Philip Peynerdjiev: Canon MKIII is perfect for JPEG's shooting, in RAW Nikon is king.
There is only one crazy man on Earth who shoots Jpeg on a $3500 camera. His name - Ken Rock****.
Dear DPreview.I can not write on the new forum. After typing several words on the message field, some "sripts" are hanging, IE crashes. Even these words can be typed VEEERY slow.I also can not cut quotation in several pieces to answer it part by part.IE8, Win7
upd: Also "Del" button doesn't work, only "backspace"
Edmond Leung: At high ISO, RAW looks OK but JPEG looks bad!Low price = bad JPEG engine? No way!Nikon needs to improve that.
1st, JPEG are OK.2nd, only an idiot shoots jpeg on a FF camera.
Joes Raw Talk: I find the pictures to be underwhelming and overexposed in some instances. A high end APS-C looks to be about as good or better...especially for these sort of shots. Which brings me to the observation that full-frame may be important for some applications but certainly it is a premium price to pay when you can get an excellent output from the best of the APS-C, for a lot less dollars.
Exactly which APS-C do you mean? Overexposed where?
f/1.8 on the short end - goodf/4.9 on the long end - bad
phemark: Help me understand the need of F2.8 in such a lens.
I would think, that at 10mm, this lens will be mostly used as a landscape/architecture photography tool, and for that you will need the biggest DOF. Of course, at 10mm even 2.8mm will you give great DOF, but i will doubt that anyone will use it due to softness.
So why is it F2.8? so you could handhold shoot at night some buildings? (Most would still use tripod and bigger F stop anyway)
Milky way? Startrails? Landscapes in darkness?Indoor photography?
ZAnton: I use digital cameras for like 6 years. From hundred of gigabytes of my photos I can probably find 2 or 3 with exposure time 1/2000s or faster. Nikon's lack of 1/8000 means nothing to me. Noone will ever use it unless he wants to shoot f/1.2 in midday in Sahara.
Lenses faster than f/2 produce immence amount of CA when used wide open under sunlight. Even in the center. So this makes no sense.http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1566137827/photos/1855279/img_7901-3Again, who shoots bokeh-portraits under very hard sunlight? Idiots?Also, the difference is only 1 Stop. For god sake don't tell me, somebody need exactly that Stop of bokeh at 1PM in Sahara.
Ashuaria Lee: I was waiting for 1500$ T_T bye-bye my D600 adios amigo~
Why don't you wait for $10 FF?
welshwizard: Think I'll stick with what I've got, scene and idiot modes on a £2000 camera?
How about... not using them?I have 5dmk2 and I have no idea what modes it has except A,T and M.
@D1N0Do you have Lightroom?Go to Library, check all photos you have and then on the top press Metadata. Then look how many photos do you have at 1/8000 sec. Then tell us.
I use digital cameras for like 6 years. From hundred of gigabytes of my photos I can probably find 2 or 3 with exposure time 1/2000s or faster. Nikon's lack of 1/8000 means nothing to me. Noone will ever use it unless he wants to shoot f/1.2 in midday in Sahara.
ZAnton: another highly overpriced lens for a few techno-geeks who collect that crap and never shoot?
I have heard the same ode to Canon L some years ago.Now I have Canon L. Nothing special.
My last hope - is to see your photos in your galery made with Carl Zeiss lenses.
Do you even understand how illogical your answer is?
another highly overpriced lens for a few techno-geeks who collect that crap and never shoot?
Danel: I was just looking at the photos over on the Sigma site. They certainly look sharp. In fact they look too sharp. The over sharpening is obvious on the smaller versions of the photos. They were obviously heavily processed to look very sharp on the full sized versions of the photos because some of them look just awful on the smaller sizes. I'm not sure I like even the larger versions though. They don't look natural for some reason that I can't quite put my finger on. The photos are very visually impressive no doubt. I just don't know that they look real.
Sharpness in small size has nothing to do with the one at full size.
rjx: Hey Zeiss, would it be too much to ask for a few zoom lenses in ZF / ZE mounts that cost around $1500 - $2500?
I think many photographers would go absolutely nuts for an UWA zoom. And something around 24-70.
what a nice ode to CZ.Real photographic tests say different about IQ of CZ lenses.
pdqgp: I suppose DPR is appeasing sponsors and vendors of all types but a $20k lens as news article on a site like this? Maybe I'm the minority but I can't see the target audience being very wide here. It's like all the car magazines writing up reviews on cars that are $100k+ Interesting reads but the value to the masses is nothing more than entertainment. Must be a slow news day as they say.
IMO I'd much rather hear about gear the masses will use and is a better fit for the majority. Someone buying a $20k lens is not likely the average DPR reader.
This serves 2 important purposes:1) To show, that lenses for $/€ 2000 are "cheap" and of cource are excellent value for money.2) To build the Dream for every techno geek (with are 80% here, rest 20% are canon/nikon salesman). *uck the real quality, *uck price/value. Technogeeks must not be satisfied by their L-collection 8-800mm f/2.8. They must always have an unreachable Dream.
Holger Bargen: No Pentax mount?! :-(((
What a loss!!
Nishi Drew: Like "full HD" being the norm now, just a few years later we will start seeing affordable 4k cams, and eventually a 4k smartphone (if anyone needs that much resolution for anything...).
For watching, 720p is plenty enough, for editing of course the more the better, but still the more res means more prcosessing and on and on the usual digital flow
All I want is uncompressed video, 1080p is great... oh wait, where the heck's my uncompressed video for the 5d Mk3, Canon!?
You meant Nikon D800E, don't you?
They'd better make precise metering and higher DR on their DSLRs.