How many slow superzooms does the market require? Really?
Raist3d: Oh Nikon, I would take your smaller system more seriously if you offered some good small fast prime lenses and ability to do electronic shutter shooting as an option (maybe you do, haven't checked). You have a real nice flash attachment but the slower lenses...
Marike6 you where the one who claimed that the 18,5 is "the classical 50 mm 1.8 in 35 mm terms"' thx just pointed out that one of the defining feature of that classical lens is missing from the 18,5
EmmanuelStarchild: With all this sniping I can't believe you people have time to take pictures. I didn't realize there was such a thing as armchair photography. You've gotta clue me in to how this works!
One thing the internet fosters is armchair everything. Take whatever hobby tou can think of, find a forum about it and I can guarantee that there will be people that claim they are professionals eventhough they really just got started, there will be people debating the intrcate technical details of the craft without ever producing anything and there will bepeople who much prefer talking about the subject on the forum to actually doing it. Foes for anything.
What's sad about it is that when someone genuinely asks a question on a form the answers will predominantly be given by one of these forum pros and not from someone actually skilled in the craft under discussion.
For the love of whatever you hold dear, why oh why must I click the link from the mainpage, enter a silly primer page and then click another link to get to the actual article I want to read? It's so immensly stupid it makes my brain hurt.
bstolk: Did Leica misspell 'Focus Peaking'?Did they mean ''Focus Peeking'?
No. Focus peaking is the same thing NEX cameras has, where the areas im focus are outlined in the vf. Focus peeking is something I have never heard of..
RStyga: I'm sorry, I have to comment on this, as well. This is an inexcusably expensive camera brick (not the K-01, by the way) with good image quality but not much else.There are numerous cameras on the market offering much more for much less (save the red dot). Excuse my being blunt but it seems to me that Leica feeds on fools...
Ppastoris: none of course. Which makes me wonder why no other manufacturer sees the Leica prices and realizes that the potential for price competition is wide open. I used to shoot Leica film, but can't motivate to myself purchasing any of their digital offerings at the current prices, but if a rangefinder appeared on the market at something like 2 grand, which should be possible, I'd get it in a heartbeat.
Kfrog: This is a good thing. Nice to know that Pentax is still on the mind of third party manufacturers. Adding another lens option, any option in my book, is all good in the land of Pentax. Samyang has a history of producing decent manual focus lenses for reasonable prices. It will be interesting to see how much one of these will go for.
Sergey, does that mean you think things like the Nikon 45 and 85 mm TS lenses are useless to? At least it seems like you are arguing that only a wide angle benefits from TS, which of ourse is false.
dala: How much smaller and cheaper would a DX version be?
I'd say a 25% increase in focal length is pretty significant.
Tape5: Nikon is the king of resolution and also punches hard at the ISO credentials of Mark III and its video capabilities. This is why people are drooling out there. If it matches Mark III at ISO 12800 or not is irrelevant. It is bad enough that people have to peep to work this out. The brilliant camera that D800 is with resolution, Mark III is not with ISO. But this does not make D800 an instant king of FF photography.
The better camera has always been and will always be the one that is in the hands of a better photographer. Professional photographers here have the upper hand by a massive margin and if they choose the Mark III predominantly, then Mark III will score higher, in that it will be the camera that is more likely to create a larger body of good work for anyone concerned.
This is how the question of which camera is better becomes nonsensical.
ron purdy: I'd think it's the opposite. I've overheard many customers discussing getting what seems to be their very first serious camera in various camera stores and comparing the D700 and 5DMkII saying something like "The Canon has almost twice the megapixels, it must be twice as good". Without fail these where clueless amateurs.
role_of_72: The APS-C - 43 gap is now closed. And everyone lives happily ever after :)Good job, Oly!
@deniz erdem several reasons you may want to stop down. Maybe you wabt to use your lens where it's sharper, which rarely is wide open. Or maybe you need to get the shutter speed down for flash sync.
Anyhow, the thing that makes current m4/3 unsuitable for professional work is the fact that there are simply no fast zooms. I basocally use three lenses on FF when working: the 24-70 2.8, the 70-200 2.8 and the 50 1.4. Of those, m4/3 only has something similar to the last one. Sure, there are some other nice primes, but for many types of professional work zoom lenses are required since they allow you to work much more quickly and control perspective with higher precision.
Roland Karlsson: "Customers are looking for a total solution"
OK - for what?
I have heard this total solution talk now since 1980 or something like that.
The latest home entertainment solution I bought was a mess. My wife totally refuses to even touch it - so we have a make fix solution now and the central hub is almost always off. And although it was expensive, I think the only thing I can do is bin it.
Total solutions is a dream.
OK - sometimes you get some kind of integrated thing. The iPad is a rather good book reading gadget, good image viewer, lousy image editor, a non working phone and a lousy computer and a not so good camera. And that is considered some kind of success.
When I put my digital camera in my camera collection and only uses connected devices to make images - then Samsung can come back and say - "what did we say in 2012?"
Of course they aren't the best ones, I never stipulated that.
Why would you upload 50 MB images? For web sharing you don't need that kind of resolution, so a device like this should naturally facilitate automatic downsizing for web. And like I said in another post, most pictures today are never viewed outside a computer screen and thus huge files with massive resolution is generally not that important.
And sure, you may think you don't need connectivity, I mean, 15 years ago there where people who couldn't understand why they needed anything better than a modem for connecting their computer. Let me just throw one use out there: The moment you get home and into your wifi all images are automatically transferred to your computer and imported into LR/Aperture. And if you shoot in your studio, same thing, the pictures go to your computer right away. Useless? Not really. And like I said, even if you never use it, how is it a drawback?
Biowizard: Why would I want a "connected" compact camera - when I already have an iPhone?
And meanwhile, would I really want to be paying £15 per GB of 3G usage with an SLR that tried uploading every 14-bit, 36-megapixel RAW file (64Mb each) that I shoot to some "cloud" server? That would equate to about £1 per shutter press. NUTS.
The "cloud" exists for ONE purpose only - to MAKE MONEY for Cloud Operators.
HowaboutRAW: So you mean to say that the only benefit of shooting with a DSLR over a cell phone is higher resolution? Even that isn't true anymore given Nokias introduction of a high MP phone. Note that I'm not saying people want bad pictures, just that most of the time they don't need very high resolution and data size is an important factor. A DSLR can shoot better pictures than a mobile phone even at the same resolution given it's larger sensor, better AF, ergonomics, interchangeable lenses, flash possibilities etc. Now having all that, and the ability to distribute images as easily as a phone would be supremely useful for many many people.
Roland: Your opinion of these devices are not shared by the market it seems, as they are massively successful. And in any case, could you, or anyone else explain to me what the drawbacks would be of having a connected DSLR? At worst it's a feature you don't use, realistically though, most people would find uses for it.
HowaboutRAW: Definatly. I've said it before in a thread, but here it goes again. The wast majority of all photos today are viewed on screen and distributed by web. Capturing pictures in higher resolutions than this is a curiosity at best, for specialist uses in very specific situations. Thus, connectivity and hopefully openness to third party software would be much more of a quantum leap in a camera than ultra resolution which in most cases won't ever be seen even by the photographer herself since most photos never get's printer and when they do it's at a size where the resolution makes no real difference.
Dickymint1964: DSLR video, "connected" cameras etc etc.....does nobody just like to shoot in a studio anymore ? Standard hight quality DSLR, that all I need...just something that takes a good picture....I don't want geo tagging, Facebook upload or any other modern rubbish.......It's enough to make you go back to film !!
Even in a studio connectivity would be useful. Have the camera automatically send the shots to an off-site customer for approval, easier then currently to connect to a computer etc. It surely wouldn't be a drawback in any case.
TomServoCA: 'Non-connected devices will be meaningless'
What utter nonsense.
Not nonsense and not at all unrealistic. Seeing how fast connectivity has grown and continues to grow I'd be surprised if not almost every electronic device will be connected within 5-10 years. And Martin, I fail to see how we could become "over saturated". Is there any kind of drawback to having a camera that don't require you to connect to another device to get the actual pictures out of it?
AdventureRob: I thought of this idea a while ago too.
Samsung although having a nice camera in the NX series they seem to be behind the market place. They'd be wise to make this move as it would get a lot of attention for them.
Anyone who denies app's are incredibly useful at times probably doesn't have a smart phone either. Even just the simple idea of adding effects / filters makes the camera more fun to use, and isn't that half the point of them?
Apps are rated in categories when they are submitted, so why not just allow all photography apps to work with a camera.
I don't expect camera manufacturers to put a SIM card inside them (although Sony and Samsung would be in the best position to do this). But uploading photos to the cloud rather than relying on memory cards makes a nice backup too, not to mention sharing options for facebook (this is what casual photographers want).
Great, now I know what I need! I mean, i've always wondered but no one up until now have actually been adept enough in their knowledge of my work and had the psychic skills to divine up my actual needs, but now everything i clear. Thank you HowaboutRAW!
nanoer: It is clear that who ever master these 4 things will win the war. The lens technology, Sensor technology, Digital Signal Processing (DSP also its SW) and its Marketing. The last 3 are even more important than the first. See how quickly Samsung and Sony are catching up in photography! 30 years ago they were just purely electronic. And Samsung were still an OEM.For us, the only thing we can do is to advance our photography skill. Then, any equipment in our hand will do the same.
Definatly. A D700 with my iPhones connectivity capabilities would open so many real oppurtunities to make more money from my business, much more so than a 36 MP D800. I don't undestand why the big players fail to realise some simple facts of our near future: 98% of all still images will be viewed on screen and transfered by web, thus super high resolution and IQ should be a secondary feature; people growing up today are impatient. They never had to wait for a photo lab to develop their film rolls and they don't want to wait even a couple of days for their wedding pictures, they want them right away. The first actor that brings a camera like this to market wins right out. It's been shown time and time again tha big corps who fails to do the right thing can and will be overthrown by small actors doing it right.
zzapamiga: The D800E is a niche product that would have more limited production than the D800, that is why it costs more for less. I am interested to see how well it sells. I would certainly buy the D800E over the D800.
Regarding those who say that its 36.3MP resolution is too high for their lenses. It has the same pixel density as a 15.4MP APS-C sensor which is less dense than the Nikon D7000 16.2MP APS-C sensor. I don't see the D7000 sensor out resolving Nikon's lenses. Sony has released a 24.3MP APS-C which if expanded to FF size would be 58MP!!! And this 24.3MP APS-C sensor still does not out resolve even the crappy NEX kit zoom lens.
Those who say the files as too big and their computers are too slow, how old is your computer? Any modern computer would easily be able to edit the photos and hard drive space is very cheap. If you can afford a $3000 camera surely you can afford a new hard drive.
Hmm, I distinctly remember the 70-200 VR 1 being noticeably soft in the edges and corners on FX, while performing perfectly on DX because of the smaller image circle. That was a pro level lens mind you. The lenses that give perfect corner to corner sharpness on a 12 Mp FX are few and expensive, remains to be seen which will perform good enough with 36 Mp.
Poss: Haven't shot too many weddings, have you Barnaby my friend ?Haven't got the joy of dark churches where flash use is prohibited (about the majority of them). Event and wedding photogs work in mostly poor lighting conditions where good high ISO performance is a HUGE bonus.
It might not be a bad idea to revisit that paragraph because as it is, it puts a big, Costa Concordia sized gash in this article's credibility.
I don't doubt some wedding pros will use a D800 (me excluded), but it won't replace anyone's trusty D3/D700, especially for those many times a full wedding day when the light ain't all that great.
I almost exclusively do weddings and I for one is in no rush to get the D800 for several reasons:
1. A normal full days wedding has me shooting 3000-4000 pictures. I'm not to keen on managing these with a massive increase in size. And even though I have a powerful rig I have a lingering feeling that processing the images will be slower.2. If the high ISO performance is anything like the D7000 I'm not interested. Adding extra processing steps to throw away the extra resolution is simply not viable for me.3. Even though there might be the occasional shot where a customer might notice the difference or require a very big print it would take a long time for these occasions to pay the price of two D800 bodies.
A lot of people claim "pros don't care about the cost", which is BS. The only people who can ignore cost are enthusiasts who make their money elsewhere. In any business you have to weigh the cost of an investment vs the potential for making more money.