fmian: Malyons, camera movements and lens design are first year photography subjects. For a high school photography teacher to consider such a trivial article a learning option is quite a frightening prospect. It's like a high school computer teacher getting excited hearing about command line parameters for the first time, or an auto mechanic instructor just figuring out the benefits of a manual shift.
Malyons, I would suggest you give your students a heads up on books such as The Camera, The Print, and The Negative, by Ansell Adams. The first one in particular giving one much more grounded and accurate information than most articles online.Regardless of what you or I feel, the fact that so many people here are dissing this article should be a cause for concern for you as far as using it as a resource. With photography involving so much exacting science, it should be no surprise that many people are picky about the correct information, terminology and impression being given on precise tools and procedures.Yesterday, I had one of my class peers (who is a working journalist at the moment) confidently tell me that an ISO800 shot out of a 5D mk3 would produce a result way brighter than an ISO3200 shot from a 5D mk2, because the newer model has better ISO performance. What a scary thought.Studying Diploma of Photoimaging in Australia by the way, and apologies if I caused you offence.
Here is a scan from a glass plate negative that was shot in Yorkshire England circa 1910.Personally I think it's a very good example of movements in portraiture.
Malyons, camera movements and lens design are first year photography subjects. For a high school photography teacher to consider such a trivial article a learning option is quite a frightening prospect. It's like a high school computer teacher getting excited hearing about command line parameters for the first time, or an auto mechanic instructor just figuring out the benefits of a manual shift.
Photomonkey: For those sneering at his work he starts out saying that this lens is not for everyone.Frankly his work is very appealing despite the detractors. As for it being in use for over 100 years that is true insofar as view cameras have been around that long. However the usual use has been to increase DOF and only rarely to decrease it.The technique is enjoying a fashion these days because of the renewed interest in alt. lenses.Just as Instagram and any number of PS actions give a photographer a look, this effect is another enjoying some fashion at the moment. As fashions/fads go at least it is attractive.
Increasing DOF has never been the point of TS lenses, and they are just as good at it as other lenses are. Perspective correction and plane of focus adjustment is what they are technically made for.While controlling what is in focus, you are also controlling what is out of focus. This is nothing new, even for portrait and fashion photography. Anyone with a fast prime lens can achieve a similar result by not shooting parallel to the subject. It's just that when you get some overzealous article writers who disregard history, and only look at the last 10 years of the topics they are enthused about, then news like this gets posted and some photographer gets a whole bunch of extra hits on his page that week.
This 'unique' approach has been in use by photographers for over 100 years.
Does anyone know what kind of deposit is required? I would imagine it's at the full price of the camera in case the 'borrower' does not come back.Why cannot one just find a retailer with a good return policy instead?Paxtons in Sydney offers a 45 day return policy. No questions asked.Surely 45 days is better than 48 hours?Also, not sure about the UK, but in Australia it's within a consumers rights to return a product they are not satisfied with. I believe the allowed time is 1-2 weeks.At least, that is the rules we abided by when I was working for HN.
fmian: Except that at widest aperture the resulting image becomes darker. Read the preview. What is the point of taking a f/1.4 lens to f/1.0 if its darker? Plus chromabs are increased and contrast is lost. Not to mention it makes the lens softer on the corners, and introduces vignetting.For the price of this adapter, you can get a second hand original 5d body and not have to worry about compromising image quality. Since that's what we all care about.Right?
A) Are you implying that the DPReview test is innacuate?B) Find me another review/preview with test charts and not ambient light testing.I am willing to admit that the wide aperture test above with the red pipes is open to inconsistency as it seems to be shot outdoors.Otherwise it's easy to see that there are major optical drawbacks to using this. You would have to be delusional to think otherwise.
Trollshavethebestcandy: I find it interesting naysaying 400% pixel peepers demanding perfection from a revolutionary introduction 1st generation new technology (to consumer cameras) adapter that does so much at only $600. dont buy it if you are so righteously offended that smaller sensors can use FF lenses and get similar results and then some. What a bunch of wet blanket elitists. Go have fun with your gear and applaud new technology and the people who have the courage and brains to create something worth while. Geez! if there was no innovation you would all still be using peep hole cameras! you lot must be quite the life of the party. What have you created? My hats off to the men behind this. I cant wait to use one. Some valid points about some issues but you dont have to use one. Manual focus primes on this and vor video will be a boon. This will only get better. Where was digital photography 10 years ago? look at it today!
First of all Trollshavethebestcandy, this is not a revolutionary product and is certainly not based on new technology (your consumer camera addition means nothing).Secondly people used to get blasted for being 100% pixel peepers, and now when dpreview post 100% samples you call them 400% peepers. It's plain to see, even in the 100% crops that this adaptor has several image quality shortcomings.Thirdly, the original press release stated there would not be a drop in image quality, but there is, so if you want to sweep their inaccurate claims under the rug and purchase this $600 product that makes good lenses bad, then its your money to throw away.Calling out full fame users like they are angry children while ignoring the plain visual facts in front of you is just immature on your part. If one wants to be a purist and use a lens of a camera that it was designed for, let them. Just as if you want to fork out good money for this adaptor and get some sort of imaginary benefit, go for it.
Except that at widest aperture the resulting image becomes darker. Read the preview. What is the point of taking a f/1.4 lens to f/1.0 if its darker? Plus chromabs are increased and contrast is lost. Not to mention it makes the lens softer on the corners, and introduces vignetting.For the price of this adapter, you can get a second hand original 5d body and not have to worry about compromising image quality. Since that's what we all care about.Right?
Can DPreview please state what is actually different about the products compared to ones from several years ago? What has changed in the mean time? Apart from the sleeker space saving design, which has actually been a feature in older models anyway.
Regarding price point:People pointed out the high price of the Fuji X100 when that came out as well, and it led to a success for them.I think there are plenty of people who are more than willing to pay this much for the camera, although at the same time I feel the accessories are a rip off.For that kind of money (on the viewfinder) i would expect at least simple hybrid viewfinder with etchings and led lights to show basic exposure and parameters.As it stands it costs as much as a decent SLR lens.
fmian: Personally I think these should have been:in no order
Sony rx100Canon G1xFuji X10Olympus Xz2Ricoh GRd4
Flipmac, its cheaper than the rx100, smaller than the fz200, the sensor size and ISO performance makes up for the dimmer lens, and who cares if its slow? Not everyone is a sports photographer or needs to machine gun their shots.
Personally I think these should have been:in no order
Man, this D600 sounds like some old cars I've had.Radiator leaked on one and I had to check and top it up between trips.Difference is these cameras are new and from a manufacturer that has been making working mirror boxes for 40 years, yet they still deny fault.Feel sorry for owners who have to keep cleaning their sensors.
Tom Goodman: We can always count on users of rival manufacturers to weigh in on something they know absolutely nothing about nor can contribute to understanding. Then, there are the speculators, who would rather spend time postulating about the sources of dust than on the images they make. Finally, there is the contingent that condemns review conclusions and ratings that noted the problem, promised more investigation and is making good on that promise.
Oh, and then there are the people who say to themselves: Nikon is a fairly well-established company that would probably be interested in getting to the bottom of a problem accompanying the launch of a new, touted system as quickly and professionally as possible without prompting from the peanut gallery.
Tom Goodman wrote - 'users of rival manufacturers...something they know absolutely nothing about'Are you implying that an SLR user of another brand would not be somewhat experienced with the notion mirror slaps and sensor dust?
'who would rather spend time postulating about the sources of dust than on the images they make'Please tell me you would happily pay $2000+ for this camera considering what you know now. Imagine shooting a whole bunch of time lapse stuff and then realizing you have to clean every frame in post.
'Nikon is a fairly well-established company that would probably be interested in getting to the bottom of a problem'They have denied it being a fault so far, right?
'quickly and professionally as possible without prompting from the peanut gallery'The 'peanut gallery' has chimed in purely because Nikon has done nothing quickly and professionally about this.
In summary:Do you even know what you are talking about?
ThomasSwitzerland: You will never find a "perfect" product.
The same way as no perfect software can be developed.
This Nikon D600 is more than “fit for use”. To get FF at this price in this ergonomic body is a masterpiece of digital photography in the present technology life cycle.
Excellent FF quality becomes available now for many more aspiring users as ever before. And this is a major contribution from Nikon to the benefit of the markets.
ThomasSwitzerland wrote "no perfect software can be developed"
Incorrect. This is what people tell themselves to stop feeling bad after buying a dud product.Software for simple and unified systems pretty much never fail. Take a calculator for example.One could easily write code to convert Celsius to Fahrenheit, have it never fail, and it would be perfect software.I have a 35+ year old camera that still works perfectly as the day it was purchased. Is that enough time to be able to call a camera design perfect?
"To get FF at this price in this ergonomic body is a masterpiece of digital photography in the present technology life cycle."
The 5DMKII is available right now at a cheaper price than the D600.A second hand 5D comes in at a third of the price of a D600 and has just as much warranty as a D600 that the user has to keep cleaning the sensor on.
"major contribution from Nikon"
Tell that to the guys who have to clean their sensors so often.
"1-in. (2.5 cm) sensor""CX-format 1in sensor"
Wrong.It continually irks me how marketing companies can spin numbers and specs to make something seem what it is not. And then the number of people who fall for it.
Glad to see Nikon has done something good with the one system, after only one generation at that. Now they just need good lenses.
They made my dream cameras in the 70's.40 years on and they still work like a charm, produce impeccable results, are smaller and lighter than current FF cameras, and are still available at a fraction of the price of something new.The build quality and optics tend to outshine modern offerings as well.Why look forward, when we can look back?
All I'm hearing in this thread is blah blah blah.You are nit picking about images that have been softened through an AA filter, colour arranged via the Bayer filter pattern and then aligned in a pixel grid, the same way as the other 99% of digital cameras out there.Then on top of that the whole lot is reassembled by the jpg algorithm, and then flyscreened through a 70-150dpi screen.