oeriies: The sample images from this lens posted by Nikon are soft to my eye:http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Nikon1-Lenses/3345/1-NIKKOR-VR-70-300-f%252F4.5-5.6.html#!/media:image:3345_sample-photo_01.jpg
So if you're not going to close the door because of the price the question is going to be how much of a hit in IQ you're going to be willing to accept in exchange for great portability in the super telephoto range..
I've never been impressed by the sample images Nikon (or most manufacturers) put out. So I wouldn't judge by that.
It's odd - you'd think they'd do better, but they don't.
Retzius: I'm hoping this is just a test bed for all the new technology that will roll out in the D400!
a guy can hope right?
You mean the D400 technology that will get rolled into the D7200 instead!
AV Janus: I find the statement "I swear I will never sell anything this cheap again. " VERY snobbish and detached from reality.150$ for a print, is by no means cheap in any country.Good for him that he gets enough fools to pay more than that...
I love the photos, but come on...
He signed them. Depending on what he does in the rest of his life, they may have got a great deal - his first prints ever released. Only 100 of them in the "series," and many of them the only copy of a particular photo.
Joed700: I wonder if Nikon can sue Sigma for producing the Sigma 35mm FF f/1.4, a lens that outperforms Nikon's 35mm f/1.4 for half the price...
How about suing Fujifilm for its XT-1, a retro camera that actually functions better than the Nikon DF....
If you can't beat 'em (and you can't buy 'em) ... sue 'em!
shutterbobby: Must be possible to hack the K5II firmware to allow use of this card,really miss a good tethering solution for the K5II
Must be impossible without re-building your camera's hardware as well. It'll only take you a few hundred hours to get a buggy, barely functioning solution.
But at least that's much better than spending an extra $500 to get a K-3!
dinoSnake: While everyone here is whining and moaning like small children in regards to their favorite pet peeve of the moment, I'd like to take the time to compliment the writer for posting, IMHO, the nicest in-the-field test shots I've seen in along while on this site (in the Shooter's experience section). They show wonderful examples of some of the extra DR and JPEG processing available and are interesting, colorful and dynamic to boot.
Thank you for brightening up what could otherwise be a very to-the-point article.
They also show an enthusiasm for using the camera, which is more telling than anything else.
The guy at the local high-end camera shop told me yesterday that he just ordered an X-T1 - the first camera he's bought in 5 years!
kewlguy: For such an extensive review, why hasn't DPR tried other RAW converters for Fuji? Clearly ACR is the worst of all for processing X-Trans files including X20/X10. There are Iridient Developer, C1 Pro, PhotoNinja, and others. Of course, from the review I could see DPR loves OOC JPG too much.
I'm glad you're including C1 conversions in the X-T1 review. I'm surprised, however, that you didn't see a clear difference on this camera. The better sharpness and noise levels were obvious to me at 100%, as well as at less than 100%. The Adobe colors also look washed out by comparison - especially in the yellow and red paints. And the bottles look much more realistic in C1.
I have to commend you on your well-done test scene - it really shows the differences!
SaltLakeGuy: I'm still trying to figure out why it is that the results they are getting vs. what I'm getting are near worlds apart. I'm using a X-T1 which is quite similar optically and electronically. Perhaps it's because they are using what I'm considering to be the unacceptable processing option of Adobe product. I have it (both Photoshop and Lightroom-the latest ones) and neither produce acceptable results for my fussy eyes in either Jpeg or Raw. Now on the other hand PhotoNinja produces a file I've found not only significantly exceeds a EM1 Olympus output but even a Canon's 6D output. Go figure. So as I say I have no idea what THEY are doing but glad I'm not doing it their way. The X-T1 files are ROCKIN in detail and lack of artifacts or false color.
It's definitely an Adobe problem. I just downloaded the ISO 6400 studio scene. Using only defaults, I simply loaded it into Capture One 7.2 and Photoshop CC. In C1 it's much sharper with less noise, and has better color. In C1 hit Cmd (or Ctrl) L and it instantly improves even further.
This is nothing new - Phase One employees I've met are passionate about their jobs; from what I've heard, many Adobe employees are not.
I know DPR tries to put everyone on a level playing field. And sometimes Adobe will add support for new cameras a little faster. But it's not level when Adobe performs so poorly. Considering how long the DPR review cycles can be, maybe they could consider switching, or at least using the better RAW editor for a given camera. Adobe's been falling short on X-Trans for a long time!
Also try Capture One. Early on it did much better on X-Trans files than Adobe, and it probably still does.
ohiobio: I am a career city manager, and it's my opinion that any attempt to bring fun and imagination to a milieu that is generally devoid of humor, is to be applauded. What does it have to do with photography? How about re-imagining the mundane?
It's interesting that I've never seen any of this couple's other work featured on DPR or elsewhere, even though it's "better executed technically."
These photos do their job. They make people smile, and they might even embarrass city managers into fixing the potholes.
Pretty funny photos!
How one can criticize technical execution when this is the subject matter is beyond me. That's the beauty of this topic - no need for anything that resembles perfection here!
DStudio: No one really makes a great 10-24, 10-20, or even 10-22 zoom, do they? Yet this may be the best of the bunch.
The only really good APS-C zooms are the Tokina 11-16 and the Sigma 8-16, but the Tokina has a limited zoom range, and the Sigma has a slow aperture.
Perhaps - I honestly hadn’t looked at the Sony 10-18, because until recently I wasn’t convinced Sony was committed to this mount for the long-term. But I just found some example photos, and they looked pretty good.
Interestingly, however, I just noticed that Photozone agrees with my initial assessment, rating both the Sigma and Tokina at 4 stars in IQ while only awarding the Sony 2 1/2 to 3.
OliverGlass: I could hear my Landscapes singing with this UWA. Great sample photos!That corner to corner performance looks satisfactory for me
No, it’s like comparing lenses to lenses.
Which do you value more - IQ or flexibility?
Yes, they're singing (to the tune of Oscar Mayer) "I wish I were the 14/2.8 or 23/1.4...!"
No one really makes a great 10-24, 10-20, or even 10-22 zoom, do they? Yet this may be the best of the bunch.
oldman1234: Have several of the Sony camera including rx100....Migrated from Minolta to Sony. About 3000 in cameras 3000 in lenses..Guess what the $95 point and shoot does 95 percent of any of the highend camera. The present day digital camera has 20 more years to catch up with film......if ever
"The present day digital camera has 20 more years to catch up with film......if ever"
Or so it would seem, because it's been this way with other technologies that have moved to digital, like audio.
While there are still good reasons to use film, there are so many advantages to going digital that it's been nearly universally adopted, from the top to the bottom (Pros and amateurs alike).
Perhaps it has more to do with cost and accessibility. Clyde Butcher makes fantastic photos (you really need to see the large prints to appreciate them), but he has to lug around relatively exotic 8x10 or larger cameras - plus he's a skilled print maker. But you only have to plug in a $300 turntable to hear the advantages of analog audio.
raztec: Well done Canon! Finally, a compact camera with the right size sensor and the perfect lens. This is a real home run!
How is an f/2-4 lens 'perfect'? Especially when you haven't even seen sample photos?
Nonetheless, Canon may have finally reached a very good compromise among lens speed, zoom factor, sensor size, and body size. Hopefully real-world usage will prove this to be true.
The P340 had better be small, because that lens at f/5.6 "120mm" is nothing to brag about.
completelyrandomstuff: CMOS sensor in 645D... no one has any idea who manufactured that ;). This should be a bargain medium format if it has the same imaging performance as phase one or HB.
The question is, will Capture One support it? They'll probably be reluctant to, because given a comparable lens, they can probably pull results out of it comparable to their own IQ250. And Capture One's very good at getting the most out of a camera, but this could be too close for comfort.
Miwok: Traveling compagnion?Why would I buy an Fuji XE2 when I can find a Sony NEX-6 for half of the price. I like traveling with a backpack in some not so safe countries, and don't want to paranoid about getting rob of $2k of gear (X-E2 + a couple of glass)
I guess you wouldn't.
Good thing not everyone's like you.