maxnimo: What I find funny is dishing out any money for a wide angle lens with soft and/or distorted corners. If your corners are soft and/or distorted then what's the point of even using wide angle? Now if you take a portrait of a single face then soft and/or distorted corners can be acceptable, but what idiot would use wide angle for a face shot? And for a group photo such a lens would only be acceptable if you hate the subjects on either side and want them to be soft and/or distorted on purpose. And for architecture and landscapes... don't even get me started.
Then get a view camera with a symmetrical lens. I'm not aware of a single modern wide prime for reflex cameras that doesn't have significant distortion. Sorry. There are some zooms that have a sweet spot for distortion in the middle of their focal range, but most have softer corners than the primes.
edwy: I'm not a big video shooter but why buy a camera with such disappointing video performance? I've owned Nikons since '78 (FE) and I've had problems but my 7100 is cheaper to buy and does a great job of taking fotos. Why pay more for the camera and invest in new lenses?
For one thing, you actually have lenses to "invest in" for the Fujifilm. Unless you want an 18-xx zoom or a giant expensive lens designed for full frame, there's not much from Nikon for APS-C. Where's the 24mm f/1.4 for the 7100? Oh, it costs $2000 and weighs over a pound and uses 77mm filters - is that the one you're getting? Is Nikon going to give you a 50-140 f/2.8 zoom? How about a 14mm f/2? 12mm f/2.8?
Mike Davis: For still shots, I'd rather use my Bogen/Manfrotto 3048 and a step ladder to get my camera to a height of 11 feet.
It's easier to shoot straight down with this, unless you can work your image between the tripod legs.
I also use a giant tripod for high shots, but the crane does go significantly higher.
UPstrap. Black nylon with rubber pad. Doesn't slip. Huge adjustment. Captured ends. Simple.
An interesting statement on something that is a national disgrace. This makes me want to see the prints, and I will watch for an opportunity.
These are horrifying for both their light pollution and their reminder of our seriously broken criminal justice system in this country. Putting these sites out in remote areas so we can forget about them, creating a powerful lobby of private prison vendors, municipalities that have these as their only economic base, and employee associations with an interest in sustaining them that make it even harder to reform the system.
Thanks to DPR for including some posts on the significant art and social commentary potential of photography to remind us why we use all this technology in the first place.
24-120 equivalent f/4 at the long end with built-in finder and somebody's got my $ for a compact P&S zoom with 1-inch sensor. Getting close here.
Mike FL: Sony RX100m2 is much better than this V3.
@Tapper123: Thanks for the reference. I see on Amazon that the Sony finder is $450, brings the total price up pretty close to that of the Nikon. I do hope Nikon brings out a good 5:1 f/4 or better zoom for this system - would bring the enthusiast user quotient up quite a bit. Starting at 28 equivalent isn't quite enough for me on the Sony - maybe next time.
Kurt_K: The 70-300 is an interesting lens, but not at a thousand dollars.
A 190-810 mm full-frame equivalent at $1000 is pretty interesting to me, and to a number of other birders on budgets. We're facing the question of Nikon not upgrading their DX flagship, and abandoning the DX lens format. We have no DX camera to buy for birding, an 80-400 that costs $2700 after the rebate goes off, and this opportunity. It looks pretty good to me.
Sixpm: Just wait for another year and the price will drop to $299 including lens..happened with the V1 and J1..does it not? I'm sure most of us here have enough gear to get us by for another 12 month at least…. :)
It will drop to that after the V4 comes out with a built-in finder and a 24-120 equivalent f/4 kit lens. What were they thinking, leaving the finder out of this one?
photofan1986: 1000 bucks for a 70-300 4.5-5.6 lens? What exactly do they smoke at Nikon's? I might be interested...in what they smoke, that is :D
@ Barbu: While I don't want a 4-pound f/2.8 300mm lens for my V3, I think a 200mm f/2.8 prime would be not much larger or heavier, and a great focal length for birds, and potentially quite a bit sharper than this zoom. Until it comes out, though, this new lens looks like a great bargain.
straylightrun: $1000 for a 70-300 telephoto lens.....?
@ _sem_: Contrary to your statement, the MTF of this new lens looks quite impressive to me - significantly sharper than the 70-300 VR or 55-300 DX VR lenses, sharper than the 80-400, sharp out to 300mm. I look forward to checking this out.
slncezgsi: Interesting lens, but I am wondering whether -in spite of the IS - the lens will be handhold-able. The magnification at the long end will be very hard to keep pointed towards the subject.
I plan to use mine on a tripod. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like Nikon was considerate enough to put the Arca dovetail on their grip (unlike some more considerate manufacturers), so I'll have to get the plate from Kirk. Perhaps I'll wait until the camera's available without the grip.
1MPXL: I stopped reading after $999.95
Clearly you're not a birder. As a budget birder, I have to seriously consider this lens/camera combination as one of the least expensive systems out there per high quality bird pixel. It may well find many customers who use the system only for this purpose.
Simon97: 810mm is quite the reach for nature photogs. Not too concerned about the price. High initially then it drops later and/or there are discounts.
I have a J1 with three lenses. Only $500 invested and the first camera system I didn't want to sell off after a year or two. Very light and tiny. This new lens would be quite a reach ($) for me though.
@Northgrove: The new lens has substantially higher resolution per Nikon's MTF charts than either of the current Nikon 70-300 VR lenses, so it looks like a very nice partner with the V3 for birding. It's a less expensive solution than an APS-C camera with the 80-400 zoom, with significantly more reach. Looks like a deal to me, and for someone like my wife who would never carry a big bulky system, probably the only system she would actually carry regularly that can do a decent job on birds.
Joseph Mama: *cough* 1000 dollars!? To put on a 200 dollar camera? Are you freaking kidding me?!?
You can also put it on the $600 V3 camera if it jars your sensibility. Unfortunately, you do have to buy a few extras to get the U.S. version right now, but with this lens you'd want those extras. Although it would have been really thoughtful of Nikon to put an Arca dovetail on the add-on grip - a la Fujifilm with theirs. I think Fujifilm probably has some photographers working in their design group. Would be a smart move for Nikon, probably.Putting an $8000 lens on a $1600 APS-C DSLR is a simlar case - this is not uncommon with the long tele lenses. There are a number of people using Nikon 1s with 70-200 zooms that cost even more.
Northgrove: I can't really imagine that this new 70-300 lens will warrant the price difference compared to an (nowadays ultra cheap) APS-C 70-300mm lens with the FT1 adapter.
Nikon's MTF curves show a substantially higher resolution lens to match the high pixel density of the 1 system sensors. Neither of Nikon's other VR 70-300s will come anywhere close on a 1 system.
RRJackson: I get the too-expensive part, but the technology is amazing. It's a relatively small-sensor camera (as some have repeatedly mentioned), but it's really compact and has insane processing power. I've stood around in stores shooting with them and been amazed at the ability to shoot several exposures at once and have the camera suggest the best one. The AF is pretty great. The slow-motion video stills (or whatever they call them) are very cool. From the minute you pick up the camera you can tell it's got a ton of horsepower under the hood.
But yeah, it's pricey and the choices in optics are kinda thin, but with the 32mm f/1.2 what more do you need? I mean, it's pricey, but so is the camera. That camera and lens combo is gold, though. And with a 1/16,000 maximum shutter speed? Please. How can people disparage this little camera?
@Shamael: Unless one is forced to purchase, the price one pays must be equal to or less than the value to that purchaser. If it sells at that price, that's a good indication of the value. It may not have that value to you, of course - if so, shame on you for buying it. Pretty simple.
Real McKay: Overpriced. MicroSD cards are they kidding? 1" sensor when the A has APS-C seems crazy. No competition with this one Nikon its behind the times.But it does look good.Make the Coolpix A an ILC and you have a winner.
I don't understand the objection to MicroSD and have seen it a number of places. People seem to assume that's self-evident - it isn't to me. Can you explain, please? I have bought a couple of cards to go with each camera I've had so I have space for 1000 or so images, pull them each day I shoot. I don't see how the type of card matters a whole lot, as long as it's fast enough not to constrain unloading the buffer too much.
Antonio Mario Magalhaes: Richard,
I believe you missed the point of the System 1 in general, and the Vx in particular. Your starting points are flawed:
- "(...) the 1 System appeared to be aimed at what would, in the US, be called the 'Soccer Mom' crowd."Nope. The simpler models (Jx...) perhaps; V1 was aimed at a household with a DSLR and where there would be people (the DSLR owner/spouse) who like to travel light but still take tougher shots as needed.
- "What didn't seem ... convincing was the more expensive 1 V1"Wrong. The V1 was instantly seen by wildlife/sports shooters as having a tremendous potential.
- "the V3 (is not) focused on enthusiast use."You're right!! Read Nikon's V3 announcement. It's aimed at the DSLR owner who doesn't want to lug equipment around AND could use the V3 power (20fps, 60fps w/o AF, etc, etc).
- "it rarely makes sense to (use the FT-1 adapter)"Wrong again! It was THE thing to make sense for wildlife shooters.
-"lenses don't yet exist"V3 + 70-300mm: amazing potential!
@stromaroma Too much money compared to what? D7100 with 600 f/4? D7100 with 80-400 + extender? MFT with something?
I haven't seen that test. Can you refer me? Also not aware of the EVF option for the Sony. Can you point me there?