It would be great if Nikon would work with Fujifilm and Zeiss to design and build some fast wide primes for Nikon DX cameras. I'd love to have a lens like this, or the 14, or the 12 Zeiss, for my D400. Or the 24. This is a company that understands what lenses you need to make an APS-C camera system a complete solution.
mga010: We are not talking about astronomical photography where single photons are counted. I have my doubts that even the darkest areas in everyday images produce a measurable variance in the photon count on sensor elements. Is there any convincing proof for that?
We are counting actual photons, one by one, and the receptor sites in current camera sensors count most visual-light photons that hit them. Most sensors miss a substantial percentage overall because of the physical structure of the array, the RGB filters and the microlenses that direct light to the receptors.
The quantum efficiency of actual camera sensors is discussed extensively at sensorgen.info and Clarkvision.com.
You can test the variance in your own photos using Excel to look at TIFF files converted to CSV using a freeware TIFF to CSV converter. If you take a fairly uniform dark area that clips shadows, you can find pixels with low pixel counts and calculate the variance in dimly illuminated areas using Excel's statistical functions to satisfy your doubts. You can also calculate the variance of an unexposed frame with whatever exposure you like by making an exposure with the finder and the lens blocked.
LiSkynden: I may be stupid but why does the lens have to be that big even thoguh only a small amount of it is showing? This was already in the previous model, but i dont get it. Looks kind of weird and stupid to have that big "lens" but the actual lens seems to be really small, ... why is this?
AF and VR motors are in there.
Daniel Bliss: Will they enable off-center focusing with the FT-1 adapter? Will the improved high ISO performance translate into more dynamic range? Will Nikon resist inflicting the next generation V-body with yet another new battery? Might they even go back to the EN-EL15 for a V-body? Will the tiny proportions and jewelry-like manufacturing of the J5 hold up in use?
This is an intriguing camera. Let's hope they are getting it and the rest of Nikon 1 right, despite the stupidity with the battery.
I certainly hope they put the big battery back in the V4. All-day battery is a must, although I'd settle for a battery grip for 4 AAs.
GodSpeaks: Hey Nikon.... No EVF, NO SALE. Got it yet?
If the sensor proves worthy, there should be a V4 in our future with an EVF. It will be a while before there's a high quality EVF in an entry-level interchangeable-lens camera of this caliber with kit zoom lens at this price point.
Cameron R Hood: The camera looks great; the lens is extremely ugly and doesn't match the retro design one little bit.
Agreed on the ugly zoom, but their little primes, on the other hand, look absolutely right in place on the panda version.
Really enjoyed going through your entire gallery (sparked by the drop collision inside a bubble). Thanks for sharing.
Ying Chyi Gooi: "The XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR is a solid lens, and relatively compact for a 24-83mm (equivalent) F2.8 optic at its wide angle position."
24-83mm (equivalent) should have an equivalent aperture of F4.2 (1.5x crop factor).F-number will be readjusted when there is a conversion of focal length equivalents, so don't expect it to behave like a F2.8 on a full frame. Instead, it will look like a 24-83mm F4.2 on a full frame.
I'm sure you like your full frame system and your f/1.4 primes and 200mm f/2. I'm quite grateful to have exposure and angle of view equivalence to a very useful 24-70 f/2.8 in my APS-C system, and get really bored having this line of posts cluttering up the APS-C and MFT and 1-inch sensor threads, thank you very much.
bmwzimmer: It's massive!! Defeats the whole purpose of going mirrorless. I don't have an XT-1 but do admire it. However, I'd stick to a set of small fast primes than go for this monster
This is very similar in size to the 17-55mm f/2.8 Nikkor for APS-C and uses the same 77mm filter size, though it is a bit lighter. I like primes as well, but a fast midrange zoom is a great lens for events and photojournalism, and can get you the shot you wouldn't have time to switch lenses for. The overall system with camera body is more compact than Nikon's APS-C since the flange distance is shorter by quite a bit. This lens is a tad wider, and quite a bit less expensive than the Nikkor. Looks like a great offering and definitely brings the X system up a notch.
PatMann: Best of luck to Fujifilm on addressing these issues. The lens lineup is stellar - no other APS-C system comes close. But AF and resolution do need to be addressed. If Nikon produces a pro APS-C camera to replace the D300s, they need to bring lenses with it to sell it. If they do, I will probably stay with Nikon. If not, Fujifilm is the first place I will look for my future primary camera system. I can't afford the $ or the overall system weight and bulk to go whole-hog full-frame.
Fujifilm (with Zeiss) has a well-balanced range of focal lengths and apertures that make up a complete system, and in particular pick up some key requirements such as an 18-equivalent wide, a 24 or 28 equivalent, a 35-equivalent f/1.4. The Pentax range has a hodge-podge of full-frame leftovers and a lot of duplication in their APSC wides. I don't find it a very attractive mix for my needs.
DotCom Editor: Looks interesting. Too bad it's not Arca-Swiss compatible.
Of course it's compatible. You just buy a Manfrotto plate and screw an Arca QR to it. I guess that's what they expect most of us to do.
justinwonnacott: Wrong attachment system ... no sale.
@RedFox88 - So I'm supposed to put a Manfrotto QR plate on the bottom of my L-bracket that already fits the Arca QR on my ball head? I don't think so. What if I want to use the side? There's no threaded hole there for another Manfrotto plate.
Sonyshine: So the D7200 is really what the D7100 should always have been - a cracking DX all-rounder camera with a PROPER SIZED buffer!
Now where is the D400.....
The fact that no new pro DX lenses were released or are on the horizon is a clear sign to me that Nikon has no interest in supporting DX for real. Real DX support means (designed-for-DX, not magnum-sized and priced for FX): 24 1.4, 16 or 18 2.0, 12 2.8, 50-135 f/2.8 VR at a minimum to complete the lens lineup. If the right birding lens (400 f/5.6) were available, I would probably get a D400, but it won't be my long-term primary system camera without the rest of a full range of high-specification lenses for everyday shooting as listed above. Nor will it be FX, since a full FX system is too heavy, bulky and expensive. More likely a mix of FX and mirrorless if the DX system is not built out.
Best of luck to Fujifilm on addressing these issues. The lens lineup is stellar - no other APS-C system comes close. But AF and resolution do need to be addressed. If Nikon produces a pro APS-C camera to replace the D300s, they need to bring lenses with it to sell it. If they do, I will probably stay with Nikon. If not, Fujifilm is the first place I will look for my future primary camera system. I can't afford the $ or the overall system weight and bulk to go whole-hog full-frame.
mediman30: Seems like the word 'innovation' has been omitted in Canon's dictionary for quite sometime.
I don't see more pixels as innovation, game-changing, or anything so dramatic. It's more the steady march of what's feasible and at the threshold of affordability in design and manufacturing capability. I found the previous step to 36 mp quite useful and rewarding in my photography, even if it did require some changes to shot discipline to take full advantage of it, and I'm sure many Canon users will find this step useful and even thrilling as something to put behind their current lenses as well.
De gustibus non disputandum est.
wolfloid: This whole article is based on a very basic misunderstanding. The lenses are the 'equivalents of 70-200 f4 lenses. NOT f2.8 lenses. Depth of field on APS-C at f2.8 is 'equivalent to f4 on full frame. Any light gathering advantage of f2.8 on APS-C is mitigated by the larger sensor of FF, which, if the sensors are of the same quality, will have half the noise of APS-C.
So, the Canon 70-200IS f4 is actually the lens to compare these new lenses with, and that, of couse, is smaller and lighter.
This article understands my needs perfectly. The f/4 lens isn't equivalent to me because I can't shoot it at f/2.8. Most of the time either my APS-C or 24 x 36 camera will provide perfectly acceptable noise and dynamic range results to me on a modern 24 mp sensor. What's relevant to me in these conditions is what aperture and shutter speed produce acceptable motion blur of an action subject. It's rare that I'm trying to achieve a depth of field effect that's significantly different with a change of one stop. In my world, therefore, it would be very useful to me to have a smaller, lighter, more compact 50-135 f/2.8 zoom for my APS-C camera, a range I find much more useful than 70-200 on APS-C for event and street shooting, to go with my 17-55. I vote for a fully capable, lighter and more compact system. I've given up on Nikon providing one and hope that we see more of these efforts from others.
macky patalinghug: of apsc's, Canon had a very light very sharp very affordable offering: the ef-s 55-250 IS.
Not a fast lens in the same class being discussed here.
Daniel Lauring: I hate having to wait till the end of 2015 for the 140-400mm. I could use this lens today. Until it is released I have to fall back on my m43 with 100-300 OIS Panasonic lens.
I hope Fuji concentrated on getting this lens the sharpest at 400mm. We've already got decent lenses out to 230mm.
I agree. Too many tele zooms are designed without attention to the long end, like my 70-300 Nikkor. It's stellar at 200, but then starts to fade away . . . If this lens proves wothy at 400, and the other promised lenses are as good as those out now, that makes the system complete as far as I'm concerned. Kudos to Fujifilm for knowing what makes sense in a full range of lenses for APS-C sensors.
Richard Murdey: A deeply conservative camera, upgraded but not modernized. Which is fine, this is the D400, the D300 replacement Nikon APSC owners keep pleading for but has withheld so far. It's pitch is really simple: big, heavy, fast, and ASPC. 910g! The new Nikon D750 is 755g! And full frame! And close enough in price to fall under consideration.
What I'm trying to say is you really have to want the 7DmkII - you have to need the very specific features it gives you: 10 fps, basically, and a buffer to match, and the reach of ASPC - for this camera to be in play. Otherwise you might as well buy into full frame.
Hey, maybe Nikon has a "D9000" lined up for next year or the year after. Maybe. But its facinating that they have so far diverged here where traditionally they match one-to-one across the board. Different strategies for once, and it will be interesting to see how these pan out.
If either Nikon or Canon wants serious photographers to continue buying APS-C DSLRs as full-frame prices keep coming down, they need to bring a full range of lenses designed for the format to the table so it can be a one-camera solution that's much more light and compact than a full frame kit. In particular, they need to look at the range of wide lenses from Fujifilm, a well-thought-out range with some lenses very important to a full kit - 75-85mm equivalent f/1.4 or faster, 35mm equivalent f/1.4, 90-degree wide (18mm equivalent) are the most important to me, but there are some other excellent ones in the mix. Another overlooked lens is the 50-135 or so f/2.8 zoom, a very basic event lens for APS-C format.