olyflyer: The 18-300 DX is exactly the lens which is not needed. They should have made a 16-70/2.8VR DX instead. It would have been a much better travel lens, as well as a very useful all purpose "normal" zoom. What's the point of making yet another consumer superzoom?
That 16-70 VR f2.8 would be huge and cost near $2000.Look at the size & price of the current 17-55 f2.8.
That would have made more sense?
Northgrove: $1000 for a lens aimed at travel photography? How about a Fujifilm X-S1 at $600 for more compact and lighter travel photography with a 24-624 mm equivalent zoom? After all, users of this will be looking for range, not optics.
My point is that all the corners Nikon will have to cut to get to such an extreme focal range means the focal range will be more important than the optical quality to them. And then a $1000 price tag for that aim. Just buy a long range compact camera? Optical quality will be priority in: neither of the cases. So you can just as well focus on travelling light and both your neck and credit card will be happier.
A well-made ultra-zoom on a nice APS-C body is no comparison to a ultra-zoom compact in terms of image quality.
If it's an awful lens, Nikon would have never launched it.
chiane: Am I the only one that doesn't want a camera that looks like it's from the '70's?
This lay-out and form factor is proven and appreciated during decades, why would Olympus keep far away from it?
Instead of seeing it as "just a 70s body", try to see it as a "small, ergonomical SLR". It's not really that hard, really.
dannyboy5400: I love my Nikon and Canon gear but here is how it breaks down for me. I plan on getting a D800 for landscape, nature, product shots. 5D Mark 3 will do the portrait, fashion, wedding and video work. Why? Because Nikon tonality for skin takes me way to long to make look acceptable. I am willing to pay the price to have my gear be more specialized. If you can't afford it, pick one or the other and I am sure if you are any good then you can shoot great shots.
I don't understand "Nikon has a problem with skintones".
You only shoot JPEG?
oluv: i am not too impressed with the samples. at 12mm the edges seem quite soft even stopped down to f/4.5doesn't look like a 1000€ lens to me :(
And where do you see a sample picture where the focus is set on an extreme corner or a straight picture of a flat wall?
Don't confuse OOF with softness.
James22: Your article summary is incorrect. The standard camera is already a ~24mm FOV equivalent. This 0.8x adapter turns it into a ~19mm equivalent.
No you are wrong. It's a 23mm lens on a aps-c sensor, so its an 35mm equivalent.
This adapter makes it a 28mm equivalent (or a 18mm lens)
Marty CL: Ok, Leica is known for some pretty esoteric products. But a $7,000 camera that only shoots black and white ( sorry, "monochrome")---
@lxstormThere is nothing about this monochrome images that can't be done with another camera. There is no such thing as "magical Leica black & white". The only advantages are:
- a bit better high ISO (still worse than other cameras)- a bit better sharpness (nothing spectacular)
Please stop typing comments purely based on sentimentality and emotions.
Caleido: No significant advantages in terms of IQ over other cameras - even without the color array, there is still more noise than competitors.
It feels like Leica is in panic. They can't come with a better and up to date sensor, so they make it hardware b&w to get some extra ISO performance?
That, or Leica is mocking everyone.
plasnu: Those pictures are the most beautiful "Image Samples" ever posted on DP review, and I'm not a monochrome guy.
Simply breathtaking. Thanks.
Your sarcasm is a bit too subtle.
Leica is indeed the Hyundai in this case, sensor wise.
No significant advantages in terms of IQ over other cameras - even without the color array, there is still more noise than competitors.
plasnu: Better dynamic range than 5d3?
D700/D3 sensorD3s sensorD100/D70/D50/D40 sensor
And probably more. Designed by and fabricated for Nikon.
ZAnton: I think this is a fake price. They just say that the deal was made for $1B, while it is max. $100m. From that lie win both FB and Instagram. FB shows how rich and cool they are, how much $ they invest in development, new technologies, how deep they are into photography etc. Instagram owners/investors show what a good, big, important, successfull job they did.
It is something like fake selling paintings made of paint, sprayed on the canvas from the bowel, for $ millions inside a group of people, raising the price in each transaction, unless one off-site idiot buys this painting.
Yes of course. It's totally legal to lie about that. To the customers, the employees, the government, the media and future stockholders.
rocknhead: Excellent report. Only prob i have is in my opinion handicapping the canon by using a nikon lens with an adaptor on the canon. That does not seem to me to be an apples to apples comparison. I would have thought to be fair you would get say a good tamron lens and use a lens made for each camera. I understand that by using the exact same lens you are getting a bettercomparison in the cameras BUT it is my opinion that would not over weigh the handicap put on the canon camera by using an adapter and a nikon lens.
They are both great cameras. If i did not have a lot of money in canon lenses (5d mkii) I would prob buy the nikon if i was starting over today.
I dont quite see how nikon can put that much technology for that money.
@ Everlast66 What if the two - for example - Tamrons were not equally sharp? How is that for completely fair comparison? Only completely fair if you use exactly the same lens.
I'm pretty sure both cameras used the light gathered by the same lens in the same way.
kenaroo: I like the article but I'm curious why a third party lens was not used instead of adding an adaptor to the Canon.
It's completely obvious. For fair comparison, you need to use the same, identical lens. You can't put a Canon lens on a Nikon and using two third party lenses for each brand adds an another possible impact on the results (not all lenses are the same, not even the same model). The adapter has zero impact on the results.
Therefore, using a Nikkor lens is logical.
Electronics are irrelevant, as everything was set manually. No auto mode.
skrulm8 is correct. There is no handicap whatsoever, the adapter does not nothing besides attaching lens to the body. You are wrong.
Difference between 5DII & III is really, really small.The (very) high ISO's from D800 look like the 5DII, just bigger.
The D800 beats everyone at low ISO.
There, there you have it.
Jean_Baptist_Emanuel_ZORG: am i the only person who believes that nikon and canon releasing two top models each at the same time, both insanely priced are just preparing for a global financial collapse? i might be wrong , just curious
Exactly which body is "insanely" priced, Nostradamus?
A good thing I guess.
But I'll keep uploading at 900px max.