Arkienkeli: Well, might be a fine lens, but consider this:
Olympus 300m f/4 for m43: 227mm and 1.27 kgNikkor 300mm f/4 for 135: 147mm and 0.755 kg
Nikkor is also cheaper.
As someone who actually shoots these sorts of lenses, the Olympus 300 and the Nikkor 300 are going to be used for much the same sort of work. The pixel density is similar between 24MP DX (what I shoot) and 16MP Four Thirds, and the Nikon can always be teleconverted into a 630mm equivalent (while retaining sharpness).
These lenses are going to be used for, essentially, the same stuff. They're both good at it.
@Sabatia: Was this the old 400 DO, or the new one?
I've used the Nikon 300/4 Fresnel under very demanding conditions: on the D7100 (pixel dense sensor), wide open, and with a 1.4x teleconverter. It was excellent -- one of the best lenses I've used.
Lehik: Nice lens. There seems to be quite a lot of easily noticeable moiré in the heron picture. Was it so that the OM-D E-M1 does not have an AA-filter?
That's clearly moire, caused by the fine structure of the feathers.
The argument makes no sense -- we're spoiled for choice. Both 300 f/4's are great lenses; I've shot the Nikon one, and I have no doubt the Olympus one is fantastic, since most Olympus lenses are fantastic.
Both systems should be able to do well.
Faisalee: Hi DPreview,
I have been a long time follower of this wonderful site, since the time of Nikon D1 days! the reviews have always been great source of info BUT!
The following has NEVER happened before, at least I have never seen it here before!
Pros: Reasonably small, light body for a DSLR at this levelCons: Camera is bulky when compared to mirrorless rival
Why is a DSLR being compared to a Mirrorless? "Single Lens Reflex" is not Mirrorless guys, please!
First its reasonably small, light bidy for a "DSLR" at this "level" and then you guys go out of the way and totally change the "level" and compare it against a mirrorless?
One of these have to go, either the Pros or the Cons :)
"Why is a DSLR being compared to a Mirrorless? "Single Lens Reflex" is not Mirrorless guys, please!"
Because they do the same sort of thing. The review is fine: "It's small compared to other DSLR's, but large compared to mirrorless cameras which do much the same thing."
cwm10k: I'm torn, do you go with the Nikon D610 or the Nikon D7200?
Depends. Do you want to shoot DX or FX? I'm a wildlife person so I'd rather have DX. If you do indoor photography you probably want FX.
Dylthedog: I was a childhood fan of Olympus - I desperately wanted an OM-2 back in the day. I couldn't afford one then so lived happily with my OM-10 and and manual adapter.
The since those days I've been saddened to see the company's decline, despite a history of innovation and some truly superb optics (which I don't think ever got the credit they deserve). Just goes to show what a few wrong turns can do to what used to be a household name.
I'm glad to see they are on the up, albeit in a modest way.
Some of the original Four Thirds designs were fantastic -- the ability to get equal sharpness at wider apertures did a great deal to close the gap between the 4/3 and FX sensors.
photo perzon: IQ like the dogs. Fast AF but the look of over dark over sharp.
The 12MP sensors had problems, but all of the E-M5 and newer sensors have been excellent. They're behind the best DX sensors at the same ISO, but you can shoot at ISO 1600 with no problems. But there are so many great fast primes that you can compensate to a large degree.
A Girard: Who thought quality products could actually attract a following.
If Olympus' 300/4 had come out when I was in the market for a new camera I'd be shooting m4/3 rather than DX. Other than the bad 12MP sensors they got stuck with for a while, all of Olympus' products have been excellent.
QuarryCat: first series of mft-lenses are all bad, beside 5.6/9-18 mm - all much worse then the lenses from Panasonicand now the PRO-lenses are good concepts but it's more illusion than reality... and very expensive too.
Olympus mFT is only a shadow from Olympus FT...
so they get more profits.
Don't get me wrong - Olympus has done a lot for digital photography - even more then most other photo-compagnies... they still deliver fantastic colors (even in JPEG), a real good IBIS (but only in E-M5II) and dust proof
but new mFT cameras and lenses are made for 1-3 years and just for beginners and amateurs as bad as Sony does with NEX
A heavy price for profit... and we have to pay for the criminal faults of management!
The Olympus primes are excellent; 12/2, 25/1.8, 45/1.8, 75/1.8...
darngooddesign: Since the new Monochrom is the the only Leica that causes this problem it is logical to assume there is something nona-standard in it's DNG files.
So, the real question is whether Apple had access to one of the cameras, or even Monochrom-produced DNGs, before the current version of Photos shipped.
But yeah, Apple bad...rabble rabble rabble.
If a computer program damages data when fed unexpected input, it's a bad program. Period. Apple's software should either:
1) Work properly with the Leica files;2) Throw an error message saying that the format isn't supported;
3) Misinterpret the data in the raw files and display a corrupted image, but not mess with the whole catalog.
It very certainly should not explode and wreck other data.
ttran88: They could have possibly reused d7100 samples and call it a day.
The Toshiba sensor in the D7100 is fantastic, though; it seems like we're spoiled for good sensors these days.
Looks like a Canon version of the Nikon 80-400G. That Nikon is an excellent lens so if Canon's lens wonks are as good as Nikon's, it should be a good thing.
I wonder how the AF compares to the system in the D7100, the closest thing Nikon makes? AF speed and accuracy, more than anything else, is the killer feature for the sort of action work that this thing is designed for.
DVT80111: There is no fun carrying heavy and long lens. Why haven't anyone designed a long tele-lens just for APSC to reduce its size and weight. Most birdly people use APSC camera anyway. Why do we have to pay and carry extra weight just for the lights (2/3 of them) we don't capture?
It doesn't work that way: normal and wideangle lenses can be made substantially smaller for APS-C, but telephoto lenses for APS-C and FX are basically the same.
W5JCK: Super yawn....Another camera with a small sensor and little to offer. Putting a long zoom on a lackluster camera doesn't make it good or make it worthy of being on this site. This kind of cheap camera is going to be bought by people who don't read sites like this, or they would know better. I'm not sure why DPReview still brings us information on these little sensor cameras or for that matter smartphone cameras. Maybe their newest members have been dumbed down to that level. This used to be a site for enthusiasts and professionals, not so much now...
I have a 20" print on my wall taken with an eight-year-old small-sensor superzoom (Panasonic FZ50) that looks *fantastic*. I shoot Nikon DX now so I know what modern large sensors can do, but these small sensor cameras -- at base ISO -- can deliver some very impressive results.
Don't insult someone else's tools because they aren't as expensive as others; look at the results. Are there limitations to small sensors? Certainly. Can they be worked around? Sometimes, they sure can, and the results are not half bad.
rfsIII: There must be an professor of imaging science out there somewhere who can be hired by DPR to write a nice counterpoint article that will untangle this topic and bring sanity to what is essentially a holy war between two under-informed camps. I would start at http://www.rit.edu/cos/optics-rit and work westward from there.
@Bustard, it really is that simple -- I don't know why people try to overcomplicate this beyond what you have just described.
dzukela: copy, steal, copy, pilfer, copy, filch, purloin, stealing...That's google android.
Android and OSX both "copied" a real operating system to get their start: Unix.
sdh: Does RAW actually offer benefit in smartphone-size sensors?RAW has real benefit with DSLRs and regular point-and-shoot type cameras because the image sensor can capture a larger range of information than the jpg format can store. But the margin decreases as sensor size decreases (decreasing dynamic range).Do smartphone sensors actually have headroom beyond what jpg can store?
And separately I can't help thinking that if you're fussy enough about your images to manually post-process RAWs (because there's no point shooting RAW if you don't) then you probably should be doing photography on a device with a proper handgrip and shutter button (ie a real camera even if only a compact and not a smartphone).
Noise reduction is crucial on data coming from a tiny sensor, and that can be better done by a 35-watt Core i5 in a few seconds than by a smartphone CPU running on a few hundred milliwatts in a few tens of milliseconds.
MikeStern: I returned my A7r for the oly em1. And I am sooo pleased with this decision.
Some here talking about m4/3 vs. apsc vs. full frame. I would rather concentrate on olympus rather than m4/3 in general. Because 5 axis ibs is out of this world. 3 axis is also very good. And it's not just my opinion, everybody who try it will agree with me.
I have not taking a single blurry picture yet. Including 1/3 of a second exposures.
It's 300 f/4, isn't it? That's what I'd rather have anyway.
If I'm able to sell my D7100 + 80-400G for E-M1 + 300 f/4 + 1.4x TC, I will definitely consider it.