The latch looks like it can be used as a bottle opener as well. Another hidden feature? ;)
SmilerGrogan: FOCUS PEAKING, FOCUS PEAKING, FOCUS PEAKING!!!
VIDEO FOCUS PEAKING, VIDEO PEAKING, VIDEO FOCUS PEAKING!!!
Gnocchi: Cmon a7rmii is not even comparable to a d5 nikon. Not even close !
- deleted, since I didn't read correctly -
To get away a bit from the low ISO DR arguments I'd like to mention another fact again: The 12 mp sensor of the Sony A7s II seems to offer visibly superior high ISO noise performance.
So it seems that Nikon chose to offer higher resolution compared to the D4s, while retaining or only slightly improving noise performance. This means that resolution increase was given a higher priority than improving high ISO noise performance.
I am not within the target demography of this camera, but curious nonetheless. Do D4/D5 users value this increase of resolution more than they would value a more substantial improvement high ISO in noise performance?
Mais78: How many of you guys push exposure so extremely in PP? If you need to do that maybe there is something wrong in the way you shoot pictures. Hope you shoot in real life and not just test charts.
This isn't so much about pushing in poor light, you can do that via ISO setting. This is about underexposing for the highlights and then still be able to push the underexposed shadows and mids.
And regardless of whether gain/ISO is used or pushing in PP: that the dynamic range at low ISOs is lower than the D750 comes as a surprise at least. Of course, this one is more a thing of expectations and being used to new generations being better or equal than the one before them.
Iliah Borg: The black level, starting from Hi 2, is completely uncontrolled. Linearity seems to be lost, too.
Up to 200k the D5's black (and everything else) seems to be better controlled on the D5 compared to the 4Ds. At 400k the D5 may be a tad bit better than the 4Ds, but it's very close. Interestingly the JPG engine of the D5 seems to apply stronger desaturation at higher ISO, especially with blue.
Seeing how the Sony A7S II trumps both Nikons at highest ISOs I wonder why Nikon didn't use that 12 mp Sony sensor instead? But then I am not the target of these cameras, so professionals using these bodies might have more need for higher resolution with equal or slightly better noise performance rather than better noise performance with same resolution.
There seem to be horizontal stripes present in the noise profile of the D5 and D4s, not so with the 7S II.
Suntan: Don't care how good this lens may be. I can't take a company seriously if they label something as having a "neutrino coating."
Well, sunblocker isn't made out of sun. So maybe "Neutrino coating" is instead meant to stop the little buggers from going right through your precious lens. Hehe. >:]
Of course, same bull then...
kociasek: I'm quite disappointed you didn't ask Mr Lubezki about the "physical presence" of lenses in The Revenant. In this film there are scenes where the lenses show VERY visible flares and ghosting, they are splattered with mud and blood, fogged over with breath vapour etc. Did he think the film would be more immersive this way? To me, and some other viewers I talked to, the effect was the opposite, it reminded us that we were just in a cinema. Also, Mr Lubezki himself says he avoided analogue grain to make the film less romantic, more "real". Doesn't seem consistent with those lens tricks.
I did not see the film, but I'd say that these "artifacts" are ok if you allow a certain degree of "disbelief" in the fiction. You do know that you are watching actors, but usually you are so distant from them on screen that you don't connect to them as such.
This "in-your-face" photography and acting is a bit like sitting in the front-row of a theater. You are not allowed to just see the character, you also see the actor behind the character working his *ss off to astound you. Given how exhaustive and extreme the work was it may be fitting to let the viewer share some of that experience. It's a mixture of fiction and behind the scenes in the same image.
Watch this at 7:00:
It demonstrates how they worked to keep flare and fogging in check. So I guess that with wide-angle shots you can only go so far and then have to balance artistic visions against physical limits.
At 12:30 you also learn how "too much" natural light is controlled.
Starkiller: The piano <> Minimoog comparison is odd. The Minimoog is an analog synthesizer. The digital equivalent of a piano would be a ROM synthesizer. In a direct comparison I prefer a real Mimimoog over any other instrument, including every piano ever build.
This one shows the relations of size quite well:
With all due respect for what the Minimoog can do, there is a lot that it can't do that goes far beyond the simple number of keys. The least of which is size and,weighting of the keys. Compare polyphony between a Minimoog and a concert grand and then come back ranting.
Clark666: I like oil paintings of landscapes. When I see oil painting landscapes in an art museum, the same scene photographed appears to be flat and still. For example the oil paintings of Yosemite Valley in California exhibited in the De Young Museum and the Crocker Art Gallery appear to be real, the water and shading are appealing while the nearby photos of the same scenes are flat and don't convey the appearance of motion and flowing water.
Does the painter see something that the camera doesn't? Would focus stacking make the photos as good as the paintings?
Wow, I really need to learn how to type.
Also don't forget that oil painting are three-dimensional and light usually shines on the from one or two directions. So you get reflections and shadows from the parts that stick out in a way that a flaw photography cannot provide.
Lee Jay: In my opinion, Canon appears to "get it".
I don't see any need to go mirrorless because I'd have to give up performance to get it - especially viewfinder and focusing performance. I don't want my camera to be smaller as my hands haven't shrunk so there's no size savings - I still need the same grip size and the same controls. So why would I give up performance and battery life to get, well, no benefits whatsoever?
And when I need mirrorless (i.e. for video) I can still have it with my SLR by adding an EVF or LCD loupe (which I have). Try adding a TTL OVF to a mirrorless camera.
The trouble I see for mirrorless, and have seen since they started getting interchangeable lenses, is that EVFs can NEVER catch up to OVFs. It's just not possible for them to have zero lag and current EVF lag, touted by some as "not noticeable" is still absolutely horrendous to me.
Frankly, I can't imagine ever giving up a mirrored camera.
Add 18 ms per frame at 54 fps EVF refresh-rate. Other cameras use much higher EVF refresh-rates, though.
Anyway, the main culprit of EVF's is processing power.
Samsung NX1 = 5 ms. In good light, though, I assume.
Total reaction time for an average person is somewhere around 200 ms (usually faster with audio than visual).
EVF lag lower than 10 ms should suffice for most people, lower than 5 ms should suffice for almost everyone.
Sensor read-out introduces several problems, though. Usually not the full sensor is read out during Live View, but lines are skipped. So the source image for the EVF has less information to begin with. That means both, less resolution *and* more noise in the final EVF image.
Once light levels drop the EVF frame-rate drops, too, in order to increase exposure of each single frame. This in turn leads to increased lag in between each single frame.
Unfortunately no manufacturer turned the latter drawback into a benefit yet. Imaging you want to shoot immobile targets (landscape) in (total) darkness. Even just a single frame every second would suffice for framing the shot if in return you'd get a clear and bright WYSIWYG preview on the EVF/screen.
Yay for electromagnetic aperture control on Nikon cameras. On the other hand I wouldn't mind less lens barrel play to begin with, so a mechanical lever isn't necessarily a problem. Unfortunately there usually is play between lens and body, so the electromagnetic version should be more precise.
Let's see if the focus motor causes sensor noise, like with the 24-70 and 70-200 zooms.
Sdaniella: showing us AF performance on bright sunny day conditions with high contrast subjects where modest crop sensor lens aperture diameters offer deeper dof, tells us only the AF need never work hard ...
if the lighting conditions were less contrasty, less bright, sundown, indoor, at home, in arena, etc, wider apertures be required, where shallower dof is present, and PDAF is more pushed to task
or if longer tele lenses with yet tighter apertures, not all PDAF points at the edges may work under such lower lighting, but only those pdaf pts clustering in the center
My Nikon D750 focuses wide-open using PDAF (viewfinder). When you force it to stop down (DoF preview) it refuses to focus even. Using CDAF (Live View) it focuses at the currently chosen f-stop.
On the other hand Olympus mirrorless cameras focus wide-open using either PDAF or CDAF. But you can force them to focus at a slower f-stop by using DoF preview (where the Nikon refuses to focus at all).
So it's not a thing or DSLR vs. mirrorless, but of specific camera implementations and exposure/low-light limits of focus-sensors.
Physics still at work. The PDAF sensels are small and for any given area relatively few. This in turn means that they can only capture relatively little light compared to a big PDAF module of a DSLR.
The workaround is to increase exposure of every single Live View frame, which in turn decreases fps of Live View, which then in turn decreases the speed of the AF feedback loop.
At one point PDAF sensor exposure is so low that the camera switches to CDAF, because it can then make use of more sensels (albeit not necessarily the whole sensor area, Olympus uses line skipping during Live View, Samsung's NX1 is said to not do, no idea about Sony cameras).
Kids at home = moving subjects at close vicinity in bad light = everyday practice = one reason for me to switch from mirrorless to DSLR until on-sensor AF-C improves considerably!