danstern: Way to go Dan Chung- nice to see some out of the box thinking. Shows talent + creativity + taking advantage of an opportunity = results. A few Picasso quotes come to mind: All children are artists. The problem is how to remain an artist once he grows up. Also another: Art is the elimination of the unnecessary.
I don't see "... in conjunction with some binoculars, a clip-on Schneider lens and the Snapseed processing app, he's been live-blogging..." as eliminating the unnecessary.
Don't be naive. This is purely marketing and PR. For iPhone, Snapseed and for Chung.
Lupti: So what? In my country it is priced around 550 €. For that price I can get a decent stills cam with optical stabilisation and good video capabilities with stereo mic AND a smartphone. Nothing to rave about this video sample, it´s shaky as hell and sound isn´t good, it´s pretty muffled and 128kbps is also nothing special, listen to the drum sound, due to the low bitrate it sounds too clanking for my taste. There are some pocket camcorders with better video and sound for sale.Smartphones are just toys without real value of use, photos and videos aren´t good, surfing the web is uncomfortable, the small screen gives you the experience of mouse cinema when viewing photos and videos and with heavy usage the battery will quickly run out of power.And phoning and writing SMS, I can do this with my 20 € cellphone as well...
Stop whining like a little girl. This is the best smartphone-camera money currently can buy.
How you can turn all that into such a negative rant with cliché-overload, is beyond me.
bearseamen: I am sorry, I can't possibly be the only one who's getting a spinning head by this kind of horsesh**.
Taking photos is something you do in spare time, for your enjoyment. Who in their right mind could possibly enjoy beeing robbed of 90% of the entire process?
Manufactorers act as they're bringing relief to the *chore* that is "mainstream photography". If its such a tedious process of taking a picture, why would you bother in the first place? Because its a social norm to take pictures of shiny happy people in the grass? Come on >_<
Why not take this further and invent something like an automated tennis rack for the hobbyist? It would play 10 times as good as the newbie consumer who cant even get a stupid portrait straight (see what I did there?) and guess what, you wouldnt even have to play on your own anymore! Pffff, stupid hobbies, wasting all your precious time.
Oh, and also make an article on the frontpage of some big website so that people can go apeshit crazy about it >___<
I'm sure you believe in-camera cropping and on-screen guide lines are also horsesh**?
This is just add-on to make capturing nice moments easier. Instead of taking several shots and asking people to wait and pose for a couple of more pictures, you have the option to combine the best expressions on the spot. Quicker and easier.
Why act like it is a a feature on a Nikon D4 that you can't turn off?
Alizarine: As much as innovative an invention it is, or as"smart" as this app says it is, I won't let any AI algorithm disturb what my sense of beauty tells me.
I am the photographer. I decide what's beautiful and what's not. I decide which shot to use. I decide which photo is good and which one is bad, NOT MY CAMERA.
I'd hate to say this but apps like this just contribute to making people stupider.
You clearly don't understand the concept, the context and the target market and just saw the opportunity to spill out some empty stereotypes about photography.
AmateurSnaps: As the article said this seem to make it as clear as they are willing - we will be seeing a 'budget' full frame camera.
As their are rumours that Canon are also looking at this the choices just get better and better. Next Sony ?
The pictures of the D600 are already out there.
That said, this looks like a fine lens. Although I already have a good 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 walk-around lens... if this lens is any good as my first Nikon AF-S lens - the 18-70mm on my first DSLR couple of years ago - it's a gem.
Price will drop, I'm sure.
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.