baggy1: The 35mm looks interesting,the sort of lens I might buy if the price is reasonable.I think the Nikon version is too light & plasticky.But why have they made a 45mm? just to be different from a 50mm?
I know of two measurements of real FL for the Sigma lens - 48 and 49.5mm. Often a 50 mil lens is a tad longer than 50mm. 45mm is a useful differentiation - a bit wider 50. As is the combination with the VC. Ultimately it's the whole package that will matter.
Yeah, the lossless compression is hopefully only a matter of time for Sony.
El. front-curtain shutter for use with MLU mode for tripod work will hopefully appear in all Nikon cameras. Well done for D810 (now it could also have that little, funny, sneezed at IR remote support built in).
I would say that Sony’s attention to utilising potential of the theoretical resolution sorting out the mechanical issues with the shutter once again shows the company’s leading role in Camera innovations. People are investing in (very) expensive tools to extract maximum of this potential but they can get only so far - with the shutter system design that is hampering it.
..."'good' photographer is one that pushes the physical boundaries, hikes farther, climbs higher, suffers harsher conditions, endures pain – all to get to a unique location and be one of the first to shoot it."
I never heard such a suggestion but yes, it’s a total nonsense. Similar for many times shot locations or views/subjects. First is the shot that matters, then a long gap, then another gap and then maybe some other things (I don’t have time to think about).
RX100 concept and potential was exciting and making sense from the start. It's one of those that today is copied by other manufactures in their versions.One petty remark: MLU and EFC shutter in DSLRs is not a workaround, it's a solution. Our views or preference of one concept over the other is another matter.
As usual, Sony don’t mess around with something they know people actually want. And it seems to cause a sensation, which says something about a common experience in this field. Hopefully Nikon work further on the shutter implementations and also their EFC is a new norm for all cameras. After all, those megapixels, often overhyped, need to be supported by adequate tech for use of the potential. it could also look like doing things from the wrong end. and worse, with no clear or real intent.
Looks like DSLRs for stills. This segment still doesn’t have AF tune? I don’t need to look at the d5500 to know that Canon is not alone. Part of marketing of companies from this part of the world is to overlook ostentatiously the competition you really don’t like as if it didn’t exist. Unfortunately majority of the customers come from Europe, US and other parts of the world where people don’t get nor do they share such attitudes and can only hardly adopt such a suggestion for themselves. If the companies think that would be possible (for a customer).That way the weak spots of their products are made glaring omissions that contrast with better solutions of the competition. Having heads in the sand as a part of strategy will work for some time to a certain extent but will fail as a permanent measure. The point is that some things start to look like permanent.
falconeyes: The problem of shutter-induced blur in VR systems has a long history.
Interesting, vendors (Nikon, Sony, Canon, Olympus, Pentax) don't more seriously test their products against it.
Here you find an in-depth study of the same problem for the Pentax K-7 camera which actually got translated to Japansese to be discussed in the engineering dep.-> http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/k7shutter/index.html
Pentax eventually solved the issue for their K-5 update.
Quiet mode on Nikon cameras such as d7000 and d600 gives already known advantage particularly at lower s. speeds (and VR on). I am not the only one who noticed it, nor the first one; number of tests, camera and lens combinations have shown the positive effect the Q mode has where the mirror movement is slowed down followed with a pause as actuation is separated into more distinct phases. There is less blur caused by mirror vibrations (and less negative interaction with VR).
The suggestion presented earlier by dpreview to add a delay after the mirror is up and couple it with EFC seems about the only complete solution to get rid of the vibrations coming from both the mirror and the mechanical shutter operation in SLR camera for handheld use. Options for the delay would be useful, e.g., the shortest one - effective most of the time (if that was not covered by default already) and a longer one.
I am using the 60mm on NEX 6. Nice little lens and optically excellent. I think what makes it a bit special, at least for APS-C, is that it is a compact, well done f2.8 90mm equivalent that’s available to everyone.The Art designation is unusual when you think that the Art series is to be about 'no compromise design' rather than other considerations which typically means a faster lens. Look and manual touch could be better but for the price there is nothing wrong with it (also not very Art). It feels well made.
Excellent shot and great winner.
So my little summary is that these results suggest that at this s. speed VR doesn’t reduce the shake but introduces it.
This is the same result as your test done on tripod is showing (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-d810/10). Although unlike here you didn’t pick up on the differences for VR on/off w/EFC there.
Maybe I wouldn’t expect the VR to behave the same or very similar on tripod (collar mount and camera mounted) compared to when hand-held. I can imagine a whole range of specific changes reflected into the VR’s work and the results these two different support methods are likely to introduce. But it apparently is the case and your results support this idea strongly which is what matters.
The test with the lens on tripod is also useful as it is showing shutter induced shake and its cancelation when EFC is used (at the typical s.speeds @200mm) including VR on which again determines the shutter induced vibration/shift as the culprit.
My 70-200/4 VR on D600 is not affected by the smear caused by out of sync VR action seen with Nikkor 300/4 VR at the particular s. speed and cameras and which appears to be a very distinct issue.
However I follow carefully your findings with regard to Optical Stabilisation and its deteriorating effects at critical s. speeds as these prove to be just those useful s. speeds the VR/IS function is used for. This is brilliant work you are doing for us. I absolutely support the wider implementation of the EFC. And its wide use in all Nikon DSLRs. In fact, I think these are necessary steps and that Nikon, after the start of certain implementation of EFC in D810, will continue this direction.
HSway: With this camera the J series makes sense for the first time to me. But the ambition of J 5 design in N1 concept, although likeable, is very bold, so bold that it borders on naive. But this naivety or boldness makes sense from Nikon. And what makes sense can succeed somewhat. But mainly it makes some sense and it even seems to have got a little seed of mission in it. When something makes sense it keeps its dignity.
How about - first N 1 camera I like as a camera and as a product (using LCD for shooting). But in this segment I am not sure the typical buyer will appreciate the J5 enough for it to become very profitable (something to do with the concept of interchangeable-lens camera in this segment). But this worries me less than Nikon making bad cameras.
"Well you didn't say "Nikon 1"... nevermind you are off the hook."
With this camera the J series makes sense for the first time to me. But the ambition of J 5 design in N1 concept, although likeable, is very bold, so bold that it borders on naive. But this naivety or boldness makes sense from Nikon. And what makes sense can succeed somewhat. But mainly it makes some sense and it even seems to have got a little seed of mission in it. When something makes sense it keeps its dignity.
HSway: The Tamron might have less complex field curvature. It has better CA control, the scene tests this nicely. Differences here and there aside, the Tamron is equal player and gets you lens even bulkier than not exactly small Nikkor and narrower angle for a much better price. And gives you VC which may be that decisive feature for some. In other words Tamron again comes with an excellent option.
Yes, thanks. I am referring to axial CA as the more or definitely just as useful to get some comparative tools for. Surely these are more difficult to make and present. For lenses from f2.8 in particular but not only. Slower lenses like f4 can be quite terrible in this regard.There are plenty of those measuring lateral CA.
HSway: Samples tell us 24 Art bokeh can be very jittery. I don’t say it lightly, I am not any of the bokeh fanatics or a Sigma basher and I am very happy with 50 Art and 60 Art in this particular respect. The point is that while this is absolutely OK with some, say, (14-) 24/4 lens the purpose of f1.4 lens fills also different roles where this is a consideration. I wish they take it into account with such fast lenses including UWAs and avoid rendition that really can be distracting and limiting for certain uses. (As distanced from the character; most people will agree on the difference - my Touit 32 can have unpleasant jittery bokeh @f1.8, it changes to character I love @f2.2, I could go on). No it is not a disaster but it makes the potential of the lens less versatile.
Not that the standards are not high but thank you for the most interesting article.
OK guys, we come from various brands, you certainly have a point. Nikon has spoilt us maybe a bit more here (not always). 20/1.8G seems to have clearly struck a better balance. And 24/1.4G simply is a different lens - which does translate to having options as a good thing. Btw, and despite the first samples, it’s still early days.
I agree, absolutely. I haven't actually ever seen nearly this much CA from my lens on usual conditions. But I don’t shoot comparison tests for it often either:) Still, starting from LR 4, I think, this would take just the default profile to clean it.I think that having high brightness/contrast induced axial CA quantified using a standard test would be (more) useful. I saw somewhere you or Barney referring to this as well.
The Tamron might have less complex field curvature. It has better CA control, the scene tests this nicely. Differences here and there aside, the Tamron is equal player and gets you lens even bulkier than not exactly small Nikkor and narrower angle for a much better price. And gives you VC which may be that decisive feature for some. In other words Tamron again comes with an excellent option.