According provided by note many thanks to Ivan Stanislavsky.
Nikon D3 vs Nikon D810. Photo taken here.
Nikon D810 и Nikon D3 - Professional FX cameras. In 2007 D3 was Nikon's first full-frame digital ink. The model became a legend, setting the bar for reportage cameras to new heights and forcing some news agencies to change their technology park. In 2014 D810 just replaced D800 and did not make a special revolution. Both devices have been at my disposal for a long time, have been in different situations and have established themselves as reliable workhorses. Practical experience already allows me to form an opinion about the advantages and disadvantages of each model, as well as to prioritize the application. This comparative description is an attempt to answer the question: which is better - an old top-end camera or a new one, but with a lower class? D3 refers to the top line, but it is quite old. D810 - newer, but somewhat inferior to the old woman. Cameras are separated by seven whole years of technological progress (and in our time it is almost an eternity). But the sharp drop in prices for old cameras makes us remember the "veterans". The outdated "three" with a shutter resource of up to 50% can be bought today for less than $ 1000, and the 810 will cost somewhere 30-50 percent more.
It is worth mentioning right away that the main field of photo activity for me is reportage photography. First of all, sports events, concerts, performances, street, sometimes architecture and genre, some landscapes for the soul and of course cats. I don't shoot any studio, wedding or family photosets. This is just a subjective assessment in terms of use specifically in my work. But, nevertheless, I'm sure these thoughts will help you draw your own conclusions.
Ergonomics
Both cameras are made in the best traditions - magnesium alloy, rubberized handles and control discs. In both cases, weather and dust protection is declared. D3 made in a large case with controls duplicated for vertical orientation. In terms of functional qualities, both cameras are familiar and flawless. In the “third” there are a couple of functions “dead” as a result of evolution and lacks flexibility of settings on additional keys. But these differences do not make special weather. I also want to point out that I never really appreciated the benefits of a dual-control case. When rotated to portrait orientation, access to some important buttons is lost. So I blocked it and forgot it. Carcass weight D3 with a battery of 1417 grams. D810 - weighs only 980 grams. When working, this difference is clearly noticeable. The extra pound makes itself felt when you need to carry a pair of lenses, a flash, backup batteries, commutation, etc. all day long. Either you wear a strap around your neck, or wind it around a wrist - D3 immediately lands. In addition, this “tank” normally does not fit far into any photo backpack or bag. Sadly, the “rubber” issue remains relevant for Nikon. On the D810 for a year of operation, the gum has peeled off more strongly than on D3 for 9 years. In terms of everyday use D810 spares the photographer’s back more, and this trivial circumstance sometimes becomes decisive.
Matrix
In both cases, this is Nikon FX CMOS 36 × 23,9 mm, only the D3 has 12,1 megapixels on board, and the D810 has 36,3 megapixels. Which is exactly three times more. What profit from this is hard to say for sure. If we are talking about the margin for cropping, then practice shows that the result depends more on a number of other factors. For example, on the resolution and sharpness of the optics, as well as the quality of the image itself. With both cameras, I was able to get images without losing quality, reducing the frame size by 50% and sometimes even more. Here, of course, everything is individual, but I cannot say that the 810 gives much more room for cropping. But the losses from 36,3 megapixels are clearly expressed. Working with RAW requires much more computing resources, you can upgrade your computer, you can somehow still, but buying a new laptop in a pair with a camera will cost a pretty penny. Well, here it is, as they say: if you like to ride, love to carry sledges. Be that as it may, it takes more time to work with large images, and when efficiency comes first (which is always important for a reporter) 36 megapixels become an anchor. The solution may be to switch to on-camera JPEG, or to a reduced RAW file of only 9 megapixels, but both options have known drawbacks. I don't know if there is a direct connection between the number of megapixels and dynamic range, but here the 810th leaves the old man far behind. Sometimes the difference can be noticed even with the “naked eye”. A very nice bonus in the 810 is the die cleaning system. D3 needs to be flushed more often.
Shooting speed
D810 can shoot 5 frames per second (predecessor D800 in general - 4) and no gadgets can raise this indicator (DX mode does not count). For reporting, this is critically insufficient. I suspect that megapixels are again to blame for everything. The camera processor just can't run faster. For example, Nikons of the 5000 series shoot at such a speed, and “seven thousandths” and “six hundredths” give 6 fps. For the D810 with its price tag, the indicator is shameful, even taking into account that the camera is not positioned as a reportage one. Another thing D3 - shoots at a speed of 9 frames per second. The rate of fire turns out to be a decisive factor when shooting fleeting situations. The percentage of not just suitable, but unique personnel is growing. Sometimes it turns out that you have completely different pictures than those of colleagues standing nearby. Poses, facial expressions, moments of movement, birdwatching, dynamics in sports or on stage - it turns out to capture much more. However, for a studio or shooting clouds, 5 fps is above the roof.
Buffer
Nikon D810 can hold 19 shots in RAW format when additional functions are turned off, (noise reduction at high ISO values, noise reduction at slow shutter speeds, ADL, autoISO, vignetting control). If all this is included, it will become just one frame less. Given the speed of shooting, the buffer is enough for a continuous series of four seconds. If you set the minimum color depth and turn off RAW compression, the buffer holds as many as 27 frames. Excellent performance, although if you shoot landscapes and people in the studio, you won’t be able to check out this bonus from 810. Such a buffer on D3. For the old woman, the maximum size is 16 frames, which is enough for a series of a little less than two seconds. Today it’s not so hot, but most often this is enough.
ISO
D3 has a working range of 200 - 6400 expandable within 100 - 25600 units. For D 810, the operating range is 64 - 12800 and will expand to 32-51200. Interestingly, in the range expanded over 12800, the buffer 810 loses as many as 7 frames, and when lowering it remains the same. On D3, three frames disappear from the buffer over ISO over 1600. And although an increase of just one stop between the cameras does not look very impressive, the level and nature of the noise proves that the Japanese spent seven years in vain. Good results without post-processing on D3 are obtained up to 4000-5000. After finishing the file with no pain in the eyes, you can look at frames with ISO up to 8000-10000. For 810, the confidence level is higher - 12800 is quite working here, up to 25600 - somewhere, somehow, not always, but you can fix it, all that is higher is fear, but it's still better than D3 at 12800.
Focus system
Both cameras use a 51-point focus system with 15 Multi-CAM3500FX cross points, but the 810 can focus on closed apertures and group four focus points into one cross-shaped area. In both cameras, all focus points are clustered in the DX zone of the image and it really infuriates. Still miss the viewfinder D300. As for the practical difference, according to my observations, the focus of the 810 is faster, more accurate and more accurate. Minimum idle runs, works much better in low light.
Battery
D3 uses old, heavy and now expensive EN-EL-4 (a) batteries, I recommend taking the carcass only with backup batteries in the kit. Then you are tormented by the search.
Video
The 810 can shoot Full HD video, 1920 * 1080 up to 60k / s. The camera has an HDMI output, the ability to connect an external microphone and aperture control during video shooting. D3 is not just a video, but even in LiveWiew mode it doesn't work humanly. What can you do - old age. Video recording for a camera is a secondary issue, but it is a useful thing in reporting. I was convinced of this more than once.
Сonclusion
Despite the fact that the Nikon D3 is morally and technically obsolete, it is unconditionally inferior to a lower-class camera in most respects, but I would not write it off. Adequate price and the complete absence of competitors in its price category in terms of continuous shooting speed leave the carcass in the list of current offers in the secondary market. In the middle segment, only the newest D850 was able to reach the D3 mark, and then only with a battery grip trailer. Continuous shooting is not a panacea, but if the D810 had at least 7 fps in your soul, this would be a serious application for versatility. The Nikon D3 has a critical advantage over the D810 in this regard. At the same time, the D810 has, in my opinion, only two critical advantages over the D3 - this is the working ISO threshold and better focusing. Where will the D810 stand out from the competition? First of all, this is shooting at night. And the point here is the dynamic range, and not the ISO at all. 810 gives categorically better results when working out contrast images, colors and details in the shadows than the "third". Where you can not do without Nikon D3 - of course in sports photojournalism. Its ISO range is still enough for high-quality shooting even in low light. However, in most standard photography tasks, both cameras are capable of producing excellent, indistinguishable results from each other. No wonder, despite its ten-year age, D3 can still be seen in the hands of some professionals. And not only in our country (where it is often necessary to choose it according to the principle - the best, for which there was enough money), but also abroad.
You will find more materials from readers of Radozhiva here.
missing information about the shutter resource ...
D3 - 300 thousand D810-200 thousand. What else is there to say. Despite the fact that a significant excess of the guaranteed mileage is not uncommon, this indicator is not particularly critical
thank you
D3s is more likely a direct competitor rather than 810mu. D3 is essentially a D700. If we take the purchase of used cameras on olx.
I agree. But he compared what is available.
I completely agree with the author. But in my case, I had d3 and d800 on my hands. He left 3, because the process of banal selection of successful personnel from 800 matches took several times longer.
I also liked the focusing accuracy better on the 3-ke, maybe on the 810 we improved something. And about the resource of the shutter - the first shutter on the 3-ke broke with me with a counter of 39 tons.
tin, 39 because Is an obvious marriage
Good!
BY THE COLOR D3 OF THE PLEASURES, BECAUSE AFTER 2007, THE STORM ON THE NOISE STARTED AND THE COLORS HAVE BECOME DIGITAL, THE GOOD CAMERA MUST BE NOISE, CANON 1Ds DID NOT RESET. 610 THIS IS MARKETING, BOOLL DRAWING.
Please, no capital letters.
PARDON 810 NIKON
I use the D3 + 70-200 2/8 vr2 and D810 with the same lens for work in the press service (hockey). The D3 is much better in terms of accuracy and "tenacity" of tracking focusing - there is practically no defect, which cannot be said about the 810, which has a defect rate of unfocused frames of about 20%. This is my personal experience.
Strange, but my situation is the opposite. Maybe it's in the lens. I use AF-P 70-300 it is much more native to 810 than to D3.
it's good that I shoot with boots ...
Thanks for the great review. Everything is very clear, precise, systematized, as they say, on the shelves, without water, and everything is the case. Deep respect to the author. And I wish you more successful shots in the coming 2019 year.
Great format for review. I like this comparison head-on, but as for me, there is not enough subjective information. Everything is planned quite clearly, but all this has already happened a hundred times. Just read the review from Arcadia on the D3 and on the D800. I would like a more fascinating review. Tell interesting stories from your experience with these cameras. I often shoot in different genres on a variety of cameras, and you can write about it endlessly. This enlivens the review. Moreover, here is a review about two legends! or at least the legendary D3. It is also unclear how you did without examples of photos from both cameras at different ISO values. Real stories and colors are interesting. By color, these are generally different cameras. You write about it, but here it’s better to see it once. I will look at such a comparison PHOTO head to head with more interesting than dry technical description. Sincerely.
I do not have a review on D3, only on d3s
Thank you for correcting, indeed D3 and D3S are not the same thing.
I just thought that there are plenty of test images on the internet, and there are not enough specific conclusions. As for the stories ... Well, I don’t know if they are of great practical use :)
That's right, Ivan! Photos are more from the author than from the camera. Happy New Year pictures!
Thanks for the review comparison.
I own the D 700 quite well, but there is nothing to compare with anything from the FX. Sometimes it becomes sad from such articles - the “old men” are retreating progress does not stand still, while nothing fundamentally changes, the “old men” perform the main function regularly.
But I'm not sad, excellent professional cameras are becoming more accessible for fans. It is difficult to change something radically. More and more quality articles on photography are being written on the Internet. Mobile applications for photographers are gaining ground (you can try your hand at serious contests with real prizes. The Chinese are filling us with high-quality and very affordable products for our favorite business. The main thing is to find stories and get positive impressions, and it’s also interesting to earn money on this.
In fairness, it would be worth saying that the 810 is not a reporting camera at all. And D3 would be more correct to compare with D4 or D5.
And this is noted.
For two years I used a pair of D3s and 810A, I agree with the conclusions of the author. Should I take in 2019 D3? More likely no than yes. In good condition, you still need to look, and Nikon stopped technical support.
There was no D3, but in 3 I bought D2015s and sold it later, deciding to buy D4.
The D3s / D4 are pleasant to hold in your hands - a pleasant solid feeling. Convenient ergonomics - everything is in place and can be used almost in winter gloves. Feeling secure. Excellent weight distribution with heavy lenses. Fast and accurate AF. The screwdriver on D3s / D4 works noticeably faster than on the D750 - I checked it on several old lenses.
With low mileage and at an adequate price it is difficult to find. For amateur tasks, the D610 or D750 are more suitable. For reporting, D3s / D4 is still relevant.
At rallies and demonstrations I saw photo reporters from D4 / D4s or 1DKh / 1DKhMk2. But no one with Sony: '-) They also had standard lenses for such tasks 24-70 / 2.8G or 24-70 / 2.8 Lki Canon or 70-200 / 2.8 from Nikon / Canon. NOBODY walks with Sigma, Tokin or Tamron for some reason :-)
D3s and D4 are certainly better, but they cost a lot more. And the used D3 in terms of value has already caught up with the amateur segment of the used D600-610, so the D3 looks relatively more relevant.
Thanks to the author for a good review. Very short, detailed and understandable.
A few months ago I bought D3s in a practically new state, the mileage was somewhere around 15000. I don't even know when I will switch to another camera and whether I will switch at all, I have a D700 (I already gave it to my son), as well as a Canon 5Diii prof. lenses. Kenon is completely idle, their lenses are only suitable for weddings and product photography, this is my opinion. Also, the canon is good as a tail for some old lenses. Rakhnitsa between D3 and D3s is and it is significant, in terms of matrix and image quality, literally in all parameters. When they write about the types of shutters, one must take into account that there are not just different resources, there are generally different shutter types, the top ones have the so-called. Barnack shutter, which in some cases can withstand over a million actuations. I personally saw D3s on sale after replacing the outer rubber that had 1,4 million mileage and worked. By the way, top-end cameras are assembled in such a way that you can easily replace the shutter in them and almost all other parts will work out the second circle, because they are designed for reporters, that is, for very significant loads, so it is almost impossible to spoil them during normal use. I can also say one significant drawback of the D3s is the ergonomics of its battery pack when used vertically. It is uncomfortable, and the grip itself is not very large, even for my average hands it is not enough, for the same Canon 5diii it is more comfortable, we can say that it is almost perfect. By the way, on dark subjects, where 5diii refuses to focus (this is with 16-35 / 2.8ii !!!!), D3s focuses well with the old 24-85 / 3,5-4,5G, I compared the old 5Diii with 6D, so the latter tears it up in autofocus sensitivity, and on the network you can find laudatory articles brought to the point of absurdity about the Canon 5Diii autofocus (I wonder how much canon pays on the Internet for a huge number of paid articles). Recently I contacted one very famous observer on the Internet about a review of one photo accessory, and he asked for $ 5000, apparently he takes much more from the canon. What I mean is that this site of the respected Arkady can surpass more than 90% of the rest, especially English-language ones, in terms of the reliability of materials. And the D3 now in perfect condition costs about $ 700 and in this price range you still need to look for something better, the D700 has already started to cost less than $ 500, which is also a good thing.
The D3s, as far as I know, has a redesigned diaphragm hammer mechanism. Rumor has it that D3 / D3s are designed for 11 frames per second (in crop mode), and therefore they run much longer at 9 fps (FX mode). Also, d3 has been developed for more than 3 years (although it would seem ...). And d3x, whose mechanics are exactly the same as d3, at a nominal speed of 1.7 frames per second, can live even longer.
Nikon D3s were called the 'king of the night' in the west due to their very high ISOs at the time. Even now, this is one of the best high ISO performance cameras. By the way, Sony in their A7S returned to the same 12MP in order to overclock the ISO to the maximum.
I had a bunch of Canon 2D Mark 5 and Canon 3D for 6 years.
the situation there is very ambiguous ...
AF and mark covers most of the frame and more crosses. But I agree with you, he did not seem super accurate to me.
6D in fact has only one working point, with all that follows.
6D is smaller and lighter, Mark 3 is more convenient and substantial.
I would say that the 6D picture is better, but Mark 4 has two memory card slots.
So, the choice is better very difficult :)
ISO and focus are the main parameters for shooting sports, I say as a photographer who often shoots sports. And your serial shooting did not stop at all, I personally always have 3 frames per second. If you don't know how to predict the moment, a quick-fire will not help you, well, Nukiak.
I agree 100%!
So here's a quick shot for those who “don't know how to predict the moment”.
It is impossible to guess when the athlete blinks, sticks out his tongue, casually makes a wild face, etc. They do this surprisingly often, especially when the competition is about to end.
Besides, it all depends on the dynamics of the sport. For example, when shooting fencing, one cannot do without a high rate of fire. Figure skating, gymnastics - they also need it there. And when there are hundreds of participants, and each of them needs to be photographed aesthetically, without protruding tongues, and in a beautiful pose?
I completely agree with you. I shoot sports, I never beat in series. Is that when buying for verification. There is always a series of three frames just like yours. Practice has shown that in a long series, there is only more "slag" and killed time for sorting.
Arkady, what do you do besides photos? Isn’t you repairing cars? http://remont-transporter.com/services.html
In addition to photos, I deal only with photos.
My dad has his own service station, he is engaged in machines, his name is also Arkady.
Uncle D810 is this new? Have you heard of the D850 by accident?
sense to compare one junk with another?
Nikon D800 (e) and Nikon D810 have on board one of Sony's most unsuccessful matrices in terms of color, and therefore there was a massive departure of pros to other systems.
(Strictly speaking, there were a lot of problems with signal complexing, and with the ancient AF module that they tried to finish, and with blurring due to the clap of the mirror, and problems with VR compatibility with lenses, etc.).
The color problem (like the others) was solved almost completely on the D850, one of the best DSLRs in general, where the color profile was maximally brought to the level of the Kenon profile (which in fact is standard in a commercial photo).
As the owner of the D800, no matter how much I tried to study and analyze the results from new Nikon cameras starting with the D810-D610, I can unequivocally say that the D800 is the last Nikon camera with which you can still get those famous old Nikon colors, plastic and texture. The D810-D610 made a completely different color - the picture seems to be very sharp, but dead, digital and flat. The colors are felt-tip and terrifying, especially the greens. The picture of the D500, D7500 is even worse - they generally made a “watercolor” soap at ISO 100 like the Sony A7 - in general, everything is tailored specifically for Sony, I regularly download full-size from these cameras - not a single frame has micro-detail and cleanliness. Under no circumstances will I switch to these two "advanced" crops, even to "test".
What categorical statements :)
I have worked with many Nikons.
D500 - the color is just awful, but is it really needed there? this is a reportage.
D800 (D810) - the color is better (IMHO) than on the D500 but still lousy. But for these cameras this is critical, since they are studios and for landscapes.
D600, D610, D750 - everything is about the same, differences in processing profiles.
Yes, the greens of these Nikons are beyond good and evil, this is the famous Nikon green that rushes from everywhere.
Strictly speaking, this is a considerable merit of the 24Mp and 36Mp Sonevsky matrices, which are very poor in color, which were placed in the D750, D600, D610, D800, D800e.
The most sane Nikon is the Nikon D850, where the matrix was completely redesigned and the color adjusted according to the Kenon profile, it turned out almost perfectly, the camera became a world hit and in many countries the waiting period for it to be bought was 2-4 months after payment and this was one and a half years after the start of sales .
That year, people choked on the Sony A7m3. Just now, the excitement subsided.
Very nice camera with overcooked jpegs.
the best of Sony's BS, not cheap, the color must be finished.
As for me, the D800 / D800e is the most complex of all Nikon ffs in working with color.
As for the D3, I was told by “old school” wedding photographers and reporters with more than 30 years of experience in photography that this camera takes out and separates such subtle shades and transitions of the most difficult colors for CMOS that nothing that came out later is even close to capable of doing this. can only Sigma Foveon compete.
she doesn’t export anything, this is a report with a small color gamut. See paired photos and draw your conclusions.
Well, the old school - this is from the category before the sausage was tastier, the greens were greener, it was getting stronger, etc. :)))
Sigma Foveon has a huge number of color problems, read and watch ...
IMHO, today the best in color is Nikon D850, Canon 5D Mark 3-4, Canon EOS R, Canon 6D.
At Canon 6D Mark 2, the picture is neutered (so that the situation with the 6D-Mark 3 does not repeat), New Nikons BZ do not shine in color and are far from the D850.
Well, Sony BZ is clear with them ...
Z7 has the same matrix as the d850.
What a huge number of color problems does Foveon have？ List them all please, as it will be interesting for the owner of Sigma SD-1 Merrill to read and discuss.
not the same :))) read how AF was implemented on the Z7's matrix and what had to be sacrificed for this, including color, how and what was changed in the matrix for this ...
In addition, familiarize yourself with the problem of bending at Z7 and the loss of small parts (in comparison with the D850).
Hint - google Nikon Z7 Image Quality vs D850)))
In an extreme case, look at the RAVs for a preview, it clearly shows how the Z7 has a rush of green that the D850 does not have.
Regarding Foveon, I see no reason to start a holivar.
Take paired photos with exifs, lay out your Foveon and D850 (or Mark 3-4 there). After which everyone will draw their own conclusions.
or google foveon vs bayer comparison, foveon color issue, etc
If you do not own a camera on Foveone, then there is no point in discussing something with you.
Compare Foveon with something is nonsense. You have nothing behind your soul except someone else's thoughts or statues found in Google. Yes, the cameras on Foveon have problems and they have not been solved so far, which is why they have now abandoned their mount and entered into an alliance with Lake and Panasonic.
You cannot say anything about Foveon, because you have not worked with it. We didn't poke around in Sigma Photo pro and didn't shoot ourselves. It is useless to compare with 5DMk4 or D850. Not because Foveon is better or worse. Cameras on Foveon give a DIFFERENT color, and working with Sigma Photo pro you understand that you can rotate colors in different ways. Foveon sees shades of red and magenta / violet differently. It's hard to explain - you just have to see it. Foveon paints shades of green differently, in my opinion not as richly as any Nikon [/ irony]. And you, apart from some left-wing impressions, some left-wing people, have nothing for your soul. You are just a theorist.
Pokemon, I had the experience of poking around the Sigma photo Pro. I bought the very first DP1 for fun. At first I thought what kind of shit it was slowed down with a 16mm dark fix ... Later, I thoughtfully began to master this strange camera and here's what I can say: this matrix really brings out unreal, fantastically, indescribably beautiful colors, smooth tonal transitions and sharpness without sharpening (namely, displaying the most small details) strikes after any Bayer. Accuracy, juiciness and correctness of green and in general all natural shades are striking. None of the cameras that I had just stupidly at close range did not share the bright red-dark burgundy color of the rose in the garden on any BB settings (the example was stupidly cited a complex color for CMOS). Sigma DP1 showed this color correctly even in jpeg!
As I wrote, Foveon is very good at red and all its variations.
From pale pink, or dark orange to purple hues.
One of the main troubles of the system is weak support by the manufacturer itself.
It is difficult to get lenses for this mount, and even batteries (which the cameras on Foveon really like) or bat. Block / booster figs can be found in free sale. Only on order. For cleaning matrices Foveon is taken only Online Trade in Moscow. The cameras on Foveone are not easy, but sometimes impossible shots are possible for them. For some daily simple tasks or for work, they are not suitable. It's better than Fuji / Nikon / Canon.
Z7 has the same matrix as the d850.
=============
set AF on the Z7. to the matrix. for this we weakened the color filters - there was an imbalance in color, the picture was paler and less halftones. as a result of an imbalance, brilliant green appeared.
the result of installing af on the matrix - noises climbed. to crush them, use a strong filter or no noise reduction, which resulted in the loss of small details in comparison with the D850.
and since it is impossible to set them completely, banding (which is not present in the D850) got out in the shadows.
in the bottom line in comparison with the D850 - the new Z7 has less DD, the problem of banding, a less sharp picture (loss of small details), brilliant green and the problem of halftones / colors.
but for the rest - yes, the matrix is, well, somewhere exactly the same :))))) Well ... the same amount of Sony and puxel production was poured!
Do not exaggerate please.
Each tester has his own opinion, some unscrupulous just do self-PR and hype.
"While close inspection found the Z7 to have slightly better noise reduction, both cameras had excellent color, detail and sharpness."
Z7 has a slightly worse AF for action. On the D850 left a screwdriver for the oldfags.
Once again, I’ve been convinced that the difference in the picture between the Z7 and D850 is no more than that of the EOS R and 5Dmk4. Pretty much everything looks alike. If you are interested in pixel hunting and nuances, then leave this to yourself while others take pictures with these cameras. In general, it’s a little silly to make categorical statements on devices that you don’t have.
This often happens with iPhone haters - the iPhone / sgc is yelling bad, and they can give a thousand exaggerated reasons, except for one true one - there is no money and cannot buy.
no need to increase or decrease. there is a physics of the process.
just watch the paired RAVs on the preview.
fewer words, more photos ...
PS
By the way, unlike you Z7 I just returned to the store after the test)))
And then iPhones and other informational garbage?
The Nikon Z7 was discussed in comparison with the Nikon D850.
Neither Nikon himself nor the most ardent Nikonovody denies the problem of DD at Z7 and banding, they are too obvious and have been shown in detail for a long time, even on a preview, even on a video on YouTube.
The difference in color and zelenka in Z7 is also obvious on any paired photos with the D850
Can't you really see? )))) It happens…
If you just want to flood, then yes, you can drag all sorts of iPhones and other floods instead of facts. )))
More brackets.
Answered below. I am not going to engage in pixel-hunting of alien rabbis. Other testers of the above problems were not found in the cameras.
Anonymous, about Z7 - rather you are right, I looked at examples from it. Well, such a lame picture cannot be worth such insane money. The colors are similar to the D7500, only sharper and more detailed. But despite being a Nikonist fanatic, I was unexpectedly impressed with the EOS R results.
I hope everything is fine with your eyesight and you are able to see the difference in color, for example on RAVs on a preview? )))))
Unlike you, I will discuss only those cameras that I have / had in my hands and can personally test on my lenses. I don’t want to engage in fantasies.
Then, Nikon's first batch of new products come with jambs. If there is a problem ~ it will be fixed.
Thanks to Ivan for the article! Thanks to Arkady for a great blog!
We compared warm with soft and even the only plus was given out as something outstanding ... "In its price category" there is a d500, which is faster, more accurate and lighter than this dinosaur ... It's generally funny to read about the possibility of cropping ... you also write that the detail of d3 is at a height ... ... although I do not exclude that the author shoots on some bottle bottoms instead of reportage lenses, then yes, no questions.
"I came, saw, shit!"
I can say that the detailing from my D3s with a 50mm prime lens at 5,6 aperture is lower than from my Pentax K-01 with a Tamron 17-50 / 2.8 lens (not VC), although good shots and, in general, frames in some cases with D3s are made more often or are made in principle ... With a D500 with a good lens, the detail will be even higher.
Not quite in the subject, but ...
I saw a bourgeois movie in which the D5 and D850 were compared for autofocus. So D5 won! Although the modules are identical. Draw your own conclusions!
Canon drivers can remember the AF module on ones. Many argue that on 1Ds mk3 and 1dx faster than on all fives, except for the 4th.
If according to Nikon, then the screwdriver in D3s / D4 works faster than on the d750, for example.
As for the D3s, I can confirm - the screwdriver works really faster than on the D700, I don’t know about the D750, I’ve never used it, but apparently Nikon doesn’t put powerful motors in non-top cameras, maybe there’s not even room for that in small cameras ...