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.
This has to be the cutest camera ever made.
So there is still a hole to be filled for a rugged 24mp high-speed FX body without penny-pinching on things like eyepiece shutter and threaded eyepiece, lack of dedicated AF-On. As a 610 with really good AF and fold-out screen, fine, but how about something to get excited about - another camera of the year.
rollemr: It's nice that this camera has the fastest Nikon FX frame rate but what is the reported buffer capacity?
Slower than D3, D3s, D4, D4s, D700 with grip.
I wish it had been 18mm - the 90-degree horizontal coverage makes that focal length ideal IMO, but I am impressed by the MTF curves posted for this lens - particularly considering that they are for f/1.8 - and will eventually get it to replace my 20 AF-s, which is exceedingly weak in the far corners.
brelip: interesting for sure, but a lens no one is asking for! They should have made this a DX and half the weight and cost!
@ Bamboojled - But DX cameras have a higher pixel density, so there's no advantage to using just the center of the lens. Better a DX-designed lens that has the resolution needed for DX. Particularly with wides, a DX-designed lens is needed. We have a 24mm f/1.4 (35mm equivalent), but it covers 2.4 x the necessary area, weighs over a pound and costs nearly $2000. 24mm f/1.8 or better yet 18mm designed for DX could be sold for much less than this 20mm, and would be smaller and lighter as suits the format and the rest of the lenses in my DX bag.
bobster1: Besides no AF-on button, also no wired remote connector I don't see a "mirror up" mode.
It has the accessory connector for MC-DC2 like many of the recent consumer cameras, just not the 10-pin connector.
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.