scottelly

<p>I have a Sony A55, and while I just got a new Sony SF16UX, and I can dump my photos from my card to my hard drive at about twice the speed of my Class 10 micro-SD cards, I get no increase in speed of buffer clearing. I believe the A55 must not have the ability to write faster than what it can write to my Micro-SD cards (I guess it doesn't support UHS-1 mode). From what I read though, the Sony A77 takes about a second per photo to write photos to it, which is significantly faster than what my A55 can write (I think the A55 only writes about half that amount of data per second to this card. It doesn't seem right that the card should be so slow though, if the cards are supposed to do 94 MB/s, because that should be like 4 photos per second, at least! I suspect that the write speed is about 1/4 the read speed though. Is there anything faster than the 94 MB/s UHS-1 SDHC cards?</p>

<p>Does anyone know of any devices that use UHS-II SD cards? Are THEY the future of memory cards?</p>

<p>I suggest you NOT get the R1. It is overpriced. If you can get one for $200, then maybe go for it, but any more than that is not worthwhile, because you can probably get a used A55 for about $300 these days. The A55 is head and shoulders above the R1. The viewfinder is much better, the folding screen is much bigger and sharper, the camera operates much faster, the image quality is much better (especially above ISO 200), and you can switch lenses with an A55, which is one of the main reasons the R1 is basically a crippled camera that you should not consider unless you just don't have a budget to continue spending money. I used mine for five years, and I loved it, but it is VERY old technology. There is only a 2 frame raw buffer, which makes shooting very slow, if you are shooting in raw mode. It does shoot JPEGs fine, but they are not as good as JPEGs from many other inexpensive cameras. The main reason to get an R1 is the form factor and the lens, but frankly, all the other disadvantages make it a camera that is not worth pursuing, in my opinion, now that the A55 and never SLT cameras are here. I would never consider going back to the R1, now that the A55 is available. My A55 blows the R1 away.</p>

<p>Was the R1 ahead of its time? YES! But it is WAY behind the times now.</p>

<p>It is old now though, and it always had its problems (you're stuck with just one lens, there is no image stabilization, it operates slowly, it's hard to focus manually, because the resolution of the screens was not good and the auto-focus mode was not very fast, compared to an SLR).</p>

<p>Did the R1 have a great lens? YES! But it did not focus fast (when compared to DSLR cameras with good lenses). It focuses fast for a point and shoot camera from its time, but you know what that means (just about nothing . . . point and shoot cameras of the day were just plain lethargic). Too bad that lens was not a standard Sony/Minolta mount lens, which we could use on the new Sony SLT cameras, but it was probably designed for the slightly smaller 1.7 crop sensor of the R1, rather than the bigger 1.5 crop sensors of the A55 and others.</p>

<p>Good luck with your purchase, if you decide to buy it. They are made in Japan, and they are truly amazing cameras for the fact that they were built so long ago. Mine was very hardy, and it even took a wave from the salt ocean and came back to life months later. I was amazed. It just had too much sand in its workings to be truly usable though. I will probably never turn it on again.<br>

| RIP big old Sony R1. | :(</p>

<p>lol</p>

<p>Hey, Clyde uses a Wisner, so I stand my my recommendation!</p>

<p>;)</p>

<p>Get the D5200.</p>

<p>You will use the articulating screen, and once you get used to using it, you will use it a lot. I used mine on my D5000 a lot, but I had already been using them for many years. I now shoot with a Sony A55 and I'll be getting a Sony A65 soon, but I will be getting a Nikon D5200 myself, because I want to eventually get the Nikon D800 and lots of top quality Nikon lenses. There's another reason. It produces slightly better image quality than the Sony A65 and it has built-in interval timer shooting ability.</p>

<p>If you find you want weather seals, you can get a D400 in the future, when they make a 24 megapixel professional level camera with the same sensor as the D5200, or you can just get the D600 or D800 some time. It doesn't hurt to have two cameras with different size sensors. Look into the 10-24mm and 24-120mm f4 VR lenses from Nikon.</p>

<p>I think you should get a large format film camera, like maybe a 12x20 Wisner, and then you will have a sharp, super-dusty, image. But it won't matter, because you will be able to remove the dust spots, one particle at a time!</p>

<p>;)</p>

<p>Seriously, why talk about all this nonsense? If you buy a new camera, and it has serious dust problems the first week you own it, send it back for a refund. Isn't it that simple? You sound like you want to throw out everything you have done and "reset" just because of a little glitch. That's silly thinking, in my opinion, like my comment about the 12x20 large format camera. Absurd, right? That's the point. You are being absurd.</p>

<p>Sorry if I am coming across too harshly, but you asked for opinions. I think you need to hear the harsh truth.</p>

<p>Mark, unless you are shooting with filters, you are crazy to shoot with anything but the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G. That is the legendary lens that the Nikon D800E was made for. (I jest, but to a degree I am not kidding.)</p>

<p>If you absolutely HAVE TO HAVE a lens that lets you screw on filters, than shoot with what you have. You probably won't notice much improvement with other lenses.</p>

<p>Just so you know, the Canon 16-35mm f2.8 L is very good, but it doesn't even compare with the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G. I know two high-end photographers who have told me this. One of them is a Canon shooter who had both lenses at the same time, and he mounts the Nikon lens on his full-frame Canons. The other is an ex-Canon shooter, who still has the Canon 5 D and now has a 5 D Mk II, so he can use the 17mm TS. He also has a Nikon D 600 and the amazing Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G. My brother has a Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G. I do not, unfortunately. I slobber when I see/use that lens. Do your research, and you will agree that it is the wide-angle zoom to use for landscapes and architecture.</p>

<p>I plan to get that lens and the 24-120mm f4 VR. With those two lenses and a D800, I will be set for a trip around the World, with my Sigma SD1 and the longer lenses I will have for it. I'm saving and building a multi-brand system. It will take me a couple of years, but those are my choices. Things might change before I have everything, but for now that is what I would buy.</p>

<p>Check yourself at Pixel-peeper and SLRgear. (Make sure you look at full-size images and the lens's 3D MTF graph.)</p>

<p>I've been thinking about his again, and I think I WOULD get one, if I had already bought a D5200, a D800, a 24-120mm f4 VR, a 14-24mm f2.8 G, and a Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS in Nikon mount. At that point, I don't think it would make sense NOT to get a kick-ass DX sensor camera with weather seals to go with that awesome 120-300mm f2.8 lens. I am hoping to have all that equipment in a year or two, so it just might happen!</p>

<p>;)</p>

<p>Oh, and by the way, just in case you didn't get it, my comment about using f22 was a joke . . . as was my suggestion that you use a Sharpie marker to put numbers on your glasses. I don't think you or your wife/mom/guests would appreciate you doing that. Oh, and frankly, I think using some graph paper or a ruler would be a better way than using a few bottles, though the bottles would work, in a pinch. So does gravel or asphalt, but you'd probably have to lay down to get a shot close to the ground, and you might not want to get dirty.</p>

<p>;)</p>

<p>Here's a more thorough video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soPFToTnx9M</p>

<p>Mike, here is a video on YouTube:

<p>David Edan . . . lol</p>

<p>Mike, whatever you do, make sure you test your lenses and adjust them using the smallest aperture possible. F22 on most lenses is the best. That way you will get the sharpest photos, so you can see the out-of-focus areas best, of course!</p>

<p>Oh, and if you use bottles with numbers painted on them (or marked on them with a black Sharpie marker). You could use the glasses in the kitchen cabinet for this too. Line them up on a counter, and then go to one end, step back, and crouch down, so you are shooting along the row. Focus on number 3 (if you are using 5 or 6 glasses/bottles with numbers 1 through 5 or 1 through 6). This way you will see that number 3 is out of focus and number 2 or 4 is in focus, if the focusing is off. At this point it might make sense to set your aperture on f8 or f5.6 (if you lens opens up that much).</p>

<p>;)<br /><br /><br>

Oh . . . make sure you arrange the bottles/glasses in a row with the numbers in order. If you don't, you might confuse yourself.</p>

<p>John, the cheaper Dx000, Dx100 and Dx200 series cameras (like the D5000, D5100 and D5200) are cheap, light cameras. Nikon has to figure out what to leave out of a camera to make it cheap (and lightweight), in order to compete with the competition, while still making them profitable. Canon doesn't have to put a motor in the body of their cameras to drive the focusing of their old lenses. Neither does Sony. The problem is that they originally made the mistake of building their lenses with a need to drive their auto-focus feature with a motor in the camera body. That was in some ways a big mistake. Canon just alienated a lot of their customers by totally switching to a completely new line of lenses! So did Minolta. At least Nikon didn't do THAT!</p>

<p>I definitely do wish the D5x00 bodies could drive the old lenses myself, since they are the only Nikons that have a fold-out screen. Unfortunately Nikon is not offering a professional body with a fold-out screen. That is one reason I switched to Sony, buying first the A55 (on sale). I LOVE my Sony A55 (much better than my Nikon D5000). Eventually I will have a Sony A77 (unless Nikon puts a fold-out screen on the D400). You see, there are old Minolta lenses available that can be used with the new Sony bodies, just like there are old Nikon lenses (though the Minolta lenses are not still available brand new, like the old Nikon lenses are). Nice!</p>

<p>It does not shock me at all that Nikon did not put a motor in the body of the cheaper Dx000 series cameras. They didn't put a motor in the D70 or the D50 either. I was actually surprised they put one in the D80 and D90. (I guess they didn't learn much from that experience though . . . or maybe they did, which is why they put a motor in the D7000. I wonder if Nikon will make a D9000.)</p>

<p>Sorry. I think I missed the point/question. I WOULD buy a DX pro body for sure! If I had the money, and it was significanly less expensive than the D3x or D4, I would get a D4s (for example) with a 24 megapixel DX sensor and 12 fps performance . . . as long as it was affordable (like $2,999). Ummmm . . . wait. Maybe not. I can get all that in the Sony A77 for $1,400.</p>

<p>I changed my mind. Unless they create some sort of amazing pro body that blows away the Sony A77 (very unlikely, IMHO), then I will probably not buy a Nikon DX format pro body (like a D2x on steroids). I think such a body would sell to Nikon owners who have been shooting with their old D2x or a newer D300s and waiting for something better, because those people have either been switching to Canon for the 7 D or Sony for the A77, or they've just been waiting for something new from Nikon to put behind their amazing 400mm f2.8 or 600 mm f4. I actually feel sorry for them. They must feel left behind in a lot of ways. I would be pretty pissed, if I was a Nikon shooter trying to shoot sports and birds and stuff.</p>

<p>I went full-frame quite some time ago, but have gone back, because I realized that it is not such a big deal. It is the state of technology that matters most. My experience with wide apertures on a full-frame body gave me the experience to realize that you can shoot short depth-of-field images with a small sensor, that noise in high-ISO images happens in full-frame cameras as much or more than in the newer small-sensor cameras, and that the view through the viewfinder is not really worth the extra money. Smaller cameras often have advantages people don't think about. My Canon 5 D and big 70-200mm f2.8 lens could have been used as a battle hammer. The weight does get to you after a while. It's nice to have a little, light, compact camera. It is less intimidating to your subject, and it is less of an attention-getter in public. (You feel safer.) The image quality I get from my Sony A55 is actually better than what I got from my Canon 5 D. I find that to be astounding . . . especially when you consider that I can shoot at 10 fps with it and have a fold-out screen for composing photos from low or high angles with my Sony.</p>

<p>For the money, I will not buy the Sony A99. I will get the A77 instead. It shoots at the same resolution, has almost the same image quality, and shoots faster. They both have weather seals and two memory card slots, but the A77 costs less than half the price of the A99. If Nikon's strategy is to make full-frame cameras that are slow or expensive, I think most people will just continue to buy the cameras with smaller sensors in the Nikon range too. After-all, the image quality from the new D5200 is so spectacular that there is little to be gained from shooting with a full-frame camera. I think full-frame cameras are going to get less and less popular in the future, rather than more and more popular, unless Nikon, Canon, and Sony start producing more less-expensive full-frame cameras, like the D600 and the 6 D. Of course, I may be wrong.</p>

<p>I'd like to see a fold-out-screen version of the 6 D for a little less money. They could call it the 6 Ds maybe. Still, I don't see myself buying one. The Sony A77 is amazing. I'll buy one of those and a Nikon D5200 (so I can shoot with some Nikon-mount lenses) before I will buy any Canon I can imagine. I'd LOVE to see Nikon make a D400 with a fold-out screen, but I don't believe that will happen, so I am going to invest in more lenses for my Sony A55 for now (until I can make/save the money to get an A65 or A77).</p>

<p>I think what people really want is a camera like the D300s with a 24 MP sensor (twice that of the D300 and D300s and 50% more than the D7000). Yes, I know there are people who would like an upgrade of the D7000, so they can shoot faster, and they like the image quality from the D7000, so they don't want 24 megapixels. Still, I don't see how someone can look at a lot of images from the Sony A77 and think it's too noisy. It produces about the same noise as the Nikon D7000, but captures a sharper image! Even the photos from Nikon's own D3200 (which is 24 MP) are acknowledged as having better image quality than the D3100 (which was 16 MP). I believe that if Nikon created a D400 with two CF card slots (like the D300s) and a 24 MP sensor, and it was capable of shooting at 10 fps (to compete with the Sony A77), and captured 14 bit raw files (of course it would), just like this new D5200, then they would have a winner (as long as it is weather sealed, etc.</p>

<p>The crazy thing is . . . Sony is they only company making an affordable camera with weather seals, which shoots fast at 24 megapixels. That's PATHETIC! How can the leaders in the industry let Sony get so far out in front? The image quality is acknowledged as stellar. The speed is astounding, and both the Sony A77 and A99 have the ability to shoot at 10 fps, while capturing 24 megapixel images. The only competitors that Nikon and Canon have are more than twice the price and shoot at a maximum of 18 megapixels!</p>

<p>It's actually quite sad that Canon and Nikon are in such a state of dragging their feet. At least Nikon seems to be making an effort to catch up. They have created the D800, which is the resolution leader, and they have two models that shoot at 24 megapixels. Canon has NOTHING with super high resolution . . . though their legendary 7D was ahead of its time and has stayed at the top of the mountain for quite some time.</p>

<p>I'm glad this new Nikon shoots at higher resolution, a little faster, and has better auto-focus. I just wish it had weather seals and could operate the auto-focus on older lenses. Even without those features, I'll probably end up getting one of these new D5200 bodies though. I just LOVE the choice of lenses for Nikon cameras.</p>

<p>Gerald, I've basically decided to not go to large format film too, primarily because of the expense and weight, but also because of the slow processing. It takes a LONG time to scan those sheets of film, and I would not be willing to pay $20 per scan for high-quality scans of 4x5 film. I was even thinking of going to 8x10 film, and I would still like to experiment with it, just to see what I can do with it, but for the majority of my shooting I will shoot with digital SLR cameras. If I had the money, I would probably get myself a Red 617 Mysterium Monstro and build a camera system up around it too. That would be ridiculous though, and I don't expect I would end up using that heavy beast much. As things are now, I am expecting to shoot with my Sony (and a new Sony A65) for a while, and then get a Sigma SD1 Merrill, on which I will mount some Nikon and various Sigma lenses. I will probably get a Nikon mount Lensbaby too. If I like it, I might end up with a Nikon 24mm PC lens. I will probably get a Schneider PC TS Super-Angulon 50mm f2.8 in Sony mount and a Canon to Sigma adapter and one of these some day too:<br>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/606803-GREY/Canon_3553B002_Wide_Tilt_Shift_TS_E_17mm.html</p>

<p>Ultimately, I plan to get a Nikon D800 with a Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G and a special Tokina lens for shooting wide-angle landscapes too. If I save really hard this coming year, I believe I could end up with the Sony A65, the Sigma SD1, and a Nikon D5200, with most of the lenses and adapters I have mentioned here, so I am on my way!</p>

<p>Gus, you don't know much about Foveon sensors or Sigma's latest cameras, do you? What would be the main reasoning someone would pay so much money for this camera? Just because of its high-ISO performance? If so, then so be it. It is surely an excellent street shooter for night scenes. If the main reason they would pay so much is that it is a camera that can perform feats of image quality that surpass the likes of Leica, I suggest they try a Sigma DP2 Merrill or a Sigma DP1 Merrill . . . today. Yes, they are both available RIGHT NOW. B&H has both of them in stock . . . but the RX1? Well, it STILL isn't available. It's expected some time in the middle of December. The Sigma cameras cost a thousand dollars each. With the money you save, you can take a trip to the Grand Canyon and use them. You'll have two, so if you drop one, and it breaks, no big deal, because you've got another camera. If you drop the Sony? Well . . .</p>

<p>For those of you who have an interest, these are daylight and low-ISO cameras. If you shoot at night, but on a tripod with low ISO settings, to get blur or capture streaks of light, etc. Then these cameras might just be for you. They produce VERY LITTLE NOISE at ISO 100 or ISO 200, and they produce acceptable noise at ISO 400 and ISO 800. They are not much good above that, because they produce significant chroma noise at ISO 1600 and above.</p>

<p>Here is a "bad light" set of photos shot with a Sigma DP camera. The DP Merrill cameras will produce even better results. http://flickeflu.com/set/72157631316079706</p>

<p>I THOUGHT that Hasselblad Lunar was a joke Colin! lol</p>

<p>Italian leather! Oooooh, my precious . . . </p>

<p>Ariel, people want a 24 Mp DX format camera (APS-C sensor) with the ability to use their old D series lenses. They don't want to have to pay for a new camera AND new lenses. Also, some people have been wanting a camera with a fold-out screen, which will allow them to use their D series lenses. Some people have a 24-105mm f3.5-4.5 D, a 50mm f1.4 D, an 85mm f1.4 D, a 135mm f2 DC, and a VR 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 D. Would YOU want to have to sell all those (or at least most of them), so you could buy new lenses, just because Nikon refused to make a camera with a built-in auto-focus drive that has a fold-out screen? Some of these people have been waiting for such a camera, just holding onto their D80 or D90, and not upgrading, since Nikon introduced the D5000. If they were shooting with Canon stuff, and started years ago with a Canon 20 D, then upgraded to the 40 D, they could still be shooting with all the same lenses they bought for their 20 D, and they could mount those lenses on their new T3i and get the use of the fold-out screen, high resolution, and auto-focus. It upsets some people that Nikon doesn't offer a more-professional level camera with a fold-out screen. I believe that Nikon does not want to upset their D3x customers, so they are waiting, to let a little more time pass, before they introduce a professional level 24 megapixel camera. Or maybe it's just about speed. They may be having trouble producing a camera fast enough and cheap enough to handle 24 Mp images like the D300s can handle 12 Mp. That doesn't make much sense to me though, since processor speed seems to double ever 18 months, and it's been a lot more than that since the D300 was first shipped. I was really surprised they introduced the D800 and D600 already. I figured they would make something like a D4x with twice the resolution (32 megapixels), and then a D800 with 16 megapixels, but they blew us all away with a super-high resolution camera instead. Maybe the D3x had abysmal sales.<br>

<br />Well, I am waiting to see some raw samples of sunsets/sunrises from the D5200, so I can analyze them myself. I hope we see some soon.</p>

<p>I don't think it is much more competent. In my opinion, it is a step up akin to the step up from the D5000 to the D5100. More resolution. Slightly different in look. Slightly better video. Slightly better auto-focus.</p>

<p>The D7100 will operate the old D series lenses. The D5200, like its predecessors does not. They had to improve on the D5100, right? It had to be better than the D3200, right? What would you expect? It doesn't have weather seals, it has a pathetic little 8 frame buffer for shooting raw. It has a little pentamirror viewfinder. It's a sad little thing, but better than the D5100 for sure, which is why people will upgrade. The D7100 will have a pentaprism viewfinder, weather seals, and bigger buffer. It will also shoot faster, with a larger (probably 11 frames) buffer for shooting raw, capture to 14 bit raw files, and possibly be the first Nikon to have a built-in GPS. It will probably also have a magnesium body. The D7000 has 2 card slots, so the D7100 will no doubt have the same. No, this D5200 is not taking market share from the D7100 any more than the D5100 took market share from the D7000. And as for the D400 . . . if Nikon finally decides to make one, I believe it will shoot at 10 fps. It needs to do that, or Sony will just eat it alive with their year-old A77. (The only advantage the Nikon D400 will have over the Sony A77, other than the Nikon lens system, will be its bigger raw buffer - probably 20 frames vs. the A77 at 14 frames - and the two CF card slots, like the D300s has. The Sony A77 has two SD card slots, like the Nikon D7000.) The D7100 will probably shoot at 7 fps, and the D400 at 10 fps. The D400 will have a slightly bigger review screen (probably the same 3.2" screen as the D600) some new-fangled better this or that, two card slots like its predecessor, and as the "more professional" level camera, when compared to the D7100, it will most-likely be priced at $1,995, while the D7100 will be priced at $1,495, and the D5200 will be priced at $1,195 (all falling quickly by about $200, to sit at $999, $1,299 and $1,799 respectively). I'm guessing the D400 might even have a 12 megapixel crop mode for super high-speed shooting, which allows 12 fps shooting for sports and such. It will also have the biggest buffer in the 24 megapixel APS-C range of cameras, for shooting lots of raw shots in bursts (40 frames or more in crop mode).</p>

<p>I guess we shall see, but this new D5200 is what I have been waiting for. Now I just need to save up to get one. I think it will be a decision between the Nikon and the Sony A65, since I believe that they will both be around the same money, by the time I have the funds saved. The A65 has a built-in GPS, shoots at 10 fps in high-speed mode, shoots 1080p60 video instead of 1080i60, and I already have some lenses for it. But I want the Nikon, because I believe the D800 will ultimately be the final camera that I will buy for my birthday in October next year. Plus, I want the Tokina 10-17mm zooming fisheye, and the Nikon D5x00 bodies are the best for shooting with that lens. I might just forgo the decision and get the D5100 right away, so I can get that lens sooner. The D5100 is so cheap now!</p>

<p>Mark, maybe it's just me, but some parts of that shot, like the ukelele case, bother me.I think I prefer the original shot in that part of the shot. This sort of issue is why I do my HDR images mostly manual, using layers. Of course, I'm a newbie to HDR, so maybe I have it wrong, but while I think you have made some good improvements to the shot, I also think some aspects/part of the shot look either over-done or just washed out, making the image look "fake" (like many HDR shots look to me). I think I would take the new/final image and layer it over the original, and erase everything, except the sky and the man's face and hands. What do you think?</p>

<p>BTW, if Nikon introduced a new full-frame camera with a 90 megapixel Foveon sensor, Nikon D4 speed, a fold-out 3.5" full-HD screen (1920x1080) for shooting with live view and for reviewing, but no video, and started selling it for $2,000, convincing Adobe to support its raw files in Lightroom, and figured out how to make it perform well at ISO 1600 and reasonably well at ISO 3200, then I think you would find people would buy it like crazy, even without any video funtionality. Of course, that's not going to happen, but I can dream, can't I?</p>

<p>Tord, my MacBook Air has no problems with AVCHD video, and I shoot with a Sony that shoots 1080i60 (not 1080p30). I don't know how it would handle 1080p60 at 24 Mb, but it sure does work well with the videos from my Sony A55. I was surprised how fast it processes them, since it's only a dual-core processor running at 1.8 Ghz. I have 4 GB of RAM, and I use iMovie. Maybe the more complicated programs bog down the processors or something, but I thought that quad-core processors and 6 or 8 GB of RAM are pretty much normal features for computers of all types these days. I would think such powerful computers would handle video much better than my little 3 lb. MacBook Air, no?</p>

<p>Harry, if you want the truth, you will not find it here. I wanted the truth, and I found it . . . to some degree . . . by buying a camera with a Foveon sensor. There are many people out there who will profess that the Foveon sensor is not this or not that or that it is this many megapixels, etc. The thing to know it this . . . megapixels are not megapixels. It's like a stereo system amplifier. I can get one 500 watt per channel amplifier that will produce power like another 2,000 watt per channel amplifier. It is all how it is put together and the way you measure it. A lot of things have to do with marketing and resistance to things by the public (in this case, by photographers who do not use Foveon sensor cameras).</p>

<p>In my experience, the "4.7" megapixel images that I get from my Sigma SD14 (a 14 megapixel camera, according to Sigma) give me approximately the same image detail as my 12 megapixel full-frame Canon 5 D. I find that incredible, and more than what most photographers will admit. Here is an article that explains it better than I can:</p>

<p>http://www.ddisoftware.com/sd14-5d/</p>

<p>If after reading that article and doing some more research, you think that the Sigma SD1 Merrill might be for you, know that there is a print tour happening. About a dozen prints from a few different SD1 cameras are being mailed as a group around the U.S. It is a great example of what can be done with a Sigma SD1 and various Sigma lenses. Also know that there are adapters, which will allow you to attach Nikon, Zeiss, or even Leica lenses to an SD1. Lenses are the key, because from what I have seen and learned, the sensor is not the primary limiting factor, when you reach the level of detail capture that the SD1 is capable of capturing. It is obvious which print was shot with the highest resolution lens, when you see the prints on tour. That proves to me that is is more important what lenses you use than whether you shoot with a Sigma SD1 Merrill or a Nikon D800E.</p>

<p>Of course, lenses are very expensive, so the fact that the Nikon costs a little more does not mean a whole lot. Still, considering the fact that the Sigma has the APS-C advantage for shooting with long lenses, I suggest that if you will be shooting primarily with telephoto lenses, get the SD1 Merrill, but if you will primarily be shooting with wide-angle lenses, get the Nikon D800E with the amazing Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G.</p>

<p>The Nikon has the advantage in dynamic range and speed of shooting. The Sigma has the advantage in crop factor, price, and size/weight (and in the fact that it is less prone to producing images with moire - a reason to NOT buy the D800E). Also, if you plan to shoot at ISO 800 and below almost all the time, the Sigma could be right for you, but if you plan to shoot at ISO 1600 a lot, then get the Nikon instead. ISO 1600 with the Nikon is superior to ISO 1600 with the Sigma, and the Sigma does not do higher ISO shots anywhere near as well as the Nikon. Of course, if you are shooting at high ISO then you should get the new Sony A99. It is amazing (and costs less than a Nikon D800). You also have the other new options (Nikon's great value D600 and Canon's good new 6 D).</p>

<p>The DP1 Merrill is a good camera to get to try out the amazing new Foveon sensor. You will be shocked and amazed at the detail it can capture at f5.6, f8, and f11. Just in case you want to look at raw images yourself, before buying anything, like I did, go to Sigma's web site and download Sigma's Photo Pro software (the best for viewing and manipulating the Sigma .x3f raw files). It is not well received by many, but I think that stems from the fact that the files are huge (approximately 14.7 megapixels times 3 for a total of almost 45 megapixels worth of information). BTW, the new Sigma cameras do NOT produce images that are 4,800 x 3,200 like Mike writes in his comment above. They are 4704x3136 (or about 14.75 megapixels).</p>

<p>I will be getting a Sigma SD1 Merrill, when I have a good collection of lenses for my Sony A55 and a new Sony A65. The SD1 Merrill is, in my opinion, the best value in high resolution digital cameras today. From my experience with my Sigma SD14, which operates very similarly, I believe that the SD1 Merrill is the camera for me. I will probably get a Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro for my SD14 at some point in the next few weeks, in preparation for my SD1 Merrill purchase next year. Eventually I will also get the 10-20mm f4.5-5.6 too, since it is an inexpensive, stellar performer at f8 and f11. I already have a Sigma 24-70mm. Some day I will get Sigma's amazing 120-300mm f2.8 EX DG OS HSM APO. http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1394/cat/31</p>

<p>Whatever you decide, good luck!</p>