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?
albatros46: At first I thought Wikipedia was in the right, after all the law is the law. But even if the macaque did press the shutter release, Mr. Slater created the opportunity for the monkey to take the picture. According to him and his guide, the camera was set up on a tripod on auto settings to bait the monkeys into touching and playing with it and hopefully to snap some pictures. For one to "ape" (excuse the pun) the photographer and take a picture of itself is not so hard to believe. According to Slater he was holding the tripod while this took place.
Even if Wiki has the legal right to display the picture they should probably respect Slater's wishes and remove the photo as a matter of common courtesy.
If I'm holding the tripod for a famous photographer, I still shouldn't have claim to making the photograph. The monkey took the photographs and that should be then end of it as far as I'm concerned. Had the photographer toggled the shutter via remote, then we wouldn't be her having this discussion.I agree with Wikipedia.
tabloid: I think the design and looks of the DF makes it a mans camera…not like the poofy/bling/girly looking stuff around today.
Again…great looking camera.
What in the heck is a "man's" camera? All cameras are simply cameras that either work for your professional or personal needs or it doesn't. Whether it has rainbows and pink giraffes stamped all over it is of no consequence to usability and image quality.
ofior: Hey lacikuss, why would I worry about the resale value of smething I do not intend to sell?
Oh it's just peachy down here in Florida... you know how it is... "Would you like some sunshine with your 85% Humidity, or just horrible humidity with afternoon thunderstorms on the side?" Best in photography to you Serickmetz :)
... and for many photographers who use a camera as a working tool, even old cameras are worth more being put-to-use than they are on the used market. I have no idea how much my old-as-dirt (2005) Nikon D2hs is worth... but I know that I can make more shooting web-work with it than I can putting it up for sale.
While I mostly use other cameras now, I'm not concerned about selling something for a measly few hundred dollars when I can still make a few thousand with it... but I think that's the difference between people using cameras as opposed to collecting them or owning the latest and the greatest just for the sake of having it.
I always thought people concerned about the resale value of a freaking camera were infantile (and I'm being kind); akin to buying a puzzle and then wondering how much you can get for it at a garage sale... Resale value is mostly predicated on what low-cost hi-tech options are available at the time at the time you try to resale your old camera.
nicolaiecostel: What's the flash synch speed ? Oh dear .. Several times slower than the competition. How many modern lenses can you buy off the shelf for it ? Several times less than the competition. The price has a reason.
Flash sync speed is a great concern to many because unlike what many budding photographers think, you're likely to use flash of some sort any time you use this camera to shoot people-for-pay... that means glamour, fashion, art nudes, porn, large family portraits, medical illustrations, etc.. from dim light to daylight, flash is almost always used.
It's horrible to have a slow syncing camera when you're shooting certain portrait work outdoors. Flash only stops action basically when it's dark!
LucaPCP: Old cameras had big lenses, and relatively small bodies around them (because film did the trick). This D4s is ugly: a tiny lens attached to a huge black brick that contains the circuitry. It's starting not to make sense. I wish they gave me a light lens+sensor combo, tethered to the rest of the computer that I could keep in my backpack. It's like taking a photo while handholding a desktop computer.
Some of you need to realize that *many* people who make a living behind the camera prefer the larger pro bodies. I (like many) prefer the traditional "brick-like" pro bodies because I not only find it easier to hold, but it balances larger lenses nicely, it's less "wobbly" when panning due to its heft, and feels far more solid in my hand than my "toy" feeling Canon 5d2, which after all these years has been a work-horse camera for me, but I still prefer shooting Nikon (or Canon) pro bodies much better. Going from a pro body, to the smaller bodies for me was a let down in many respects.
All said and done, I'll take the heavier traditional "pro" body when given the choice if all else is equal. What's too large for you is just right for many other photographers.
Sad Joe: So the D4s is slighly better than a 3 year old Canon 5d3 which sells for well under 1/2 price - wow - must change all my kit - NOT. Guys don't be suckered - BOTH Canon & Nikon could bring out VASTLY better cameras for the same or less money - but won't as they wish to DRIP FEED us improvements and get us to keep updating our kit. Only fools with money to burn follow their lead - and don't give me the 'pros update all the time to stay ahead'. Rubbish - real - I have to make money - pro's are VERY careful about spending money….
The D4s is light years ahead of the 5d3 as far as I'm concerned. 18 or so raw shots and the buffer stalls, then it takes almost 5 seconds to clear the buffer? That's the buffer choking after only 3 seconds… so let's think real-world; you have 5 people in rapid succession coming across the finish line (you get the point).
Nikon/Canon don't make anyone upgrade. Though I've used every pro fast body Nikon since the D2H, I haven't purchased one since the D2hs. I buy what I need and I buy what will last me well into the future. I skipped the 5d3 and still shoot my 5d2 and would rather spend my money on a Canon pro body that offers far more resolution- corporations don't make decisions for me, I do.
Point blank- the D4s is worlds apart from the 5d3. Many of the features on my near 10 yr. old D2hs (Ferrari) make my 5d2 feel like a 1970's station wagon when it comes to cuts. wt balance, buffer, focusing, bracketing, and a host of other features that a pro body makes seamless!
webrunner5: What this review shows is that we are pretty much unable to see much difference between cameras anymore.
Just spend your money on a camera you feel comparable with and have a bunch of lenses with it and have a good time. End of story.
It's not just about "seeing" the difference and that's what many don't realize, but rather it's about how much latitude you have to get the shot in the first place. If you're shooting with a 500mm lens with a 1.4x attached, at dusk, do you have enough shutter speed to take a clean shot with the lens barrel resting on a bean bag over a rock? No? Then do you have the latitude to raise the iso to 6400 and still get a relatively clean result? Can you pop off 10 shots before the person, people, or animals turn their head? That's real world stuff. It's not just about sports, but rather speed and high iso prowess. If you've never had the need for such a camera, then you might not think of the situations where you'd benefit from what it offers.
If you've shot fast pro bodies before… you won't have to use your imagination on how the D4s can offer a myriad of benefits over other bodies new or old. The difference *can* be large in the capability to "get" the shot.
Sad Joe: Sorry - but what normal photographer shoots at 3000 ISO plus and if it takes that to start to see a visible difference… bit like saying if I blow the image up to 30 foot by 60 foot the 4DS is the winner….crazy !
And how does any of this translate to real world PRINT quailty - I'm ALWAYS shocked at how much of the image quailty is gone when I have photos printed.
In the getting ever shorter term NONE of this matters as smart phones continue to kill off camera sales….
You're "what NORMAL photographer shoots at 3000 ISO plus…" comment would make sense years ago, but today many photographers routinely shoot at 3200 ISO for paid professional work that's going to be printed on canvas… especially black/white prints. 3200 ISO doesn't give you that much latitude when you're shooting at dusk with a 300mm lens or longer, trying to coax as much shutter speed as you can possibly get from the camera.
Smart phones are great for the average Joe who just wants to post shots to the internet, but smart phones aren't even close to being a solution for photographers like me (although they are good enough to be professional tools for certain aspects of real estate, etc.. which I think is great!)
I'm more concerned about highlights, but the bottom line is that I can print from 3200 ISO files where years ago I couldn't get the same results from such a high iso. Soon 12,500 ISO will be good enough for routine professional prints (canvas).
Yes, this stuff matters.
Kater Karlo: Can anyone tell me from experience what kind of computer (preferably PC) I would need to develop such big RAWs and the resulting Tiffs / JPGs? I guess it must be a pretty fast machine, but what is the most important? Processing power, RAM, graphics card?Thanks...
If you were processing heaps of raw video, that would be one thing, but files from a 50mp camera? naththo is 100% correct, virtually any off-the-shelf computer with an i7 processor and a decent amount of ram will be more than sufficient.
SSD will make things run a bit faster, but it isn't a must have for photo processing. Decent processor and a lot of ram is all you really need… only spend more money after that if your system isn't adequate for your needs.
Keep in mind that a 50mp camera isn't generally considered "taxing" to an average appointed, modern desktop computer with even i7 and only 32 gig ram and no SSD.
ali alriffai: Everything in this camera is hot but flash syn @ 1/125 is a big downside :-(
Hasselblad has a faster sync., Mamiya has a faster sync where you can use leaf shutter lenses, or not. I think this is an area where Pentax dropped the ball. If Pentax had current leaf lenses or at least a 1/500th sync… at least they'd be somewhat up-to-speed in that regard.
1/125th sync is just nuts…. forcing people to pull out various Neutral Density filters just to be able to shoot on the beach without running the aperture down to the size of a gnat's bottom!