Nikon D7000Nikon D3000Nikon D40Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSMTokina AF 16-50mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II LDTokina AF 50-135mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DXNikon 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S DX VR EDNikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VRNikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DXNikon 85mm f/3.5 DX VR Micro-NIKKORTamron AF 18-250mm F/3.5-6.3 Di-II LDNikon SB-600 Speed light
tesch: These cameras are going to make Canon the next Blackberry!
Or Sony the next Minolta!
Scottelly: Frankly, I think someone at Sony is on crack. They should have been ready at launch with a whole group of 9 or 10 lenses, including a kit zoom (like a 28-90mm f3.5-5.6), a premium zoom (like a 24-105mm f4), a long zoom (like a 100-300mm f4-5.6), a standard prime (like a 50mm f1.4), a premium wide prime (like a 35mm f1.4), a macro (like a 100mm f2.8), a portrait lens (like a 135mm f2), a premium long telephoto (like a 300mm f2.8), and a super-wide zoom (like a 15-24mm f2.8). Then they could go from there, offering a longer telephoto, like a 500mm f4 prime and a super wide prime, like a 14mm f2.8. Eventually they could make an 85mm f1.2 to compete with the Canon L flagship lens. ALL of the new lenses should be weather sealed, and they could all be very good quality and priced to beat Nikons and the Canon L lenses. You don't launch a new line of cameras with no lenses! It's not like they don't have the ability to make lenses or something! I don't think I'll ever understand Sony.
Using the existing Alpha mount lenses with the A-E mount means no image stabilization and very slow CDAF focusing with the A7R and probably the A7 as well, (assuming AF works well at all). It also remains to be seen if the A-E adapter will cut off UWA lenses or ruining the bokeh of large aperture lenses by clipping. There are a lot of unknowns for such an expensive camera. Hopefully the professional reviews will answer them.
wcan: Am I understanding this correctly...the A7 with phase detect autofocus does not focus as well as the A7r which does not have any phase detect AF? What is the speculation as to the reason for this?
Sony has struggled for years to perfect on-sensor PDAF and it appears they are still struggling! Wise buyers will wait for the reviews on the A7 PDAF accuracy and speed before buying!
With the A7s alongside their a99 and RX1, it appears Sony is aiming to be the king of of full frame niche cameras using two different lens mounts four different lens adapters and two different flash shoe mounts . Unfortunately for Sony, it is very unlikely that these niche cameras with their pedestrian performance and image quality that can be found in the much more popular Nikon lens mount cameras will ever be sold in quantities large enough to make them profitable for them. The only question is, how long will they keep trying?
SHood: "shutter shock" is a problem with all mirrorless cameras. Smaller body is part of the problem but also due to the shutter requiring a close/open to start the exposure and then another close/open to end it. This quick double shutter action is different than DSLRs which just need to open to start the exposure and then close to end it.
I have found with my GH3 that shooting at hi-speed continuous shooting does help as liveview is disabled so you don't have the double shutter action except to start the first image and end the last image in the sequence. The electronic shutter on Panasonic bodies also helps but is limited.
The new 1/8000s shutter speed on the E-P5 and E-M1 has probably made it even worse as the shutter is now designed to move even faster. Only the global shutter will totally eradicate this.
I have never experienced shutter shock with my Nikon V1, so no, it is not a problem with all mirrorless cameras. Maybe Olympus just can't get good engineers since they are having financial problems?
A thousand dollar camera body and it doesn't come with a viewfinder? Really? So you have to buy the big ugly VF4 EVF separately for another $300 which makes the camera body $1300 and to top it off, it takes blurry pictures! Who in there right mind would buy the E-P5 when the OM-D E-M5 with an EVF and no blurry pictures can be had for around $900? With designs and marketing like this it is little wonder Olympus is in financial difficulties.
The images show an amazing amount of detail for such a small sensor camera. No doubt in large part due to the excellent Nikkor lens in the P7800 and excellent noise handling that retains detail as well. This is about as good as it gets for a camera with a tiny sensor!
Marty4650: For those of you offended by the comparison of this rugged camera to the classic Nikonos, please remember that Dpreiew never made that assertion. They merely posed the question in the headline for this new item. ("Nikonos reborn?")
Most likely the question was asked to draw attention and elicit response, and not to claim that the Ruggedized Nikon 1 is in the same league with the classic underwater SLR.
Like a dog with a bone, they just won't let it go until they are done chewing on it!
I like Fujifilm's innovation approach with their sensors, but unfortunately Fujifilm missed the mark with the uninteresting XA-1. There is nothing new or special about this XA-1. No EVF and no on-sensor PDAF. There are so many other cameras that use this 16 MP sensor right now that I don't see a compelling reason to chose this one.
I am not impressed with these images at all. IMGP0213 looks like a poorly exposed flat P&S shot, and the guys white shirt in IMGP0163 is blow and shows no detail. I could go on, but let's just hope the problem is the operator and not the Pentax camera.-Jon
Cailean Gallimore: I'll buy the Ricoh, but the Nikon doesn't seem to have any special appeal... It's a decent camera, but nothing special. The Ricoh is driven by incredibly photographer friendly software, and in that lies it's special appeal.
The Coolpix A does have special appeal for Nikon DSLR owners because their Nikon flash units will work with it, but not so with the Ricoh. That's reason enough for Nikon owners to skip the off-brand cameras like Ricoh. It's just the way it is.
fmian: The question is, will this lens perform well wide open, or will it have to be stopped down?Most good fast prime lenses benefit greatly from being stopped down.For example, a 1.4 prime will perform much better stopped down to 2.8, and will still give you a decent shallow dof when required. A 2 stop sacrifice for sharpness.Will this lens need to be stopped down as well? Cause if it needs to be by say, 2 stops, then you are left with a dof equivalent of >5.6, which is not very shallow.
All Nikon CX prime lenses are sharp wide open. This is what SLRgear said about the $200 18.5mm f1.8:"The 18.5mm ƒ/1.8 lens produces tack-sharp images, even straight out of the gate at ƒ/1.8."~ SLRgear.com At $900, I would expect the 32mm f1.2 to do at least as well.And keep in mind the more closely spaced photosites of the 1" sensor puts more demands on the resolving power of any lens. None of the FX Nikon lenses can resolve as well on the 1" sensor as the little an inexpensive 18.5 f1.8!
Although this 32mm f/1.2 lens is no doubt a stellar lens, it is also an outlier in terms of price compared to other Nikon CX mount lenses for the Nikon 1 cameras. On the plus side, at least all the other Nikon 1 lenses are reasonably priced, and most Nikon 1 owners can easily live without this lens, and purchase the superb 18.5 f1.8 for a mere $200 instead. I doubt Nikon will sell many of the 32mm f/1.2 at this lofty price, but it is nice to know that Nikon is committed to making excellent lenses for the Nikon 1 cameras. The future of the Nikon 1 system is looking brighter all the time!
Why isn't there a tripod mounting foot and collar for this rather large and heavy lens? Even my much smaller and lighter Tokina 50-135 f2.8 has one Hopefully the final version of this lens will have one as well, otherwise this lens becomes a real mount puller!- Jon
AllOtherNamesTaken: Too bad about the 1/1.7" sensor. Looks like an OK camera other than the sensor. With how small M43, Nikon V1, and Sony RX100 type cameras are, there is no excuse to be using such a small sensor IMO. Just not for me, but I'm sure some will like it.
What about the Fujifilm X10 with a f2.0-f2.8lens? It at least has a somewhat larger 2/3-inch sensor with better high ISO image quality and probably a stop more dynamic tonal range at base ISO than this Pentax "enthusiast" camera.
acuberosm: The camera the same lens, the same sensor and the same screen as the Olympus ZX-2. Probably these cameras were made by the same manufacturer.
I just compared those two cameras and the similarities are so similar that I think you are correct, they are made by the same camera manufacturer. Good catch!
I don't understand why Pentax is so intent on designing and marketing higher end cameras around a tiny 1/1.7" sensor at a time when most photo enthusiasts are moving to larger sensor cameras in this market segment. The Sony RX-100 with a much larger 1" sensor appears to be smaller and lighter than this clunky Pentax MX-1 retro design. Unfortunately, It appears that the Pentax acquisition by Ricoh has not improved the marketing savvy of the old Pentax, and the MX-1 (like the Pentax Q), will be yet another poor selling over-priced camera with a tiny 1/1.7" sensor for a very small niche market. Too bad the more savvy and technology innovative Fujifilm did not acquire the Pentax camera division. Oh well....
Kind of silly that the Olympus OM-D EM-5 is in second place when it has the old CDAF focusing issues of not being able to track a moving subject with PDAF when other cameras costing hundreds less have this feature. The only thing "best" about the OM-D EM-5 is the best sensor of any m4/3 camera to date,( and they have Sony to thank for that one). Unfortunately the IQ still does not match the best of the APS-C sensors though.
The marketing hype for this camera not withstanding, there is just not anything new or special about the Olympus OM-D EM-5 that we have not seen before.
viking79: I would have liked to see a bit about how the ND filter works in the Samsung EX2f. It would be nice to know how well it works, if it is an optical type, etc. I think the feature is unique to all the tested cameras.
Internal ND filters are a kludge compared to having a super fast electronic shutter with speeds of 1/16000 sec, like the Nikon 1 cameras have.
No. DxOmark's lens test results are already bewildering, and not very helpful in choosing a lens for me at least. DxOmark' rates most lenses closer to poor than any test site I have ever seen and gives the impression that one would have to pay at least $2000 to get a decent lens for their Nikon D3200!
I much prefer SLRgear.com's interactive blur index graphics for an indication of what one can expect from a lens in the real world. DxOmark is for those few who like to t contemplate the String Theory of the universe, but not for those interested in doing photography in the real world.