marike6: Sigma has some excellent lenses in its lineup, but in general, I didn't buy a Nikon body to slap Sigma and Tamron lenses on it. I have in the past, but lately I've been using all Nikon lenses. Rock solid AF and excellent color/contrast that Nikkors are known for.
It was the same when I shot Canon. Mostly, I didn't skip L lenses to go to shopping at the Sigma and Tamron counter at B&H. On DX, Sigma and Tamron have some sharp, compact and reasonably priced f/2.8 standard zooms. And Tokina has a few great UWA zooms. There are some great values in Sigma, but on FX, I mostly stick with Nikkors.
For the Df, I'll likely use a mix of G and AIS Nikkors.
Yeah, isn't it a lot safer and convenient to be able to spend a whole lot more money on stuff? Well, now Sigma is bringing out some of the best lenses around, only reason to pass them up is the lack of weather sealing, though in marike6's case it's about brand loyalty
tommy leong: Very good review.
Made me re-think about my initial euphoria.
1) shutter too loud for my street/wedding photography
2) lack of bright lens native to its mount.
3) "I still don't quite understand constraining themselves with such a small mount that designing bright lenses might be difficult, just for the sake of maintaining compatibility with NEX lenses, but I can't argue with the results so far. "
sounds like 35mm f1.4 and the likes will not be coming anytime soon.
The shutter sound is quite loud indeed, but amongst a crowd/in the street no one would hear it anyways with enough ambient noise.
What should be more of an issue with wedding/event photography using this camera is with the low battery life, slower shutter sync speed for outdoor strobe shooting, slow and possibly inaccurate (as reported with the A7) autofocus, and then yes, no native fast lenses, or UWA lenses yet.
Sometimes, you need to take away something to really appreciate it once it's not there
Well there are A LOT of great, amazing, perfect moment photos that have never been published, and will probably never be widely seen thanks to the good ones drowning in millions of other photos every week. This photo is great, and I won't even say "I've seen better" because there isn't any other like this, but the only good photos you know are the one's you've seen, and at the end of the day that's what it's all about; exposure
Back in the day, weren't 58mm lenses produced as a compromise? Among the easier to design/build and thus cheaper, and photographers hated that because they didn't want the FL to just get longer for a normal prime.
Then again, the easier it is to put together, the more time and effort can be put into perfecting the optical formula~
Today I saw a total of 40 X100 cameras in the used shelf in a camera shop, and half of them the limited black edition... hope the people that used to own them just went on to the X100s, but I do wish the used price for the X100 would drop with so many available as second hand
And how many of these complainers even own or let alone handled a C100?? If you have one, most likely your business involving such gear would cover the cost, and maybe if you've been using it to great success then this "upgrade" may not be necessary anyways.
So, why complain about something that's totally unrelated with your camera?
JimWongyyz: Wish Canon could make dAE1 equivalent.
Hey kid, grownups with taste will like to see the design resemble the classic FM series a lot better. Oh, though it's only grownups that can afford this, you will have to wait
Saffron_Blaze: Seriously, you get most of a D600 for nearly the price of D800! That's pure robbery.
Moreover, putting the D4 sensor in retro D600 package is like putting a Ferrari engine in VW Van. The hipsters might think its great but the rest of the real photographers think it is silly.
Hmm, a lot of "real photographers" fell in love with the D700, which was a D3 sensor in a smaller and cheaper package, same goes with the Canon 5DII, and both cameras were the same price as this DF camera back then
so close, very close, but not yet there.The extra grip would be nice to hold but it's very DSLR-ish, it works against the idea of a retro camera design. Silver on a real film SLR looks good, but this one has gained a lot of weight, and looks like one of those cheap Canon Rebels instead. In black, does look better.The love for classic film SLRs isn't just with the controls and look, but the size, weight and "slimness" were much preferred. Yes there's now a screen at the back and several more buttons, bigger batteries and all the internal hardware etc.
Guess it's the limitation with modern cameras with mirrors, looking at Fuji's retro design X100, it doesn't really look like any classic camera, it's an original but with a retro touch, but they nailed it. This Nikon looks like a copycat, like a parody of the FM series...
The pricing... I'd very much pick up an RX1 instead of this, it comes with a lens, is cheaper and smaller. However the big viewfinder of this camera is attractive...
sirok: Sony's moving forward while others are still stuck in the last century with their flapping mirrors. Its a digital future ..The Mirror is gone and the mechanical shutter will go next. Just a matter of time before the processing power is available, affordable.This tech is already used on small compacts.(electronic shutter). And why are these posters jealous that Zeiss has aligned themselves with Sony. Cause Zeiss can see the future too.
The future is $$$ lenses that aren't so fast and still big and heavy for a mirrorless FF body you say?? I read complaints of all the Chromatic Aberration in the 55mm 1.8 for the A7 as well....
I would very much prefer to keep those mirrors so long as the AF in DSLRs is faster and works in lower light, and so long as telephotos are long and heavy the extra grip helps a lot too. And when will battery life even come close?
I will welcome improvements once they are made, for now, the future is still the future. People can enjoy the new series of cameras as they want, but it's not quite there as a replacement for what's already in use
b craw: From the American Civil War onward, speculation of staging in war contexts and, in fact, most forms of photojournalism are prevalent (Lange and Evans depression era images certainly come to mind). I do respect the opinions of those who place value veracity, but it seems to me what is often absence in the dialog is an acknowledgement of structural demands of the media in such contexts as well as extensive academic discourse on the nature of image and its limitations in representing the real. Given this, I feel comfortable seeing many of these images as, at least in part, allegorical - perhaps less the literal reality and more some essence of circumstance.
Staging would have probably been speculated a lot back then when cameras used to be giant boxes that were hardly portable. They were difficult to operate on the go and not for capturing the moment, especially with slow shutter speeds preventing action from being sharp
RetLaEnvEmp: Several things noted in this picture. People/animals shot by a rifle bullet usually just drop down/collapse into a heap or jump up/stiffen then collapse with a fatal shot. A rifle bullet, with enough velocity, causes a reverse in blood flow in the body - hence the bleeding from the nose and mouth and broke blood vessel on bare skin often found when the body trunk is shot. Also a machine gun likely would have struck the body of the soldier with more than one bullet thus pushing the body backwards.
Possible explanations (if photo real) - Soldier shot multiple times by machine gun (at least twice) evidenced by body moving backwards and being airborne; the body stiffen/jumped up evidenced by rifle being flung by soldier; the Soldier was killed evidenced by dark color of face, broken blood vessel in skin, compared to color of ears which would not have the immediate blood rupturing flow from the fatal machine gun wounds.
Bullets barely transfer any of their kinetic energy to a body as they shoot right through. If anyone "flies" it would be while the person is in motion, if they're running then they will likely fall in a certain direction
Pat Cullinan Jr: It was staged. Even the New York Times revealed this. Read http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/arts/design/18capa.html?ref=arts, if you dare.
Why do you think that? Have you ever been to a battlefield, do you believe it's too great or impossible for a shot such as this to be captured?? Is it because you don't see any photos of modern day soldiers right when they're shot? Those photos just don't make the rounds, they would be unpopular and anyone sharing those would be hated, especially if the person in the photo could be identified and relatives are around. But terrible war photos exists, and I'm sure if you know where to look all sorts of things will be around, especially now with so many more cameras and video running all of the time
tabloid: Lots of professional photographers now use mirror less cameras.
Me for one.
Its the future, or should i say its the present.
Just look at the new full frame cameras from Sony. (A7 and A7R).
If those cameras like the A7 and A7R had the new Canon 70D sensor they would world beaters.
Presently mirrorless cameras in general have sucky AF, aren't as speedy nor have as much battery life as DSLRs do. Now with the A7R IQ/DR/ISO performance are on par but again it's slow and without fantastic AF in comparison. Enough for most people or even pros? Sure, but not all pros or the fields they are in are equal.Also, so long as FF lenses remain huge, a large body with a real grip will be preferred
vFunct: Has anyone ever seen a professional photographer at a press event use anything BESIDES a Nikon or Canon?
All other manufacturers are a JOKE compared to these kings.
Mirrorless camera's are even WORSE than jokes.
There are absolutely ZERO Photojournalists in this world that use a mirror less camera. They are completely useless!
The only people that use mirror less cameras are measurebators! HAHA!
Really kiddos, stop playing with your mirror less camera and get a grown up camera like a Nikon.
Seriously, has anyone actually ever seen a photographer at a press event that uses anything besides a Nikon or Canon?
Of the 150 photographers at Fashion Week or a Sporting Event, I noticed that ALL used Nikon or Canon. HAHA!
All the other cameras must be used by girly weaklings.
Well vFunct I did chuckle a bit, but it doesn't sound like you've even been to a press event, maybe just once or twice? That's not enough to justify anything
The other aspect of photography that's great is that it has gotten me to interact and be around people a lot more. Gives me some reason to go out and do something while I'm there, and I like portraiture and covering events or telling a story of people through visual work. Though i do spend a lot of time indoors working on the photos, I still need to get back to take more shots.Keeps me active and I'm less of a recluse as I used to be by having to talk and interact with everyone around me.
Then of course, getting together with other photo buddies and talking about the subject, nothing like real social interaction, good human communication is healthy.
Nishi Drew: I got it, so no rear screen, no AF, can only take up to a maximum of 32 or so shots, fixed ASA/ISO value and cannot go past 3200, RAW only.And maybe, just maybe, like as if film was expired, didn't load properly or the shutter was screwed up, you may end up with all blank shots.
Now THAT is a 3000 dream camera I want, all reminiscent of the the good 'ol days of film :)
Most film cameras didn't rely on batteries for operation either
I got it, so no rear screen, no AF, can only take up to a maximum of 32 or so shots, fixed ASA/ISO value and cannot go past 3200, RAW only.And maybe, just maybe, like as if film was expired, didn't load properly or the shutter was screwed up, you may end up with all blank shots.
So will it not have a rear screen or AF either?In that case it might as well become the cheapest FF camera yet (aside from say, a used 5D classic)
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review