Scottelly: Really, this is sad. Sony already has a camera capable of faster shooting and higher resolution (24 MP with no AA filter). It has a tilt screen, like this D500, and it does 4K video too, but it weighs less than this D500, and it's only half the price! How great is THAT? Nikon REALLY needs to catch up to Sony!
I think the ONLY thing Nikon has going for them now is that their weather seals and deep raw shooting buffer might attract a few hard-core professionals. The rest will go to Sony. Sony needs only to create a line of A9 and A9000 series cameras with weather seals, and they'll have the whole market wrapped up.
I have used both Sony and Nikon bodies a lot. Nikon has a much better lens collection and a lot more reasonably priced high quality lenses.
Douglas F Watt: Nice camera, and no doubt a great choice for pro sports shooters with a big library of Nikkor glass, but once again, the video is kind of a kludgey compromise, and the cost is higher than a lot of FF bodies. I suspect it will still sell, since it's a Nikon, but given that the A6300 has roughly the same abilities for half the price, it doesn't seem like a great value.
A huge difference is the A6300 does not have anywhere near the lens collection for both manufacturer and third party lenses.
thxbb12: AF calibration: this is the very reason I switched to mirrorless about 3 years ago. I'm so glad I did.Eventhough Nikon's implementation is very useful, it's still suffering from many downsides. The real fix is to achieve AF on the sensor. There is really no way around it, no matter how much duct tape we put around it ;-)
I've had a lot of lenses over the years and only two with focusing issues. Those issues were easily corrected with AF fine tune. I think the issue is very overrated and not enough to be a major factor when choosing systems.
jonny1976: Unimpressed both technically and conceptually, cliche themeWith medium quality. But she is a nice young girl from germany. Good to win.
Absurd. The photograph does a tremendous job of conveying the mood of the scene.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Why does Nikon offer such unusable high ISO figure? Is that because some consumers read such figures like kids looking at a 1980 American muscle car's speedometer?
Noise at ISO 3280000 is impossible to heal and there's liitle sense in using it. 12800 should be the absolute maximum - and even then the effects on sharpness are intolerable. We could say it's a technical prowess, but ultimately it's a futile one. It's technology for technology's sake, serving no practical purposes.
The world of photography has gone crazy.
The thing is though that noise at extreme ISOs likely won't be bad in five years time. I remember how my first DSLR was awful at 800 and beyond. Now most decent ones are good with much lower light.
I disagree. In normal photography going past 12800 isn't a very common need but I can see some applications where being able to achieve very high shutter speeds in poor light could be very useful if sensors get to the point where they can deliver both ultra high ISO and reasonable quality and that ISO.
It still looks decent up to ISO 200,000 to my eyes. That is stunning for someone who came up in the film era when 800 was considered fast.
As a Nikon user I would say It better be pretty awesome to justify paying double and having twice the weight of the exceptional Nikon 85 1.8G.
Sharpness is important but I think many focus on sharpness to the exclusion of other very important areas such as rendering of out of focus area, color, contrast, etc. There is a lot more to a lens than sharpness in the corners, wide-open, on 100% crops but a lot miss that.
Joed700: The first picture was a disappointment when looking at 100% magnification. Hardly any sharpness even at f/4. My Nikon 50mm f/1.4g @ f/1.4 has better sharpness than that; mind you the the Nikon 50mm f/1.4g is known for producing soft images; too soft for some...The 4th pix at the dinning table is practically useless at f/2; image making a large print...
I agree that he is missing the point. The lens isn't about maximum sharpness and 100% crops. It is about rendering which is something that is hard to quantify.
beavertown: D750 scored 90 and this scored 83?
Resolution isn't everything in the real world.
Raymond Bradlau: Just like any law its only going to affect the honest safe people... the reckless and unsafe flyers wont register. One more law to fix a fake problem started by the media.
I don't think it is a fake problem at all. Many airports have reported issues and it is not inconceivable that a drone could cause a major incident with an aircraft. We also saw an example last year of aerial fire fighting operations being hampered by a drone and an example of one landing on the White House lawn.
Given the explosion in popularity of the devices, I think the FAA is right to try to get out in front of this problem before it gets worse.
Will it stop all unsafe flyers? No. But you could make the same argument about mandatory car regestration and licenses. Sure some people still drive unregistered cars and drive without licenses but the number who do is much lower than it would be were there not criminal penalities.
The light is wonderful.
Lassoni: Never understood these super zooms. Very bad imo
I don't use one but for travel where you never know which shots I'll prst themselves they make a lot of sense. Hauling around a lot of lenses is a pain and if you have traveling companions it can be rude to them to stop every ten feet to change lenses.
Wubslin: Another disappointment from Sony that proves yet again that they are not ready for the pro market.
Maybe they should stick to games consoles and rootkits.
Sony produces excellent cameras that work well for a lot of uses and produce images worthy of the cover of any magazine or of any gallery. I'd imagine this camera is exceptional for many uses though clearly according to the article it is compromised for fast action.
LukeDuciel: Even as someone pro-big-lens, I still have to say, this is a failed design.
How can you say that without seeing output?
No thanks. The Sigma Art series is good but far too heavy for me. I like primes because they are light. Nikon's 20mm 1.8 is an awesome lens that is 357 grams. This monster is 950 grams. That is more than most pro 24-70 zooms. Going from f 1.8 to f 1.4 is not enough reason for me to carry a lens that is 145 grams heavier than a Canon 24-70 2.8!
ProfessorLarry: As a professional, I am concerned not just with the time it takes to switch lenses, but with the consequences. Every time you switch lenses in the field, you inevitable add dust to the sensor and to rear elements of lenses; it's a fact of life. If I can go through a day of shooting (as I did recently at the Writers' Police Academy at Fox River Technical College ) without having to change lenses , that's huge. The Tamron is a perfect choice for these situations.
--Larry Constantine (pen name, Lior Samson)
There is still a huge IQ difference between a ultrazoom compact and a good SLR with a superzoom. Particularly in lower light.
I would imagine that this sort of lens would be excellent for a journalist in applications that do not require good low light capability. For instance if you are taking photos outside for print in a local newspaper the sharpness and bokeh advantages of a high quality "pro" 24-70 type lens wouldn't make that big of a difference compared to lighter weight and greater range.
Great video. Thank you for posting this. That camera looks excellent.