Jacques Cornell: Mirrorless shooters don't need no stinkin' AF adjustment.Yea!
Yep. Of course, you're still waiting on the camera to find that focus, but that's another story. ;-)
Jerry Pruce: The more pixels the better. But why does it have to be so expensive? If it was around $3000 I'd buy it. And I wish they would make it smaller. Maybe in the next year or two, they'll come out with the 200mp version and the 100mp one will drop in price more to my liking. I think their shooting themselves in the foot by not offering the camera at an affordable price for the masses.
I haven't read anything this funny in a while.
Exclusively with AT&T? Because nothing is better than getting the shot and not being able to share it...
Horshack: Amazing how $1,800 lenses can have a decentered/tilted element. It's something you expect (and get) on a Samyang 14mm but not on a class of lens like the 14-24mm. Sadly it's a problem seen on many expensive optics. I've tried three different copies of a Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II and all have had significant tilting issues.
Horshack might be misreading/misinterpreting the results--as in, it's the Tamron's decenteredness cause the differences in right and left sides/corners, not the Nikon's. (Or they both are, in slightly opposite direction, making the results even more exaggerated.) While not a $1800 lens, I went through four 50mm f1.4Gs before I found one that wasn't decentered. 1 out of 4 ain't a great ratio regardless of what the price is...
Interesting results, thank you for posting it!! 3 thoughts: 1) The sunburst stuff--the Nikon one really didn't look good next to the other ones. However, it also didn't have a giant flare-spot elsewhere in the frame. I'm kinda surprised there was no mention of this. Sometimes it's a nice effect, but it can also ruin a picture. 2) I'm really surprised at how much wider the Nikon ends up being. 3) It is great to see 3rd-party lenses perform this well. But, they're also not the smaller, lighter, and (significantly) cheaper alternatives any more either. Turns out Canon and Nikon weren't making large, expensive lenses just for the heck of it. ;-)
I feel like this is some kind of joke.
This might be the weakest update I've ever seen. "Oh, weren't impressed by the last one? Well wait till you see what we've added this year..."
AngryCorgi: As usual, Canon puts out another camera that get's spanked by a 4-year-old Nikon in the IQ department. When will they think about either (a) purchasing Sony's sensors or (b) partnering with Sony in some way to improve their sensors to be competitive with what Sony has been producing for more than half a decade??
@fPrime: are you forgetting the Canon 1D3 debacle, that cannon tried to fix, but couldn't. You know, one of the things that, along with the sensor in the D3, drove so many (pro) sports cannon shooters back over Nikon? And what did we hear? "Yeah, you know, when the Canon was working, it was marginally better, but not really enough to matter." So you can called it warmed over or whatever you want, it's really not worlds apart let alone years ahead of Nikon's. Additionally, Nikon's system has frequently been praised for its accuracy in low light. And they just introduced an AF module that takes that a step further. I would agree that the D800 / prime issue was something Nikon didn't do right. But fundamentally, these PDAF systems are not night and day, apple and oranges, and Nikon isn't years behind. At least not in the PDAF area.
Nikon's AF tech isn't 7 years behind Canon. Sorry, not even close.
While it's true that Nikon has outstanding sensors as a result of their IP in partnership with Sony's, these modern sensors are all *pretty* good. I'm not saying that one could/should expect more from Canon. Probably should. But same can be said of Nikon in certain areas: If the precision/diagonal/group AF works out, it looks like a great system, better than Nikons's! And their live view / video stuff continues to be better. Nikon's live view is the most shameful thing on the planet, and has been since day one.
10 fps is pretty darn cool. But the wi-fi? In a "rugged" camera? If there's one camera that's likely to be taking pictures where a tablet doesn't exist and a cel phone doesn't work, it's /this/ camera. And they chose this feature over GPS? Hmmm.
Raw would have been good but there's probably too much internal processing to compensate for the lens. But video--please tell me there are slow-motion options available at lower video resolutions. Otherwise it looks pretty good. Not perfect, but a lot closer to it with that lens. And no, we don't need more megapixels.
TimK5: This is so useless! Where is the classic 24 mm equivalent!?!? Apart from the less than mediocre specs of the J1/V1 this is another reason not to get into that system.
3mm isn't going to be the difference in your photography.
I missed the part where this has /anything/ to do with digital (still) cameras or their lenses....