So, how does the capacity compare to a regular battery?
ozimax: Astonishing images. And just think, it took a Creator God to make these impossibly complex animals. He not only makes things work, He makes them beautiful at the same time.
Kudos to the photographer.
PaulDavis, this comment and a couple of the responses are akin to trying to show someone just how wonderful a perfectly baked pie is by throwing it in their face. Throwing beliefs (presented as truths) that can never be rationally argued in other people's faces is extremely disrespectful to whatever beliefs they might already have and rarely leads to any productive discussion.
dwill23: there's also a problem with this camera taking good pics
I think that's a problem with the photographer, not the camera.
Karl Summers: I own a D610 and have had zero issues thus far. Just wanted to put that out there. Nikon makes a fine camera, they could use some lessons in PR and customer service.
Yes, the camera that was arguably released specifically to address the design problems with the D600 shutter. Nikon does generally make great cameras, but the D600 obviously had issues and a lot of people are quite understandably unhappy with the way Nikon handled them.
stromaroma: The irony is that Americans actually believe they have freedom... "One World", yeah right, this building is a great way to stick it in the face of the rest of the world that the Wall Street bankers enslave the world via the One Bank.
It's "One World Trade Center", as in the primary building of a complex proposed in the 40s, originally built in the 60s and 70s, and recently rebuilt. But go ahead and intentionally misinterpret the name.
LensBeginner: Astonishing!How'd he manage to move the frame? camera movement on a slow-moving rig or PP?
So what about the vertigo effect? Slider plus post processing for the zoom? (It was really smooth!)
Biological_Viewfinder: Nicolaus Wegner,
Hey, one thing kept bothering me about this video shoot from a technical standpoint. And I'm not talking about your rail. It could be any single image from the entire video.
So my problem with it is that I can't explain the aperture to myself in your photography. As a Landscape Photographer, I am very well aware about how difficult taking a good picture outside actually is. Most people look at stuff like yours and say, Man that guy was lucky, look at the lighting he got! What they fail to realize is that you have to act so very quickly during light that is changing by the minute! Just a passing cloud can change everything.
One of the things about Landscape Photography that is different than almost anything else is bokeh is mostly meaningless. It's all about depth of field. So I know that you have your aperture closed down. But after so much, it starts diffracting. But EVERYTHING is so sharp from stuff you could touch out to infinity. HOW are you doing THAT?!?!?
Keep in mind these videos are scaled down significantly from the original photos. Even at f20, the kind of effects your describing will only be visible at near 100% scale with most lenses. (In other words, don't be afraid to stop down if it's the only way to get the depth of field you want. You won't be losing that much sharpness, and it might be just what you need to capture the shot.)
Patco: Dear Nikon,
Please exert less effort on engineering 3rd party incompatibilities, and more effort on creating a high-end DX D300 replacement.
If, as Patco and others are implying, Nikon engineered this incompatibility intentionally, then people have every right to be upset (even if Nikon does arguably have every right to do what they did). That would mean Nikon was intentionally devaluating people's existing lens collection, which sounds like a great reason to think about switching to another system.
Even if this wasn't intentional, Nikon has to be aware that breaking computability with existing lenses, even third party lenses, isn't exactly an encouraging move for people who've bought into the system or are thinking about doing so.
It would be nice if you could post just one article for new product launches, so all the comments ended up in the same place. Three is a little ridiculous (though I realize each one is technically something different).
mpgxsvcd: Making it only shoot photographs doesn't mean it shoots better photographs. It just means you took out something(Video) that every other manufacturer wouldn't dream of leaving it out and called it retro.
People will buy this camera but they will be wasting their money.
I don't see any good reason to leave out video functionality at this point. On the D800, it only adds a couple extra controls which really don't get in the way when you're not using them, and the functionality is nice to have on occasion.
Jogger: Looks like a D700 successor. Also, love the retro NIKON lettering.
Why do you say that (implying the D800 isn't really a D700 successor)? I would say it looks like a redesigned D800, which is fine. If this looks like what I imagine and at least has feature parity with the D800, I would certainly buy it over a D800.
ZAnton: I assume there are too many variables to calculate good result. For example LoCAs are distant dependent, so unless we know the distance to ALL objects on the photo, we can't calculate back the initial image. Similar with non-flat focus-plane (field curvature). If the object is blurred by that, one must know the distance to the object for the reverse calculation of the "ideal" image.
You don't even have accurate distance information within the focus "point", since it's actually a region of the image, some of which is likely to be out of focus.
harold1968: This is effectively "inventing" detail where you have some idea of the reasons why that detail was not recorded properly in the first place.
IMHO this is good for snaps but useless for serious photography as the original detail, and as much as possible, is what you need and indeed actually wanted to take the picture for
Saying that this could come out with some more advanced techniques for improving a photo during PP
That's not necessarily an accurate description. Yes, it's possible to irrecoverably destroy information in a photo. A perfect Gaussian blur or aliasing are examples of this. However, a lot of the perceived loss of detail here doesn't necessarily destroy it, but just obscures it. I don't really see a problem with a mathematical reconstruction of details, as long as it isn't recreating information that never actually existed in the original photo.
I hope Sony has bulletproof moiré correction for the A7R. I look forward to some thorough testing. (Personally, I'll take a slight loss in sharpness over sampling artifacts any day.)
misha marinsky4: I read diglloyds review: "Observe the fine details within the iris of the cat’s eyes as well as the small hairs"
The image's URL is: http://diglloyd.com/articles/ZeissZ/images-ZeissZ-Otus-55f1_4/_D8E5727-ap1.jpg
Here's my photograph of my cat:
I used a Fuji E550.
It doesn't exactly take much to produce a completely sharp image at that resolution. I'm fairly certain my cell phone can do that (albeit with much larger depth of field).
miejoe: Wonderful. Time to buckle in and prepare for yet another format war. When either XQD or CFast loses the battle, we can look forward to wasted investment dollars, obsolete equipment, and the consumer paying the price, as usual.
My experience is that by the time I buy a new camera, my old memory cards are already obsolete even if they're supported by the new one. (i.e. I can get something so much better for a fraction of the camera's price that it would just be silly not to.)
CameraLabTester: I would get one, just to place it beside the 256 MB card.
There's space for a third... 256 TB, then it goes on a picture frame, and will hang on a wall.
Please go lookup the sizes (physical and memory) of currently available flash chips and let us know which ones you would put in a 1TB CF card. (Or are you going to claim any of the flash memory manufacturers wouldn't jump at the chance to sell something with four times the memory density of any of their competitors?)
I think the description of D800 vs. D800E AA filters in the article isn't quite correct. Both have two layers, but the layers in the D800 are oriented at 90° so that they split light in one direction and then again in the other. (After all, if you only "blur" along one axis, you'll still get aliasing along the other.) The D800E has the layers at 180°, so they split and then recombine the image.
In the same way, the diagrams are incomplete (presumably for the sake of simplicity). They only show AA along one axis.
AstroStan: It seems to me that variable AA can be done in software (firmware) via pre-de-Bayer color-specific Gaussian blur. Physical blurring can be very closely emulated in software. Software AA would slow down image processing and might noticeably decrease the burst rate, though turning it off would not interfere with RAW throughput.
To clarify, once you've thrown away half or three quarters of the pixels that would make up a complete image for any given color, there is no way to restore the information. The point of an AA filter is to blur the image before it passes through the bayer filter, making each pixel work like one covering between two and four times the area (but without actually capturing two to four times the light).
peevee1: Unfortunately LCD panel is not perfectly transparent even when "open", robbing some light.
This is not an LCD panel, just LC. The polarization filter that blocks half of the light even when an LCD is on isn't a part of this design.