chj: To Sony (and all camera manufacturers)
Put a damn touchscreen on your cameras. It is by far the best way to choose a focus point. Anyone that says otherwise has simply not used one and is exalting their "skill" in getting around their camera's limitations. Technology trumps skill. You can't get faster, more reliable autofocus than my GM1 (unless you have another Panasonic). Don't tell me about workarounds. The GM1 nails focus more often.
OK, manual focus can get tighter focus on a stationary subject that's willing to wait for you to set up. But with that kind of time, ANY camera can get tight focus.
So stop listening to photo geeks that equate touchscreens with bad phone photos. On a GOOD camera, a touchscreen is an immensely powerful tool that has more impact on photos than pixel peeping details.
Feedback from DPR photo geeks is 0.005% of the market. The other 99.095% are using touchscreen phones. The camera market is shrinking, because you are listening to the wrong market.
Wrong on so many points. Just because your screen is bathed in light making it virtually unreadable does not mean your subject is in the same light. Some photographers don't like taking their faces away from the viewfinder, or don't like using screens/live view for focusing when not on a tripod.
There are times when I really like having my face to the viewfinder when I'm shooting commentary stuff in tense situations, and don't want anyone knowing where I'm looking, or what I'm photographing. Using a WA lens, I can aim the camera in one direction, but can be actually putting the focus point on the actual subject matter that I want to photograph.
Were you err is thinking that just because you happen to fancy something, others will by default. I don't mind touch screen for playback, but when I want to change iso, focus points, etc., I prefer dedicated buttons. Everyone isn't having trouble getting focus on moving targets anyway.
Jogger: I wonder if we will ever see a true 645 medium format sensor. The one in this is not 645.. the sensor in the "MF" Leica S2 is marginally larger than FF.
(NAwlins Contrarian) You're right, the P65 digital back is what, nearly 7 years old now? It's think it's hard to seriously consider the Pentax (thought I think it's a great camera at a very attractive price) once you've shot with larger sensors. The crop is considerable! I couldn't go the Pentax route if I shot landscapes.
What a fantastic camera though! Pentax got it right.
ozturert: I'm impressed with the fact that there still exist people who say "I see no point in spending money on a MF camera which has a smaller sensor than real MFs. Real MFs have ... sensor".Go and buy whatever you like. Why whining here? Trying to prove something? This is the king of price/performance cameras with excellent body, DSLRlike ergonomics, good UI, state-of-the-art AF system and nice lenses (not the best, but still very good). If you like bigger sensors, go and buy a camera with a bigger sensor and use them.
I don't think people are "whining" per se' but rather making it known that there can be a huge difference between MF sensor sizes which many photographers looking into buying a MF system do not know. Many have found out by perusing medium format forums, etc..
So while I'm sure there is some whining, I think most good folks are just passing on information that might inform someone who isn't familiar with MF cameras/backs. The difference between sensor size and sync speeds can be substantial between systems and having the info out there isn't hurting anything and might even benefit someone who's seriously thinking about taking the plunge.
zakaria: It is pentax answer to any one asking for a full frame.
... and when it comes to medium format, this Pentax isn't as "full frame" as it gets either with a lack luster 43.8 x 32.8 mm sensor size; It's like a cropped body medium format camera compared to people using say, a Phase p65 digital back with a 40.4x54.9mm sensor. Comparing those two medium format sensors as it relates to "crop factor" is kinda like comparing a Nikon D7100 and a "full frame" D4s.
So what's the benefit that many people don't think about? You get a benefit of getting more scene into the frame at a given focal length when compared to a 35mm camera when shooting in cramped spaces, or when you want a wide view... you're also able to get closer which in some situations can affect the DOF dramatically.
An awesome camera- keep in mind that in the land of MF, it still gets considerably better with an even wider view with some other sensors and much higher sync speeds with some of the other systems.
Verdict? I think Pentax did one heck of a great job.
jaykumarr: readers who are angry about the pricing should see the pricing of 80-400mm II Nikon AF-S. That is 20% higher. ( As per the feedback from users, that Nikon lens is extremely fast focusing and almost as sharp as prime. So I neither blame that price).
(bananasplit) No, I do not think that everyone thinks as I do (I address that very specifically in another post in this thread)... because if you thought like I did, then you would've have purchased the 7D in the first place and would've got a camera that gave you at *least* 5-8 years worth of easy room-to-grow. Same with lenses- I buy lenses that I know I'll be able to use a decade from now unless there's some huge tech advancement on the order of what digital was to film... and the likelihood of that happening is slim.
I do my research very well before I open my purse and plunk down my money (actually before I click "buy"). I only purchase what makes solid business sense not just for today, but for years to come. I upgrade when I need to, not when I want to. I buy premium lenses that will grow with me and that offer me the most options/latitude while I'm shooting in addition to not having to worry about replacing them for about 10 years. Yes. I know people don't think as I do ;)
mais51: Look - this Canon lens is smaller than the new Nikon 80-400, focus much closer @ ~1m against the Nikon 1.75 m, shorter and cheaper, if I were a Canon shooter it would definitely be on my wish list - let's see how it performs
Yes, that extra 20mm on a telephoto lens makes it a lot more "versatile" for the price that Nikon's asking. Question: How many steps forward would makeup the difference between 80 and 100mm for such versatility? ;)
steelhead3: I wish Canon would return to dirty white, this looks just like a Sony.
In the photograph above the lens looks grey, just like my other Canon lenses. If that colour of the sky was the colour of that lens I would call it grey, because it sure looks "dirtier" than the white background that it's photographed against.
webrunner5: I would just rather stick to my 70-200 2.8 and 1.4 extender. About the same money and a lot more useful all around. Just walk a little closer. I don't regard this lens as a Birder anyways. Still too short unless on a crop camera.
(webrunner5) I agree! ... mostly. Your mistake is in the thinking that everyone is like you (us). I wouldn't buy this lens because it doesn't make sense for *my* shooting, however I can see where this lens can be VERY useful to others, and I think the lens has relevance to many people.
I also agree with others' sarcasm directed to your comment, about just get closer with your 70-200 lens. The reason I agree with the sarcasm is because a 1.4x on a 70-200 is pretty much worthless to *me* for a scrawny 80mm boost. My old 1.7x (Nikon) gave 140mm on my 70-200.
Today, I don't use a tc/extender unless it's going on a prime 300mm or more, and preferably 500mm or more. But that's with my shooting in mind, using my camera and my lenses... other people use, shoot, and enjoy different things in 100 different ways.
So while I agree with you that (for us) 400mm is "too short", I remain cognizant that this wonderful lens is the bees knees to many photographers amateur and professional alike!
Bananasplit: I have no doubt that the lens is nice, well build and awsome optics. But the price is not worth for me..
I think the strategy of Canon is to earn more monry by making their product as expensive as possible, just a bit above what one would expect to pay. I believe it is a bad marketing strategy.
(Bananasplit) ... you're killing me with this. Canon introduces a new lens that's heads above the current version, better optics, better zoom, etc.. at a price that practically costs the same as the near 20 year-old version.
I'm curious, if you ran a corporation with a huge payroll, and the cost of having a lot of employees, on going research/development, etc... at what price(s) would you sell your lenses/products to remain competitive and to make a nice profit (the reason most are in business to begin with)?
Chronis: exactly what Canon needed at this point... another expensive lens for those already invested in their system...
shows how out of touch they are, building trimmings for bodies that (given the choice) any sensible customer would have at the bottom of his list...
(Chronis) ... I think the truth being is that you are probably "out of touch" with what people actually *buy*, which is what Canon (a company that sells things) is interested in.
Have you given thought to the fact that to many, a $2200 telephoto zoom lens isn't "expensive" and may prove to be a nice quality low-cost option compared to spending nearly $10,000 on a larger prime? Hint: Canon has given it thought ;)
(bananasplit) It's almost proverb that any time someone makes a "mistake" in buying camera equipment, it's because they didn't take time to do the requisite (and all too simple) research. Like Ferrari/Porsche, Nikon/Canon offer premium performance- with some distinct differences between the two brands.
Canon STILL neither has a high resolution studio body (that's 40'ish mp or more in today's speak) nor a fast shooting body that offers at least 24mp (neither does Nikon of course).
Nikon dragged a** on bringing stabilization to its super telephoto line (ages ago) and high resolution camera to market prior to the D800. Today, Nikon still sells the 200-400 f/4 lens, which, Canon (thankfully) surmised was ridiculous when full frame digital cameras became common across the professional demographic, because it's too short and offers too little latitude!
Nikon/Canon? depends on your needs- any "mistake" is simply due to photographers usually having the "equipment'itus" virus. ;)
webrunner5: Just go to U Tube and you can learn all you sort of need to know to start out. Video is like photography, trial and error. Takes years to get good at either, but I like a lot more than one opinion on anything. Video is HARD ASS STUFF to do well. And you had better have deep pockets to make a fairly good output.
But I would suggest anyone young get on the bandwagon because it is the future. Frame gabs will be the thing not just going out and taking 5 pictures all day. The DSLR thingy we know now will be like still shooting with a 8x10 View Camera 5 to 7 years from now.
100% correct. I've been saying it for years. However, I think "Fro" is fun to watch and I remember him from the old days on Youtube. If he can charge $100 and get it, then more power to him, I hope he sells a hundred million. It beats having to bust-you-butt having to physically work for every photo session, which has got to be one of the worse ways to conduct photography business, unless you just enjoy getting out there and shooting. The goal for many (most?) in business is to create something once, and continue to get paid for it. THAT's business, anything else is working your rump roaster off for peanuts. (tongue-in-cheek)
tkpenalty: I see Impossible.
Impossible to afford.
thumbs up :)
Take your palm away from your face. I know it's a cine lens. I am also familiar with Red. My point was that whether or not something is expensive is relative ($5500 isn't viewed as horribly expensive to a professional wildlife or street/documentary photographer as it is to the average person who thinks a $400 point/shoot is "expensive")
While there aren't too many teen agers getting $2.5mil Bugattis for their birthdays or for getting in to Yale; there are *many* teens who have received $300,000 Ferraris for their first car (and $70k earrings for their first real jewelry) and the number of teens receiving $100,000 Porsches , BMWs and Mercedes as "first cars" makes the point. What's suitable is most often decided with money and relativity...
... and yet people somehow can "afford" to pay **cash** for a $2.5 million dollar Bugatti to drive only occasionally, or a $4.5mil home in the Bay Area as their second home.
Whether or not something is reasonable or impossible depends on your purse.
Exactly. It might cost $250 per hour to rent a small high performance piston engine Cessna; so how much to rent/lease a Boeing 777? I don't know, but the fact is that a lot of people lease expensive things to get business done.
What's considered "expensive" or not is relative. Tell some guy on the street that you paid $5500 for a telephoto lens and they're likely to think you're absolutely crazy. Tell that to a wildlife shooter and they wouldn't think anything of it because it's a LOT cheaper than shelling money out for a 500, 600, 800 or 200-400mm lens.
Bernard Carns: So is this announcement supposed to make up for the stupid India or whatever non announcement it was?
If it costs more than a car why is DPReview bothering us with it?
Slow news year?
Next thing you know the video sites will be newsing only still photography info.
Maybe DPR is taking their marketing methods from Canon.
... because so many people & businesses today are focused on MEDIA not just video or photography, but rather video, photography, printing, scanning, etc.. because that is what business commonly requires today; a dynamic mixture of visuals.
I think it would be nuts for DPreview not to feature interesting video advances on this site along side photographic, software and technology advances as well.
As far as reporting on this lens, DPreview has its head screwed on correctly. They're running a business, not a personal blog.
But not impossible to rent, as there is so much video and photography equipment that professional videographers and photographers can't afford that is rented on a as needed basis.
I do find the lens very technically interesting though... even if the price is $ouch. I'm glad DPreview mentioned it because while it doesn't fit my needs, there are people who read this forum who are into video *and* photography who can easily afford the lens.
Dan: My initial reaction is that this is a huge disappointment. I have a D600, and I love it. This camera is only 0.5 fps faster? Come on! It should at least be as fast as the D700! Everything else about the camera looks virtually the same as the D600. This camera better have a buffer at least 3x as large. Please tell me why I would want this over my D600, and a few extra AF points isn't going to cut it. Neither are a better LCD or viewfinder. 1 more stop of high ISO performance, maybe. I'll be looking forward to the reviews. I want 8 fps!
I think the D750 is going to be a great camera, but I agree with much of what you say. The main upgrade that it offers is being full frame, decent resolution, with video capability.. the other stuff isn't anything earth shattering and frankly, Nikon dragged its feet getting this far.
I have often said that "fast" shooting starts at 8fps, but even so, for most things I'd rather have the D750 over the D4s and I fancy the larger bodies most. I think Nikon will hit a home run with this camera as an "all a'rounder", especially if it offers a powerful low iso punch.
SantaFeBill: This seems a most strange camera: It's billed as an action camera, but the fastest shutter speed is 1/4000 sec. My D200 goes to 1/8000. I know, smaller sensor in the D200, so less distance to travel, but still ... . Then, you've just introduced your top of the line xxx FX model, the D810, and now you introduce a less expensive camera with AF _improved_ over your top of the line one? Didn't the developers of the one talk to the developers of the other?And the F6 (obviously full-frame :-) ) will flash sync at 1/250, according to its specs on Nikon U.S., although to me the difference between 1/200 and 1/250 sync wouldn't be in itself a deal breaker. But note that the F6 will do 8fps with the battery pack (moving film!). So I don't understand why the D750 'action camera' doesn't have the same frame rate.
@McCool69 and @Richard Murey...You guys are killing me. :)Fill flash doesn't do much to stop action in broad daylight without the combined blurred edges + sharp-in-focus look.
The difference between 1/2000, 4000 and 8000 is more than an "academic" difference (water spray and shooting at f/2 or wider in bright day conditions (think of a sunny beach), are several examples where it can make a notable difference; however I do agree that most photographers don't normally encounter situations where it's an issue.
Looks like the D750 is a great camera; I like it better than Canon's latest mid-range offering. What took Nikon so long?