http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-10045-10329

Hurry up Nikon... I got stuff to shoot here.

I shouldn't have looked.. love my D300, but.. wow, low-light amazingness.

Oh Lord have mercy !
My next camera !

this is just making it more murderous waiting for mine to arrive.

and I've got to say, that while the 102'400 iso images are of course impressive for what they are. the 12'800 ISO images are what is really blowing me away

Go4Long wrote:
and I've got to say, that while the 102'400 iso images are of course impressive for what they are. the 12'800 ISO images are what is really blowing me away

Yeah that's my take on it too... I care a little less about the extended hi-ISO settings than the fact that ISO12800 is going to be a legitimate option for sports work.

"Based on what we shot that evening it's safe to expect at least a one stop improvement, maybe more."

Oh my....I'm so very tempted.

also worth mentioning in looking at those pics is that in most of them even the in camera noise reduction is turned off or set to low. I told my salesman that when I come in to pick it up we'll pull it out of the box and take a couple shots at ISO 12'000 plus just because we can :P

I can't say I could ever visualize a case where I would have to use the 102'400 ISO, but I recently started getting invited to indoor horse jumping, I can definitely say that I would use 12'800 ISO on a regular basis.

Go4Long wrote:
also worth mentioning in looking at those pics is that in most of them even the in camera noise reduction is turned off or set to low. I told my salesman that when I come in to pick it up we'll pull it out of the box and take a couple shots at ISO 12'000 plus just because we can :P

I can't say I could ever visualize a case where I would have to use the 102'400 ISO, but I recently started getting invited to indoor horse jumping, I can definitely say that I would use 12'800 ISO on a regular basis.

Ditto!
Should make shooting in arenas much easier, and now with lower cost lenses - slower lenses - could maybe be used. Opens up the arena for more photog opportunities.

I am purposly avoiding this thread so as not to fuel my NAS.

Why are they doing this? My money is gone.

Nikon is pushing the IQ boundaries. And they should It's a good thing I got no money.

very impressive,, just wondering what will be next,, ISO 408,000,, loving it,,

Derry

i still cant believe they got another stop out of the camera with a stop on everything else
incredible

I just wish they would lower the strength of their AA filter though. Lower noise is nice, but I wouldn't mind a sharpness increase on par with what Canon has.

JHerr wrote:
I just wish they would lower the strength of their AA filter though. Lower noise is nice, but I wouldn't mind a sharpness increase on par with what Canon has.

after owning and using a 1Ds 1D2 1Ds2 1D3 40D i need to comment on your statement
with all in camera sharpening settings off between both brands (models i use now are the D3 and D700) i have found and it has been proven that out of camera raw images are considerable sharper from the nikon product then the canon product.

the canon workflow is longer and more tedious to get a good sharp image from.

Hmm. Maybe they'll put the same sensor in a "D800" a year from now, for $2,000 less. Good things come to the patient.


Kent in SD

minus the 11 fps, the dual card slots, the 45 shot buffer, and of course...the battery that gets you instant street cred :P

That high ISO performance is just ridiculous. Check out the ISO 12800 head shot of the "Dancer" in the middle row about half way down. The detail and lack of noise in her right eye is insane. Looks about ISO800 on the D300!

Cheers
Leigh

I got no money after buying one. But worth every penny!

sjms wrote:
JHerr wrote:
I just wish they would lower the strength of their AA filter though. Lower noise is nice, but I wouldn't mind a sharpness increase on par with what Canon has.

after owning and using a 1Ds 1D2 1Ds2 1D3 40D i need to comment on your statement
with all in camera sharpening settings off between both brands (models i use now are the D3 and D700) i have found and it has been proven that out of camera raw images are considerable sharper from the nikon product then the canon product.



My experience, after owning and using the 1Ds II, 50D, 7D, 5D, 5D II, D300 and D700 (I didn't bother with the D3 since everyone has said the IQ of the D3 is exactly the same as the D700), is exactly the opposite of yours... Nikon's full-frame high ISO performance comes at the cost of an overly aggressive low-pass filter, and when the files are interpolated up to 48mb (as is required for stock submission), the Canon images are much sharper - no matter how you process the Nikon images. The only 12mp Nikon that competes with the Canons in sharpness is the D2X, as has been proven by many respected Nikon reviewers.

molson wrote:
sjms wrote:
JHerr wrote:
I just wish they would lower the strength of their AA filter though. Lower noise is nice, but I wouldn't mind a sharpness increase on par with what Canon has.

after owning and using a 1Ds 1D2 1Ds2 1D3 40D i need to comment on your statement
with all in camera sharpening settings off between both brands (models i use now are the D3 and D700) i have found and it has been proven that out of camera raw images are considerable sharper from the nikon product then the canon product.



My experience, after owning and using the 1Ds II, 50D, 7D, 5D, 5D II, D300 and D700 (I didn't bother with the D3 since everyone has said the IQ of the D3 is exactly the same as the D700), is exactly the opposite of yours... Nikon's full-frame high ISO performance comes at the cost of an overly aggressive low-pass filter, and when the files are interpolated up to 48mb (as is required for stock submission), the Canon images are much sharper - no matter how you process the Nikon images. The only 12mp Nikon that competes with the Canons in sharpness is the D2X, as has been proven by many respected Nikon reviewers.




Really? Any references to these "respected" Nikon reviewers? Nikon tells it a little differently themselves...

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/d-technology/imagingsensor/resolution/index.htm

It's okay, Cliff is just trolling in these here parts these days...

Interesting, the same guy was in this thread (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/829666) were the OP seemed to get slammed for using such a high shutter speeds, Maybe the OP in that thread is Rob G in disguise.

molson wrote:
sjms wrote:
JHerr wrote:
I just wish they would lower the strength of their AA filter though. Lower noise is nice, but I wouldn't mind a sharpness increase on par with what Canon has.

after owning and using a 1Ds 1D2 1Ds2 1D3 40D i need to comment on your statement
with all in camera sharpening settings off between both brands (models i use now are the D3 and D700) i have found and it has been proven that out of camera raw images are considerable sharper from the nikon product then the canon product.



My experience, after owning and using the 1Ds II, 50D, 7D, 5D, 5D II, D300 and D700 (I didn't bother with the D3 since everyone has said the IQ of the D3 is exactly the same as the D700), is exactly the opposite of yours... Nikon's full-frame high ISO performance comes at the cost of an overly aggressive low-pass filter, and when the files are interpolated up to 48mb (as is required for stock submission), the Canon images are much sharper - no matter how you process the Nikon images. The only 12mp Nikon that competes with the Canons in sharpness is the D2X, as has been proven by many respected Nikon reviewers.

See here for measured resolution of Nikon D700 versus Canon 5D:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD700/page31.asp

This does not support the suggestion of excessive softening by the Nikon OLP filter.

Bello Nock is very populair these days...