p.1 #7 · Nikon D800 Vs Canon 1Dx image quality [ very funny ]
But I just saw that and asked myself why comparing a 36MP consumer cameras image with the new half pixeled flagship from Canon for about more then twice the price?
p.1 #9 · Nikon D800 Vs Canon 1Dx image quality [ very funny ]
Thank you.
@ caisheng:
Yes noise at ISO 320 in 05.jpg But to me both look really impessing. I do not like the aliasing in the libraries roof window steel construction. Is that without AA? But where you see banding?
Ralph
Feb 09, 2012 at 10:56 AM
Chris Beaumont Offline • • • • • [X]
p.1 #10 · Nikon D800 Vs Canon 1Dx image quality [ very funny ]
Ralph Conway wrote:
why comparing a 36MP consumer cameras image with the new half pixeled flagship from Canon for about more then twice the price?
I don't understand this, why is everything except the 1Dx and D4 a consumer camera?
The D800 is $3000 and is very clearly aimed at working professionals, will qualify to be part of the requirement for NPS, and will be bought by 10x more Nikon using pros as the D4.
Just because a lot of rich amateurs who don't need it will buy it doesn't stop it being a pro camera.
p.1 #11 · Nikon D800 Vs Canon 1Dx image quality [ very funny ]
All sarcasm and profanity aside, he does have a point. The 1Dx does look better at ISO 1600 than the D800 does at ISO 320.
Nikon folks didn't really think they would get all of those pixels for free did they? There is a VERY good reason why the native ISO stops at 6400 for the D800 and goes up to 51,200 for the 1Dx.
It looks like Canon and Nikon have ironically swapped places on the resolution/noise spectrum this time around. I'm sure the fanboys on both sides will adjust their opinions accordingly.
p.1 #14 · Nikon D800 Vs Canon 1Dx image quality [ very funny ]
It's a shock for them, I meant "Nikon delivers shock to their users" .
deepbluejh wrote:
Nikon folks didn't really think they would get all of those pixels for free did they? There is a VERY good reason why the native ISO stops at 6400 for the D800 and goes up to 51,200 for the 1Dx.
It looks like Canon and Nikon have ironically swapped places on the resolution/noise spectrum this time around. I'm sure the fanboys on both sides will adjust their opinions accordingly.
p.1 #15 · Nikon D800 Vs Canon 1Dx image quality [ very funny ]
Chris Beaumont wrote:
The shadows in a 320 D800 image look worse than the mid-light tones in a 1600 1Dx image.
I've no doubt a 36MP image can't hope to compete with an 18MP one in per-pixel noise terms, but let's at least compare apples to apples!
Even at the equal image size, the 1Dx will be easily superior based on these samples. That's as "apples to apples" as it can get.
Regardless, for those who *need* resolution and can deal with the noise (through NR, or otherwise), the D800 looks like a VERY impressive camera.
Personally, I'd rather have the 1Dx sensor in a smaller body. For my work I don't need or want 36MP. I'm not alone in this either.
Feb 09, 2012 at 11:40 AM
Chris Beaumont Offline • • • • • [X]
p.1 #16 · Nikon D800 Vs Canon 1Dx image quality [ very funny ]
Definitely agree, I can't work out the logic of 36MP at all, who the hell needs THIRTY SIX megapixels of smeared data??
Was merely pointing out that using the naturally (un)lit shadows of an intermediate (and therefore possibly pushed) ISO to compare to the bright tones of a studio lit image isn't a fair comparison.
p.1 #18 · Nikon D800 Vs Canon 1Dx image quality [ very funny ]
I've been waiting to see some genuine samples and, to be honest, I'm far far less impressed. The ISO6400 shot - even when scaled down to 12mp - looks as bad as my 5dii does at ISO6400, and that's 4 year old technology.
I think Nikon have ignored quality and gone for quantity - which you could say the 5dii did, but actually seemed to get away with (apart from the banding).
Well, we shall see when the proper reviews happen, but right now I think Nikon *may* have made a mistake.
, not impressed. Comparing to that D700, the D800 is nothing special except that Nikon big jump in mp from 12 to 36mp.