Lightweight003: Looks like Canon just gave Nikon a bit of a kick in the butt! -Judging by the specs on this baby.. . . serves Nikon right for "penny pinching". What Nikon needs to learn,especially with their consumer model DSLRs: (D3xxx and D5xxx series) is to do it right & stop cutting corners. The just announced D750 looks pretty good but lacks the buffer size & frame rate of Canon's new baby.Wake up Nikon - and have a serious re-think about how you've been doing things.
@Sdaniella - I got to give it to you...Canon should offer you a job right now. Anyhow, nice try with the technical trick, but you know what? At the end of the day, it's the IQ, size of the equipment and the price that matter to most average photographers. If I was a newbie, the Canon 6D is a much better choice than the 5D III in terms of performance and PRICE. Yes, Nikon is still not perfect, just like Canon even after all the newer FF bodies, but the price is very reasonable by anyone's standards. BTW, did you know that the Fuji x100s has better color rendition in jpeg (in landscape shots) than the 5DIII?
@Sdaniella - While you are enjoying Nikon bashing, may I remind you about the Canon's dark side of their history: the Canon 5D Mrk III is what the 5D Mrk II shouldabeen (inaccurate AF focus, w/o software to correct CA..) When the 5D Mrk III was released, they had to use black tape to stop the light leak...did I forget to mention they jacked up the price from around $2000 to $3300...Although Nikon isn't perfect by your Canon standards, at least the price is reasonable any which way you look at it. You also tried to defend the Dynamic Range short coming of the 5DIII by saying that DR is for incompetent Nikon shooters. According to your reasoning, all modern DSLRs are for incompetent people aren't they? The true photographers are those who still use a Nikon FM or equivalent. BTW, I do think the 7D Mrk II is overpriced because it's still an APS-C sensor, not very good for shallow DOF besides the speed. The Fuji XT-1 is a better choice in terms of price and compactness.
HiRez: This looks like the true upgrade for my D700 that I've been waiting the better part of a decade for. Unfortunately, in the meantime I've fallen for Fuji's high-quality but much more compact (and less expensive) X system. I've been considering selling off all my Nikon gear and going all-in on Fuji X. But this camera will make that decision harder, since I already have some good Nikon lenses. Large, 100% optical VF is hard to beat and still can't get the FF DOF with APS-C.
@Richard - Just for the record, Nikon released the D700 back in July 2008 and the Canon 5d Mrk II was released in September 2008. Nikon didn't know they had a higher RES competitor on its way....As it turned out, the 5D Mrk II was a piece of crab.
retro76: I hate when company's do this. Basically they are saying; you know how our 1.2 lens has crappy bokeh, well here we fixed it by adding a filter, all you need to do is give us $500 more and your good to go. Shame on you Fuji.
First of all, the original 56mm f1.2 is quite a good performer in terms of sharpness, bokeh and price. The newer 56mm f1.2R is a bit too much because its price is compatible to the FF Nikon 85mm f1.4g. Therefore, if I haven't bought the 1st gen 56mm, I still won't go for the 1.2R. If bokeh and shallow DOF is your thing, you really should be thinking about FF instead.
@Carlos Loff - Nikon is making sure that you are not completely satisfy with just one camera body at a moderate price. The D750 is a updated version of the D610. Therefore, its features will not be too close to the pro-bodies. Otherwise, no one will buy the D810/D4s since 24MP is good enough for the majority of photographers in terms of IQ and ISO noise performance. I think Nikon realized they made a big mistake when they introduced the D700 and the D3's at the same time. D700 was a good enough camera for most people in terms of IQ and performance at the time, and that's why people are still waiting for its upgrade. I doubt that it will ever happen though; Nikon is no charity organization....
Charlieangel: If this had a 50mm (equiv) lens, I would definitely upgrade from my X100S.
This is a nice, worthy improvement, and Fuji should be praised for improving this camera. But I don't see how this upgrade provides a compelling reason to buy for anyone, unless they were already planning on buying an X100S
For that, you could buy the 50mm adapter lens for the X100s. If you are thinking what I'm thinking, I wouldn't upgrade to a 50mm equil. because APS-C sensors can never yield the same shallow DOF like FF. I sold my XF 35mm f1.4 after comparing images against my Nikon 50mm f1.8g. A cropped 35mm will always be a 35mm no matter which way you look at it....APS-C sensors are for more DOF...I would stay with my X100s and be happy with it.
Chuck Lantz: Alex Ruiz has it right in his comment: "If you are a struggling pro/semi pro, you would know better to shoot on the cheap...buy second hand older models, lenses and cameras. You could buy a Canon 7D for $650 and 2-3 nice primes for another $800. You would have a perfectly good kit for pro work, for $1,500."
Which is one reason I'm always glad to see Nikon introduce new models. Not only does the "next new thing" improve our choices, but it also decreases the prices of older models that we've lusted after.
When I recently added some Nikons to my kit, I bought used, since I had little idea which model would best suit my uses. I had planned on eventually re-selling one or two of them when I found "my" camera. Instead, I discovered that each of them had their own set of unique qualities that made this one or that one best for certain shooting situations.
I have no idea if this is something Nikon considers when designing newer models, but it sure works for me.
It's really a good time to look for a used D610 or D800/e body now. I got my D600 for $1000, sent it back to Nikon and got a brand new shutter. My D600 outperformed my D800 in terms of ISO noise performance and speed. If RES is your thing, get a used D800 for around 2 grants or less, but keep in mind that the D800 is only good til ISO 1600....it's not an issue for studio shooting, it's the best in terms of IQ. This is also true for used lenses, you get about $300 off at least in most cases...
abolit: love my 5DIII even better now.
Most of the criticisms about the D750 are legit. I will say so even as a Nikon user. Nikon could have done a even better job with the D750, like 1/8000th, 1/250, put back all the useful button from the D700... However, I think most 5DIII owners have to justify why they spent over 3 grants for yesteryear's sensor. Here is a word of advise to the 5DIII supporters. Complain to Canon and demand a next gen 5DIV that will have better Dynamic Range and higher res ...
I would suggest keeping your Nikon lenses just in case you want to create some serious shallow DOF photos. I have both Nikon and Fuji X systems. However, my Fuji 56mm f1.2 is no match for the FF 85mm f1.4 in terms of shallow DOF and bokeh. I sold my Fuji 35mm f1.4 and kept my Nikon 50mm f1.8g instead for the same reason.
The Photo Ninja: I already have this camera - it's called a 5D Mark III
How much did you pay for your 5D? How's your 5D's dynamic range compared to the cheap D600?
Sarapata: Hi, I think that focal lenght of 56mm is not long enough to take advantage of the apodization element in order to enhance bokeh of the lens in the best way;
I guess the Minolta engineers & designers knew why the chose FL 135mm for their (now Sony) STF lens - and that is even "only" F2.8 (=T4.5) in terms of aperture "size" and subsequent depth of field.
IMO, Fuji would be better off if they produce a 85mm (or expected 90 f2 lens) instead of 56mm for this kind of a bokeh oriented lens.
I did some comparisons between the 56mm f1.2 on the XT-1 and an 85mm f1.4 on a D800. The 56mm produces quite beautiful images with decent bokeh; however, it has quite a bit DOF compared to a true 85mm at full frame at f1.4. This is also true with regard to other focus lengths; 24mm, 35mm...etc. If swallow DOF is your number one priority, this may not be your best option in terms of performance and price.
I still use the Nikon 85mm f1.4 Ai-s MF lens for portrait on my D810, D600 & D800. At f/2, this Ai-s lens is just about perfect in terms of sharpness and bokeh. This lens outperforms the 85mm f1.4 AF-D, but perhaps not as sharp at the 85mm f/1.4g. On ebay the Ai-s is about $650. So switching to another MF 85mm for $4500 is bit hard for me to swallow...
lacroix75: I learned great lesson in the past couple years from Nikon, never buy their first release of anything. Case in point, D800 (early on focus issues, etc..) vs D810 (much more refined version of practically the same thing with minor upgrades), D600 (Oil issues) vs. D610 (again cleaned and refined version). So for me going forward, wait for the second pass, i.e., D910 instead of D900 (if there's such a thing in the future)... ;)
@HowaboutRAW & DarkShift - In case you haven't noticed, CS 6 has officially released an update this morning. Maybe this will fix the color issue. This also makes me wonder who's at the helm in Nikon? Something happened after the release of D300 & D700. One would think that it should progress from there, but it's the opposite....
RichRMA: Investors in the D810 (who dumped their D800's) will be a bit annoyed in six months when a brand new D900 (or whatever) hits and you get to take another $1000 depreciation bath.
For those of you who's been dreaming about getting a 36MP camera someday, people are dumping their D800s starting at around $1700 on eBay. Now it's a good time to grab them for the about price of a new D610. Since I have both D800 & D600, I say screw the D800 and settle for the D610 or wait for Canon's next release...
@HowaboutRAW - I know it's an opinion thing, but ISO 1600 is as far as I will go on the D800..IQ starts to deteriorate starting at ISO 3200.
@HowaboutRAW - Actually, the D600 was released after the D800, so it goes back to the Lacroxi75's suggestion: later is better, but than it also proved my point that later is not always better...dust issues....For people who never own a 36MP camera, the number seems to be a fantasy, but after using it for 2 yrs and compared numerous images side by side, I would rather use a 24 MP or a lower MP camera because they are well rounded cameras from the stand point of practicality.
Good point, but I would like to add one more thing to your suggestion. Just because Nikon comes up with their latest products, it doesn't always equal to better performance. I own both the D800 and the D600, but my D600 is already one stop better in terms of noise performance than my D800. Thus, the D810 is not worth the upgrade in that regard...the differences between 24 MP & 36MP is not that big of a deal unless you are printing wall size photos.
lensberg: The 5D Mark III is an all-round class act... definitely superior to the D800 / 800E / 810 in low light...
As for DXO... well I suppose the average Nikon fan needs their egos propped up from a "scientific" point of view... thus its existence...
Its amazing how many pro's use Canon... despite DXO's claims of Nikon's vast sensor tech prowess... at most major international sporting events white lenses still reign supreme... with perhaps with a thin speckling of black glass here and there... :)
Here is something you should know about 5D III. Yes, it has better WB and other nonessential features compared to the D800. The secret to the 5D III's low light performance is that it smudges the finer details of the images so that they will look smoother, which means that it lacks details in shadow areas. This works find for small prints...Canon's targeted customers are not pure photographers, but people who rely on the video features of the 5D III, while Nikon has the pure photographers in mind. Therefore, their approach to the design of their cameras are quite difference. Take two identical images with the 5D III & D800 and check out the shadow areas, and you'll see what I mean. BTW, Canon overpriced the 5D III because it is old technology by today's standards....Quick frankly, either 5D III or D800 are perfect cameras, and they both have their goods and bads.
Lassoni: The ergonomics are getting worse and worse with every new nikon body. Not only did it take 2 years for nikon to make "movie record" button customizable for ISO, but they also happened to move the meter mode selector to somewhere really really awkward. How are you supposed to hold those top left buttons, while simultaneously trying to spin the wheel with right hand finger. You could do this with a light lens, but even then it seems risky. You run into risk of damaging your mount, because there is no ergonomical way of doing this without losing the support of your lens, which in turn is big risk when you go into lenses that start weighting more (teles are obvious and heavy, but I struggled even with a 24-70).
This is really an inexcusable design choice. As if it's not bad enough when trying to switch between AF-S and AF-C whilst trying to support a lens... Why did they even had to put the movie button in there in the first place? D7000 had it right. Y fix something that isn't broken?
@Lassoni & Reality Check - I would agree with you in regards to the ergonomics. Nikon had it right when they introduced the D300 and D700 in terms of ergonomics, colors, LCD display, etc. However, the only improvement they made with the D800 was higher MP, and they screw up on the WB, AF button, low light performance and LCD display. I had to paid $35 for Nikon to adjust the color on LCD color display to rid of the green tint. I've recently acquired a used D600 (no wants them due to dust/oil issues) and it's a better camera compared to the D800 in terms of speed, colors and low light performance. 36MP is better some say...compared the images size by size and the differences are minimal. I can go on about all these half-ass products Nikon's been producing lately...
I got this lens while visiting Tokyo several weeks ago. This is one amazing lens w/o distortion at any focal length. The OIS really works. I can get sharp pictures always at f/5.6, 1/20 @ 206mm; I did get good pix at 1/10 at times. The images quality are comparable to the other XF prime lenses (35mm f1.4, 23mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2) Since I own all the mentioned lenses, I did the comparison myself. This lens even outperformed my Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 AF-D in terms of sharpness among other things. The only complain I have is the lack of shallow DOF, something you should expect from a crop sensor.