migus: 111gr. 16-50 OIS is impressive, if the IQ is typical of Samsung's 20-50kit or their primes...!
Few years ago i've bought two NX100's just for their 20-50kit lenses; each costed ca. $250 with camera attached :-). Compared against nikon's 20 and 50 primes (the 'legends') and was often superior. And yet Samsung is rarely mentioned as camera maker...
Net: The pro version glass from Sammy may be great, but not investment grade - unless it becomes usable on Canon and Sony bodies. Personally I wish i could use the NX lenses on NEX bodies (i prefer their sensors and JPG engines) w/o major engineering, but this is a pipe dream.
@ChuckTa "I rather have a good IQ lens then a mediocre lens with OIS"
Agreed. The OIS is over-valued IMHO vs. its real benefits in IQ (little for landscape and for the modern APS+ sensors). OIS is also sensitive, as proven by the many broken L and VR lenses i've seen at work. One drop on a hard floor and it's often over...
By contrast, the little NX20-50 kit is optically decent and mechanically more robust. I also love the manual zoom, except for video.
"Samsung uses/makes excellent ASPC sensors for the NX bodies. Don't shoot jpeg."
Granted, its APS sensors may be less then one generation behind Sony and Fuji; nearly on par for all practical purpose.
JPG: Here i take exception, seeing what the above competitors (and also Oly) can recently deliver in OOC JPGs... Hardly worth using LR5, except special shots. Samsung must invest in better JPG, since one doesn't expect to buy cars with DIY engines. In 2014 an APS-C camera must meet a certain JPG standard IMHO.
111gr. 16-50 OIS is impressive, if the IQ is typical of Samsung's 20-50kit or their primes...!
Plan, thought, work, dedication... thank you for these results!
Overall the Df scored more comments on DPR than any other recent camera. That's plenty of feedback for marketing analytics.
However, I'm appalled by the number and quality of personal attacks here - unrelated to the factual product and its features. Pros, amateurs, voyeurs, trolls etc. emanating a bestiary of strong feelings, and a scarcity of civilised dialog.
I wonder why is photography generating such visceral responses? Mitch
First time a camera gets 4K comments?Troll feast or invaluable feedback, Nikon's (et al.) marketing has a field day crunching all the WWW response to Df. The S/N ratio is now a relative matter of tuning your business analytics tools; there's plenty of gold even in the apparently most 'trollish' posts. Crunch your servers, gentlemen :-).
Target market: I'm located near the center of Nikon's normal distribution here. I'm that nostalgic old fart who grew up with rangefinders and SLRs, wet labs (done my own Velvia/Provia till recently), knobs and MF.
Hence i asked myself about this new Nikon Df ?!?So... I grabbed 2 beloved Nikon SLRs + a bunch of MF glass and tried them. Again, together, like in the good ole' times... For 30min. i forgot all my digital toys and have tried to rekindle the old fire of big-bright OVF-based focusing, with complete manual control of everything. The lovely clicks, tactile feedbacks, manuality at its best... SLR Nirvana again...!
Then the colder realities started to pour down on me, crashing and burying my dreams. Too big for hikes. I couldn't focus manually w/o tears and agonizing doubt, while the same lenses on a NEX took .3sec . No video, which sometimes i want in 4k and 10bit for 30s/week. Its sensor costs ca. $250, yet the Df>11x for an old body lift... etc. Sadly, not for me. Mitch-
Exemplary First Impressions review: Concise, objective yet personal, factually subjective, lively and neutral - kudos!
+ EVF+ solid build
Yet $699 for a 1-lb. 10x zoom with 1/1.7" in 2014 seems loaded w/ contradictions. Mitch
migus: 1) Shutter noise = NOISE, hence limiting my venues (no wildlife, no church, show, street, no sleeping babies ...etc.). Sonic signature aside, this is not the feedback i expect from a digital 2014 camera.
2) No video = No way. Though i love stills and landscapes, i expect 4K at 24, 25, 30fps... and above. How else can we acquire this skill? Why are we buying 4K monitors and PJs, if the content is not easily produced?
3) Price = 3K$ seems a 2x marketing experiment (read forae's reaction). Technology already allows for touching the 1K$ magical threshold, but it's likely Sony who must prove it.
I love my FM because it was smaller, lighter and still took my nikkors... can do the same now with Sony. Mitch
" seriously just complained about a shutter noise of camera that wasn't released yet? SERIOUSLY?! "
Yes: Based on the audio track, likely boosted by ?dB, this shutter exceeded my worst Nikon hammers of the 80s. None was usable in quiet locations. This is my feedback to Nikon.
Sony: Agreed! Currently the noisiest offenders in my bag are the NEX bodies; hence sometimes they must just stay there unused. However, their sensors and features are also more desirable to me than all the canikons gathering dust.
I can't wait to get rid of the mech shutter, which is going the way of the AA filter. Mitch
1) Shutter noise = NOISE, hence limiting my venues (no wildlife, no church, show, street, no sleeping babies ...etc.). Sonic signature aside, this is not the feedback i expect from a digital 2014 camera.
Will Canikon (particularly the sleeping prefix!) wake up?
Superficially nearly all cameras of a certain class --e.g., rangefinder, SLR-- have looked strikingly similar for decades. Since Apple et al. have started frivolous 'look&feel' IP claims, lawyers all over the world got newer Porsches and italian designer stuff... while engineers and companies went down :-(
Useful, well written tutorial on an important tool (PS & LR5)... thank you, Jean!As a previous PS user, i'm still amazed how time consuming even the most basic operations are in Adobe products: This is not entirely the cost of precision, having more control knobs - but also a corporate Adobe signature! (Not that other monopoly holders, e.g. Autodesk, Oracle, SAP etc. are much different...)
One can achieve 80-90% of these excellent results in few seconds flat using, e.g. a humble free Picasa. It all depends where your good-enough threshold is :-). Mitch
rowlandw: Google's Picasa. Free, fast, and direct upload of images to the PicasaWeb cloud.
Besides speed, Picasa has one of the best photo rendering engines around. Comparing its JPG and NEX/NX RAW renditions vs. LR5 on AdobeRGB displays (lab references 4-9Mpix), i wonder how could Adobe get away with that kind of IQ and speed? For image mgnt. and basic ops (crop etc.) i'll stay w/ Picasa, despite my arguable waste of $$ on Adobe linceses.
HopeSpringsEternal: Despite the large gamut support, I'm not impressed with the pricing. By now these companies should be selling 4K 30-36" large gamut monitors for $2,000 or less given the large profits they have made these last ten years selling practically the same old 30" monitors.
More than twelve years ago, IBM was selling a much higher resolution 22" monitor.
Where is the innovation for larger , hires computer displays??!
Agreed: The hires display field has stagnated for 15+ yrs. My colleagues have developed the IBM 22" 4K LCD in the mid'90s. Had sub-niche markets (science, medical), despite cards and PCs that could drive it...
The main market and its opinion leaders (reviewers, pundits, analysts) were not interested or educated enough. Ditto w/ OLED.
Now: I have some of the best 30" Eizo/HP/Dell screens, some exceed 115% AdobeRGB (e.g., ZR30w) . Too non-uniform, jagged (at 50+ i appreciate over 300dpi @ 0.5m), shallow blacks (IPS gray), big, and too bright (by necessity).
I'm looking forth to 4k aRGB AMOLEDs of 22-24", ideal size for having 2-3 displays (my Lenovo w530 can drive 5), also in portrait mode. itch
Retzius: Me thinks that this is made for the Chinese market (largest and fastest growing market). Small camera for tiny little female Chinese hands.
Most of them 'tiny little female Chinese hands' might actually exceed in strength and endurance our expectations... still plenty of hard work there. Hence my respect.
marcio_napoli: Under the risk of showing extreme levels of ignorance about the subject, I really don´t get this small DSLR quest.
- If you wanna be discreet (for street photography or whatever), this won´t do. It´s all about the form factor, not size of things. If this ressembles a DSLR, you will still look like a Paparazzi, although one with small camera.
- if you wanna good IQ at a small package, there´re lots of choices already: Leica, EOS M, Coolpix A, a bunch of Sony Nex, Sigma DP, P&S, whatever.
- you mind about fewer grams, time to gain some muscle. A girl can hold a 1 kg camera all day long. Besides, whatever lens you use, it will weight more than the camera, so what´s the point of saving 90 grams on the body? As I said, time to enter a gym.
- all this little cameras do is present really bad ergonomics. I have a GH2, which is the best VIDEO camera I´ve ever had, but at the same time, the worst ergonomics of all time.
- if you wanna a toy, there´re better choices in the wild already
Every gram counts. It's not muscle, but skeleton: neck, back, hip and knee joints and the cartilage therein. That's the damage accrued in time, as most pros and serious enthusiasts tell.
Finally a canon step in the right direction: Compete in size and IQ! Though i'm partial to mirrorless for portability and FF dSLR for IQ, there's a niche for small dSLR...
Just think a 1-lb dSLR w/ pancake and 1500shots/charge and OVF (however arguable tunnel), and the usual benefits of a quiet sensor (not always running hot in LiveView mode) etc...
NZ Scott: A great article with lots of fascinating insights. The interviewer did a good job preparing his/her questions. I would like to see more articles like this.
I find it interesting that, when these guys are talking about their fancy new cameras, neither of them mentions image quality much. Both men are generally much more concerned about focusing speed, ergonomics and workflow. Something for all of us to remember as we argue about which sensor produces slightly less noise at ISO 3200.
A note for Dpreview: Please stop using exclamation marks in your articles. I saw four in this piece. It is unprofessional and looks childish. No serious publication allows exclamation marks to creep into their copy. I realise that the two men were probably interviewed by email, but you do have the power to edit the punctuation in their comments.
What is unprofessional about the moderate use exclamation marks? While i would not use them normally in research papers, they remain useful punctuation marks.