G1Houston: If the "issue" in the camera causes not only flare but also front focusing, why shouldn't we be worried? Is AF inaccuracy a serious issue?
"So by that logic the 5D MarkIII, D810, 1Dx are all not good cameras because"
Yes, especially considering how much they are priced. Which is why some argue the live view AF on mirrorless cameras is better in terms of accuracy. Take the two 750s for example, the AF on the one without the flare is so close to perfection that to many users, considering how many real life factors can affect image sharpness, that they can live happily with this copy without having to worry too much about AF fine tuning.
Yes you CAN adjust, but the one with the flare problem needs MORE adjustment so its AF is more inaccurate. The flare itself can be avoided and very few will ever need to shoot into the light. In contrast, AF impacts every picture and everybody. I for one would rather not bother with AF fine adjustment — why should I, they should make the AF accurate in the first place. The AF adjustment process is laborious and very difficult to do if you have a zoom lens. To expect every customer to routinely adjust their AF is to make an excuse for not making a good camera in the first place.
If the "issue" in the camera causes not only flare but also front focusing, why shouldn't we be worried? Is AF inaccuracy a serious issue?
Retzius: Are these lenses made in Korea or in China?
"If we agree that quality doesn't need to be an issue of manufacturing country, one might still want to ask that question out of pure interest."
If the country of manufacturing does not impact quality, why, why, should any one care? People ask and then pretend they don't care because they do not want to offend anybody.
Flashback: Pop-up flash yet again. ugh...
Is it just me, or does anybody else think the over hanging flash, just completely spoils the look of a fine camera?
"Then why not just a small flash window to the right of the lens?"
That works with compact body with a compact lens that is not too wide (FOV) and long (Length of the lens). Otherwise, the flash will cast a shadow.
HowaboutRAW: Mr Physics+Frank C:
According to Wikipedia the flash sync speed of the D70 is 1/300 sec.
With a smaller (APSC) focal plane shutter it is easier to build higher sync speeds.
The top shutter speed of the camera is indeed 1/8000 sec.
it used a CCD not a CMOS sensor.
attomole: I think that is a very useful demonstration of the sensitivity and dynamic range of modern full frame sensors, would be interesting to see what and near as equivalent uFT set up would do under the same circumstances (honestly not just trolling) based on my experience of ageing APSC Nikon, this is astonishing, but I am seriously thinking of jumping ship for (uFT Pana GX7 or OLY something ) and three decent compact primes, as I have had it with bulky DLSR gear
Indeed, we see quite a few testimonies from FF shooters in the m4/3 forum that they have sold all their FF gears to switch b/c they cannot see any difference between FF and m4/3. The key word here is THEY, that in their photography, the advantages of FF are not apparent. They do not need a FF, and should not have bought one in the first place. However this does not mean that FF cameras, such as the D750, are not better in many ways except the weight and bulk of the gear.
If you do not shoot in low light (ISO>3200) without flash, if you do not need to focus track moving objects, if you do not need to dramatically lift shadows and recover highlights, and if you do not crop much, m4/3 is fine. Many people say, why would I need to shoot at ISO 6400? Keep in mind that if you photograph people indoors in low light, you need at least 1/125 sec to get sharp pictures since people move. A gentle wave of hand, a smile, all need high shutter speed to freeze. For kids, I typically use at least 1/200 sec. This, together with the use of slow lens, can easily push ISO to very high levels. No IBIS can help you with that. The greatest things about m4/3 is the balance of performance and size of the kit. If you need performance that modern technology can achieve, D750 is no doubt a spectacular camera. I wish I knew it was coming before I bought the D7100, which is already better *for me* than m4/3 in AF tracking and overall IQ.
Infared: I REALLY like the idea of the camera. The sensor, the 5-Axis etc. It's still the lack of dedicated AF lenses that stops me. It is priced really well too.Makes me crazy!!!! LOL!Could the Sony A7 II please mate with my Canon 5DIII and make a Love Child that we all want so bad. LOL.
"Obviously, you are not aware of why Sony decided to go with "NEX-9" that people were demanding following NEX-7. One word: Adapting lenses, especially old lenses. It is one of the pleasures of owning a Sony E-mount system (and I got into it, mainly to do just that)."
To you may be, but there aren't that many Einstein around, you know. :)
"Please explain what you mean by that?"
The vast majority of people do not consider using an adapted lens to lose full compatibility with the camera as a good thing. The A7 has very few native lenses, the few they do have are very expensive or not smaller than those from Nikon or Canon (e.g. 70-200/4). Do you guys really not see this as an issue for the majority of the people?
mpgxsvcd: I love it when they have a big press release to announce pricing and then just tell us it is “ABOUT” $1700.
Thom Hagon's view is that SONY announced the A7-II to prevent people from buying Nikon's D610/D600 and D750 for this holiday season. However, they seemed to forget that once it is announced in Japan, people in the whole world will now stop buying the original A7. They then tried to fix it by deciding to make it also available in the US, so they can a least sell some A7-II. They apparently did so in a hurry without fixing its price. The worse part is that people will now also stop buying A7R and A7S thinking that these will soon be also updated. The good news of course is that you may get the original A7 at a much lower price, if the improvements are important to you.
beavertown: When will Nikon release a close to professional grade DX format like 70D Mark II with at least a few decent prime lenses?
The prime lens that the DX needs are wide angle lens — there is nothing wider than 35 mm for now. Nikon wants the DX users to instead buy wide angle prime lenses that are designed for the FF so they are bigger and more expensive than needs be. This is the problem with Nikon's DX format — they are pushing people to go FF.
donahugh: No AF-ON - A neutered D700 but with the 24 Meg Sensor I want.
or the AF-L/AE-L button right next to the thumb.
Jogger: Would have even been better with the Df sensor.
" ... it has better color"
Is this true? DPreview said this in their review of the Df: "It has the same color response as we're used to seeing from other Nikon bodies." Not sure why color is a sensor-related issue but not a processing issue. Suffice to say that the color difference is slight for "most" people?
Sand Pond: As an update to my cursory review of the D750, I must say that the extremely pathetic battery charger supplied with the camera continues to present problems. My complaint, and the complaints of others, therefore bear repeating. I have found the D750 to be a fabulous camera, with absolutely stunning video, and have no purchase regrets there. HOWEVER, the "toy", "cordless", "single" battery charger is very nearly reason enough not to buy the camera. Especially so, considering there is no viable replacement (the Watson Duo being a total loss as well). Although the D750 claims to be shipped with a "corded" MH-25A Nikon Charger, there is no cord (only a wall outlet adapter)! Nikon saved a penny at the expense of making millions of D750 buyers very unhappy when they first attempt to charge up the battery for their otherwise wonderful and exquisite D750.
"I prefer my compact cord-less charger for travel. Cords get in the way."
Me too. All my other battery chargers are cordless so why should the one for a camera be so different? Better yet, I hope in the future we can all charge the battery using a common USB cord in body, like what SONY is doing with their cameras, to get rid of the charger all together.
Having used the 24 MP DX sensor in the D7100, I have become addicted to a high MP sensor for its added resolution, crop ability. A 24 MP FF sensor seems to be the sweet spot for most people. 12-MP is just too low and the slight gain in high ISO performance is not worth the trade-offs for most.
If Dpreview can publish the review before "Black Friday," Nikon will truly appreciate it. However, at this point, the big picture is obvious that this camera is going to be a fantastic FF dSLR. The only thing that we won't know for some time is how reliable this camera will be.
It will be interesting to see what Nikon will do with a D610 successor? My hope is that the D620 or whatever can be made even smaller/lighter/cheaper by taking out the AF motor. It does not have to have top of the line AF module and the one currently in D7100 will suffice. It will be another home run if they can sell it for $1500 or less.
Adrian Van: Nikon's answer to the Sony 7 series is the DF and possibly the D750 (very thin body if you have ever held one, thinner than D610, although D750 is not mirrorless, but D750 has HD 1080 60p video). DF is a bit pricey and lacks video and a niche product, but I would wager that Nikon is already working on a newer model in mirrorless (in future development stages maybe), as Sony is getting very popular in the last year or so among enthusiasts, pros and semipros, including dslr videographers and I have seen a Sony 7(s) nicely setup with video rigs from Zacuto at recent Toronto show. Just whatever Nikon is working on, may not be ready for release anytime soon or who knows when?
It would be wise to showcase 1 key camera for the holiday season so that camera will get all the attention. For Nikon this seems to be the D750 (and it may be the D7200 or D900 next spring). Features-wise D750 out-spec the A7-II. What is the advantage to build a mirrorless camera now when the D750 seems so good in almost every way? Mirrorless promises smaller/cheaper cameras. How much can a mirrorless design shrink the size/cost of the lens is not clear. Not from SONY at least. The FE 35/2.8 is small but also very expensive; the Nikon 35 F1.8 lens is one stop faster, cheaper, and not that heavy. If you then add the very small, light, and inexpensive 50/1.8 G, plus the 85/1.8 G, and 20/1.8 or the 28/1.8 are all excellent and <$800. Thus it is not too hard to get a 3 prime kit of all f1.8 lens with the Nikon. As a Nikon shooter, I would like to have an alternative for my future FF cameras. However SONY is not working hard enough to attract core users of Nikon.
atamola: - do you hear that?- ...nope.- don't you hear that?- No, I don't. What?- That silence. That deep silence at Canikon HQs.
"I can get up to 700 shots with a single charge on A7. Airplane mode, "
Yes, but my point is that all things being equal, the battery capacity in the D750 is much more than 3x that of the A7, because the 1200 shots per charge of the D750 was measured with the flash on. Of course in real life, people will get more or less than the CIPA measured shots, but the key is that when all things are measured the same, the battery capacity in the A7 is just far smaller than that of the D750. Hey, some people may argue that this does not even matter as they don't shoot more than 200 shots per day. But the difference is there and should not be ignored for those high end users. I just wish SONY does not limit their cameras to achieve some superficial design goal, such as being the smallest and lightest camera body, at the expense of usability.
Sure, but the A7 can shoot only 350 shots without the built-in flash. The CIPA measures battery with the flash on. So, I bet the A7's battery capacity is far worse than the 350 shots would indicate. For still, the D750 does not need live view to shoot. Since most of the time we don't shoot with the flash, the D750 may in fact shoot far far more than 1200 shots.