Pixel Pooper: People whining about no AF, this lens is not for you. A good MF shooter should be more accurate than any AF system.
The D810/D4S certainly have no trouble nailing 1.4 AF, and a lot faster than any MF shooter could. And it can compensate for subject movement instantly. I don't think anyone would turn down the option of AF on these lenses...
LOL...Manfrotto announces....a KATA bag!
There's also no chest strap, which makes them less than ideal for long trips.
Look into F-Stop bags for the best of the best.
AllOtherNamesTaken: All that and not a word about autofocus, perhaps the D810's most significant improvement? Did I miss something?
"it's widely regarded as having one of the worst performing autofocus in recent memory" Haha is that some sort of joke? Other than a small number of affected users with early serials, the D800/E already had one of the best AF systems in the segment, with better low light acquisition and tracking than a 5DM3. In fact I know a few people who ditched their 5DM3's specifically for the D800's low light AF ability for weddings. The fact that the D810 has improved on this is quite amazing.
I'll be curious to read your findings, especially with so many people, including other respected reviewers, noting huge improvements in general speed, lock on, confidence, accuracy, lack of focus chatter, etc. In fact I've yet to read a single review or user report that hasn't said it is vastly improved. A wedding is a perfect torture test though, and I will be curious to see the outcome. Thanks for the reply!
It definitely has, all reports including other credible reviews show the AF to be nothing less than astonishingly good. Nearly everyone is reporting they no longer need AF fine tune on any combo, including those with TC's, as well. Looks to be a winner. I was just curious of DPreview's take on it, but I expect it to match everyone else's, which is glowing.
I realize that, but I figured arguably the most important aspect would be at least briefly touched on in such a detailed preview, that went into detail of far smaller features. I was just curious though, I will wait for the review :). Thanks.
All that and not a word about autofocus, perhaps the D810's most significant improvement? Did I miss something?
1/2.3" sensor? Next please.
CIASpook: Ugh...too many crabby people using the internet to voice their malcontent.
Being a current D700 user...I'm eagerly awaiting this camera whereas I took a pass on the D800. I didn't trash the D800. I didn't complain "what is Nikon thinking?" as I realize, I am not THE customer. I am A customer. They do not design cameras around ME. I am not the center of their universe. But, I have the option to participate or not. For me, while I want more resolution, I also have a minimum standard for FPS and I have decided it's 5. Now the D810 is not only at 5, it'll do 7 in a 1.2 crop mode which is still 25mp. Being that in the past 6 months I've gotten into wildlife photography...this makes me pretty damn happy. I don't like crop modes, but since it's still 25mp and not water down to 15, I'm excited. All the other stuff sounds really cool to.
Actually the 7fps is only in 1.5 crop (15MP) with the grip. It will do 6 FPS in 1.2 crop with or without the grip, which is still excellent, but the 7 FPS is DX only.
viking79: Go price how much OLPF glass costs, and quickly see Nikon is saving tons of money not including any AA filter at all. Rough guess is a full frame filter is going to cost $100 US +/-.
Seems like a small upgrade, Nikon must be feeling a lot of pressure from the competition to push it out so soon.
I sincerely doubt Nikon pays anywhere near $100 for a OLPF on a $3000 camera.
codeNsnap: Can someone please clarify the fps in FX mode with battery pack?
Should be the same, the limitation is the MP/second not so much the power at that point. Nikon says the processor can handle 30% more, so they raised the frame rate 25%.
How is the 1.2 crop mode new?
There is no way they will sell this for more than the Nikon/Canon variants, Tokina isn't that stupid. The high MSRP is likely a straight currency conversion from Japan, or a suggested MSRP which won't end up being used.
It's almost guaranteed this will be sub-$1000 USD.
Scottelly: The image comparison boggles my mind. Take a look at the differences in the pencil drawing to the left of the middle of the photo. In some spots the D800 seems to have an obvious advantage, while in some spots the Sony A7 seems to be the sharper camera, yet in other spots (the vertical lines on the walls near the top right corner) the D610 seems to be the sharpest of all the cameras. WTF?
The small differences in the test shots like that are almost always due to focus and lens variations. The test diagrams aren't always useful for testing sharpness, we all know ANY camera with a good lens will be absolutely sharp. The test shots are more for noise, etc.
AllOtherNamesTaken: Kind of useless in practice IMO. $400 for a 1/2.3 camera is an instant deal breaker for many these days, and the reach is nice but a P&S can't track worth a damn, and IQ is garbage above ISO 200, so you won't be getting many BIF's with these. Just seems very gimmicky to me, even though it's a cool idea. They are adding "tracking" features and huge reach to cameras that are the worst possible tools you can use to shoot action - that just screams "marketing ploy".
If you want crazy reach on the cheap with amazing tracking, high FPS, and good IQ, the cheapest solution is something like a J1/V1 and a FT-1, assuming you have some DSLR lenses already.
Not a bad idea for the casual traveler or something, but anyone buying it to shoot action or for its "tracking" features are going to be left very disappointed IMHO.
IMHO the image quality in those samples is quite poor, especially above ISO 200, which is what I said originally. That would not be acceptable to many people. Sensor and AF is where nearly every P&S falls short. They are sold based on zoom & megapixels, which is what the vast majority of low-end camera buyers are looking for - quantitative numbers to compare with other cameras based on limited knowledge and the mindset that "more is better" for both. That is how the marketing works on P&S cameras, and why you see companies release 10X the P&S cameras as they do DSLR's - they are they volume products.
Kind of useless in practice IMO. $400 for a 1/2.3 camera is an instant deal breaker for many these days, and the reach is nice but a P&S can't track worth a damn, and IQ is garbage above ISO 200, so you won't be getting many BIF's with these. Just seems very gimmicky to me, even though it's a cool idea. They are adding "tracking" features and huge reach to cameras that are the worst possible tools you can use to shoot action - that just screams "marketing ploy".
No Markins, Kirk, or Arcatech? Kind of a pointless test to exclude some of the most popular "Titans" in the ballhead world.
Another 1/1.7" sensor for what will probably be $399. No thanks. Too little too late. It's also a near direct copy of several cameras already available.
mermaidkiller: Exactly the same as the Canon 24-105 f/4L.So what does this lens add ?
It may actually be an F4, unlike the Canon 24-105/5.1. Probably sharper too, if the other ART lenses are any indication.
I do wish it was internal zooming and weather sealed though.
AllOtherNamesTaken: So, you still need to manually test every lens for front/back focus? I would have expected that much to be automated. I don't really see the point of this. Basically it just prevents you from having to send your lenses to Sigma for calibration, but instead you pay for it instead of have it done under warranty. It gives some other neat options but I'm not sure how popular this will be.
Every Nikon lens I've ever owned has required zero AF fine tune. I would expect the same if paying big money for one of the nice new Sigmas.
You couldn't be more incorrect about me. I have done extensive fine tuning, using pretty well every method (Focal, dot tune, etc.) and "zero" always produces the best results with the equipment I have. Did I say it was unnecessary for everyone? No. Would I want it as a feature of my body if something happened to my camera in the field or on a job, and I lost my "zero" setting sharpness? Yes. Not sure why you've jumped to such wild conclusions. Every lens does not require fine tuning, or if it does, it does not require it to a degree that is adjustable small enough between 0 and 1 or -1. I'm sorry you've had some bad luck with your lenses.
My point with the Sigma is with in body AF tune, and their excellent warranties, it doesn't give much incentive to buy their device to fine tune. It will be good for some people, but I can't see it being wildly popular. That's all I meant.