I like your paper but I do not agree with your statement "DNG is the standard format". It is not. Adobe pretend that!
It is an open format and Adobe hopes people can jump into their bandwagon but it is not true so far. Nikon and DxO ignore them (well, DxO can generate that format but strangely cannot accept it).
falconeyes: This lens has much in common with the Pentax DA* 60-200 F/4 ED (90-380 F/6 equivalent) which is tack-sharp at the long end even outperforming most fixed focal lengths.
This is one particular lens which makes the Pentax APS-C system quite attractive.
The new Nikkor 80-400 could do the same for Nikon FX if the optical performance is similiarly top notch and if the price comes down a bit.
Sorry, wrong comparison. One 20-200 at f/6 would be muuuch easier to design and manufacture than a 80-400 lens. It is Physics: 200mm is not the same focal length than 400.
You can use that lens with a FX camera but also the same lens can be used mounted on DX or even System 1 with adapter - but it is another story.
It looks a great news for System 1 users.
I am surprised by people complain about its price: it is a f/1.2 lens! Additionally it is the launch RSP and probably in a few months it will be cheaper.
One of my personal finance guidelines is to maintain fixed costs at minimum. I would be not comfortable with a monthly fixed cost for my hobby.
Despite I am an Adobe faithful user since Photoshop LE, updated to (full) version 7 and successively to CS, CS2,...CS5, I do not agree the new business model from Adobe and I am reconsidering my current relationship with the tools they develop.
Of course I do not think Adobe even care if "amateurs" do not continue with Photoshop. They clearly increased the prices in order to "compensate" some loss in their current customer base. Perhaps it can be a good move to Adobe. Perhaps no.
It reminds me a popular history I listened in my college in 1980: Americans spent millions to develop a pen to write at zero gravity environment in the space missions. Russians used a pencil. C´mon boys...
I bought my Nikkor 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 on 2002 to use with my (then) new Nikon D100 and today it is my oldest lens in my collection as previous lenses were replaced years back (the Sigma 15-30 by Nikkor 12-24, the Nikkor 24-120 AFD by Nikkor 24-120 f/4).
I am very happy with my older 80-400 even after so long years - of course improvements are always welcome. Let us see if in the field practice it worths so long waiting. Anyway I will not board at the first ship. I am not in a hurry.
It looks the camera a lot of posters are looking for according their critics for the previous models I read exactly here, in the front page of dpreview:
DX sensor, macro capabilities, reasonable WA, fast lens, crazy high ISO, raw capabilities,... oh surprise: I found again lots of complains!!!
Where is the crowd that asked that??
(do we need any additional words for that?)
Too late, guys.
I was a Blackberry user for years and got a lot of frustrations with their proprietary BIS and (mainly) BES. What stupid move to insist to be farther from the standards in this age.
At last I went to Android (Razr). I never ever want to try anything from Blackberry...
Amazing! Great work at a lower stress level to the subject. Congrats to them!
It is a step forward for EVF users... but at 0.8M pixels it is far, far away from OVF. At this rate I probably will consider some EVF in some years from now...
I am curious about the reflesh rate in the practice in the field for action. Let us see.
Good job: it works with my Android Motorola Razr.
No complains so far. Thanks
Too much preocupation for an inexistent problem... so far. My Nikon D100 raw files from 2002 are completely workable after more than ten years. I can open and work on them with NX2 or ACR (PS CS5 or LR) on Windows 7.
If in the future the format is not supported for the mainstream applications certainly you will have time to convert to another one, then supported. In this meantime, I have no interest on DNG.
I upgraded from my v.7 to the new v.8: better interface, better noise control on high ISO pics, better automatic setup, undock image browser is great for two monitors, performance looks the same. No serious bugs so far (great surprise!).
I am an user since version 3 and except for the lauching of 5.0 version, DxO consistently has presented an increasing better performance, resources and user interface.
DxO is my main raw developer and for most cases it is the best one (I have also installed NX2 and ACR) except for portraits I prefer NX2 (the v.8 is significantlly better on this than v.7 but NX2 maintains the edge).
At USD 49 for the upgrade I think it worths. I recommend it.
DNG is not an industry standard (as JPEG, for example). It looks one more format for raw files aggressively suported and promoted by Adobe. I prefer to stay with the camera manufacturer format yet.
On the other hand Adobe trying to impose their "standard" offers translation from camera manufacturers custom format to theirs (but not vice-versa). One more reason to stay with the camera manufacturer original format.
I am an hobbyst, but my main purpose in Photography is to see. When making photography I change my point of view and perception. My main reward is to see more and deeper.To have some of them printed is a plus.In the worst case, I could lose all my pics and even in this situation my main gain would be not lost: I never will lose my experience to see the world differently from my ordinary way.
Jmmg: Fujifilm, you are next soon!
Really? I do not believe on this as their figures looks me better than Kodak's: it is true their operational profit decreased yoy from 6% to 5% (forecasted for this year) but it looks me 5% is a robust figure for this challenge year. Additionally their product portfolio IMO is much more (market) attractive than Kodak's one.
It is a pity te half of the world is not allowed to participate... in Brazil we had winter time in the middle of the year and we spent the Seasons's hollidays eating fresh fruits and drinking beers at the beach!
Better composition now - but I would prefer the backgroung a something darker.