M1963: The madness has gone too far. Phones are for phoning (and texting, OK), cameras are for photographing. The sample image on flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nokiaofficial/6788333052/sizes/o/in/photostream/) is appalling: it's unsharp and noisy. I don't even care if it's far better than any other cell phone at shooting. It's a bad image, that's all there is to it. If you want to make photos, buy a camera, not a phone.And no, I'm not 108 years old...
I am not the one having trouble seeing very good new technology with a lot of potential at very good quality or narrow-mindedly yelling out how very wrong it is that a good picture can be taken with - blasphemy! - a cellphone.
Phones are for calling and texting only? It's your right to skip the new digital age and keep your old Motorola from 1997 for texting and calling. Everybody happy. In the meantime, we'll use smartphones for browsing, connecting with people all over the world, music, HD recording and taking great photographs.
True, you're not 108. But you do your very best to act as one.
Look at the samples in this article. How on earth can you call those "appalling"? Are you blind? Or do you have a medium format Leaf sensor in your own phone?
Even at full res (38MP), it's very impressive. This is more "wow" than the difference between a D3 and a D4 in my book.
Remember, this is just a phone.
Octane: I don't like the imposed question if Nikon 'got it right or wrong' with these cameras. These guys have never touched these cameras. But more important: It really doesn't matter what a pro with a specific need thinks when it comes to my own camera decisions.
I have my own needs/requirements when it comes to cameras. I happen to be a pro as well, but that's irrelevant. Everyone has their own needs / budget / goals. No 'right or wrong', there is only a match or not a match of a camera and what you need.
Not that I find their opinion uninteresting, but it has no influence or weight on what I need. A Reuters news reporter is certainly a pro, but he shoots stuff I don't shoot, he works differently and doesn't have to worry about what his gear costs for the most part.
The D800 will sell mostly to non or semi professionals. Their 'needs' are much more driven my what they want rather what they really have to deliver, so they will decide more based on their gut.
The fact remains: with the D3 and D700 it was all very simple. You are a pro, you want/need it all and can afford it? You buy the D3. You are somehow less pro or a pro who wants backup body or on budget? You buy the D700 - a.k.a "90% D3". Everyone was quite happy, generally speaking.
Things got a bit complicated now. Not if you only wanted a high res body or need a really fast machine with money to spend. In that case you are one happy camper. But I mean, the D800 and D4 are two very different beast, unlike de D700 and D3. If the price was the same, the choice would be simple again. But it is not. For a lot of people de D4 is not an option and they don't like the D800 (maybe not yet).
So I can understand the opinion from the crowd falling in between the D4 and the D800. A vacuum.
Time (and proper reviews) will tell.
Sdaniella: D4 = ExpSim LV (maybe; most likely for stills and video); more MP than past 12Mp but only a bit; allows for fast fps still; but not fastest; video now 1080p, but DR poor, too contrasty, blowouts hard to control, not good for cinematography.D3s = ExpSim LV (stills; video, but only 720p); resolved less than 5D2, a given; but had better hi-ISO IQ; good AFD3x = ExpSim LV (stills); hi-MP (but IQ iffy; resolves less than 5D2 at higher ISOs); AF iffy.D3 = ExpSim LV (stills); lo-MP (but IQ superb at higher ISOs; but resolves less; a given; offers higher fps (for lo-MP; this is a given)); AF good.
D800 = NO ExpSim LV (for neither stills or videos; like D700, but D700 only lacked video); but now has very hi-Mp; IQ will only be good at lower ISOs; lesson learned from D3x, and best left for studio. video only as good as D4 or less; also too contrasty and hard to control DR unremarkable for cinematography. AF be similar to what D3x faced for hi-MP. Much cheaper than non-ExpSim LV 645D or any MF
Why do you call the AF of the D3 good, but the AF of the D3x "iffy" ?
It's exactly the same AF.
Extremely impressive. I very much like the design and ergonomics.
And the OM-D E-M5 itself is not bad either, but the name is really unattractive. Can't believe nobody said "hey guys, shouldn't we use a catchier name, something that looks and sounds less like a chemical formula"?
Cy Cheze: It looks as though the NEX system can't provide a fast lens unless it is also rather big. If the E50mm f/1.8 sample is any indication, a 35mm or wider lens with f/1.8 would be very big. Both the 200mm f/6.3 lenses are too slow for sports at the long end, except maybe with the ISO juiced up.
@aliquisLeica lenses don't have electric AF or IS/VR motors built around the glass. So, bad comparison.
TheEye: Everybody wants a blurb in the form of moving pictures. No wait, not everyone does. ;-)
Motion picture and still picture are very different from each other. A still picture has to capture something of significance or of interest in the form of a slice of time. Many people prefer moving pictures because those don't tax their brain as much as looking at a photograph and trying to make sense out of it. Looking at a photograph is an active process. Watching moving pictures is exposure to a constant stream, which is for the most part a rather passive process.
I think that's a bit too simplistic. There are many motion pictures that make people think about the images and what they imply as there many photos which are very straight forward.
The basics are the same: lighting, composition and focus. But I do think motion pictures are more forgiving, generally speaking. Time is more on your side. A photo is just a (very) brief moment. It's either good or bad. Missed or nailed. Simply put, a very bad recorded shot of a very important event will still be used or published, but a very bad picture mostly ends in the garbage bin. On the other hand, a motion pictures project tends to give more editing work afterwards.
I could be wrong of course.
maxz: Canon's days is over. I own a boatload of canon L lenses but their struggling is too obvious. They are still relying on their aged stepper and fabs that cannot compete with Nikon+Sony alliance. In order to do so they need to shell out two billion, heck they need to sell a few more trucks of old cameras to achieve that. 18MP as the 'all-in-one flagship', i can hear crickets in my house laughing.
@ Revenant.I wonder what makes the D800 not pro, but semi-pro. Is it the professional body with professional video qualities, professional AF unit and a professional highest resolution sensor in it? Or the targeted professional studio and landscape photographers?
jj74e: Honestly, who needs this much resolution at this point. Pros have been doing fine with all the great "low res" cameras that are already out there. At this point, things like memory card usage, faster processing both on camera and post on computers, battery life, etc. are more important than extending even current standards of image quality (except for low light quality, cause the room for improvement is always endless there :P)
I mean, I'm not saying no one can use more resolution, but most people won't. Nor will most people necessarily afford more resolution because of the expensive glass you would need to buy.
Honestly, I really would have rather liked to see Nikon put the money for this new sensor elsewhere in their camera development.
@nicolaiecostelI'm not sure this polarisation is such good thing. Maybe for Nikon, but not for people seeking an D700 upgrade. The D700 was and still is a very popular and succesful body.
Now Nikon decided to change the plan and force people to chose between an expensive fast, high ISO D4 and low ISO D800... only time will tell whether it was a good idea. I always thought the D700 was a genius move and ultimate bang for the buck. Canon didn't really have an answer.
IcyVeins: I realize this is supposed to replace the D700, but doesn't it also effectively replace the D3X?
It looks more like they replaced the D3x, removed the grip and used the name of the D700 replacement.
The D700 was speed, low noise and 95% a D3 at less than half the price. An instant classic.
With the D800, the main priority clearly is resolution at low ISO. And video. I can understand some D700 owners looking for an upgrade (95% of a D4 for half the price) could be disappointed.
ljmac: I suspect this will be the beginning of the end of medium format - why would anyone choose MF over this?
I think we will see mirrorless overtake the mainstream DSLR and bridge camera market, full frame overtake the medium format market, and mobile phones overtake the compact market.
I doubt it. From the first samples I have seen, I am not seeing the same or better that MF is offering. And secondly, MF is not asleep. 80MP sensors are available. It's still a 135 film sized sensor, no MF size.
A bridge between FX en MF, yes. And great selection of lenses. But no complete takeover of the MF world, let alone professional buyers.
caramelised: I'm a Nikon user and am looking hard for a 70-200mm option.If disregarding price I can either have the original VR version or the VRII version (I have doubts about the Sigma 70-200mm OS's optical quality).
If this turns out be as good as the Canon 70-200mm f/4... then I have another option on my short list.
@ Heartilly.Everyone seems to forget the Nikon 70-210 AF f4. Every time. Great quality, slow AF. Only second hand of course.
I had one and I liked it.
Lu Heng: Maybe thinking of possibilities the technology could give would be a better way instead of thinking of limitations and uselessness of it in one's small life?
It's really boring reading through all these pessimistic/haters comments.
Personally I love the this technology and I wish I could have more time to imagine products using it.
Well, I disagree. Everyone has the right to their opinion. Calling everything great and ignoring faults and shortcomings is not a superior opinion nor does it particularly stimulate better products in the future. It goes both ways. It always does. Brands need feedback from their audience. Pros and cons.
It's equally boring the see people call people with different opinions pessimistic and haters.
Pointing out limitations or faults is equally productive, if not more.
Caleido: I don't see it. Enlighten me. The thing is huge and has no strap. Obviously it needs big lens elements and a big cube as a "sensor". And yet it still only delivers 1 MP of resolution. It has no flash and low light performance is not good so I have read.
The time and effort you "win" by not focussing, you lose afterwards with fiddling through the different images. Parents using it for their children now have to chose which of their infant will be in focus or use different pictures. I did not hear them complaining about having everyone in focus with the big dof from the usual compacts cameras.
Unless they can put something together which has at least the size of a regular pocketable digicam and at least some resolution from beyond the 90ties, this is merely a niche gadget for very very early adopters.
I did see some potential for professional studio or macro photography when they announced it couple of months ago, but not with the toy with only two buttons we see now.
I'm baffled. Did not know 4 months is no longer 'a couple of months' in the English language. Because it is in mine, you see.
Where do you put the official limit? Two months? Three?
I don't see it. Enlighten me. The thing is huge and has no strap. Obviously it needs big lens elements and a big cube as a "sensor". And yet it still only delivers 1 MP of resolution. It has no flash and low light performance is not good so I have read.
huyzer: Hmm, no "Recovery" slider. I wonder what will do the same function? I liked my highlight recovery.
Recovery now probably works with dialling "hightlights" below zero.
d99007: Pro:-Looks cool-Large sensor
Cons:- Slow lens that quickly kills the advantage of a large sensor as you move from wide to tele- Not wide enough at 28mm- Even bigger size than chunky G12- Lack of auto lens cover- Lack of dedicated ISO button- Price
Not a bad camera, but if I'm going to carry this thing when traveling, open lens cover, take picture, close lens...I may as well carry my APS-C DSL camera with a small and fast pancake lens. it will be far better for that purpose.
I think I'll wait for another camera with a faster lens if I'm going to cash out $800
You need to stop looking at it as an alternative for a 5DII with an 85 f1.2. It has the same lens as many small digicams and the almost the same specs like many kitlenses we see with entry dslrs. But this one has a bigger sensor than most compacts and will probably rival the IQ of previous generation DSLRs.
What did you expect? A constant f2.8? A 28-300 equivalent? That lens would have been huge and ridiculous. You can't ask for bigger sensor and keep the lens the same size as Canon IXUS.
The body is only marginally bigger than the G12.
I'm not buying one, but I see the glass as half full, not half empty.
Michael S.: First "bad" spec that I saw already and can't be ignored even by good IQ the camera might have:
F2.8-5.8 stabilized zoom...
This should have been something like f2.0 - f4.0!
In that case, the lens would have been bigger. You can't have it all.