF 28–85 mm f/3.5-4.5 (Original, RS)
AF 28–100 mm f/3.5-5.6 (D)
AF 28–105 mm f/3.5-4.5 (RS, II)
AF 28–105 mm f/3.5-4.5 xi
AF 28–135 mm f/4-4.5
AF 35–70 mm f/3.5-4.5 (Original, II)
AF 35–70 mm f/4 (Original, RS, II)
AF 35–80 mm f/4-5.6 (RS, xi, II)
AF 35–105 mm f/3.5-4.5 (Original, RS)
AF 35–200 mm f/4.5-5.6 xi
AF 80–200 mm f/2.8 Apo G (Original, HS)
AF 80–200 mm f/4.5-5.6 xi
AF 70–200 mm f/2.8 APO SSM (G, Sony G)
AF 70–210 mm f/3.5-4.5
AF 70-210mm f/4 (nickname: beercan)
AF 70–210 mm f/4.5-5.6 (RS, II)
AF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 SSM (Sony G lens SSM motor)
AF 70-400mm f/4-5.6 (Sony G)
AF 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 (Original, RS, D, Sony)
AF 100–200 mm f/4.5
AF 100–300 mm f/4.5-5.6 (RS, APO, APO D)
AF 100–400 mm f/4.5-6.7 APO
DT Zoom Lenses (crop sensor)
AF DT 11–18 mm f/4.5-5.6 (D, Sony)
AF DT 16–105 mm f/3.5-5.6 (D, Sony)
AF DT 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 (Sony SAM)
AF DT 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 (D, Sony)
AF DT 18–200 mm f/3.5-6.3 (D, Sony)
AF DT 18–250 mm f/3.5-6.3 (Sony)
AF DT 55–200 mm f/4-5.6 (D, Sony, Sony SAM)
Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* DT 16-80 f/3.5-4.5 ZA
AF 50mm f/1.4 (Original, RS, Sony)
AF 50mm f/1.7 (Original, RS)
AF DT 50mm f/1.8 (Sony SAM)
AF 16mm f/2.8 Fisheye (Original, Sony)
AF 20 mm f/2.8 (Original, RS, Sony)
AF 24mm f/2.8 (Original, RS)
AF 28 mm f/2 (Original, RS)
AF 28 mm f/2.8 (Original, Sony)
AF 35 mm f/2.0 (Original, RS)
AF 35 mm f/1.4 (Original, G, Sony)
AF 85 mm f/1.4 (Original, G, G D, G D Limited)
Carl Zeiss Planar T* 85mm f/1.4 ZA
AF 100 mm f/2.0
AF 100 mm f/2.8 Soft Focus (SF)
Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 135mm f/1.8 ZA
AF 135 mm f/2.8
STF 135mm f/2.8 [T4.5]* (RS, Sony)
AF 200 mm f/2.8 APO G (Original, HS)
AF 300 mm f/2.8 APO G (Original, HS)
AF 300mm f/2.8 APO SSM G (Original, Sony)
AF 300 mm f/4 APO G HS
AF 400 mm f/4.5 APO G HS
AF 500mm Reflex (RS, Sony)
AF 600 mm f/4 APO G (Original, HS)
AF DT 30mm f/2.8 Macro (Sony SAM)
AF 50mm f/2.8 Macro (Original, RS, D, Sony)
AF 50 mm f/3.5 Macro
AF 100mm f/2.8 Macro (Original, RS, D, Sony)
AF 200 mm f/4 Macro Apo G
AF Macro Zoom 1x-3x f/1.7-2.8
AF tele converters
AF 1.4X Tele Converter (APO, APO II, (D), Sony)
AF 2X Tele Converter (APO, APO II, (D), Sony)
AF 2x M/A Converter-S (For use of manual lenses shorter than 300 mm on AF bodies)
AF 2x M/A Converter-L (For use of manual lenses longer than 300 mm on AF bodies)
Well, if you are ok to use decade old lenses then there is a good lineup. But not anybody does.
I for myself do not like this approach! Simply because then AF speed and number of other advantages like digitally optimized lenses would not be available!
That approach worked for Leica for decades. Granted, their lenses are not autofocus and have zero electronics.
Nikon and Canon were always mainstream - over the past 4 - 5 decades at least. Minolta BTW was also never up to Canon or Nikon in terms of number of sold cameras.
Point is - for a new high end digital system there is the need for a broad lens lineup which can stand up to the requirements of modern high resolution sensors. I would say that only the latest designs of lenses of Nikon and Canon really do justice to that need.
BTW, Nikon does NOT have 2 versions of each lens, VR & non-VR.
I wonder why people always insist on the D700 (or its successor) needing to be a lesser camera, less professional, less features than the D3s (or its successor) or in any other way less (or even pro-sumer instead of a pro-body, even though NPS clearly has it in the Pro category).
Personally I prefer the small form factor of the D700 over the D3. I do want the same functionality (I could do without the flash, especially if it makes for a sturdier body). Actually if the D700 would have been more expensive than the D3 I would still have favored it over the D3. If there will be a D700 replacement I will buy it but if there isn't I am still perfectly happy with the D700.
The point is that in reality there is no "lack of lenses" for Sony. It's marketing hype from the other side. It's true that they don't have as many lenses as the competition, but at what point do the other manufactures have redundancy and overlap in their own lens lineups? (Does we really need versions of nikon's 50 f/1.8 or 3 versions of Canon's 100 f/2.8?)
Personally, I've got the Zeiss 16-35, the Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8, a siggy 70-200 f/2.8 and a handful of legacy minolta glass. The ONLY thing I could see myself wanting to round out my personal collection is a a tilt/shift lens and really long lens if I ever decided to do wildlife stuff (which I don't really do). I think the 70-400 G would cover that range, if the 500 f/4 is never released.
Latest posts on NikonRumors says only Nikon's new EVIL system will be presented on the 24th, no DSLRs. That's interesting too, of course, just not the main topic of this thread.
Another sort of pointless argument of this brand verses that brand.
All these systems are now so good now, that it comes down to real world need and preferences, not collecting every single thing a system offers whether one needs it or not.
Trust me, I've had and used all of the systems being discussed. Every Canon since the 3.3 meg EOS D30 all the way to the 1DsMKIII, and Nikons from the D1 through the D700/D3/D3X ... and my current Sony A900s ... plus some exotic detours like the 6 meg FF Contax ND and Leica DMR/9. Sometimes having more than one system and selecting the strengths of each.
Every one of the systems either fit the specific "true need" very well, or was lacking in some way or another, for one shooter or another. It is all very "personal".
I selected to zero in on Sony because the files were better than any of the other right out of the camera (less post work), for the Zeiss optical designs which is a look I prefer over the Nikon/Canon approach, and all lenses are in-body stabilized including my ZA16-35, ZA24/2, ZA24-70, S50/1.4, ZA85/1.4 and ZA135/1.8 NONE of which are available from Canon or Nikon. I always found this lack of stabilization kind of odd since these fast aperture primes are designed for low light work. This anti-shake technology will become more apparent as the meg count jumps beyond 30 meg and camera movement becomes more critical ... assuming that one buys a 35 meg camera to make larger prints or enable more severe cropping ... otherwise what's the point of 35+ meg?
I do not do T/S or Macro professional work with a 35mm DSLR, overwhelmingly preferring MFD for these tasks ... which if I didn't own, I would rent.
I agree with some of that, not all:
1) IBIS in Alpha cameras - well what about shooting then an S2 with 37MP without IBIS? How could that work? Or shoot even a IQ180 which has even higher resolution without IBIS?
My conclusion: IBIS is nice but not a must.
2) Lens lineup: still not arguable that Nikon and Canon are leading here with latest developments. Need all of that? Everybody has to do their own conclusion ....
3) Sony colors: this discussion is well known and there are many who obviously see the better colors and file quality coming out of a FF Sony. I never did, actually was the other way around - maybe I am blind.
4) For me still questionable how Sony will follow the FF DSLR path. First would like to see their next generation FF camera and then also launch of all the missing lenses which are available from Nikon an/or Canon. Today Sony rather seems to concentrate on NEX and APSC - best case on APSC Pro bodies.
5) EVF still VERY questionable for me! I like it in small high quality cameras like M43, but I do not accept it (want to accept it) in a pro body FF DSLR.
"I selected to zero in on Sony because ... all lenses are in-body stabilized including my ZA16-35, ZA24/2, ZA24-70, S50/1.4, ZA85/1.4 and ZA135/1.8 NONE of which are available from Canon or Nikon. I always found this lack of stabilization kind of odd since these fast aperture primes are designed for low light work. This anti-shake technology will become more apparent as the meg count jumps beyond 30 meg and camera movement becomes more critical ..."
So why does not somebody design an adapter so that these lenses with in-body stabilising can be used on cameras with MFDB backs (starting with an adapter for my Contax 645 would be great) or even develop new lenses for those who have big bucks to spare with in-body stabilising for MFDB rigs. Surely this is a marketing no-brainer even though it may be a technical nightmare given the many whiners (including myself) who are concerned about how to hand hold MFDBs with large sensors that show up camera shake more than smaller sensor cameras?
If I am fortunate I am making a dumb mistake by saying this since what I suggest has already been done long ago in which case please point me in the right direction.
hope this is not too
In body stabilization refers not to the lens but to the body with electronic data concerning focal length transmitted from a chip in the lens mount. The body does the stabilizing so putting these lenses on a MF camera or any other camera would not afford any stabilization. Also the image circle on these lenses is not adequate even for 645 as their design was for 35FF sensor or film.
Faster clean chips that image like CCDs would help those who want lower light capabilities in a MF camera....do not think that will occur unless there is a technological shift to a new sensor design.
Some claim that in-camera stabilization is inferior to in-lens stabilization but that hasn't proven to be so in actual use ... IMO. Even if slightly true, I wouldn't really care, since I'd rather have all lenses stabilized to some degree or another. For example, while the Sony 50/1.4 is arguably the optical equal to Canon and Nikon's 50/1.4, it has the advantage of being stabilized where they are not. In low light, this in effect makes the Sony the superior optic IMO.
The question is how hard would it be to stabilize a MFD camera? If that could be accomplished along with Jack's suggestion to eliminate the shutter, and if all MFD/DSLRs had the mirror delay option like the H camera has, it would make for a very nice hand-held machine that would extend the versatility of ones MFD kit even more.
hmm...looks like "lenses are in-body stabilized" really does mean "lenses are in-body stabilized"
as Marc points out what I was trying to get at was the possibility of in-lens stabilised solutions for MFDB
getting rid of the mirror would also be great.
my preference would be for a rangefinder solution ie a "texas mfdb" with in-lens stabilization, please.
I will welcome a new camera body from Nikon, at what price?
I spent most of my professional life looking true a large format ground glass, now for the last seven years DX and or FX. Sort of got use to it and enjoy it to a point, since these days most of the work is for on-line or at time printing size of final is most of the time 9 1/2" x 12". I would not invest in another mfdb since the d3X, now if they can give us from 30 to 40 mg oixel. along with fix focal length lens plus top of the line strobes. That will cover most of the jobs to shots.
Have a good day, Michel
I still prefer the images I get with the M9 and S2 over those I get with the D700, and prefered those of the Hy6+Sinar54LV over those from the d3x.
Is it sensor or lenses or combination or lack of my post processing skills?.I dont know.
So just imagine what could be achieved with a FF 36 MP sensor without AA filter and the latest pro glass form either Nikon or Canon! But not sure if they will go that direction.
Looks like weak sauce in the high ISO department for the A77.
The rumor sites are currently all abuzz with leaked D800 specs. 36 mpx, ISO 100-6400 (Max 25,600) dual CF + SD card slots, weak (or removed) AA filter. $4K price tag. Ouch.
Judging from the results I got with my Nikkor AI-S glass on the Canon 5D2 (with adaptor) I have little worry that the Classic Nikkor AI-S glass will hold up on a 36 Mp sensor. THe D800 and Nikor Ai-S glass are going to be a perfect fit.
This notion of this sensor out resolving the Nikkor AI-S glass is hog wash. Total B.S . Iv been hearing that tripe since the camera's went from 4 to 8 than 12 MP 24 MP..OO
Ya right, Show me don't tell me.
Coming from a person who still shoots with both, digital and film. Film still holds "way" more detail than the digtial image. When film is printed with top end enlarging lenses to sizes like 6X4 feet.
Often you will see film get scanned and than compared with a digtial image.
I can tell/show you, that looking at grain is not the same thing as pixels.
Iv personally blown up slides from 4X5 internegatives and and B+W negative this big and the results where way better than what what I was able to get from the 5D2 images and my D3/D3s.
However, aspects of the image chain like critical focus and good long lens techniquee will come into play with this new Nikon D-800 body.
That being said, If the rumor is true, I will most definitlly be getting a D800.
As far as the high end Sony. One of my good pals has one, with some most excellent Zeiss/Minolta glass to go with it. Iv seen both of are images on his 24 inch high end screen and I am a huge believer in Nikon going the direction of in camera stabilization and higher Pixel count.
In fact just yesterday we where talking about getting an adaptor so I could try my Nikkor AI-S glass on his Sony. It would be interesting to see the results.
If Nikon went down the road of anti shake in the body. than perhaps than, they could get rid of the VR which to my eye does nothing good for bokeh and makes Nikkor's the slender barrel Nikkor's look fat and ugly.
Last edited by Nikkor AIS; 23rd October 2011 at 03:10.
I just tested my old Micro 105/2.8 AI on my brand new D7000 and at f/4 it's wicked sharp. It's indistinguishable in definition from the 50/1.4G at f/4. Pretty impressive, actually. The 80-400 VR is borderline - it's a fine performer on the D7000, but one can tell there's not that much more to be had from it. My wife's old 50/1.8E is good too, and it's nice compact little lens. From f/4 it's the same as the 50G.
Just like with Minolta, where some lenses can't keep up with the a900/a850, some Nikkors will and some won't keep up with a 24MP. But I think a lot of the classic AI-S glass will do just fine. (I used the 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 AI-S with an FM2n back in the early 90s and think both of those will do just fine as well.)
Nor is it a prime vs zoom thing. The ZA 24-70 is an excellent lens on my Sony a850. As is the Sony 70-200, and the rest. In fact, the problem with Sony isn'y that the lenses aren't up to snuff; there just isn't enough of them. Nikon doesn't have that particular problem. Nikon AI-S glass is just as good as Minolta, although obviously not all of it is great. But the great AI-S glass is... well... great, even by today's standards. I don't think a 24 or 35MP D800 is really going to be that hard on lenses. As long as you have the good stuff.
As for the D7000: it's is truly a slick machine. I'm really impressed. Can't wait to see what the D800 brings! If it's anything like the D7000 but without ruddy caucasian faces and some 30-odd MP then I'm all in.
Greetings from Munich
Thanks Stefan, the rumored specifications raise these major questions for me:
Image Quality ?
A pixel pitch of about 4.9 µm sounds challenging, personally I had hoped for a larger pixel pitch.
Some trivial Sony A77 natural sized dull natural light samples (and the RAW files made downloadable) might give the rest of us some sort of a hint, despite the format difference and the even smaller pixel pitch of the A77 (3.9 µm).
Oh, and of course that goes for some revealing Nikon D7000 natural size samples as well, with it's very relevant pixel pitch of 4.8 µm.
Will a 36 Mp D800 be more of a dedicated tripod- and / or studio-machine ?
What is the S2 owners' experience with regards to this - again, depite the substantial format difference, larger mirror etc. ?
Any ever so trivial, revealing natural size S2 illustrations will be appreciated.
The usual segmentation ?
D800 having "AF identical to D3/D700" sounds solid but at the same time disappointing if it means that the rumored Auto-Focus improvement has been reserved for the usual 'higher priced big and bulky' model with built-in vertical grip.
Segmentation that hinders combination of the best possible viewfinder and Image Quality with the smaller, more portable form factor is unbearably annoying.
D4 specs announcement ?
Hopefully the specifications of the D4 will be announced at the same time so that everybody can make the right choice from the beginning, in case the annoying segmentation goes on.
And hopefully the difference will be all about speed, not the usual "do you want portability, or max IQ and the best viewfinder" dilemma.
Removed anti-aliasing filter ?
If there will actually be a specific D800 version / model with the anti-aliasing filter removed, then I will most likely buy the camera (provided it is competitively priced).
Pixel pitch is the same as D7000, as you point out, so handholdability should be the same as with D7000 - assuming same CoC on the sensor. Translated to exposure time, pixel pitch ratio directly relates to exposure time. A pixel pitch 56% of that of D700 means slightly more than half the exposure time for handholdability compared to D700.
Considering suggested price point of $3900 I don't see this rumored model as a followup to D700, but rather a pro series followup to D3x which was priced too close to MF anyway (even though it sells really well). If Nikon heads the same direction with D4 as Canon with 1D X then those two cameras will nicely complement each other - one for action/sports/PJ, one for studio/landscape/fine art.
And I'm not even considering the video side of things - didnt even cross my mind as I wrote this comment.
don´t expect technology to stand still.I think modern sensor technology is not anymore comparable on shere sensor pixel size. There is also this low electron collect capability , modern CMOS chips go down to even 1 electron readout sensitivity @30 fps whereas CCD´s (and the 80 Mix chip used in the actual backs have a pixel pitch of 5,2 microns ) do have a sensitivity limit at 5-6 electrons at about 11 fps.
I am pretty sure that this chip will look very good also at low light, given the fact that sony´s 3,9 micron are 58 % smaller in total collector space than this 4,9 micron (possible) new Nikon (probably also made by Sony anyway). But this is probably not what it was made for. There will also be a D4. And yes - with this resolution EVERY Camera will make sharper images if used on a tripod !
Lets see what they will announce in reality
Greetings from Munich
Finally we seem to come closer to the D800! Can't wait to get one in my hands :-)
For my purpose of DSLR this seems to be an ideal machine. Will see if the final product holds true.
Anyway if price is true, then we came now also with 30+ MP into a reasonable price region. Sure it will need high end (expensive) lenses to make that 30+ MP sing
If these rumours hold water, it seems to be a new class of camera; the best sensor in a more compact but very functional body. I never understood why the best sensor should only be available in a huge body. That can't be convenient for landscape photographers and it's absolutely not practical for travel.
I also have a feeling that there might not be a D400, at least not similar to the D300. For many, the D7000 has already taken its place, and for many others, the D800 will be a better replacement. For me, a combination of D800 and a V1 (and/or m43 caneras) seems ideal. Carrying a crop sensor camera that weighs more or less as much as a full frame one doesn't make sense except for telephoto reach, but with 30+ MP, there's plenty of cropping room, and on the other side, m43 and V1 have more reach with the same focal length anyway.
And one should say never "never" !!!!
Tried recently the V1 and kit lenses and must say this is a really cool and capable small camera system. The results are so great for me and the handling of the system is so overwhelming compared to m43 (Pana & Olympus), that now my GH2 AND my EP§ are gone in favor of the V1.
Could not judge RAW files so far, but the JPEG output os so stunning (even much better than from Olympus) that I am thinking of using JPEG only in the future - at least for the type of high end P&S photography I bought the V1 for!
WRT D800 - I like the fact that the body size will be (hopefully) smaller. Even if it does not come with 36MP but some MP count in the range of 24MP it would be a perfect camera for me. And I do hope that Nikon makes the color output similar to the V1, because this is really a BIG step forward from former Nikon cameras.
Once announced, where would be a good place to pre-order the D800?
Steen -- just to answer your question about S2 owners -- a tripod and mirror lockup is necessary to get the best out of it, though it will do very well handheld too.
My biggest concern on this camera is where the heck are you going to find lenses that are worth putting on it? I had the D3 and a number of lenses, including the 24-70mm, 17-35, and a number of primes. Almost all of them were mush in the corners at wide apertures, and that is on 12mp. Many were mush in the corners even at middle apertures (17-35, 35mm f/2). With 4.9 micron pixels, the diffraction is going to kick in really early too, probably f/11 or so. I am not saying it is impossible to get 36mp on 35mm, but you are only going to be getting the full benefit with the very best lenses at f/8 or f/5.6.
Not sure if that really matters though...even if you don't actually get 36mp of detail, you are going to max out your lenses, which is pretty nice! I still doubt it will compete with MF digital in most respects...it will still have an AA filter, still not have 16 bit color, not have the same tonal range etc. At the same time, it will focus much faster, give you full motion video, fit in a much smaller bag, have a wider range of cheaper lenses, cost a tiny fraction and I am sure have other advantages and disadvantages. Pretty much the only thing it has in common with the S2 for example is the number of pixels. Everything else about the cameras and about how those pixels actually translate into an image are going to be very different!
Stuart=- I wish you would stop 'bad mouthing' the S2
Excellent, those who wanted the D800 have bought it.
The Canon crowd has got the factories running overtime..5dIII.
The Sony crowd have their newest machine.
I shall enjoy the next ' rumored ' offering too!!
I do not print 6 feet. H*ll my height is not 6 ft.
My D700 is repaired. Seems fine.
I just need to use it more. Lens line-up. I have my 2 lenses too.
I believe D700 shall keep on taking pictures that please me. If I use it right.
Enjoy and please share your 36/40 mp images.
Right, Rayyan, the question is just how ...
36Mp (7360 x 4912 pixels) easily equals a print size of 20x30" @ 240 dpi, without any kind of resizing, let alone bicubic whatever ...
I'd love to print all my keepers at that print size, but since I'm such a darn good photographer it would quickly ruin me to print all my far too many wonderfull keepers at that size
A projector brings me a max presentation resolution of lousy 1280x800 i.e. about 1 Mp presentation resolution, not exactly a solution.
So most of my images are viewed on a computer screen.
My 30" Samsung Syncmaster 305T monitor has a max resolution of 2560 x 1600 pixels, i.e. around 4 Mp.
Four Megapixels, that's all, and the rest of the pixels are just thrown overboard - or I'd better start scrolling
I would love to see a 6000 x 4000 pixel wall monitor, just for still images, before buying a > 24 Mp camera.
Or why not 7000 x 5000 pixels while we are at it.
Wonder how many years we will have to wait for monitors that fit our cameras resolutionwise ?
Summa Summarum: what the most of us really need at the moment is not more capture resolution, but more presentation resolution.
What is it with the photo industry
Samsung, are you listening, the potential must be enormous ...
8k camera and 8k 85" LCD Monitor made by Sharp
And Eizo has now a 4k display (at 25000€) see here:
All a bit expensive though...........
But hey- who cares for money ?
Greetings from Munich
... but that's just you being so modest, Rayyan ...
Stefan, that sounds more like it is a dedicated television broadcast concept to be released around year 2020.
Let's hope that parts of the technology trickle down into computer monitors much sooner than that.
The reason why I imagine it would be doable already today (and at a fraction of the €25.000 / $36,000 Eizo price ) is that for electronic presentation of still images we don't need much speed for updating a large screen with many millions of pixels.
It could just take all the time needed. I could easily do with a slow monitor for still images only, so I don't need a fast graphics card like in the children's gaming computers.
With all the many millions of digital pictures taken every day, I believe there is a gigantic market for high resolution image presentation.
Occupy Wall Screens Now ...