Pa jeste, tačno to piše. Samo što mk2 ima skoro duplo veću rezoluciju i što si "slučajno" propustio da citiraš i ostatak:
Citat:
As seen earlier, the Sony A900 is quite a noisy camera compared to the 5D Mark II and the D700, which are suprisingly similar (we'd expect the Nikon to be less noisy, but the difference is actually very small). All the way to ISO 25,600 the D700 and 5D Mark II are very close in terms of noise and fine detail retained,
E sad, na stranu što kad gledaš isečke, možeš videti da je zapravo mk2 u blagoj prednosti, a ne obratno... no nema veze B)
Kad se uradi downsize na 12MP, D700 možeš samo da ugasiš i spakuješ u torbu
Što se D3s tiče, ja opet kažem - sjajan aparat, ali sa diskutabilnim senzorom za današnje trendove. Ja sam test već pročitao, ali vidim da Ti i dalje nisi:
Citat:
You may be able to sense a 'but' coming, and here it is. My problem with the D3S isn't what it can do - which is in all respects exemplary - but what it can't. Even when the D3 was announced in 2007, some commentators expressed surprise that Nikon didn't go with a higher resolution sensor. Almost three years later, and 12 million pixels looks even more conservative alongside newly-minted competitors like the Canon EOS 1D Mark IV. Nikon's view is that in this section of the marketplace, better image quality at high ISO settings is worth a penalty in resolution. Anyone that shoots regularly in low available light would probably agree, but it can't be denied that this extra high-ISO boost answers a criticism of the D3 that no-one really had. After all, it's tough to argue that the original D3 wasn't good enough at high ISOs...
We've seen from the samples in this test that the Canon EOS-1D Mark IV actually matches the output of the original D3 pretty closely up to its maximum ISO setting of 25,600. Although it's great that the D3S gives cleaner images at even higher settings, I suspect that most people don't need to shoot much higher than ISO 3200 most of the time, let alone ISO 102,400.
A poslednja stavka u "Cons" listi je takođe ilustrativna:
Citat:
Doesn't answer the main criticism of the D3 - 12MP was considered a fairly low resolution in 2007...
Pazi - poražavajuće je da i posle toliko kritika iz sopstvenog tabora i očiglednog masovnog preleta (najgora prodaja od 2005. godine) - Nikon i dalje tvrdoglavo tera po svome.
Znači, upotrebiću pitanje koje je DPR načeo - da li Ti misliš da su low-light performanse D3 bile u bilo kom smislu nedovoljno dobre da bi to opravdalo ponovno i uporno igranje na tu kartu?
I izvini ali... jedina značajna ISO razlika je i dalje samo na JPEG-u. Na RAW-u se JEDVA vidi i nije vredna rezolucijske razlike. Sve u svemu, za sada je D3x najbolje što je izašlo iz Nikona. Cenovni rang je očekivan za takav aparat, pa alternativu treba tražiti niže, a tu je jako teško opravdati D3/D3s pored D700, koji je najmanje jednako dobar, a duplo jeftiniji.
Da imam D700, ne bih pogledao D3/D3s u pogledu IQ-a koji pruža.
Pozdrav
Nikon D3s kralj visokog ISO-a
