jhinkey: It's lenses like this one that really makes me think twice about having both a FX and m43 system - If I only had one system Fuji would be it.
In equivalent terms, the Nikon 16-35/4 is also a full stop faster as it covers a full frame sensor. If you don't like the size of the faster lens that's fine, but don't act like you are getting something equivalent but with less size going with Fuji.
Keytsa: What's the fastest ultra telephoto lens on market, regardless of mount, and still acceptable in price? This one is F5...
Ok, Canon has a non-stabilized 70-200/2.8 that when mounted on an APS-C DSLR yields a 320mm field of view. Selling right now at B&H for $1300. Nikon's 80-200/2.8 AF-D is even cheaper but doesn't have a built-in focus motor.
Both companies also have 300mm f/4 lenses for under $1500, and Canon's is stabilized to boot.
Define "acceptable in price" and also specify the focal length. As lenses get longer focal lengths, max f-stops get smaller. Nikon built what I believe to be the fastest/longest telephoto in existence with their 300mm f/2 lens (manual focus). Canon built a 200mm f/1.8 at one point with AF as well. Going by physical aperture diameter, the 600mm f/4 lenses (150mm apertures) made by both Canon and Nikon are the top lenses in that category.
Note that this new lens from Tamron is only f/5 at 150mm (30mm physical aperture). By 600mm (and likely far sooner) it's f/6.3, or 95mm aperture diameter (pretty big for the price).
Biowizard: This is very "Apple": they did this with their iOS device interface, where first the depracated one of the pins that used to carry analogue audio, giving it a new digital function, and then a couple of years later, when they binned the interface altogether for the new, sleeker "lightning" connector.
A number of third-party add-on companies got badly burned: one, in particular (Blue, who make microphones) had just brought out a high quality stereo mic for the iPhone, complete with free matching recording app. Within weeks, the mic was made obsolete by the change in pin assignment. So Blue continued to work on a Digital mic instead - and just as that was ready, Apple switched to Lightning. Blue have (understandably) gone away in a huff, and have pulled any attempt to produce a mic for iOS, and have stopped developing the app.
The losers are the Users. And Apple, because some of those users will have switched to Android to avoid this kind of crap. Another reason I will stick to Olympus.
Yes, there is a massive difference. Nikon changed something that might require users to spend up to $40 (for a new battery) to fix. Olympus's change might have cost some users $1000's.
Team Yeti: If true, then the dinosaur is taking another step towards extinction, unless they hurry up and evolve.
I understand not wanting to be liable for 3rd-party equipment mixed with OEM. But really that responsibility is taken on by the end-user. If I put a no-name battery in my camera and it makes the magic smoke, well, that's MY fault. A risk you take.
Nikon user here for many years, but my last experience with them (D7000) soured me. Sold off all my Nikon gear and don't plan on going back. My humble opinion: mirrorless will make dSLRs nearly obsolete, save maybe for certain pro users (sports, etc.). We are seeing it happen right before our very eyes. Technology is moving very quickly -- anyone remember Zip Drives? LOL
When Nikon receives that camera back with a warranty claim with the end user denying ever using a third party battery, how is the dispute settled?
And what does mirrorless have to do with this? You do realize that Nikon makes mirrorless as well as DSLR cameras.
Because Olympus never ditches anything [cough] 4/3's mount [cough].
evandijken: But that price...!!
The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art Series is the same price and a full stop faster on a full frame camera. I haven't seen a comparison, but unless this Fuji is THE sharpest lens available at this focal length, it's probably not as sharp as the Sigma. Yet again, full frame is the place to go if you want DOF control.
reginalddwight: Bestowing the GM1 the title of Gear of the Year before getting an opportunity to test a production sample? Hmmm.....
My assumption was based on the comment I quoted. It sure seemed to hint at not reviewing these "gear of the year" items. Perhaps there's a different explanation for the inclusion of that comment though.
From the the first lines of the page you had to click through to get to this article: "A lot of equipment passes through our Seattle and London offices, everything from high-end cameras to inexpensive accessories. A lot of it gets reviewed, but we can't cover everything."
I don't think they intend to review this camera.
Ken Johnes: 500 $ for a silly firmware upgrade? and the target audiance for this camera have been waiting eagerly for this AF upgrade . wow, greed and trying to milk it´s customers with incremental upgrade are gonna hurt the big dogs here, both of em, look at what nikon is trying to do.
i think nikon and canon are competing with each other on how to sell less for more, while other companies are making innovative products at a fair price , no wonder these greedy top dogs have to make up for their loss with such silly act..
Ken, have you considered that the firmware/hardware for the dual-pixel AF system wasn't ready but the rest of the camera was, so the decision was made to release it without that feature? I'm sure users of the C100 prefer to have had use of their camera for the past year or more without dual-pixel AF rather than wait until now to get it both it and the camera.
Dimit: I believe that this camera is a DISASTER,aesthetically,egornomically,financially and predict-as all of Nikon stuff-inferior to similar models of other-not naming-brands.Specifically:-Like it or not,the majority prefers 24,or 36 mp,wrong?-39 focus points?-Speed up to 1/4000,really?-No focus peaking,the epitome of manual focus aid?-Wrongly positionned controls,I've counted 6,no need to name them one by one,people familiar with analog controls already realize that-No video?..for God's shake!-Just one card in the compartment-Still biggy-Under specified in general-Ugly.Looking old doesn't necessarily means handsome-Expensive..kit should be exactly..1800 $ !
You are forgetting that it has the same sensor as a $6000 camera.
-Neither Nikon or Canon's top of the line DSLRs have over 18MP.- 39 is a lot more than the 5DII had- 1/4000" and ISO 100 gets the same bright light capability as 1/8000" and ISO 200 (the standard for Nikon pro DSLR's prior to the D800 and D4)- Nikon has an excellent electronic rangefinder feature for manual focusing- "Wrongly positioned" is a matter of taste. Fact is, you don't need to use most of the dials if you don't want to.- People have been screaming for a non-video DSLR for a while now- One card, just like the D6X0, 6D, and 5DII.- Biggy? Big enough to hold comfortably, unlike most Sony's- Opinion- Opinion
AngryCorgi: It's a shame that it shall be obscenely overpriced. :(
Overpriced compared to what other retro styled full frame DSLR? Also, compare prices of Nikon full frame DSLRs to Canon. Nikon is cheaper across the board.
Hwirt: A camera like this would have been ideal at the start of the digital age and would have eased the transition by looking and feeling familiar, but now I don't see the logic. Other than looking cool in a nostalgic way it would likely be a step or several steps backward in ergonomics and functionality. If nostalgia is what you want there are plenty of beautiful film cameras available on the used market. Perhaps there are some who would like this but at best it will be a niche product.
At the "start of the digital age" Nikon had the F5 and F6 which look an awful lot like their DSLRs of that period and today. This is a throwback camera, like many other cameras on the market today.
HeyItsJoel: I'll never understand why Nikon insist on starting their kit lenses at 18mm when the ideal length to start is @ 16mm (~24mm fov).
24mm equivalent may be an ideal wide angle focal length, and if so, ideally you'd then have some range above and below in order to tweak composition around the focal length. Hence the existence of wide angle zooms like the 10-24. A lens starting at 16mm would only provide just a bit more wide angle than an 18mm lens while not really allowing that ideal focal length to be utilized to its fullest. IMO of course.
ProfHankD: I can see why Nikon's annoyed because it sure looks like the J2/J3/S1 in body shape and placement of some features. The guts are functionally different, but that is not relevant for the "infringement of the design patent and trade dress right owned by Nikon." However, it is very clearly marked as Polaroid iM1836.
I assume Nikon is worried that it will lower their brand image. However, the only real harm I can see is potential confusion about compatibility. That's still enough reason to sue, I guess....
Design patents, as opposed to utility patents, don't rely on wording. Design patents are strictly superficial appearances, not even any particular size (design
Nikon filed for a design patent for a reason. It doesn't matter what harm the infringing camera model could do to their sales; the fact that [they believe] it infringes on their patent (which didn't come free) means they can sue.
joejack951: What to buy: Nikon 58mm f/1.2 Noct or this new Zeiss? I wonder how many threads we'll see about this now that there are two extraordinary lenses selling for about the same price.
No comment on the Minolta lens, but otherwise I'd have to agree. There's a new-in-box Noct on Ebay right now for $7000!
What to buy: Nikon 58mm f/1.2 Noct or this new Zeiss? I wonder how many threads we'll see about this now that there are two extraordinary lenses selling for about the same price.
Plastek: Good test. Guys at LensTip.com made similar tests (only never published the results) and came to a similar conclusions - adapters are completely random and getting an acceptable one - perfectly centred with accurate flange distance - is impossible. That's why they test lenses on native bodies instead of comparing all of them in a single body and single sensor (what would allow cross-system comparisons).
So much for all these people thinking that shooting mirrorless with adapters is a valid way for photography.
"If I buy a decentered lens I give it back."
How are you checking for decentering? Unless you are using equipment similar to Roger's you are very likely getting inconsistent and/or unreliable results. But so long as your real world shots agree with your test, you accept the lens, right?
Remember no lens (or body) is perfect so if you aren't seeing decentering you just aren't looking hard enough. Roger is looking pretty hard though so it's not surprising that he's finding issues.