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.
Robert Newman: Nice but expensive camera. I think I would opt for the new Canon 18mp machine over this however. Actually, I still use my Mamiya RZ67 and my 4x5 Sinar P along with an Epson 700 scanner for a variety of work. I don't get the dynamic range of a good digital SLR and clearly there is some quality lost in going from analog film to digital for final printing, but there is plenty of resolution and for studio or architectural shots, there are times when I prefer this approach. It forces me to compose more carefully and meter more intelligently than I might if I just used a DSLR. My main camera is a Canon 5D2, but like all tools it has limitations and when I have time and a specific application for medium or large format images, film can still make sense.
I must have misread the title "Tell us why you still use a medium format film camera".
I'd swear it said "Nikon D4 Overview".
MonkRX: @ Manny - Mirrorless Cameras employ the same size sensors (of the same generation of technology), similar level processors. Technologically, they are the same.
The only gap DSLRs have over Mirrorless is Auto Focus technology (arguably more accurate on mirrorless, but slower), and exposure/metering (again, arguably better on Mirrorless, since the entire sensor does metering).
The latter is the only thing that could possibly effect image quality.
m4/3rds and APS-C DSLRs have no apparent technological advantage that couldn't be employed in a Mirrorless camera.
@martya Not a exactly a big surprise that the images from recent 24MP sensor out perform those from a 4 year old 12MP APS-C sensor and a 7 year old 12mp FF sensor.
Mirror or no mirror really has nothing to do with that difference.
Brandon Feinberg: Anyone know who this song is by.
You can find it on the original Vimeo page in the description.
Jan Jelinek - Do Dekor
pentaxmesuper: @Michael König: greats videos, a little bit to fast, go in contact to bavarian TV BR3, produce a new volume of "space night" including the fantastic music of space night II-VIII and sell this on bluray 1080p. :-)
I feel the speed made the images more powerful. In space, you would expect everything to be slow, like all the other footage we have come to see by now.But this time, it's not. It looked, sounded and felt like another planet all together.
I am seeing a strange green cast on the cheek, towards the right ear. A bit of posteration? I goes from soft pink to soft green very sudden.
I hope jpeg-compression is to blame.
tomkaten: I found the music totally unfit as well. No disrespect to its composer or those who enjoyed it, but images from space, IMO, should have space music. I even went as far as to replace it with something a bit more to my taste and now I have a watchable video. You can find it below, if you care to see how it looks.
And I have again the very same right to express my discontent when others edit an original video with their own material so, I quote, "it becomes watchable". So what's the fuzz?
And the enumeration thingie, you clearly don't see that when you answer someone in that mathematical way, you open the doorway to sarcasm. Be a sport and take it.
People who claim they can end a normal discussion by calling the other "a troll", are the true trolls of this world.
And 'a quick browse of my posts", just shows I clearly have an opinion about people having no respect for the original work (calling it "cheap crap" for example"). Nothing more.
And now you post a link where you edit the music to make it work better for you - how is that not claiming it's better now, btw? I comment on that and you get all defensive. Next time, don't post the link if you can't handle opinions.
I'm not arguing, I just gave my opinion. Like you gave your opinion about the original score.
If you post a link somewhere on the internet, people might just click on it. Don't you think? Especially, when you alter an original piece of creative work and claim it is better now.
Great enumeration skills, btw.
I actually clicked on your link, expecting some original piece of music. Maybe classical. Or some ambient.
I sincerely hope you are being sarcastic.
Those powerful images really deserve more than some copy pasted cliché soundtrack from the mid 80s.