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.
In times of sinking DSLR sales I ask if it would be wise for Nikon to compete in 7D's segment. The D7100 represents the higher end of the mass-market allround DSLR and is placed more against the 70D than the 7D. In the (smaller) prosumer market Nikon now has a wide range of FF offerings and shines with high resoulution DLSRs. Canon targets action/sports/wildlife shooters with the 7DII who benefit from its crop factor, AF capabilities, frame rates etc. Canon does not participate in the high res FF pixel race. Likely, such a diversification will save R&D costs for both companies. Of course I understand all D300 users sitting on their lenses and getting angry for a missing update. But Nikon's ambitious FF activities and the already half-hearted D300/D300s update indicate that this companies might have chosen this way. I also may be wrong and Nikon comes with a D400 and Canon with a 50MP FF next year.
Summi Luchs: I see the 4/3 sensor walking. Since its introduction it walks to ever lower camera classes. It started as DSLR sensors for cameras, that even had some pro ambitions (though not really well accepted by pros). Then, it entered the m4/3 interchangable lens cameras and 4/3 DSLRs were given up. Now it starts to enter the compact camera class.
Not bad, if you look for a capable compact. But the 4/3 world is stuck with the 16.3MP sensor design, that is around for a couple of years. DxO ranks Sony's 1" 20 MP sensor higher, in spite of the 4/3 sensor's larger pixel areas.
Again, it is good news, that the 4/3 is available in compacts now, but I miss the sensor innovation in higher end m4/3 cameras. In the Sony/Nikon/Pentax APS-C world higher end ILCs and DLSRs use higher resolving sensors than entry models and the entry is where the high end was a few years ago.
Does the 4/3 consortium need this walking as they aren't able to improve their sensors ?
I didn't complain about the "walking" itself. Only about the problem, that the top level m4/3 cameras are not equipped with sensors that catch up to the level of Sony sensors. Its not only about pixels, it is dynamic range, noise etc. I have a m4/3 system and I like it for portability, usability and lens quality. But I need considerably more efforts to avoid highlight clipping (or visible shadow noise) than in my actual and past Nikon cameras. And its a shame that Sony's 1" sensor is regarded better in this respect.
ZhanMInG12: People here complaining about the F4 should note that no other major mirrorless system has a UW zoom faster than F4 in equivalent DOF. The Fuji 10-24mm is F4 and also rather big and heavy.
If you absolutely need F2.8 there is the much revered Zeiss 15mm Distagon ZM. True German optics at the lowly price of $4600...
And don't forget the size and weight penalty for f 2.8. With the comparatively small A7 series cameras the smaller f4 lens makes much more sense. Fast and small FF UWA lenses are only available as primes.
I see the 4/3 sensor walking. Since its introduction it walks to ever lower camera classes. It started as DSLR sensors for cameras, that even had some pro ambitions (though not really well accepted by pros). Then, it entered the m4/3 interchangable lens cameras and 4/3 DSLRs were given up. Now it starts to enter the compact camera class.
oluv: please make this lens available for m43 too!!!!
Probably this doesn't make sense as the lens doesn't cover the whole m4/3 sensor area.
Bjorn_L: Sounds interesting and very reasonably priced. I hope that it is sealed. My Sigma 20mm f1.8 is not, but optically the Sigma is much better than I expected (see the DXO review). I look forward to reviews on the Nikon version to see how it is optically.
I expect it will be sealed, at least with the same gasket around the lens mount as every new f 1.8 Nikkor. It is a gold ring lens like the 28mm, so mechanics and coatings most likely will be at the higher end of the plastic Nikkors.
I too hope it will be optically as good as the other 1.8 Nikkors but will keep the flare resistance of the older (2.8) model. My 2.8 20mm AF Nikkor calls for retirement after 18 years. Its AF sounds like a coffee grinder...
KGP: Lets face it... mirrorless size/weight advantage applies only when prime lenses combined with these bodies. There is no way to skip the law of physic & optics... the larger the sensor the biggest the optical elements, the fastest the aperture the heavier the glass. So simple. This lens is a nice addition to Fuji's line up, im pretty sure its gonna kick ass !
To make it clear, my reply is in response to KGP's "rhetorical question" and has nothing to do with the real Fuji lens presented in this article.
fakuryu: If this lens is as good as the Pentax DA* 50-135 f2.8 but has a faster AF, Fuji useers will be in for a treat! I love the IQ of the DA* on my K5II but that AF because of the SDM is a let down.
Was the Pentax 50-135 really that good ? I had its sister lens, the Tokina 50-135 (same optical formula, same company at that time, maybe different coatings and QC) and wasn't too happy with it. Lots of CA. Spoiling portraits against white bachgrounds. Difficult to correct with the tools available years ago.
@KGP: Some will, some will not. For cinematographers using a huge rig where the GH4 is just only a small part, the bulk and wight of such a lens might be acceptable. For still photographers, who bought a m4/3 because of its size it hardly would make sense.A small m4/3 gives no balance for such a lens. And don't forget - such a lens would become ridiculosly expensive and have no practical advantages over a 2.8 70-200 on a FF Camera. Similar DOF and no better motion stop capabilities as you can go higher in ISO with FF.
So much negative buzz for a lens not yet released...
Zeiss has a lot of experience with high end cine and scientific lenses. They promised perfection and it's quite safe to assume that they will deliver.
For those photographers whose customers will pay for the difference between photos shot with the Otus or another good 85mm lens its selling price will be probably a bargain. For everyone else, it might be, in best case, a 'nice to have' item. Only very few people will look for some residual aberrations if the picture is good artwork. If the picture is esthetically bad, a perfect lens won't help. IQ is more than appropriate with Canon/Nikon 85mm lenses or their Fuji, PanaLeica etc equivalents for smaller sensors. So don't complain about the price, lack of AF etc of lenses you don't really need.
Summi Luchs: Nice lenses - I had a few Zeiss ZM lenses and was very happy with their optical quality. I guess the Loxias will be very good. But why do they duplicate the 35 and 50mm focal lengths already available as genuine FF E-mount lenses ? A wider lens (24, or better 21mm) or a portrait (85-100mm) would have made more sense to most A7 users.
@Mescalamba. Possibly you are right that 35 and 50mm lenses are most the used primes. OTOH the 1.8 55mm Sonnar received splendid reviews and the 2.8 35mm is no slouch either. You gain one stop of lens speed and loose AF with the Loxia. I personally would not like to sacrfice in a more or less "normal" prime.
I could, however, very well live with an ultrawide or a lens mainly used for head-and- shoulders portraits without AF. I agree, the Leica WATE with adapter is currently the best ultrawide option for A7/r but a liitle bit too pricey for me.
I have already tried my 20mm and 85 mm Nikkors with adapter. The 20mm has to be stopped down to f/8 for acceptable edges, the 85mm balances ridiculously on this small camera.
So I still hope for some new E-mount lenses before I can leave my big'n heavy Nikon at home.
Nice lenses - I had a few Zeiss ZM lenses and was very happy with their optical quality. I guess the Loxias will be very good. But why do they duplicate the 35 and 50mm focal lengths already available as genuine FF E-mount lenses ? A wider lens (24, or better 21mm) or a portrait (85-100mm) would have made more sense to most A7 users.
The ideal camera for shooting young children. Toys attract children...
pew pew: sorry m4/3 fans but a7s everyday any day.
I agree. My 4/3 camera always failed when taking a movie of my black cat in the darkroom.
I had much fun reading this thread during my lunch break. If I had no camera I would likely consider the X30 among the competition mentioned here. But I guess I would have preferred an interchangeable lens system close to that size or the Sony RX100-II if size was highest priority. Finally only sales numbers will answer if we really need the Fuji X30.
Nice device, if it should work as promised...
Good article, but it does not clarify a common misunderstanding of "equivalent aperture", seen in many postings. The article nicely shows the equivalence regarding focal length, DOF, gathered light etc.. But what is frequently misunderstood is that f/1.8 leads to the same exposure time regardless of sensor size for the same scence, light and ISO setting. Some people assume that an "equivalent" aperture of f3.6 (in this example for a f/1.8 MFT vs. full frame) also would lead to a longer exposure and so is not usable in low light. You can extrapolate this from the article, but for beginners it would be nice to add a simple summary that clarifies the practical aspects.
Retzius: The fact that this is still $300 cheaper than the Nikon 1 V3 really shows how insanely priced the V3 is with its 1 inch sensor...
The Nikon 1 is made by DSLR Gurus, just to show that DSLRs sell better than mirrorless. Its pricing helps to prove that concept.
Lassoni: This looks good. Hope it can compete with sigmas out there
Sigma ? I don't know any Sigma long range zoom that could be regarded as a benchmark. Sigmas Art lenses like the 1.4 35mm or the 1.8 18-35mm are fantastic, but these are completely different lens types. You can be quite sure that a 18-135mm never will reach these optiical heights. As many others already mentioned, a 18-135mm is made for convenience. It may well be a solid performer, but such a zoom range requires many optical compromises. So don't expect wonders.
nerd2: Funny fact: you can just use DX version of 35mm 1.8G lens that costs less than 1/3. Yes you'll get bad corners (with non-removable vignetting) though.
Funny, yes. But it makes no sense to shell out the money for a FF camera an then accept bad corners.