New test results from DxOMark: Fuji X100 vs. Nikon D7000, Samyang 85mm f/1.4 lens and more

DxOMark published new test data today for the Fuji X100 camera (see review). Here is the comparison with the Nikon D7000 and Nikon D300s:

DxOMark also published test results for the Samyang 85mm f/1.4 ASPH IF lens:

New test data for the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8-4.5 DC OS HSM and 50-150mm F2.8 EX DC APO HSM lenses are also available (Nikon mount):

This entry was posted in Nikon D7000 and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • jk

    Nikon rocks……!

    • Mateiu Alexandru

      Yes indeed 😀

    • LOLCATmasterFTW!!!

      I just installed a full stage and instruments for my Nikon gear to rock, my D3x at the lead guitar, my D3s in the drums, and my D700´s in the 2nd guitar and the bass… I waited 3 hours and neither of them started a rock concert, so your comment that Nikon “rocks” is false. So please refrain from publishing lies! the internet is about the truth!! Oh wait…

      • Fredrik

        Made me lol.

      • PAG

        I think those models are too old to rock. You have to try the “younger” D3100, D5100, and D7000.

        • Rock, my friend, is as old as sin. The babies: D3100, D5100, D7000 should be on to something new, something inspired and leave rock to the wheezers and wrinklers. It’s time to find new musical avenues, just as it is time to overthrow the stodgy ol’ ‘only want stills’ attitude.

        • LOLCATmasterFTW!!!

          Those models wouldn´t know how to rock, they would do something gay and justin beiberish….

          • king

            You wouldn’t know what rock is if it hit you in the nuts. Go listen to Justin Bieber.

            • LOLCATmasterFTW!!!

              🙁 Each time someone listens to Justin Beiber a Noct Nikkor crashes on the floor…. think of the Noct´s

    • idiot

      why is D7000 crop factor 1.53 not 1.5?

      • Robbert

        It always has been 1.53 afaik.

  • Darth

    Nikon FTW!!!!!!!!!!!

    • LOLCATmasterFTW!!!


  • ignore

    We love you Nikon!

    • Chunkaglass

      I want to have Nikon’s babies and then make mad love to it!

      • Chunkaglass

        I’m not good enough for Nikon, I’d settle for a kiss on a cheak 🙂

      • Cold Hands Luke

        I think doing it the other way round would work better…

      • PAG

        I want to have Nikon’s babies and then make mad love to it!

        Uuuuuh, your order sounds a bit off. I think somebody needs to explain some basics of life to you.

        And I don’t EVEN want to know what accessories you plan to buy for your camera to make this happen!

      • SZRimaging

        Inbreeding? Are you from Kentucky?

    • LOLCATmasterFTW!!!

      If you “love” a piece of glass, plastic and metal you must have some serious mental issues.

      • king

        I pity you, sad, lonely person. You’ve got nothing to love in your life, not even piece of glass. You know not what love it. Your heart is empty and your soul rotten. You’re lost….

        • LOLCATmasterFTW!!!

          Hey I´m not lonely I have Lupita my inflatable companion, she feels very offended by your comment, I will kindly ask you to step outside because we will have a duel, choose the weapons bazookas at dawn or bitch slaps at dusk.

          As for being lost, I was lost once in Alaska for like 2 months, I had to learn how to hunt like a wolf, I ate baby seals and bears… by the time they found me I was already king of the animals there!! I had an awesome crown made with the rib cage of a grizzly, as a matter of fact I´m using it now, today I don´t get lost because I have a GPS :), If it had existed before I wouldn´t have now those horrible flashbacks of being attacked by rabid bears….

          As for my rotten soul… that´s not true because I don´t have a soul! I sold it long ago to the lord of shadows! (that´s how I got my GPS) 🙂

  • Artur Kozłowski

    The Samyang is doing quite well indeed – esp. for a quarter of Nikkor’s price…

    • Darth

      Well, go and marry your inferior Samyang then. Some people go for quality, some for cheap crap.

      • Seshan

        Some people have lots of money, some don’t.

      • TommyDe

        That’s completely unreasonable. “Cheap crap” is a clear overstatement. Yes, it’s cheap, it’s not a bad lens at all. You can buy 4 Samyangs and if it scratches, you can sell it on ebay and take another one from the shelf. Nikons’ bulid quality is surely higher, but in the end, the image quality is all that matters. Nikon has some great equipment, possibly of the highest quality on the market as for dSLR-s (as for the lens, there are much better ones, and much more expensive too), but you can’t just despise other manufacturers because they don’t have a Nikon badge. Don’t be such a fanatic, it’s bad for you and your wallet.

      • LOLCATmasterFTW!!!

        I don´t have any experience with the Samyang but I wouldn´t dare to say it is inferior if I haven´tested it myself, can you give me a real life (no walls or cat photos) on how you concluded the Samyang is crap? I would love to see the comparison with real life gigs you have shot with both lenses.

        • Samyang should be okay. I live in Korea and am amazed by how much cheap stuff is made and pedalled to Koreans as ‘best in the world’, meanwhile breaking in seconds, or throwing toxins into the air faster than you can say ‘nuclear holocaust’, but Samyang seem to be much much better than the average Korean manufacture.

          They do the typical Korean bait and wait trick of releasing, then releasing again when things are ironed out, but oh well. I actually bought FlashWave III a couple of days ago instead of Pocket Wizard, and experience my first: ‘what you pay for’ disagreement with regards to Korean gear. Usually, I stay far away, but recently, Korean optical stuff has been okay. The FlashWave works quite well, and while it lacks TTL or any automatic setting for Nikon flashes, I can strap basically anything and up to 16 channels to my camera and flash like mad.

          Samyang offer pretty good performance for the price. They don’t offer stability or customer support, however, that is comfortable with more established markets. I like their 14mm as it is small and reasonable. I like to see them trying, and though I despise most Korean junk, I feel they are doing a good job to foster respect for a country runs rampant with companies that take their population for idiots.

      • Mock Kenwell

        Hello?! NO AF! Yes, the Samyang looks to be a nice lens by many accounts, but it’s still MF. Why have a DSLR if you’re going to do that? Get a rangefinder and a much smaller lens that will give possibly better bokeh than both.

        Quality AF is worth tons IMO.

        • +1

          (Any chance someone will be able to retrofit one of these with a screwdrive AF motor?) I assume screwdrive AF doesn’t cost nearly as much as a full blown SWM.

          Sorry Samyang but I think that’s the least they could really have done tbh bearing in mind this is built in 2011 and not 1991 when AF was a gimmicky toy mostly (as far as Nikon was concerned , even back then that attitude cost them dearly).

        • Some people, like myself, prefer manual focus. All my lenses are MF glass. The majority of my work comes from situations requiring 1600 Iso and above, AF is near useless in those situations. Also as a portrait lens you should have no need for AF! In addition the build quality on the Samyang is nice and hefty, unlike the recent batch of Nikon lenses, which feel like cheap plastic crap.

          Also if I can get the same optic quality in a $250 lens as in a $1200 one and all I have to give up is AF, I think thats a damn good tradeoff.

          In addition, in what world do you think a off-brand unknown lens manufacturer would stand a chance against Nikon in AF glass? So instead of going head to head and failing, they aim for a slightly different market and reep the rewards.

          • Mock Kenwell

            Umm, how about in Sigma’s world? They go toe-to-toe with Nikon all the time. And occasionally, they do quite well if you get a good sample. If you want to shoot MF, I’m all for you, brother. But I also think you’re nuts for doing it with a DSLR whose bulk and electronics are largely geared for folks who want consistent, accurate AF and exposure. If you want old school, go all the way and embrace it. And be prepared for a lot of failure. It’s more work, and you will miss countless shots, but sometimes that can be fun.

            • Am-Expat

              MF is not for chance encounters, but for more serious intent driven photography such as portraiture, product, art reproduction, macro and others where precise control of focus is needed, particularly if the subject is not an optimum AF contrast or shape target. It is very easy for a scene to fool AF, only a human can view the whole scene and decide the optimum focus plane by the meaning of the image.
              AF has been a boon to sports captures and casual snap shots but still does not understand the intent of the photographer. Even the best Nikkor AF lenses are quite often used MF when shooting a 1.4.
              For portraits, my Nikkor 85 1.4 is used in MF most of the time when 1.4 is selected and my best shots come from that mode. When using it for action with the needed stopped down aperture, sure, AF is used most of the time. But I did not get a 1.4 lens for f/11 work, the reason for even thinking about getting one is to use it at 1.4. At f/5.6, the much cheaper 85 1.8 is just as good.
              I’ve tried the Samyang and think it reminds me more of some of the impressive MF lenses such as Zeiss due to the solid feel as if machined from solid metal. It is smooth as silk to focus and pleasant to use. If I was in the market for such a fast sharp lens, and had limited budget there is not question it would be in my kit.
              The wide angles are even easier to use on DSLR which normally do not have great focusing screens.

              For sports, and wide apertures, AF is the only way to go, but for precise deliberate selection of focus at wide apertures, MF is more consistent, accurate and reliable.
              I will be anxious to see what else Samyang comes out with. The prices have been attractive but even at twice the price, the solid feel and very good optics only matched or bettered by a few much more expensive lenses in the Nikkor line. There is NOTHING that Nikon makes, less than $1000 that comes close to the MF Samyang lenses optically.
              Don’t sell MF short, for some subjects, it will be a real help in getting the most out of the scene and your gear.

      • hexx

        actually that Samyang is full metal shell, built like a tank

    • broxibear

      Hi Artur Kozłowski,
      I think the problem for Samyang and Sigma is qualty control.
      I’ve noticed a few testers and reviewers say there’s a big difference in image quality between lenses that should be identical because they’re the same model.
      Wether they can sort out the quality issues and keep the same low price is the question…I guess that’s what you’re paying for with Nikon, strict quality control from the raw glass to the end product ?

      • Phil

        I don’t think there’s that much of a difference. So far every review I’ve read of that lens is quite favorable. Most of the QC remarks have been mechanical, not optical. It may be a dice toss in that respect, but there’s no doubt looking at images ANY website, the lens is not only sharp, but when it comes to bokeh (and that’s what this lens type is all about), the Samyang blows the Nikkor out of the water.

        • broxibear

          You’ve misundestood what I said Phil… the quality difference is between one Samyang lens and another Samyang lens.
          Wether you get a good copy or a bad copy is the issue, Sigma have the same problem.

          • Phil

            [I’ve noticed a few testers and reviewers say there’s a big difference in image quality between lenses that should be identical because they’re the same model.]

            Then they should be posting side-by-side examples. Even so, I’ll bet the differences are negligible. This lens isn’t hot for nuthin’.

            • Ronan

              Phil i invite you in buying 5 Sam’s lenses, or heck Sigma lenses.

              Do controlled tests on them, then come back and apologize to broxibear.

            • Phil

              I don’t think broxibear is in need of an apology. He made a valid point, and so did I. The bottom line is that you can go to ANY website posting images taken with the Samyang, and as the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words.

              I’m sure there are production differences between all those Samyangs bought and used by individuals, and posted up on all those sites you can find online, some of them linked right here, and it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. Use your eyes, not your heart, to see. The Samyangs 85mm f1.4 is one of the great deals of our present times.

              Practically all of the Samyangs fall more or less into that “great deal of the moment” scenario. The 35mm f1.4 is coming up fast. 🙂

            • broxibear

              Hi Ronan & Phil,
              No apology needed…this is what the blog is about, sharing ideas and providing information others may not have.
              Phil and I disagree about Samyang quality control, it doesn’t affect me personally as I don’t buy third party lenses, but for those who do it’s an issue worth looking into.
              It’s all cool guys.

        • Eric Pepin

          getting in focus wide open would be fun wouldnt it…. with my 85 1.4 afd, when i throw it on a manual film body, full frame, with proper screen its still a bitch, on a D3 near impossible to do it quickly, on a d300 forget about it.

      • Darkness

        Its the glass Nikon rejects that makes Nikon the best..:)

    • Darkness

      Why havent they tested the AFS 85 made in this century one wonders???

    • bob

      If I was to get a manual focus lens, I’d rather get a Nikon AI/AI-s lens, instead of the Samyang, rebranded Vivitar, Rokinon, Promaster, etc. Except for certain choice, high grade lenses from Tokina, Tamron and Sigma, I’d stay away from low end manufacturers.

      I’ve been there buying the cheaper, third-party lenses, thinking I got a deal. What a deal indeed. What you save up front, you pay later 2 ways–generally inferior image quality right off the bat, and very poor resale value down the road. But, of course, your needs will differ.

      • iamlucky13

        There’s gems here and there, but you never know it until someone steps up and buys them to prove them out.

        Seldom do these gems actually exceed the quality of the Nikon or Canon-made equivalents, but I’ve seen many that came close enough that they were well worth their much lower prices.

        According to those DxO tests, the Samyang comes very close in most regards, and actually beats the Nikon in a couple small ways, such as chromatic aberration and corner sharpness wide open.

        Really, if you can afford it, the Nikon is better in small ways optically, and in a big way for the convenience of AF, but if it comes down to also affording a complementary lens, or if you simply can’t afford the Nikon, the results show the Samyang to be a surprisingly good alternative for less than 1/3 the cost.

        • Ronan

          If money is an issue, then go buy a Russian made lens.

          $50 on ebay, voila.

  • I’m so glad i got my D7k one week after the release. Hurray!

  • Axel

    wait for it … wait for it ….

    • LOLCATmasterFTW!!!

      I waited with a beer and pop corn, waited it a whole lot and nothing happened… What am I supposed to wait?

  • You have to be objective and try the Samyang on your hand first before make any objection.

    I tried it. Well … Samyang is damn soft and inconsistent.

    Price don’t lie.

    • LOLCATmasterFTW!!!

      Fanboys can´t understand about 1st hand experience or anything that requires them going out their house to shoot something real, because they can´t be far from their computers… that´s why DXO mark exists for fanboys to stay in their house without shooting and talking about graphics and stuff that is totally irrelevant 🙂

      • No, fanboys are very serious researchers. They may not be as into the hobby or the act as photographers, but they are important. I’d consider the Nikon glass at 4x the price very worth it especially if I were shooting a lot with it. If it sat on the shelf, why not go with the Samyang?

        Samyang positives: manual aperture control, cost, weight.
        Nikon positives: fully automatic focus and exposure control with manual overrides, build quality, overall picture quality.

        Come to Korea. Live here. Buy Korean stuff. Then try chewing out fanboys that would rather pay for stuff that is known to last for years and meet high expectations both mechanical and optical. You’ll not last long in that attitude in a country run by underhanders. Hell, even a walk to the camera twice a year will render the same sidewalk once usable, and then half a year later, unusable because it has been mismanaged.

        Getting a great lens with samyang is great, but it is not the norm. There ARE problems with manufacture, and they don’t stem from the machines, they stem from the fact that Korean quality control is one of the worst in the developed, rich world.

        • FYI, I have the Samyang 85 and the newer versions do have automatic aperture/exposure. I previously owned the Nikon 85 1.4D and have no regrets selling it for the Samyang. My copy is very sharp wide open at closer distances and the bokeh is beautiful. Sharpness takes a dive when focusing at infinite, but this hardly bothers me with this type of portrait lens.

        • LOLCATmasterFTW!!!

          How´s that long explanation of yours empowers his conclusion and his lack of first hand experience with the lens? Look I´m not defending the lens because I don´t care about pieces of plastic, glass and metal BUT it is offensive to see someone saying something is crap and he/she hasn´t used them at all.

          • I have used them, just not that long. Same with the nikons. My comments are mostly about this sudden faith in a Korean company. Im not into Market for an 85 right now though my mates have the gamut from canon to sigma and one has the samyang. Each is nice, but I’d stay away from Korean stuff for a lot of other reasons.

            • LOLCATmasterFTW!!!

              I´m not talking about you, I´m talking about him :/ you means you and him means another person 🙂

      • Nek Wellrock

        Then what’s this?…your day off?


  • jsv

    On a D3x–Nikon’s most demanding camera to a lens–the Nikkor bested the Samyang by 2 points.

    I’ve only compared the older AIS with the Samyang. It’s still the same old story–build-wise go for the Nikkor. Optically it’s very difficult to tell the difference between the two unless you pixel peep.

    Me, I’m happy to use the Samyang because I can trash it around without worrying that I’m going to be out $1000 if something breaks or if little fingers find their way to it (and on it).

    Shooting at f/1.4 is tricky, even for an AF system. See this guy’s mini review.

    If you really want “superior”–go for a Zeiss 85mm f/1.4–but be warned it’s manual focus all the way with Zeiss.

    • Jabs


      Here is a ‘wake up call’ for you!

      • DF

        I’d go for the Sigma in that situation. I’m not made of money, and performs near to 2nd best.

        • Jabs

          Well, you have your own choices. The comment was mainly aimed at those who tell us here ALL THE TIME, that Zeiss lenses are superior to Nikon’s.

          • Ronan

            Zeiss lenses are not all superior. In fact… theirs quite a ‘favorite’ selection of them that are inferior to Nikon and Canon.

    • In many ways, the d3x is less demanding than the d3100 is ohte than the fact that its frame covers more or the lens than the dx camera does. But the dx camera has much more packed pixels that are harder to satisfy. The d3x will look much sharper than the dx because it is lower resolution per square mm, and has more light. Overall, I’d say that it is a pretty easy to satisfy sensor.

  • alex

    Let’s see how much samyang costs if autofocus is added.
    That’s why is so cheap, you can’t use it as you should, you buy it only for studio shots with people which don’t move at all.

    • lio

      Well if you think manual focusing is only for still subject, you’d better take a course or two on camera handling and check old Olympic games pictures (Carl Lewis winning the 100m).

      • Bet you those cameras had split prisms and ground glass focusing screens which worked properly with high-aperture MF lenses…

        Most modern DSLR focusing screens do not display DoF correctly once we go below f/2.5 – which is a bit of a pain as you then have to rely on the electronic rangefinder which apart from the D7k and all the FX bodies isn’t very useful…

      • Ronan

        Ever tried to MF with today’s DSLR?

        I bet you haven’t even tried MF with any camera’s…

        • F Master

          I do, I use two MF lenses almost every day, the nikkor 50 1.8 Ai and the nikkor P 105 2.5 I had no problem focusing even with the D7K.

    • LOLCATmasterFTW!!!

      I wonder how people did prior AF cameras… oh yeah they manual focused you know Irving Penn, Mapplethorpe, Ansel Adams, etc. they shot like that…

      • Mock Kenwell

        I’ll say it again. Why bother with a honking DSLR if you want MF? The DSLR is made to use AF lenses. If you want MF, you can do it much smaller with lenses better designed to be focused manually. Beside the fact that most of the folks you mention shot non-dslr format.

        Frankly, the apples to apples comparison here would be the Sigma equivalent, which is also kicking some ass. Not as good as the Nikkor, but such a close second, and so much cheaper, you’d have to consider it.

        • LOLCATmasterFTW!!!

          there are 900 hundred reasons to do it ;).

          So that discounts getting a Noct-nikkor because manual focus is so 70´s 😛

          • Mock Kenwell

            You’re honestly comparing the purchase of this Korean hunk of plastic with the Noct? Give me a break. Have you tried the throw on the Samyang? Have you focused with the buttery smooth Noct? I have. It’s not even the same universe of quality. Know what the other big difference is? The Noct was made decades ago. It’s 2011. MF is a novelty. Fun? Sure. But if you’re getting paid, a MF 1.4 at that focal length with that crappy throw is suicide. Unless you’re shooting video with a focus rig.

            • LOLCATmasterFTW!!!

     🙂 and video is for sissies.

            • Mock Kenwell

              Hmm. Video is for sissies and you’re obsessed with katz eyes and MF. Welcome to NR, grandpa.

        • Artur Kozłowski

          I’m sorry Mr Ken(not too)well, but DSLR’s are made not to use FILM. AF lenses have been around for decades before digital sensors. Stop preaching as if You were the Alpha and Omega of photography.. Honestly You sound snobbish, as if only the best and most expensive equipment was appropriate for taking pictures. Oh, and have You ever tried focusing with Your hand and not a button? You should, it’s lots of fun.

          • Mock Kenwell

            First read what I posted, then pop off. I recommended checking out the Sigma, a lens almost 1/2 the price of the Nikkor. But if your shots matter, and if your time is valuable to you, get an AF lens. If you have very little money, then you’re shooting a crop sensor, which means you should actually be considering a Nikkor 50mm 1.2—a gorgeous all-metal lens that even used I guarantee you will enjoy using more, with a throw that will actually give you a prayer at nailing focus, and a color rendition that will make you cry. Oh yeah, and by the way? It’s cheaper than this Samyang toy. You’re welcome.

      • Ronan

        Again… id love to see you MF with today’s DSLR’s.

        You can moan all you want, AF > MF 95% of the time.

        • LOLCATmasterFTW!!!

          Well if you come here I can demonstrate you how I shoot with my noct 🙂 you are welcome as long as you don´t touch my fridge, I will give you a bag of Doritos and some Mountain Dew though

  • jsv

    Samyang is damn soft and inconsistent??? What are you talking about?

    It’s more user error than anything else. Even the Nikkor AF is often used manually because the AF can’t handle the shallow DOF.

    • M184

      You realize you just quoted a Vivitar lens, right?

      They’re talking about Samyang. Not Vivitar.

      • lio

        It’s the same lens, as well as the bower, pro optic …

        • Metal Bird

          Samyang/Rokinon/Vivitar/Polar/Bower/Opteka/Pro Optic/Falcon …
          they are all the exact same lens made by Samyang in South Korea. The other names are just rebadged versions of the Samyang lens with a slightly modified exterior to give it different looks for different markets or for different resellers.
          Like the Vivitar is supposed to look like a Canon red line lens and a Bower or Falcon and others have the Nikon gold accents.
          I picked up a Rokinon branded one with a Nikon Mount Chip in it a little while ago and I am really liking it.

      • Jesus people are stupid.

      • LOLCATmasterFTW!!!

        Dude… Bower, Vivitar, Samyang, Walimex, etc. are the SAME FRIGGIN LENS hahah dumb…

  • chEEtah

    Admin, I understand that putting a lot of sponsored links is good for the website and helps to pay for it. But why not put a single *useful* link to the actual DXO comparisons?

    Here are X100 vs D7K vs D300s and Samyang vs Nikon comparisons:

    • chEEtah
      • LOLCATmasterFTW!!!

        Given the differences in sensor design DUH yes!

        • Mock Kenwell

          How many rude posts that add nothing to the discussion must we endure from you today? Were you home sick from school?

          • LOLCATmasterFTW!!!

            As many as I can, I try each day to flex my net muscle as much as I can but sometimes there´s not enough time in a day, I would love to have a day of the week with 36 hours so I can be rude in the net with a lot of people, I would also wish for a pink flying whale so I can go to work every day, also for a never ending can of beer that changes flavor every hour (pilsen to black, etc.)

            But wishes never come true :(….

    • lio

      Well the Nikkor is at f/2.8 on the D3x compared to 1.4 for the Samyang.

      • chEEtah

        Both lenses are f/1.4.

        • lio

          sorry no:
          On the D3x
          Samyang Reached for f=85mm & f/1.4
          Nikkor Reached for f=85mm & f/2.8
          Check you link again

          • chEEtah

            That’s the best aperture where the lenses score the highest points.

            Read again carefully 🙂

            • El Aura

              And how much trust to you put into a lens ‘test’ that declares it is best at f/1.4? Particularly when every other test of this lens shows that stopping improves performance (and no FX f/1.4 lens was ever tested to be best at f/1.4).

            • Phil

              @ El Aura

              Because nobody buys these lenses to use stopped down, DUH!

  • alex

    did you notice that if you select nikkor 50mm f/1.8 D it’s better than samyang??? and 3 times cheaper. also samyang is better than canon 1.2 85mm.

    • LOLCATmasterFTW!!!

      yeah because a 50mm gives the same field of view like an 85mm… yep… :/

  • CraigL

    They need to be compared on the same body forbthe numbers to be meaningful. By changing from D7000 to D300s you will lower the score.

    • LOLCATmasterFTW!!!

      By they need you mean you? because I don´t care sh*t about it.

      • CraigL

        No, I couldn’t care less comparing apples to crap.

        • Ronan

          +1 to CraigL

        • LOLCATmasterFTW!!!

          Well apples are delicious and smell great, they also come in pretty colors like red or green, crap is usally brown but it depend on what you eat, it smells awful and I haven´t eaten it but I guess it tastes pretty bad… Hope this helps 🙂

  • Darkness

    Well done DXO, getting all the FLAO in a hissy fit…

  • LOLCATmasterFTW!!!

    It is interesting to see that we pay USD900 for an autofocus system… but it is more interesting to read stupid commentaries like “we love you nikon” or people defending a piece of glass, plastic and metal with a Nikon stamp.

    Silly cat and wall shooters 🙂

  • camera obscura

    Bullshit. the Nikon was tested on D300, the samyang was tested on D3x. See the results fore the Nikon when mounted on the D3x…. :)))

    • I uploaded a new comparison with the Nikon D3x.

  • D700guy

    That D7000 scares me.
    If it’s a fluke, then high fives to Nikon for a lucky shot.
    But, if it’s a precursor to what’s coming, then the FX bodies will be truly amazing.

    • D700guy

      It also totally punks out the D300 I have been trying to sell.

    • human tripod

      And there are still those who believe the D7000 was not the D300 replacement.

      • It cant be. way too small form factor for serious photography and limited in frame rate, auto focus and construction. Clearly a (very good) D90 replacement. Especially how its nipping at the heels of the 7d. A D300 replacement is going to have to be at least 8fps and have no polycarbonate in the body at all. Also I expect to be a serious update of the auto focusing system. They will have to in order to be maintain their dominance.

        • stuff

          Try to get a few more “serious” into your post.

          Just so we all know what a “serious” photographer you are.

          The D7000 is for the moment Nikon’s flagship DX camera.

          Besides, any “serious” photographer shoots FX.

      • Simon

        The D7000 is NOT the D300 replacement, the D400 will be the replacement. They’re aimed at different markets. The D7000 is pro-consumer and the D300 is semi pro. The D7000 has a more modern sensor which is much improved over the D300. Pro’s buy the D300(s) still because it’s built like a tank, can be used all day everyday in bad conditions. That’s what you pay the extra money for. I still know people who buy the D300s thinking because it costs more it will outperform the D7000…

        • Nikon consider the D300 a pro camera and so do many shooters. Not having FX does NOT make a camera semi-pro. That thing is the top of the heap, just happens to have a sensor that is outclassed by the newcomer. Expect big things in the next version.

          • stuff

            WAS top of the DX heap.

            That honor now goes to the D7000.

            No doubt the D400 will change that. But if you’re shooting the D300s you’re using last gen tech and you’re being outperformed by the D7000.

            Guess that “tank” body will be useful in hurricanes. Otherwise, it’s just extra weight.

      • It is not. It is the D90 upgrade/replacement. Mark my words.

    • LOLCATmasterFTW!!!

      In reality the D7000 is Lord Satan craving to eat your soul 🙂

  • Interesting seeing the D300s score against the D7000.

    • Darkness

      Not really, the D300 sensor has been around since 2007.

  • Nik

    on a semi-related note, has anyone seen a place with the new 85mm 1.4G in stock? Would love to get one soon that isn’t from ebay.

    • LOLCATmasterFTW!!!

      With the earthquakes still hitting Japan it is hard for them to organize shipments and suplly stock for other continents, you will have to be patient buddy with this 🙁

  • I have the Samyang 85mm f/1.4 (Rokinon branding). It renders nicely. For formal portrait sessions MF is probably OK for most people, and the MF action works nicely, like the old time stuff. Just use the electronic rangefinder built into your camera. The focus ring turns in the right direction, unlike Sigma lenses. My only regret is that I have not used it more, but I hope to change that.

  • LOL! I told you guys not to sleep on the Samyangs, or any Korean products for that matter. For the price that 85.14 rocks. They have really come up lately. Now all they need to do is add auto focus and they will KO the other third party optics. Where is my Zeiss buddy from a few posts back? He was really proud of that overpriced Cosina lens…Steppin’ on toes, steppin on toes….

    • Again, Samyang are an albatross. They are much much better than typical Korean products are, but no one is listening to them. Still, their build quality and overall handling isn’t up to their price. Their optic (when matched well) is good, but I’d pay more for good infinity lock and overall better MF handling. Good for the price, but not great.

      • An albatross? As in this lens is a burden? Hey if this lens is a burden to anyone they can give it to me! I’m not sure what your getting at with that metaphor. For the price, the build quality of these lenses are no worse than other Japanese counterparts and the optics are proven to be better than many lenses in the price range. As for infinity lock, Im not sure why you would need that for a lens that is optimized for portraiture, and if you do then you can shell out the 2 grand for the Zeiss offering. But again, its your money. The question is how much better is the Zeiss lens? I remain unconvinced. You know you could buy a D7000, an aftermarket Katz eye screen and a Samyang 85mm lens for less than the Zeiss optic? Food for thought my man

        • OK so the Zeiss isn’t as much as I remember. Last time I checked it was around 1899.00 usd. but still the value is still tremendous and what I said still rings true.

          • Jabs

            @scurvy hesh.
            Actually, the Nikon 85mm F1.4G is MORE expensive than the Zeiss 85mm F1.4.

          • I should have explained albatross in my interpretation: it is a sign of what is to come. A warning in some other ways. Again, it is a fine lens and works fine, but there is a reason it costs what it costs. I’ve not used a single Korean product that ever meets expectations of build quality for price.

            Of course, I don’t buy sigma either.

            The conceit of the samyang line is the Zeiss illusion. You buy a nice lens, it works only in manual focus with AIS functions. I costs an arm and a leg. But you buy it because it is a legendary optic from a staid brand.

            Samyang make quite decently performing glass and make prices attractive. Again, however, they make from plastic, have less precise aperture settings, etc. I love the idea, but having lived here for too long, I trust Korean stuff about as far as I can throw it. My house and my city is basically falling apart around me and neither is older than two years.

            For snapping on a tripod or enjoying the country once in a while, I’d get a samyang for sure. But if was going to use that lens every day and in conditions that I usually use my nikons in, I’d think of something else.

            That is cool. But come to Korea to see how shoddily everything is made before you plunk money down on a bargain just because it is a barnstormer. Again, if you intend to use and take care of like a baby, it probably doesn’t matter at all. Enjoy your purchase.

            • Mock Kenwell

              I think you meant “harbinger.”

            • Sahaja

              The chipped Zeiss lenses (ZF2) have more than AIS functions.

    • hexx

      i read some good review for that 85 f/1.4 lens yesterday. in the part two author (a pro with 20 yrs of exp) decided to directly compare it to Nikon 85 /1.4 AF-D and yes, Nikon does have AF and is sharper when stopped down. But at f/1.4 Samyang was as sharp as Nikon and produced creamier bokeh. It’s comparable to Nikon up to f/2.8 – and that’s what you use these lenses for, shallow DoF. The only question is how is the quality or variations in quality from piece to piece. This is why I tend to ignore 3rd party lenses (bad exp. with Sigma). But the bottom line of that review was: is Nikon 800 eruros better than Samyang? Answer was NO

  • Douglas Mason

    First, I love my D300. I want to see what the replacement D700 will bring, and will then decide on D700, or its replacement. Now that THAT is out of the way…

    What this comparison shows me is that, stacked against the Nikons, which are pretty much assumed to make excellent cameras, the X100 is an extremely viable option as a walk around “pro” camera as a compliment to my D300 and future D700X. Everyone is talking about how great the D7000 is, which it is, and that’s to be expected from Nikon, but wow… the X100 looks like it is stacking up pretty well, especially against my D300.

    I’ve been contemplating getting an X100, and more comparisons like this just keep edging me closer.

  • Tom

    I am actually selling my Nikon D40 now and looking to upgrade, and can’t make up my mind at either getting a Fujifilm X100 or D7000. I don’t know if I really need all the features of the D7000. What I didn’t like about the D40 was its low light capabilities. I bought a Sigma 50mm F/1.4 Prime for it, but that still didn’t work very well. I was shooting gymnasts in pretty bad light. If I had to go to iso 800 or even 1600 there was too much noise. Thats why the upgrade. Also, if I dropped the F stop to 1.4, it wasn’t so sharp. The D40 at iso 200 with at F1.4 was great, great pictures, but not in low light. The Nikon D40 helped me learn a lot about shooting pictures in manual. Now with the D7000 or the X100, yes the X100 looks like a nicer camera with less features but its a smaller camera. Would like to compare shot for shot for both cameras. Any thoughts, Nikon D7000 or the X100?

    • Jabs

      You are almost comparing apples to oranges in the Fuji and Nikon cameras. The Fuji has an equivalent FIXED focal length lens of 35mm and therefore it might be unsuitable for your stated choice of shooting gymnastics.
      The Fuji seems like a breakthrough idea and camera BUT there is no substitute for various focal length lenses and thus not really suited for gymnastics unless you are really close ALL the time. It also seems to shoot at too slow a pace for serious sports photography use. It more reminds me of a substitute for a Leica or Minolta CE rangefinder camera in street shooting. Also, F2 @ 35mm is too limiting to get a separation from the background, so again limited for your expressed use.
      Get the D7000 and even some older Nikon lenses plus a great Nikon flash to stop action better!

      • Tom


        • Jabs

          One of the often debated issues in photography today and the apparent confusion is about size and suitability for a particular purpose.
          I have been shooting since the 80’s and started with a Nikon F3HP with MD4 motor drive. I tried the small camera route ONCE (Leica) and by the time I loaded the camera (old bottom loading Leica), I lost interest and worse – lost the shot. I see people complaining all over the place about camera weight, but they must be pathetically weak or have gotten complacent and/or stupid. SMALL cameras have one advantage to me – they help you to be discrete (as long as you don’t use a flash) and not seen or recognized as or while shooting BUT they have a tremendous downside – they are terrible to use with long lenses (IF they have any available) and they are often very slow as in low framing rates (fps). I don’t like small cameras and when I need one now, I use a cheap Nikon L22. For most use where quality matters, a full frame camera has no peers either in performance or the important throughput (amount of keepers or even images that are captured) and thus the incessant debate. IF you are a casual shooter and don’t want to shoot any action or don’t care about higher quality, then get anything digital today. If you care about quality, high framing rates and IN FOCUS keepers of fast moving subjects, then there is a direct correlation between camera size, camera speed and available lens focal length. PRO does not only mean size but covers suitability for varied purposes as in fast reaction FROM the camera and not how you look or feel then. SLOW cameras are useless in fast developing events, no matter how good their picture performance is (FACT!). You gave us two choices – new Fuji X100 and new Nikon D7000, but there are perhaps better choices in used equipment, if budget is a consideration. I would recommend this combination for gymnastics – a used Nikon D300 and a 80-200 F2.8 ED-IF AF lens mounted on a monopod with perhaps a sturdy swivel head plus a newer Nikon flash like the SB 600 and an electronic shutter release which allows you to glance at the camera’s screen and shoot quickly. Often the difference between a great and a mediocre shot is a few milliseconds, so timing plus anticipation and fast framing rates are needed. Remember – there is no substitute for focal length or fps performance and often bigger cameras are easier to use in high tension scenarios as size causes less blur often. Little cameras get tossed around and then become unusable – fine for still life or slow events, but fast action require fast cameras like a D3 plus the heft combined with the bigger lenses steadies your shooting and causes one to pay more attention to timing and focus issues. Bigger is better for action and faster reactions by camera and photographer gets the shot. Always look at the start up time of a camera plus the shot to shot speed performance or you will be disappointed in fast action, as many do not take that into consideration anymore.
          My experience!

    • LOLCATmasterFTW!!!
    • D7000

      Go for the D7000 if the size does not matter, or the D3100/D5100. The X100 menus are crappy and awful. It’s difficult to navigate, change settings… Image quality is wonderful, but does I’ve already told you that its clunky to use. I’ve tested it for 2 days and gave up.

  • regular

    X100 : ok, Fuji’s sensor is great … the problem is that people will continue to post crappy photos on flickr :// Kid photos, HDR, bad composition, heavy post-processing

  • hexx

    of course fujifilm will perform better than four thirds – it’s larger sensor, it’s not a rocket science, sigh

  • Jaye

    The D7000 sensor is great and all the features, but at the end of the day it’s still not a full fledged pro-caliber camera. Give me a D400 already or better yet a DX sensor back in a flagship pro body! From handling a D7000, it’ll not handle the harsh field work.

  • Jabs

    One reason for using Nikon lenses:
    The color quality of Nikon lenses is more consistent across the board than almost any other manufacturer.
    If you shoot color – then this is very important.
    I have yet to see one manufacturer that beats Nikon in color quality over the years.
    Use an old Nikon even on a newer body and you will see that consistency yourself.
    PRICE is not the prime consideration but consistency often is more important especially when shooting lots of images.
    Try these three old Nikon lenses yourself:
    55 F2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor
    105 F2.5 AIS
    75-150 F3.5 Series E zoom.

    • Phil

      While you’re correct about consistency across Nikon’s optics, it really doesn’t matter much if you’re walking around shooting. Maybe in a studio environment with fixed lighting and subjects. Even there really it’s nothing Photoshop can’t correct on a heartbeat.

      But if you’re walking around and shoot a cafe in the morning, a park midday and a skyline at night, it’s just not going to make any difference if your optics aren’t color consistent or not. Even if you’re using two lenses in one spot, the difference, if it bothers you, can get instantly balanced in Photoshop.

      • Phil

        P.S. You can add the 85 F2 and 135 F2 to your list. 😉

      • Jabs

        Some things you can correct in Photoshop and others you cannot. Since Photoshop changes colors that affect other colors, then sometimes it is almost impossible to correct colors without causing color casts or affecting a color balance. Photoshop does not fix all things and if you use polarizers, soft filters or even graduated and neutral density filters, then things become weird quickly. The ‘ideal’ solution would be a program with independent color channels and then when you try and balance an image through either color temperature or from the RGB or CYMK scales, then others would not change – lol.
        Get it right the first time as much as possible is my motto, though I have used Photoshop myself for quite a while, it is not a solution for every color mismatch. Consistency of color even in using older Nikon optics is much better to me, personally especially when you change optics often while photographing the same subject in one setting.
        Yeah, add the older 85mm F2.0, older 135mm F2.0 and even the 180mm F2.8 ED-IF AIS – all classics.
        Too many people now rely on Photoshop or other such programs to try and fix what is wrong with their images because it sometimes is easier or more convenient to correct sloppy technique, but often they have to make all the images a certain way, instead of getting a distinctive or even accurate portrayal of the scene or their ‘vision’ of the scene. I am a slide shooter and thus color purity has always been paramount to me even in the digital world now. Get it right the first time is my motto and then enhance it later on the computer! I use a 64bit program to enhance colors or modify things and it works better than Photoshop which is 32 bit mainly as it has a wider color gamut than 32 bit programs.

        • Phil

          Well, what I was really getting at is that for the most part it’s negligible. Also, if you know PShop well enough, then it’s not an issue to correct. I’m a photographic retoucher by profession and have been using PShop since version 2.51, so I know a lot of nooks and crannies in the program.

          I’m curious as to what 64-bit app you’re working in.

          • Jabs

            I use Linux – Ubuntu Studio 64bit (faster) and Artist-X – mainly now.
            Program: CinePaint
            I use a lot of different programs on different Operating systems but so far, I prefer the color accuracy, wider gamut and flexibility of 64bit Linux over others. I am a perfectionist but I don’t do an extensive amount of retouching but SPEED is paramount to me. CinePaint is quirky and I also use at times GimpStudio and the Gimp (both on Windows and Linux) plus dfRaw, Rawstudio and others on Linux. Photoshop is transitioning to 64bit but both OS-X and Win 7 are not totally 64bit yet.

            • Phil

              Hmmm, as far as I know my PShop CS-5 version is now 64-bit on my Win 7 64 system.

              I didn’t know Cinepaint was still around. I thought it had kinda “folded into” GIMP.

            • 64-bit vs 32-bit software has nothing to do with your color palette. 64-bit software can address larger amounts of memory. The ACR portion of CS5 software (such as PS CS5 and LR3) is still not 64-bit and is limited to less than 4gb of ram (even in 64-bit PS).

              Working with raw files, ACR has always been able to output files into a 32-bit (16-bit per channel) color palette. However, this is less important for wide gamut color manipulation than using a color space such as Adobe 1998, which amputates less of the reflective color spaces than sRGB palettes do.

              Photoshop itself has had the ability to work in color bit depths 16-bits per channel and larger going back several versions AND the ability to work in pretty much any color space you can add a profile for. This includes color spaces which contain wider gamuts than anything can capture or reproduce.

              In essence, you don’t know what you’re talking about if you think you’re using 64-bit software to get better, more accurate, or wider gamut color.

              If you can’t get the colors you want in PS, it’s because you’re doing it wrong, not because of any limitations of the software.

            • Jabs

              Actually I have to disagree.
              MOST graphics programs are 8 BIT in their color choices, hence 256 shades of colors.
              I have used graphics programs from the Commodore C64 and Amiga days and have used Photoshop for quite a while and Photoshop does not have billions of shades per color and thus is NOT 64bit in it’s PALETTE or you could go darker than 255 and lighter than 0. I have used old Amiga programs with more shades per color than Photoshop – Brilliance (the program) comes to mind!
              Most Operating systems are NOW 32/64 bit and thus the fallacy about going over 4 gigs of memory (actually 3.2 or so) as determining 64 bit and thus your mistake. OS-X is going towards FULL 64 bit soon, while Windows is still 32/64 bit EVEN in Windows 7, which I use all the time and for years now. Some Windows Servers Operating systems can access more than 4 gigs of memory even in 32 bit mode, so you figure it out (look up Windows Server specs yourself)
              There are:
              1. 64 bit Operating systems (in the mainstream – ONLY Linux is truly 64 bit now and has been for years).
              2. 64/32 bit Operating systems with 32 bit hardware or software abstraction layers.
              3. There are VERY few real 64bit graphics programs and that is a FACT. Photoshop is NOT fully 64bit yet, though it operates in Windows 7 as a 64 bit application, the color choices are NOT 64bit and that is what confuses YOU!
              Cine-Paint and derivatives are used in the MOVIE Industries wherein Photoshop could not work, as they are doing REAL-TIME 64bit 3D painting and rotoscoping.
              You are confused by terms used by computer marketers!

            • Jabs

              @Micah and others here:
              64 bit in graphics does not refer to the way the program operates on what Operating system it works on, but in how the graphics engine is able to handle graphics files.
              There is 8 bit, 12 bit, 14 bit, 16 bit, 24 bit, 30 bit, 32 bit, 40 and/or 48 bit and 64 bit with all having a larger palette of shades per COLOR available. The lack of addressing memory has led most programs to limit the BIT structure of their color palettes so that you can actually use the program, as when you got high bit structures in color palettes, you need lot of memory. People working in real 64 bit graphics programs under Linux often use 200 + gigs of memory in addition to a 64 bit Operating System and 64 bit Processor (of course – lol).
              The problem comes when people do not understand these differences and quote computer marketers.
              Most graphics programs can only operate in a pseudo 32 bit mode – meaning only 24 bits plus an 8 bit alpha channel.
              64 bit programs often have a 48 bit color palette with a 16 bit alpha channel.
              Big difference!

            • I misspoke about ACR and PS when I said they offer 32-bit color–PS offers 8, 16, and 32 bits per channel.

              You are NOT looking at 256 colors in PS!!!

              Unless you’re looking at a gif with a limited palette. 8-bit color in PS = 8-bits per channel. Each pixel can have a R, G, or B value of 0 to 255 (all the way off to all the way on). The higher modes offer you the option of editing files with extended palette information, but your screen doesn’t really display it. In other words, “8 bit” mode in PS is 255^3 colors or precisely 16777216 colors.

              32 bit math is sometimes used at a driver level by graphics cards to interpret and display everything apps throw at them, but really only usually deals with a palette of truly 8 bit/channel or a total of 24-bits.

              Look, I started a blog recently and wrote a whole post about it. I plan on elaborating more in the future, but I haven’t gotten around to it yet.

              You’re obviously confused. Read the post, it might help:

            • Jabs

              You like most make the classic mistake of software users.
              The mistake you make is not understanding what a color palette is.
              I am talking about 256 SHADES per color – in other words if you are talking about red, then there is 256 distinct hues or shades of a color available.
              You get 24 bit by adding up the THREE colors of 8 bit hues to get 3X8 = 24 in RGB and you get 32 bit by adding up the four colors (4X8) of CYMK to get 32 bits of INFORMATION.
              That is not a 32 bit program, a real 32 bit palette nor a 64 bit palette.
              I don’t need to read your blog as trained Engineer here.
              If you have 32 total bits of information and an 8 bit alpha channel, then you now can CLAIM to be a ’40 bit program’ – same if the alpha channel is 16bits, you can now claim to be a ’48 bit program’.
              A real 64 bit program would literally have TRILLIONS of shades or hues PER each color (RGB, CYMK or whatever colorspace) and Photoshop DOES not. It has nothing to do with displayable colors! There is whole other world ABOVE Photoshop in 3D programs, REAL-TIME effects, Rendering, Rotoscoping, Movie making, Engineering Programs etc., and they have capabilities beyond it, therefore time to end this charade. This is why there are Workstation video cards and 10bit monitors available. You cannot do real-time 3D Painting in Photoshop for example!!!
              Sorry to offend you but you make classic mistakes and are unable to understand what I am talking about.
              Bye and have a good one!

  • …yet more proof that DX0 is utterly full of crap: quoted information is wrong. The active image area of both the x100 and d300 cameras is 23.6mm x 15.8mm with pixel dimensions 4288 x 2848. How does this make for a pixel pitch between the cameras? Oh, it doesn’t. They are both obviously Sony derived 12mp sensors and I don’t doubt there are some physical circuit design differences which make them unique, but DX0 is presenting misleading information. I can’t imagine why except that they a) don’t know what they’re talking about, b) are trying to confuse people for their own benefit, c) are so slack and careless that they took information from an unreliable source without double checking it. I suspect a little of each.

    Admin, seriously, I understand that you need things to post about in slow news times, but ugh…less of this please? Great job with the D5100 stuff btw!

    • Jabs

      The dimensions and the resolutions of both cameras are different – perhaps you reread.
      Fuji X100 = 4310 X 2870 with a focal length multiplier of 1.48
      Nikon D300 = 4352 X 2868 with a focal length multiplier of 1.50
      Both have different pixel pitches.
      They also do not seem to have the same sensor.
      Look at the chart above for a clue.

      • They output files of precisely the same pixel dimensions. Plenty of samples to verify with on dpreview, imaging-resource, and flickr. See for yourself. 4288×2848. Same as my d90, d300, and my old d2x. Same as the sony A700.

        The chart above is wrong–that’s my point. And so is Dx0 about most things.

        If you’re too lazy, here’s an example:

        • Jabs

          SIMPLE answer.
          In order for there to be a USEFUL comparison, then ALL the output files are upsampled or downsampled slightly to the EXACT same dimensions and then compared.
          Got it, Sherlock!
          Again – even within Nikon’s camera line none of the sensors that are ROUNDED off to be 12 megapixels for marketing purposes are the same EXACT sizes in megapixels, as some of them are bigger and some of them are smaller than others, so LOOK at Nikon’s specs for a clue.
          Some sensors might be 12.3 and others say 12.2 – FOR EXAMPLE, thus epic failure on your part to understand TESTING measurements via equalizing OUTPUT size of each sensor’s output and then comparing them at a SET arbitrary output size. That does not mean that they have all the same output dimensions.
          Sorry, but you need to read the SPECS yourself and then learn comprehension as to what is taking place.

          • Seriously, are you this dumb or just a troll? You’re like a wellspring of confusion and misinformation.

            Maybe you have some sort of cognitive dysfunction that involves reading? Have you ever tried to inflate your scooter into a larger vehicle by blowing into the tailpipe?

            I think I vowed to ignore all you posts at one point, but it slipped my mind.

            • Jabs

              You know what is evident here – you are a great reader of the INTERNET, but you probably don’t happen to have any Engineering training nor much experience. Most bloggers are like that. They pontificate and ramble on and on to the uninformed, like they know a lot, but when questioned or even FACTS are pointed out to them, they fall curiously apart.
              If you cannot understand that various camera sensors are CALLED or listed as 12 megapixels BUT are slightly different in dimensions and actual megapixel SIZES plus output sizes, then I am sorry for you. If you don’t understand why it is necessary to resize all of the sensor outputs into one common size for a proper comparison, then what else can I say. You cannot ‘buffalo’ me with your nonsense, as I am trained in my field and you are too easy to show as being nothing but a blow-hard unable to understand the simplicity of my counter claims. Sometimes it is best to leave people alone and not awake them to their misconceptions, as reading does NOT make an expert of you. It informs you but if you cannot decipher the information being read properly, then you are like a well filled hard drive or like a computer who beat the other guests on Jeopardy, the television show. All data and no understanding of it!
              You seem to be on some campaign to nullify DX0 and its’ Scientific Analyses and without a demonstrated Scientific background or understanding here, you come off as ‘Homer Simpson’ or similar.
              However, sorry to disturb you as ‘bliss’ is the perfect place to be in ignorance for some.
              Enjoy your day and no hard feelings on my part.

  • Jabs

    Here are the camera specs from the Manufacturer on several 12 megapixel cameras:
    Fuji X100.
    Nikon D3s.
    Nikon D300s.
    Nikon D90.

    Please read them carefully yourself and then now tell us IF these cameras all have the same SIZE output based upon differing megapixel COUNTS? Read and educate yourself.

  • Jabs
    • Seriously, turn off your computer and start over with a clay tablet and a stylus. You owe it to the world.

    • BTW, what’s your work look like?

      • Guys, please let it go or I will have to delete all of your comments – this discussion is getting ugly. Thanks!

        • Jabs

          Sorry about this as I come here to enjoy this place and not cause trouble to anyone. However, it is clear to me that this person has an axe to grind against DX0 Labs and its’ findings for some reason.
          No more posts on this from me.

          • Thanks Jabs!

            • Admin, is there a way for a user to block comments from another user on WP?

              Honestly, I’d just block Jabs altogether if I were you. If you look back at the discourse–he/she can’t possibly be that dumb–they have to be a troll. And this isn’t the first time. Read Jabs’ comments carefully next to mine–they are utterly insane nonsense.

              Maybe it was bad form to insult a troll, and for that I apologize. But something does need to be done. Do you plan on blocking them?

            • Micah, I am not aware of such functionality. Any two NR readers will disagree on a certain topic and discussions are ok as long as they don’t get ugly. I cannot block Jabs just because of his point of view. I have blocked several other readers in the past for obvious trolling reasons, but I don’t think your discussion was “trolling”.

            • I found this, but it doesn’t work with your layout:

            • …and yes, it would be tyrannical to block somebody for a differing opinion. But complete misinformation and posting garbage comments is a whole other story. Can you really not see this?

              It’s like that person a while back who claimed to have all sorts of credentials–can’t remember the name. They were posting all sorts of inane garbage and if I’m not mistaken, you did block them. This has happened several times now where Jabs will claim an engineering background, yet what they post is utter nonsense.

              I mean look, YOU know the difference between the marketing specs and the product produced, right? Manufacturers will claim slightly embellished megapixel stats, but when you look at the files output, they’re often less. For instance here:


              The D2x is listed as 12.4 megapixels and the D300 is listed as 12.3. Do they have the same sensor? Not exactly, but they’re certainly related CMOS designs.

              Do they put out images with the same pixel dimensions? YES! 4288×2848. I know. I’ve owned both of these cameras, and both their camera original jpegs and raw files are the same size. If you look at the specs tab on both pages you’ll see their max quoted image size as 4288×2848. Simple math says that’s 12.2mp.

              That’s basic math that I learned in grade school. An engineer can certainly do it. Either Jabs has no engineering background or Jabs does and is trolling.

              Do you not delete trolls? The quality of the comments/discussion is a big factor in the quality of a blog.

  • Back to top