Gesture: Don't care if I get panned. USPS is superb. The speed packages go cross-country and the local delivery person knows you and watches for your items. The "deficits" are because of the way USPS must fund pension and health care obligations vis a vis other nonprofit organizations, as I understand it.
I find less "crush" issues when USPS and FedEx deliver a package. A great postal system is an important part of a democracy.
USPS is great in terms of getting a package from one post office to another, but the experience from there depends a lot on the local delivery person. Where I am, UPS and Fedex always deliver to the door. USPS might leave a notice in the mail box if you're lucky, and good luck getting them to actually pickup the notice if you want to request redelivery. Basically, you need to just track the package and deal directly with the post office when it arrives.
What I find USPS is really good for is international orders. UPS and Fedex frequently make a big deal about customs and fees. I've never had a problem with the handoff between USPS and the local postal service in the origin / destination country. Of course there are some countries where the local postal service itself can be problematic.
jnxr: Nikon need 2 tries to get it right for every FF model:D4 ---> D4sD600 ---> D610D800 ---> D810Moral of the story, don't buy their first model, wait for the fixed version.
I've been pretty happy with my D800 for the past 2 years. The only thing I really wish they'd add is 2 and 3 stop bracketing (which the D600 has, amusingly), but I'm not sure even the D810 addresses that.
I did always think it was kind of silly that phones released around the same time as the D800 could do 1080p60, but it couldn't, though.
"Naturally though [the slight blurring due to the OLPF] also means that in terms of raw resolution, you're never quite seeing the potential of your camera's pixel count"
That isn't entirely accurate. The true resolution of a 36 MP Bayer sensor is 18 MP in green and 9 MP in red and blue. You could store the result in a standard 18 MP file without losing anything and still have 50% more pixel data than you need. A 36 MP sensor does not have the potential to produce an accurate, sharp 36 MP color image.
The point of the OLPF is to distribute each color of light over the corresponding pixels so there are no holes. That means you won't get super sharp, aliased lines, but you also won't end up with artifacts (moire) by trying to imagine details that the sensor can't actually resolve. Without the OLPF, you're just taking the 36 MP grayscale image, throwing away some colors at each pixel, and hoping you don't lose anything important.
backayonder: So is this a poor man's D4s ? And good enough for sports
No, this is a very different camera from the D4/D4s.
MarshallG: Anybody else a little leery about this trend of removing the low pass and anti-aliasing filters? Surely there were good reasons to use them in the first place.
And when you're trying to shoot a scene that does generate moire at 36 MP, using a lens that can resolve the detail?
The reasons for adding an AA filter at 4 MP are just as valid at 36 MP. If your scene doesn't have the detail, it will make little difference unless you like to view images straight out of the camera at 100% and marvel at how sharp aliased lines can be. If it does, an AA filter avoids nasty sampling artifacts (moire) that software can really only guess at how to resolve. Once you capture the image without an AA filter, the information needed to correctly disambiguate true low frequency detail from false detail created by high frequencies the camera isn't equipped to capture anyway is gone.
samfan: I just calculated that if I'd shot a roll of Tri-X every day, and had it developed and scanned, even the mono Leica M would pay for itself in just 18 months (probably sooner if you factor in the cost of a decent film M body).
Buying bulk and developing and scanning yourself - and the M pays for itself much sooner in saved time.
I don't know why are so many people so confused. Film is bloody expensive.
Sure, but so is this camera.
This is neat, but I can't figure one thing out. Did they intentionally vary the exposure and shutter trigger time slightly, or could they not actually figure out how to synchronize the cameras correctly? I don't dislike the effect (it kind of goes with the theme of street photography), but I wouldn't mind if it looked more intentional.
Aside from that, it would be nice if this was a bit more than just a Microsoft / Lumia ad.
Michael Piziak: Very good photos of icebergs. #7 is very large I think.
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.