Timbukto: "When we tested the D800 and D800E we found that we had to go to great lengths to avoid mirror and shutter-induced vibration from reducing resolution at some shutter speeds. This is par for the course with such a high-resolution camera, and we've worked through the same issues on other DSLRs and interchangeable lens cameras (like the Sony A7R) since then."
Is this the first time we've heard about this? How come it seems like companies need to make improvements before issues are revealed...I feel like it should be the other way around, journalism should be revealing issues to be fixed beforehand. What are the great lengths needed to avoid mirror slap and shutter shake anyhow, would it be useful to know for anyone wanting to extract the most out of their pics? Forgive me if I you guys already went to great lengths explaining, perhaps I missed it.
This actually falls under the category of "common knowledge."
Love your headline!
It's such a statement on the current state of the industry.
This isn't a knock on the camera. It looks like a worthwhile update from Nikon. But it may not be a worthwhile upgrade for current (D800/E) owners.
Nevertheless, don't underestimate the power of refinement. When the AF works better and resolution improves, cameras like the D810 can actually end up being the most pleasant to own.
MarcMedios: We need the android version
You mean *you* need an android version.
Which would you develop for first - the one with a few finite hardware and software variations that has a huge installed base, or the highly fragmented one with nearly infinite permutations?
In any case (as Lars already pointed out) you'll get your wish.
pgphoto_ca: Be carefull....it's not a f2.8-f4 with this sensor (2.7x crop)....it's f5.6-f8 or more.......the crop factor need also to be apply to the aperture :)
A real 400mm f4...is much bigger ! :)
Sure, he can send a PM, but it's so much more fun to see it here, since discbrake made this public from the beginning, and *he's* the one who proposed the bet!
DStudio: If is this so useful why didn't they do this with film? After all, it's much more pliable!
Or do I need to take a closer look at my old Olympus XA?
But they never really brought it to 35mm or consumer cameras, did they?
If is this so useful why didn't they do this with film? After all, it's much more pliable!
JackM: Great, but... should we wait for more lenses for the a7/r, which won't be usable with this sensor, or should we wait for this system? Argh.
Yes, I still have my XA (actually, I re-acquired one a few years ago, the original being long gone). It has a great little lens. It was the first high quality camera I ever owned.
Are you sure you didn't mean '11mm diagonal sensor (which would be classed as a 1/2.3"-type)'?
It will be interesting to see whether Fuji can elevate this class of lens by better design and manufacturing, like they have with some others.
Prairie Pal: yawn
Funny how just one word can open you up to so much criticism, isn't it?
But you have plenty of confidence and humility, so I'm sure it didn't bother you.
JordanAT: That's one big lens (and big pricetag) for something as (optically) pedestrian as a 35/1.8. If I didn't know better, I'd think they were making the lenses intentionally larger and heavier than they needed to be to justify the price and make the photogs feel like they had a "big"lens.
Alastair, the saying was fairly common in the film days. I heard it quite a few times before I was even involved in photography (beyond using a 35mm compact) so I'm surprised you hadn't!
I wasn't being ironic at all; I was talking about the mid-range lineup as a group. But I'm not convinced about the 35/2 IS either. While I haven't been able to study photos from this new 35/1.8 yet, I'd say the Nikon 35/1.8 DX lens, and possibly even the similar Sony 35/1.8, already produce nicer looking images. Canon mid-range lenses look like they use cheaper glass, and they probably do. They produce what looks very much like flat, plain photographs - they don't capture something "extra:" neither beauty, nor dimensionality, nor interesting or compelling lighting.
But there always seem to be those who are anxious to justify Canon's under-performance in this area.
Alan Jervis: What a strange new world we're in when the lens to beat is a Sigma and the Nikkor struggles!
As is a world where we can judge which lens is better merely on paper.
It's an FX lens with a built-in AF motor, after all.
Nikon offers something Canon is almost completely devoid of: a mid-range line with appropriately high image quality.
This is the reason for the old saying "Nikon has better lenses than Canon." It's certainly not based on the high-end, where either one could be preferred.
This is good, but will there be some photos coming so we can actually evaluate the lens?
I'd rather have photos than measurements, if I had to choose. DPR frequently takes photos designed to show off (or show up) the characteristics of a lens.
Danny: Very beautiful, but these kind of images could have been done much easier imho, studio shots with some wind and wires, then post processing, if done well no-one will ever tell the difference.
@wlad - those are impressive, but they're still not as good as photographs, and they're much more difficult to create!
Honestly, the majority of your photos could use better composition. He went underwater to a specific spot with costumes and a whole diving crew. You seem reluctant to simply move yourself or your camera a few feet over.
Spectro: Those models are most impressive, they have to hold their breath and wait for the photographer to adjust their settings and take test shots.... And everybody else has an oxygen tank but them, I see one photo where they are getting oxygen feed.
Not sure why he is using the d90 when he usually use a d800, must didn't have an underwater case for the d800.
He did have a backup - he has friends!
Gosman: It is so nice to have Photoshop CC. So many improvements! You Sixers out there will soon be left behind!
Me too Danny. I still have a 20MB hard disk in my computer, and it's more storage than I'll ever need.
I wonder why they didn't use a faster aperture? The price may have gone up, but f/2 or f/1.8 would have been nice.
Of course, if it performs really well wide open that's better than the way Sigma used to do it - creating lenses that needed to be stopped down a stop or more anyway! Their "f/1.8" 20/24/28mm DSLR lenses were among the most notorious examples of this.
Thanks for the article Barney. It gives us an idea what to expect and why you're excited about it - an understanding that could be difficult to glean from a standard announcement and a preview alone.