X Faktor Photo: Being a person who [recently] wanted to retrofit modern Canon guts to a classic film body, news of the Df was taken very frustratingly...at first.
This is better, because Canon doesn't have to take the plunge first. They can watch the market for the Df, and not only make one better, in the form of an AE-1 probably, but also price it REALISTICALLY!! It's great news actually, because it will definitely give Canon the push to do it, and hopefully with the same EOS mount.
But $2.8-3k? come on Nikon. Not all of your hipster/scarf-wearing shooters have that kind of green. But it's nice you are accommodating their thick-frame Ray-Ban's with your larger viewfinders.
Well done, but seriously, you're not a luxury brand so drop the price.
On another note, I like the design, but it's not like they needed any genuine inspiration to do a retrofit.
Apparently, Nikon spent 4 years on the Df, so if Canon is going to "watch" what happens.....good luck.
mr_landscape: Good. But where is focus peaking?
I have a NEX-5 and found that focus peaking is not that precise. It actually works better in manual focus magnified mode (7x and 14x), but remember that not all NEX bodies have an EVF so it's actually quite hard to use when looking at the LCD.
Nikon should offer likewise. Well, in fact they do on the 1 system. I have the V1 and from memory it gives 5x magnification which is fairly accurate when using the EVF.
So, even if you got your wish you are going to be focus peaking on the LCD which for critical focusing is not going to be great.
I don't think focus peaking can be done in the OVF. Some one correct me if I'm wrong.
Gary Martin: In spite of the comments here, this camera will probably sell quite well. There's a disconnect here between the gadget lovers of DPReview and actual consumers who buy cameras.
Exactly. What is wrong with some people?
I mean, if you have $800 that you actually want to spend on a Nikon camera and you don't already have a decent body, why wouldn't you buy it?
It's an absolutely fantastic looking camera - spec. wise.
I remember paying some $1600 for a D300!
M Lammerse: As a professional photographer I have no need for this lens, but I know for sure it's an exceptional build lens with an exceptional image quality and with an exceptional investment value.
"an exceptional investment value"
How about you buy this lens and I buy $4000 IBM shares?
Put both in the draw for say 10 years.
Let's see what sort of return you would get from the ZEISS.
Oh, I never realized that people buy lenses to get exceptional investment returns. I also thought lenses were to take pictures with.
Jefftan: no image-stabilized AW lenses, Battery Life (CIPA) 220 ,2 significant negative
This camera is not about battery life and image stabilization.
Would I prefer it if it were? Sure.
But do you know anyone else who has a 1" sensor, super fast and accurate auto focus (15 continuous, 60 fixed), more than decent IQ, plenty decent ISO, completely quiet shutter, focus tracking, an adapter that can use just about every F-mount lens ever made, can be dropped from 2m, go down to 15mm under water, built in GPS and compass, and possibly a whole bunch more?
Oh yes, and shoot RAW!
There's just no pleasing some people.
Vobluda: They should buried Nikon 1 system 2m bellow the ground, not throw it into the water.
If all you ever do is to "baby" your gear then this is not for you.
But there are a lot of us who want to take compact, rugged cameras to places that you've probably never even dreamed of. For example, paragliding at 3000m.
I have a V1 (as well as a D800 and D300) and would much prefer the AW1. And it would be great to travel with in rough places.
Some people think that if something is useless to them then it's gotta be useless to everyone.
NumberOne: The most pathetic presentation/publicity video I ever watched - 1 minute and 47 seconds of useless information about a product! :(Well, I guess in line with the bags, which actually also look more a bad "design gizmo" than a proper/usable photo bag...My opinion, of course... ;-)
Just out of curiosity how many Think Tank bags do you have?
I have 5 or 6 and whilst I agree that some don't look great they are designed for serious photographers.
Do you personally know anyone who says they own an unusable Think Tank photo bag?
ZEISS, not Zeiss.
Davidgilmour: Lol,a $900 lens on a sensor alsmost as small as an iphone sensor. That won't give you any bokeh!
You have no idea what you are taking about.
Why don't you just keep using your iPhone instead of trolling.
Marek07: From a professional working environment, I have had this lens for over 5 months now, and is in constant use, I shoot Fashion and Portraiture and have to say it has become the workhorse in my kit even leaving my 50mm 1.2 to gather dust it's that good, of course there is always going to be distortion and vignetting with any zoom but the new 24-70 is the sharpest, fastest zoom I have used and has great bokeh.
I use it with the new 5d mk3 which now has lens correction, and shoot studio, location, front lit, backlit...
Initially I went into a camera store with a few flash cards and tried a variety of 24-70 lenses including the nikon d800e with it's 24-70 and the new canon easily came top.
A friend of mine and I both have a D800 and 24-70 lens.
When we compared our lenses (on a tripod with MLU) we found that her's slightly back focused differently to mine. After adjusting using the AF Fine Tune, her sample still had a slight problem on one side.
The lens was re-calibrated by Nikon and now both our system are equal.
And in case you don't know the D800 is a very demanding camera but it can give incredible results. Of course, you actually need to know what you are doing.
Good luck comparing lenses in a store with a few flash cards, and presumably, hand held shots.
Arai: It's exactly like Thom said.. Not Enough.. For Too Much.. Too Late.
Let us know when Thom is the CEO of Nikon. Maybe then I'll listen to what he has to say.
Until then, let those in charge of Nikon make the decisions.
If Thom isn't happy why doesn't he just start writing Canon manuals?
benny_wong: why not a NEX3n/5R/6 + A 20mm 2.8(equiv 30mm) its same APS-C sensor, plus interchangable lens, plus 1080 60P movie, flip mon and more
and, should cost less than 800USD
You are right. I'm a Nikon fan (D800, D300, D70, F100,..) but no way I'm buying this over a Nex-6. Heck, I even prefer the Nex-C3!
yabokkie: good lenses, but it's very unefficient shooting APS-C with full-frame lenses, but it's more difficult to make same good lenses for APS-C DSLRs at the same quality and cost, that APS-C DSLRs deserve to die.
btw, 24.00MP DX translates to 56.56MP FX, that we know there should be no problem we go double D800, and maybe quad D800 resolutions.
Yes, good point.
However, I doubt that 99999 owns an FX camera and yet somehow he/she feels that they are in a position to know that DX is a "better" system.
You are wrong. I have the D300 and D800. Image quality as well as DR on the D800 is better at every ISO from 100 to 6400.
Unless you actually have an FX camera you are not in a position to be making statements that you can't back up.
Hugo808: So the advertising department gets to say it's a sharper camera because of the lack of an OLPF, which you wont notice unless you blow your pics up to 6 foot wide.
But no OLPF means you might get moire which ruins your pics permanently (no matter what they say). Are we supposed to be happy about this? I've waited ages to upgrade my D90 but I am not going to risk moire as I shoot a lot of weddings. You can hardly ask the bride to remove her veil because Nikon can't make a decent camera any more.
I think photographers should be put back in charge of camera design at Nikon. Or at least give us a D7100e which has the OLPF put back where it's supposed to be!
Hugo, I think that the D600 "issues" have all been resolved.
The D7100 is A LOT of camera. In 3 months time it's going to be around $1000.
No so long ago I paid 1600 euros for a D300. That's some USD 2000!
You need to pinch yourself and be happy with what Nikon has done with the D7100.
Just go back and compare the specs between the D300(s) with the D7100 and then come back and tell me that you are not getting a bargain.
Is there some reason why you can't buy say a D600?
I mean, if you are making a living from shooting weddings, surely you can afford $2000?
And if you aren't making a living from shooting weddings then I'm sure the bride is more than happy to get free coverage.
In any case the moire thing is a non issue on the D800 and D800E.
There haven't been any reports of brides having to remove their veils because "Nikon can't make decent cameras anymore".
Cy Cheze: Humps, bumps, knobs, grips, wrinkles.
Blood hounds, bulldogs, old trucks, and most of their owners aren't beauties either, but many people are fond of them nonetheless.
The camera could have displayed quite nicely in coarse, chapped hands with plenty of callus, scars, and cracked nails.
Putting appearances aside, the real questions should be what the V2 offers that one can't find on a GF5 m4/3 type camera with a larger sensor, which costs less and is no bigger, or a smaller RX100 with the same sensor, which also costs a bit less.
It offers the obvious. That is, the ability to use a bunch of Nikkors.
As someone (and there are lots of us) who owns a D300 as well as a D800 the V2 is just the sort of thing to take on holidays and for decent family snaps.
The V2 plus the new 70-200mm f4 would be a great combo with the D800 and 16-35mm for the times when I do a bit more serious stuff, such as covering a skiing event of a triathlon.
Nikon knows exactly what they are doing.
ZAnton: I use digital cameras for like 6 years. From hundred of gigabytes of my photos I can probably find 2 or 3 with exposure time 1/2000s or faster. Nikon's lack of 1/8000 means nothing to me. Noone will ever use it unless he wants to shoot f/1.2 in midday in Sahara.
Handicapped camera? Please.
Just put a CPL on, or even just dial the ISO down to L1.
Keep shooting your F801 and have fun.
Whilst the composition is OK, that is one seriously limped tree.
Richt2000: So, as repeated when the 'e' was announced, for landcape shooters, Its not a few hundred £/$ more, its a few thousand as Tilt-Shift Lenses are a MUST to make the 'e' version worth-while for landscapers...
Reilly, you are 1000% wrong. dead wrong!On my D800 (standard) you can see the difference between f4 and f16 at every aperture and every focal length on the 16-35mm f4 in the corners, and to a less degree in the center.
There is no reason why the E would be any different. If anything, the corners would look even worse. A sharper camera (the E) is not going to improve corner performance. It's a limition of the lens!