Galbertson: Had D810 in hand at camera shop. The Nikon rep was there stating only new lenses will resove best the 36mp sensor, whereas i had read my pro AI lenses would still resolve just fine
Has anyone done crital comparison tests? Some blogs say great, some say poor. Cannot afford to buy camera to find out have to shell out thousands more for lenses.
for people upgrading from an APS-C model, if they find that the lenses they have been using are good enough, then the same lenses will be good enough for fullframe, unless the lenses are APS-C models that cannot fill the image circle of a full frame lens. Some of the sharpest lenses ever made were designed in the film area. There is no guarantee that a newer version will necessarily be sharper. They may simply have built-in VR, which allows the lens makers to charge more for their lens.
Digital camera sales are slumping, and it is not hard to figure out why. There is really little that is worth buying. If you have an APS-C model, you can either keep upgrading to another APS-C model and get no improvement in image quality, or you can spend $2K or more for a slight improvement in image quality. Prices are not falling, and image quality has pretty much remained the same. Consumers are asked to pay more when Nikon took out an expensive low pass filter so the chance of a photo being ruined by moire is increased. Sounds like a raw deal to me.
arcane93: " Why is the D810 priced like the D800E, and not the D800? Well, the D810 takes the D800E's 'AA filter cancellation' trick one step further by dispensing with an AA filter entirely, which should result in a camera that offers greater resolution than either of the two models that it replaces."
So, I'm confused by this logic... Why does it cost more because it *doesn't* have something? Shouldn't that make it, if anything, cost less? I totally get why you'd want to shoot without an AA filter, but what I don't really get is why you have to pay more for the privilege. What am I missing here? Is there something else more costly that has to be done to make shooting without the AA filter possible?
By removing a part, the camera maker saves manufacturing cost, and on top of that charges the customer more. That is killing two birds with one stone. Only way to avoid getting killed is to not buy the camera. Without the AA filter, moire is more likely a problem. So, you get the privilege of shots ruined by moire as a bonus.
Bob Meyer: Wow. Nikon finally offers full HD recording. Maybe by 2024 they'll catch up to 4K?
Why do cars have speedometers that go over 100 mph if the speed limit is 70 in most places?
More of the same. DSLR sales are down because there is little innovation, and full frames are still too expensive.
LucaPCP: Old cameras had big lenses, and relatively small bodies around them (because film did the trick). This D4s is ugly: a tiny lens attached to a huge black brick that contains the circuitry. It's starting not to make sense. I wish they gave me a light lens+sensor combo, tethered to the rest of the computer that I could keep in my backpack. It's like taking a photo while handholding a desktop computer.
The reason for the large body is not because of needed space for the circuitry. It is because of what customer expect from a camera that costs this much. Much of the bulk is due to the built-in vertical hand grip that allows easier holding of the camera when shooting vertically. Also allows more batteries to be put inside the camera for longer shooting before running out of juice.
I fail to see how taking away color information improves a photograph, especially a snpashot.
RichRMA: Rather than these monsters, where is the collapsible medium format cameras of before, like the Fujis or Plaubels? Can you imagine a medium format camera smaller than a pro DSLR?
There is no need for a new lens system. Just a short extension tue of the right length will work.
MarshallG: Now THAT'S a Hasselblad! They did Victor proud.
Let me guess. Victor Victoria.
RichRMA: For anyone who thinks a Nikon D800 matches a medium format camera, take a look at the output from the reference camera used in the studio tests on this site.
There are those who believe that APS-C equals FF, and those who believe that 4/3 equals APS-C in image quality. If we add them all together, that means, 4/3= APS-C = FF = MF. or 4/3= MF. We should all dump whatever camera we have and just buy a camera with 4/3 sensor. But wait, there are actually claims that camera phones are the equal of 4/3 using a different set of equations. So, we should just forget about cameras and lenses and get a camera phone.
To do that they have to go mirrorless. There are additional benefits to going that route, besides compactness, and that is less vibration and noise, if there is no big flapping mirror.
Canon is an electronics company. You wonder why they haven't made a smartphone yet.
All manufacturers are pushing the envelope. The difference is the size of the envelope. Olympus is pushing the 4/3 envelope. Hasselblad is pushing the 6x4.5 cm envelope. Canon, Sony and Nikon are pushing the Full Frame envelope. Sigma, Fuji, and Pentax are pushing the APS-C envelope.
GaryJP: With mature technologies, sales decline. The PC sales decline because many of us don't get a new PC every year now. Software sales decline because the software already does more than we need (which is why they push the rental model). My cameras are probably already beyond my abilities. I already spend more on them than I should, so I probably need a more compelling reason to upgrade. Sometimes a turn down in sales does not signal doom but maturity.
There is a large untapped upgrade market (from APS-C to FF), but the manuracturers don't want to start a price war, because it will not just lower the margin on FF, it will also lower the margin on APS-C and on small sensor megazoom fixed lens cameras. It will therefore remain untapped. Upgrading to another APS-C model just brings you larger files, but little else. Unless manufacturers start lowering FF prices in earnest, the market is going to stagnate.
It is no surprise that sales declined. The economy is not good so people don't spend money unless they have to. The DSLR revolution is about 11 years old. Most people who wanted to switch to a digital SLR have switched. There is also little incentive to upgrade because camera prices are still artificially high. High end APS-C models still cost more than $1,000 and FF DSLR cameras are stubbornly high at $2,000 even though sensor prices have fallen dramatically. Sooner or later, if the camera makers want the market to grow, they would need to cut prices on FF models. A cut to $1,500 for an entry level FF is what is needed.
Sir Nick of High Point: I feel like the primary reason that compact mirrorless has not caught on in the US, like it has in the rest of the world, is that Americans generally want to look like "real" photographers. We have this misconception that a big camera automatically makes you a professional, and with the disposable income that we have in the US, people simply go out and purchase a DSLR to impress their friends. Just go to a local park and look at all of the parents lugging around massive Nikons just to take pictures of their kids on the slide. It's silly. The Asian consumer understands the benefit of a smaller camera IMO.
I cannot speak for other people, but here is the way I look at mirrorless cameras. Sure they are smaller, but the tradeoff is considerable. You don't have the optical viewfinder, and the sensor isn't any bigger. In some cases the sensor is actually smaller,and noisier. And the price of the camera and lenses are steeper since there are hardly any used lenses out there. On top of that I need new lenses, or use adapters and lose AF capability. These are steep prices to pay for a slight bit of compactness, and I am not willing to pay them.
When I am photographing birds in flight with a 400mm lens, I need AF. A more compact camera is useless, since the lens dwarfs my DSLR camera, and a mirrorless camera with an APS-C sensor and a 400mm AF lens would cost more than I have already spent for the same setup and it does not give me any better image quality or any noticeably decrease in size and weight.
Markol: What I don't get is pricing- The first 3 generations of PENs were sold at a 50% discount some 6 months after they were released, the P5 is still at the original price after 9 months, the PL5 dropped by less than 15% in much over a year. Compared to many competitors, they are just too expansive and the policy is confusing. I understand that for lenses, but cameras?
It is more expensive for smaller sensors because Olympus does not sell too many cameras. It needs the higher margin just to survive, or at least to lose as little money as possible.
Richard Franiec: I like optimistic vision of the future presented by Olympus, Fuji and Sigma representatives in their interviews.Hopefully this attitude will have infectious effect on other manufacturers.
There is a thin line between optimism and self-delusion.
Anastigmat: After Olympus straight-jacketed itself with the 4/3 sensor, it has 2 choices
1. compete with mainstream camera makers using APS-C AND full frame sensors or
2. "push the envelope"
Unfortunately for Olympus's shareholders and fans, Olympus has chosen not to compete.
Olympus products put me to sleep. Apparently I am not alone. Sony had to give ("invest") a lot of money to Olympus to keep it from going under.
After Olympus straight-jacketed itself with the 4/3 sensor, it has 2 choices