Hi and thanks for your interest.
The picture consists of 268 single exposures which were stacked. So the clouds only come from one exposure and are therefore sharp, just like the slightly moving (due to wind) grass and trees.So the only blurred parts are the stars, which make up most of the shots and also were exposed a whole lot longer than the lower parts of the picture (mountains, clouds, grass,...). That's also why the lower parts of the picture are quite bright as they were shot at dawn and the stars only appeared when it got darker till somewtimes in the middle of the night.
Managarm: >> Perhaps Nikon will help to relieve the pressure on manufacturers of 10-stop ND filters, as soon landscapers will be able to achieve the same effects with less powerful and more common versions <<
Yeah, right. ISO 64 would allow the usage of all those extremely common 9 1/3rd-stop ND filters instead of the ones with 10 stops. Huge difference in that department... ;)
Apart from that I also really welcome native ISO 64, finally going down again. I'd gladly trade anything higher than ISO 3200 for those lovely lower values.
Since D810's ISO 64 are claimed to be native and not pushed, that should be the case.Else, it would bve pretty useless, at least for RAWs, I agree.
>> Perhaps Nikon will help to relieve the pressure on manufacturers of 10-stop ND filters, as soon landscapers will be able to achieve the same effects with less powerful and more common versions <<
>> As I am capturing raw files, I will have the camera set to the AdobeRGB color space and not sRGB, which is better suited to JPEG shooting. AdobeRGB gives a wider color gamut, and is the best option for raw images that will subsequently be edited on a computer. <<
Raw files couldn't care less about the color space set in the camera, as the color space is getting determined during the Raw processing stage.A fact a Pro should know?
HBowman: EPIC FAIL IS EPIC !
>> a score of 81.. no matter how much griping DP has about a camera, it usually comes up with a score near or above 80... <<
Agree. A rating system that only uses it's top 25% of the scale is kind of wasted.I guess Amazon's ownership also doesn't like popular cameras receiving low scores. Would pretty much hurt the sales. Financial interests and honest opinions usually don't go well together.
Not aimed at the Nikon Df, but meant as a general statement.
Juck: Nice, but Alpha 7 is much better.
@ sandy b:
If you only see a point in mirrorless systems because of their higher potential of smaller size, than I agree that adapting lenses on a A7(R) doesn't really make much sense compared to DSLRs. I don't really care that much for the size advantage, but absolutely love the possibility of using any lens I want on the Sony. My menzioned Nikkors, some excellent glas from Canon, Pentax and Olympus (like the "legendary" OM 90/2.0 that is awesome on the A7R). Moreover I simply don't want the whole fuss with mirrorboxes back again. I adjusted so many focus inconsistencies, changed focussing screnns to be able to use high speed glass and so on. I'm just too hooked on the advantages of mirrorless systems. And for the cases I really care about smaller size, I can use native lenses, although not that many up to now. ;)
That said, I'm not of the opinion that mirrorless is the solution for everything and better than DSLRs like a Df, D800 or whatever. They just fit me better, that's all.
The adapter + camera isn't any bulkier than the Df body itself - else the lens won't fit.
Losing EXIF information when adapting lenses? Yes, but who cares about those once the picture is on the wall? In case you don't mainly take pictures but prefer logging EXIF files instead, that sure is a problem.
The system is completely new, so no surprise there are only few native lenses yet. Anyway, you can use every single Nikon F mount lens too on the Sonys. Additionally to the ones from Canon, Pentax, etc. - in case you don't need AF, of course. ;)
My Nikkor 50/1.2 or Nikkor 14-24 work like a charm on this 36 MP "Sony crap". Thanks to the high quality LiveView function on the Sony, shooting landscapes is even significantly less fuss than on the rather mediocre display and LiveView implementation of the D800...
No doubt the Nikon DSLRs also have their strong points. Be it a Df , D800 or whatever. But so do the Sonys. Calling them crap simply shows you've never really used what you judge.
bigdaddave: Yes I'm sure it's very nice and fun to use, but even that one picture of the dark haired woman shows the camera's severe limitation, a fixed semi-wideangle. It's nowhere near the best focal length for that shot and is already distorting her image
Quite how you can all blub over a camera with such limitation in 2013 is beyond me.
>> My G1X will spit on this [...] <<
Ok, now I see where you are coming from. "My camera is better than your sucking camera" and all that sort of immature face off.Not interested in that lower kind of discussions. Conversation ended.
Because a APS-C camera with a fast zoom lens of the same optical quality would have to be a lot bigger than this combo and that would completely destroy the point of the X100(s)?
There are already enough possible alternatives with optional fast zoom lenses. Just get one of those.
chris96326: Focus Peaking (apparently m4/3 lenses only??)Better Grip and button spacingPhase Focus (apparently legacy 4/3 lenses only)More buttons (but in a different arrangement, why?)Keeping the tilt screen -- no lousy swivel, selfies are for amatuers
Looks like a market winner and a great evolution camera on paper. Sample images on this sight are nothing to write home about. I will sit this one out and wait for the GX-7 to ship.
I am more interested in the new lens to compete with Panny's 12-35mm.
>> I don't understand. Vertical means the subject is where? In front of the camera? Soo... you need to see the LCD when the subject is in the front of the camera. Hmmm... sounds like a selfie to me... <<
As others already pointed out, a vertical shooting position (= portrait orientation) has nothing to do with selfies. I don't want to swivel the display in order to see it while looking at it from in front of the camera. I want to be able to tilt it when the camera is in portrait orientation just the way I can tilt it now in landscape orientation.This can be extremely helpful for macros, landscapes on a tripod and a whole lot of other scenes on portrait orientation.
Walsh_uk: Wish it had a fuji sensor then it would be perfect..
No. I also use (and enjoy) the Fujis, but I'd prefer them having usual Bayer-layouts instead of X-Trans.
>> Keeping the tilt screen -- no lousy swivel, selfies are for amatuers <<
Vertical shooting positions are also only for amateurs?
Joe Talks Photo Gear: I would to see fewer characters available for commenting. Maybe 100. Like, get to the point and don't beat us over the head with your superior knowledge, negativism, trolling, attacks or/boorish behavior. Do that. Thanks.
I guess that kind of overreacting insults is a perfect example of those personal attacks you were talking about?.Well, each to his own...
"I would to see fewer characters available for commenting. Maybe 100. Like, get to the point and don'". - that's exactly how far I read your comment, when it suddenly reached the 100 character limit...And it actually worked out perfectly as your own "superior knowledge behaviour" got filtered out! ;)
Way too noisy pictures. That's where we land thanks to the MP-race - one pixel is too much!
steelhead3: looks like a nex clone with a smaller sensor, sort of like a pentax Q
Whatever you take, take less of it...
Seeing is believing...
Debankur Mukherjee: Sigma has hardly been able to produce any lens better then Nikkor.......so whats the big news......I don't think this lens will perform exceptional from any aspect.......
*cough* e.g. Sigma 35/1.4 *cough*
Rod McD: I'm with rondom below in thinking that the "FF equivalent DOF" thing is getting out of hand if that's the key goal of lens' design. We do need to give this lens the benefit of the doubt - it's innovative and it may be very good. OTOH I'm a bit dubious about ultra fast lenses. Everyone bangs on about maximum aperture like it's some kind of religion, but they often fail to acknowledge the downsides....... Fast lenses may have more curvature of field, soft corners wide open, vignette more and flare more. And they're sometimes diffraction limited at an earlier aperture than their slower counterparts. And they're larger. And they cost a lot more. Too bad if you're looking for portability, classic even sharp performance and performance at small apertures. For my interests of landscape and travel, some of the sacrifices for lens speed just aren't worth it.
>> And they're sometimes diffraction limited at an earlier aperture than their slower counterparts. <<
Why? When stopping down the lens to a given aperture, the resulting opening has the same size as with slower lenses. And it's the size of the aperture opening generating diffraction effects.
KL Matt: A 2MP full-frame DSLR - now that would be a popular camera.
>> You're right, not for pixel-counting amateurs, but for the medium format using professional <<
Well, actually the medium format professionals prefered sticking to pixel-counting and moved up to 80+ MP digibacks. I hardly think 2 MP would be too compelling for their uses... ;)