roughneck1024: wow they made a camera just for that???
Not exactly. My D750 reflects a lot easier from light-sources coming from below than from above. It's reflections of the mirror-box walls, not off the AF sensor. So upside down may or may not resolve "lot of issues". Rather some, sometimes.
Miki Nemeth: The Rodelink will support "transmitting a 24-bit/44.1k signal". I tried to find similar information about the Sony UWP-D and Sennheiser G3 systems, but I found nothing. Maybe I didn't serch too hard.I am eyeing on a Sony $100 ECM-AW4 (having an external mic jack, too) Bluetooth microphone set. Why should I pay four times more for the Rodelink?
44.1 kHz (CD/audio) is a bit strange of a choice when 48 kHz is more common in video (DVD/Bluray).
ealvarez: I just tried multiple number of entries of serial numbers and found
equal or greater than 8802634 are not affected
equal or greater than 3026254 are unaffected
I found Serial number beginning with 8XXXXXX are for cameras that being sold in asia and 3XXXXXX for USA and maybe Europe. I'm just guessing but
Try for yourself
That being said, I get a lot more internal reflections with light from below than light from above. I will have it checked, but in practice am currently more worried about three different lenses being soft on the same side and the cursor controller on my D750 being somewhat badly placed.
We've got 60xxxxx in Germany and mine is in the affected range. I just found the corresponding German support site at Nikon.de, but you can enter the serial number on the US site, too.
You can send it in for free, but it's only half an hour drive away from me and I need other things checked, too. So I will visit them sometime soon or maybe I will have my camera replaced by the dealer (which legally is the better choice).
There is some magic going on...
James F. Kelly: Well done! Love it... want it. Not a criticism but suggestion... I kept wanting Barney and Rishi turn around and shoot the shooter. I wanted to see the rig that was shooting the video and hear the experience of the videographer. I realize that was not the point but would love to see a "making of" vid and very interested in the audio setup.
I'd like to know if the D750 does line skipping for 1080p video? Or does it interpolate down most of its sensor area, except for the black upper/lower 16:9 edges? That makes a big difference in detail resolution and low light noise.
Naveed Akhtar: Thanks for a very useful video review..
Nikon promised better Live View performance, how is the experience!!If there is any quite shutter mode, how was it?If the dynamic range is any better than D610?
Yes, I bought one. Still feeling a bit uneasy about body height (balance with fast zoom lenses), AF spread and quiet mode not being quiet. But the articulated screen and hopefully best in Nikon video are definitive bonuses.
Still CDAF in Live View is the big let-down, especially when you have an Olympus E-M1/5 available to compare (I do).
Manual focus in low light does benefit from Live View, as it makes things visible that you cannot see through the viewfinder anymore. The latter is darker than what you can see with the naked eye, so LV can help.
LV on the D750 can show more in darkness than LV on the E-M1, which means that more sensor area is being used for LV. Knowing that Olympus skips lines during LV means that only part of the MicroFourThird sensor is used, though, so we cannot assume that Nikon uses the full sensor (might or might not).
Live View is good, especially for low light. But CDAF in Live View is pathetically slow and stops working (literally, doesn't even try!) in dim light where my MFT and smaller cameras still focus.
Quiet shutter mode is not quiet, it just delays the mirror slap down.
Dynamic range should be about the same as the D610. Give or take a little at various ISOs. At least when you compare the DPR studio scene and look at DXO graphs. Owners of both cameras might know more about this.
Timur Born: Still waiting for a tough camera with RAW files and as long a reach as possible.
I don't need waterproof, but I need better sealed than what non tough cameras are offering. My LF1 is a dust magnet and both the lens and sensor are full of speckles (visible at tele), especially from wearing it inside pockets (taking "pocket camera" literally). Other than pockets: think beach, playgrounds and ugly weather.
The concert shots were a demonstration that a slow tele can still be better than any of those smartphone cams that need you to stand in the front-row and still get bad photos from. And a LF1 type camera usually still gets into the venue when you're just wearing it in a jeans pocket (not taken serious enough).
They are offering cameras that fit into pockets, but which don't survive the same treatment. Quite silly. So "pocket tough" with longish tele would already please me.
Slow tele zoom is a compromise I am willing to live with. The LF1 is slow at the tele end, but then you mostly use that outdoors in daylight anyway. Fast at the wide end is useful for indoor shots.
And I even once shot the LF1 at an indoor concert from the other side of the largish hall (hold over 12000 people). RAW really helps get out more even from these small sensors.
This should give an idea of how far I was away from the stage (bit closer due to sitting further below):
Still waiting for a tough camera with RAW files and as long a reach as possible.
The LF1 and S1x0 are the only ones fitting comfortably into jeans trousers pockets. And the LF1 offers the longest tele reach, which is among the most useful features for outdoor photography (where slow aperture often doesn't matter anyway). I even once shoot an indoor concert with it and was lucky and happy to bring so much reach in combination with a viewfinder (other audience not disturbed).
Timur Born: Thanks for the video, I enjoyed it and it did put things into perspective.
One oddity that I noticed was when Barney mentioned how the camera's focus would follow the wolves in video even though we learned earlier that no AF-C was used. Instead AF-S was used intermittently to get focus back and that is even what the video shows just after Barney made the comment. ;)
Another thing I noticed is how high an f-stop often was needed in practice even with the crop sensor camera.
Last but not least, I often can only dream of calling ISO 1600 and 3200 "high ISO". Yesterday I hit ISO 25k at 1/15 and gave up accordingly (moving people, no flash possible).
Well, concerning use of AF-S in video: This seemingly *is* how this particular photographers uses video. So it is a valid and practical usage case. DPR aimed to show us how a specific professional would use the camera and they did.
Concerning high f-stops: I don't think this was all "playing safe". They mention that they stopped down to get most of the mountain lion in focus. If you look at the f/13 image you will notice that the tail even already is out of focus and then there is the rock slightly in front and underneath. They where quite close and filled the image with the animal, so stopping down seemed to be necessary there. Not so much on the f/11 shot where even the bushes in the back seem in focus, though that may have been intentional. Personally I take good composition with deep DOF over uninspired blur any day.
"High ISO" 1600 might not be what some of us think of it, but for a landscape and wildlife photographer shooting mostly daylight it likely is. ;)
Thanks for the video, I enjoyed it and it did put things into perspective.
Timur Born: So it's a firmware update?!
Well, Nikon sells you the OK button to 100% zoom, too. They could offer it as a firmware update for the D6x0 as well.
So it's a firmware update?!
ABM Barry: I,m answering the shallow minded "Laslen." He quotes:
" you absolutely do not need to spend $1,700 on a camera to take pictures of your children. A smaller, cheaper camera will work just as well"
That depends on your family values, .... Obviously, Children are not worthy enough in your small self-centered mind!
Some of our most important family shots were done on a Panasonic LF1. Often the content is more important than the technical quality.
Still at one point you get into territory where technical limits can ruin things. The LF1 and phone cams have huge DOF compared to MFT, so the auto-focus isn't as critical. With MFT you can regularly ruin your shots due to focus not being up to the task of tracking moving kids.
The lions shot strikes me as quite wide angle, is it not? How fracking close did the photographer have to get for that shot? Two of the lions are *looking at him*!
The horizon is tilted because of the lower left lion, that is quite nicely aligned, by the way. Either he'd have to cut him off in post or shoot more of nothing in the lower right. Or maybe there was some disturbing object in the lower right that he wanted cut out while keeping the left lion in. Or maybe the whole damn pack noticed him and got up, so he decided to call it a day and save his life?
Who knows... but lions on a rocky beach look pretty wildlife to me. At least I don't see any fences or zoo signs there.
"Now I wish I had many more photos of her taken during later stages. And not just camera-phone snapshots, but more carefully crafted portraits like this image."
Coming from a professional photographer... ;)
57even: Of course it's for parents benefits to get better images of their kids (and a nice toy to play with) and there is nothing wrong wig that. The "if you care about your kids" part is off , because you make it sound as if all kids have to suffer when their parents spend money for themselves. Unless parents are cruel to their kids I'd say: happier parents = happier kids.
Most kids are shot with smartphones nowadays, my wife refuses to use anything else. Nothing wrong with that other than you keeping to stick short focal length phones in their face. But if you want to capture good quality images of important impressions or something to hang on the wall then a good camera helps tremendously to get that and is more fun to use.
And before you spend thousands for shooting woods and hills you might consider spending that kind of money for shooting your most loved ones (even if some people prefer their dogs over their kids, which sounds quite wrong btw).