John C Tharp: I have to wonder about this 14/T3.1 lens; the 14/2.8 SLR lens that it is based on has some wild distortion, and it's hard to imagine that it would make for a good cinematic optic when used on a 35mm full-frame system.
I've done some test video with it using my 6D, and while I can correct distortion in stills easily, it's not so easy to do that well in video!
I would question if the 14mm is based on the cheap and cheerful 14 2.8 lens. The picture there shows that the cine lens is a completely different shape, without the bulbous front element. Further, the suggested price (over 6x more than the 14 2.8) leads me to believe it is constructed differently.
So these spectabular lenses need vignette correction? That's kind of a letdown.
RaghavBaijal: This is Sony Cementing their position in Full Frame Mirrorless space.
Now that they have 2.8 zooms covering the most used FLs, there is no excuse for Pros to adopt this system for everything other than Sports. For that, D500, 7DII, 1DXII and D5 are still king, for a foreseeable future too.
As more and more time passes, its getting more & more difficult for Canikon or any manufacturer to come out with a feasible competitor.
Now, only if their product planning team could suggest a APSC 16 50 2.8 G Master for <$1000. It would cement their stronghold in APSC too. Hint Hint!
PS. Don't price your 70-200 GMaster more than $2500!!Drop prices on your 24 70 F4 Zeiss & 24 70 F4 G Lenses for enthusiasts!Come out quickly with a A7III with a better Sensor so that high ISO performance is better or on par with Nikon D750.
Agree with electrophoto. Personally, when a camera becomes too big to put into a jacket pocket, then they are all in the same size category to me. In that regard, the Sony cameras don't have a size advantage, but do have a handling disadvantage.
Also, needing to spend $7,000 + to get a system with full range, fast, quality glass is still a bit of a hurtle. Having good 2.8 zooms from 24 to 200 is just the start, but I certainly wouldn't call it "all a pro needs."
Timbukto: Man this article...totally misses the PUNCH LINE...which was the absolute hilarity that the internet responded with! http://petapixel.com/2016/01/29/nikon-awards-prize-to-badly-shopped-photo-hilarity-ensues/
The Tie-Fighter photoshop is HILARIOUS!
The Millennium Falcon is either flying upside-down or that gif was a doctored fake...
Poor, poor man. To be born that way...
... A Canadian I mean.
Suntan: Not really looking to stabilize very heavy lenses on a tripod with that mount screw location.
Who said it needs to be "super strong"?
As for the rest, too bad it wasn't sufficiently engineered to deal with the loads it will experience...
In any case, I'm done here. Keep making up stuff you know little about if you wish.
Actually I'm a degreed mechanical engineer that deals with bolted joints on a daily basis. More applicable though, I have a fair bit of experience with mounting cameras onto tripods. That's a sub-optimal design.
Yes, some adapters (like the metabones, which can be orders of magnitude more expensive than others) come with their own feet. Some don't.
As for the base being metal or plastic, if there is nothing in front of the attachment point, then the screw itself is providing the stiffness. Which is sub-optimal. The image presented was used to show what is possible. Take a second look and you will see that the tripod in the image is a plastic-fantastic slik or something likely bought from Ritz Camera. The person using that tripod likely has no idea what a steady mount feels like.
In any case, sorry if I insulted a gadget you want to be friends with. But the tripod socket is poorly located and anyone wanting to use it to steady large lenses (that don't come with their own socket) will be at a disadvantage.
Yep, never a need for a sturdy tripod socket on a camera like this I guess...
Not really looking to stabilize very heavy lenses on a tripod with that mount screw location.
ChuckTa: It's a bit hefty price for the spec.With 24mp, I can see a Fuji do away the xtran and just make one without the filter in the future. It will certainly make the image a bit sharper.
Come on, people will buy this mostly for hipster value.
Those three words at the end are all anybody needs to read... "steeped in tradition."
For those of you who think of that as a good thing, have at it.
For those of you who do not, move along.
I don't know how well that Phase One works, but this advertisement is a good look at how those GoPro's work.
$400 for the portrait grip? And people thought $300 for the D750 grip was a ripoff... That's just outrageous.
Everybody is trying to make a business out of getting their customers to bear all the downside risk and hassle. ... Amazingly, these companies seem to keep finding customers.
arhmatic: I know most of you think this is nonsense, but if they would only try to push the boundaries of styling a little more, they would have my money. The "feel" of a DSRL is essentially the same since the D1. Style matters, regardless of industry or purpose.
I would argue that SLRs are less of a dying breed than any other form factor. Until phone makers can cram a pentaprism into their handsets, SLRs continue to offer features that can not be replaced by something that is already in the average camera buyer's pocket.
Style? They fit wonderfully in the hand.
What you are likely looking for is an old, non-working rolleiflex to put on a (designer) leather strap and throw over your shoulder for hipster-night out.
In short, yes. I think it is nonsense.
Stop Kodak. It's embarrassing now for everyone in the room.
Suntan: Interesting that they still insist on calling the D500 an "enthusiast" camera, even though it is pro grade in every respect.
True. But reading the Nikon code-words here, "Enthusiast" means, "We're not going to be building you any pro-caliber DX lenses, so don't ask."