Re: Nikon D800 Vs Canon 1Dx image quality [ very funny ]
skibum5 wrote: deepbluejh wrote:
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.
The Canon ISO1600 image also has waxworks going on, lots of NR and low in cam jpg sharpening, different lighting levels AND types, what can you really tell from these?
If by \"waxworks\" you mean, standard SOOC jpeg, then yes. What I can actually tell is that the 1Dx is going to be an exceptionally low noise camera while the D800 won\'t be. They\'re not the \"same\", but nothing will ever be the \"same\" and if you try hard enough you can shoot holes in anything. This leaves the door open for people to justify most anything they\'d like to believe.
I\'m not bashing the D800, I think it\'s an amazing camera and I\'m excited to see what Canon will do to counter it. Let\'s be very clear though, the D800 won\'t duplicate the D700\'s high ISO superiority relative to it\'s competition. You just don\'t get something for nothing when you triple the pixel count of your sensor. You\'ve got the pay the piper in the form of increased noise. Nothing new here, we\'ve always known this.
Feb 09, 2012 at 03:35 PM
Previous versions of deepbluejh's message #10328663 « Nikon D800 Vs Canon 1Dx image quality [ very funny ] »
