> P.S. Very interesting on the camera. Maybe time for an upgrade from my D3=
00
> soon- I'd like to see some in-depth reviews of the low-light-performance
> compared to the D3S when downsampled to 12MP-ish resolution.

If you care about low noise at high ISO, but a D700 while you still can.
I'm expecting an eg D700s to surface some time soon. Nikon cannot be
as stupid as they appear so far.
In good light at up to 640 ISO the D800 results are stunning. NO
sample photo I've found so far is at > 640 ISO.

The "truth" will pop up here soonish.
This is the "sports" part of the rankings which is what I mot care
about. Roughly ~=3D  base on SNR (signal to noise ratio) at given ISO.

             http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Ratings=
/(type)/usecase_sports

These have been adjusted for the effects of downsampling to an 8 MP
image for comparison ~=3D 12" x 8" print at 300 dpi.
You can take that at face value and trust them OR start the wading in here

          http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/About/Sensor-scores/Use-Case-Sco=
res

I feel there is something wrong in subjective result in that more MP
seems to help a dog to rank better.
eg the Sony Alpha A850 and A900 are truly pathetic at high ISO.
Compared to a Canon 5D MkII they are terrible at say 6400 ISO. BUT
they rank better in measured terms than cameras which I believe do
better. Their scaling for SNR is 20 log (sqrt(MP ratio) gain by
descaling or =3D 3dB gain for 2:1 MP increase.


     Russell McMahon
--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.