Are my eyes too tired, or is the late afternoon glare too much on my monitor (even though I closed the semi-opaque shade)?
I came here to compliment Leica. I wanted to use them as an example of excellence, despite pedestrian specifications. But I just don't see it. I can't give them that compliment. In fact, what I have to say is they're not Fuji. And they're certainly not Zeiss Touit. To say Leica is in a class far below is an insult, but unfortunately it's true in this case!
Oh, no, I hope I wake up tomorrow and find it was all a bad dream - that with fresh eyes and soft morning light it's truly a fantastic lens.
I certainly hope so ...
DStudio: I'm trying to write down all the times a deal with Microsoft has benefited the other company, and I'm still staring at a blank page ...
The only thing that came to my mind later was Microsoft writing Word/Office for the Macintosh from early on.
I'm not sure that was actually a "deal," though. And now Apple would rather have you use Pages anyway.
I'm trying to write down all the times a deal with Microsoft has benefited the other company, and I'm still staring at a blank page ...
reginalddwight: The D810 is a mid-cycle refresh of a class-leading DSLR with respect to IQ and DR.
I tend to agree with the reviewer that it is unlikely going to entice too many D800/E owners like myself to run out and upgrade to Nikon's latest offering, but any incremental refinement is better than none at all.
Naysayers will diss this D800/E successor (e.g. still no WiFi, GPS, or 4k video, etc.). Mirrorless fans will criticize any DSLR regardless.
For those who appreciate the amazing medium format-like IQ the D810's predecessors are capable of producing in the hands of skilled photographers, I view the tiny improvements in this D810 as welcome additions--however "unexciting" they may be.
Without Medium Format lenses I think you're only getting an MF-like number of pixels, not MF-like IQ.
But as to the rest of your post, I agree that this camera will prove to be a worthwhile improvement.
DStudio: 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.
Martin, I think you're right. This is generally good for photographers, but challenging for manufacturers who now have to deal with largely saturated markets where sales numbers are on a downswing.
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.
If DPR would talk more about specific ways of solving the problem that would be useful.
Suggesting that these are "issues" (which in support parlance is a codeword for a major bug) which are only now being "revealed" due to DPR's irresponsible "journalism" is just plain silly.
This actually falls under the category of "common knowledge."
Love your headline!
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.