RichRMA: It's still a glorified Coolpix, really. I can't really see the point in having interchangeable lenses on a camera like that, except for novelty purposes. Nikon and Canon; the DSLR "boom" isn't going to last forever so would it really threaten your entire existence to release at least 1 (no pun intended) serious mirror-less?
> The rx100 shows what can be done when you focus on image quality instead of gimmicks.
In fact, the rx100 lens boosts the max aperture on account of optical performance and heavily relies on distortion and CA correction, like most P&S lenses (considerably more than typical m43 lenses). However, for some (particularly P&S upgraders) the benefits outweigh the side-effects, and it would surely be good if such lenses were available in N1.
RichRMA: The molded polymer (scratchproof, how does THAT work, it's plastic!) lens is probably (at most) $3.00 in large quantities. Still, those who think of them first...
Actually a similar idea has been presented before using simple ball lenses, around 1mm in diameter, held in place by a piece of foam. Shown to be useful to determine blood type. Optics probably worse.
ThePhysicist: Actually you don't need such a massive rig to get decent magnifications. All it takes is an old telephoto lens, a basic infinity-corrected microscope objective and an adapter to mount it on the filter thread.Check these sites for details:http://macrosmuymacros.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9&Itemid=32&lang=enhttp://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12147
Anyone interested in such photography should examine the photomacrography.net forum. In fact some folks there regularly use butterfly wings for lens benchmarking. But not all butterfly wings are as nice. Similar pics are also doable using a reversed wideangle lens on a set or two of extension tubes (or on bellows). In fact a kit lens at the wide end of the zoom works too, though is not as sharp.
So, where's Nikon 2?
ecm: The viewfinder on the V3 is distressingly similar to the VF-2 viewfinder I was forced to buy for my Olympus E-PL1. I'm having flashbacks to an odd-shaped lump of a camera that wouldn't fit into any bag, constant worrying about whether the finder would get broken off, and losing the hotshoe to something that should have been integral to the camera.
I'm on my third mirrorless in 4 years - I will never buy one without a built-in viewfinder ever again.
I think this one does look a bit less odd on the camera. I wander if the image is as good at the smaller EVF size? But I find the occupied flash shoe an issue. In addition to the inherited incompatibility with my SB-800 (both wired and wireless). I'm looking for my first mirrorless. But N1 doesn't seem to offer anything competitive, except for the firesale items (but they're not discounted without a good reason). No advantage due to compatibility with my old Nikon gear either.
straylightrun: $1000 for a 70-300 telephoto lens.....?
> Oh hey, aren't Canon charging as much for some of their 70-300s? Even a bit more for the L. But that one happens to be sharp at the long end, unlike most such lenses including the Nikon FX and DX VR. The MTF of this one doesn't seem to look promising, does it?
keeponkeepingon: Looking at the camera the first thing I notice is the controls on the left hand side forcing two handed operation for frequently used functions such as image review/playback.
One thing I don't get about the one system is that the smaller sensor size does not seem to translate into much smaller camera size. Sony's NEX 3n is smaller than the V1 and V2, about the same size as the J1 and the 16-50 power zoom is almost the same size as Nikon's kit lens. So you pay just as much (or more) for a smaller sensor in the same sized package. The main difffernce would then be the AF but with the A6000 sony seems to be catching up on that front tool.
> This is a second camera for Nikon DSLR users.
Vx should have been second cameras for Nikon DSLR users. But Nikon is very persistent in not making it happen.
abortabort: Not a 1 Series shooter, but there is also the 18.5mm f1.8 (50mm equiv) which isn't anywhere near as expensive as the 85mm equiv 32mm f1.2 which would probably appeal to enthusiasts. Also, unlike Sony, Olympus, Panasonic etc, this now has the longest lens available (in equiv) to any other mirrorless system, tied with arguably the fastest focussing, best tracking body means this 'could' be interesting to the telephoto birding/sports crowd.
Also they have developed the AW1 which is obviously the only naked underwater ILC on the market.
So I think to some extent they are gunning for the niches where their system of being really fast but also a small sensor, actually have some advantages... Which is not so much in competing directly with other 'enthusiast' mirrorless.
Just a thought anyway.
I think this camera will become interesting at $300 clearance sales.
RichRMA: The 70-300 lens costs 2x what the current DX lens costs for the DSLRs. That's pretty extreme.
Well maybe it wants to compete with the Canon 70-300L?
RRJackson: I wonder how much DxO got paid to ignore the multi-sample noise reduction of the RED sensor? Or are they going to start testing everyone's camera based on multiple exposure HDR imagery?
They surely do mention it. But they don't comment on the impact of this on motion blur in action shots (not freezing motion). While this may even be beneficial for video, comparing such results with still cameras may not be fair.
lenseye: 'our reason to exist is to push the envelope'
If there ever was a bull$hit cliche this is it...
> Oly used to have f/2.0 zooms for 4/3" SLRs. now they are doing f/2.8 versions.
As long as they are bigger&heavier than their canikon FF F/2.8 counterparts, there is not so much point doing them
fberns: When I took a look at the NEX-6 in a shop when it was new, mostly it was the viewfinder that I found less good than a DSLR's one. So I thought I might go mirrorless possibly even with the very next model because of a step-up in terms of viewfinder resolution and -speed (lag). But gosh - now it's a step down instead of an improvement. Seems I'll still have to stay for some time with my chunky DSLR...Thank you Sony, this way I won't spend any money on a mirrorless. Not yet.
> do you read other reviews, all reviews I saw so far stated the evf had less lag, better optics, better image.
I realize resolution isn't all there is to EVF. But I think at this point resolution is still an obvious issue.
tommy leong: would LOVE to read about it's EVF behaviour in dimly lit situations.Most EVF in the past doesn't do well .
> same refresh rate in low light as good light.
But does it become noisy soon, or is there dynamic lag? The reduced frame rate is some EVFs is in order to gather more photons in more time to overcome the noise problem. Technically the frame rate does not need to be reduced as this could be done smoothly, by averaging a time-window of last few images (still showing a dynamic lag). The noise issue is partly due to sub-sampling of the full-res image (video sensors with less & bigger pixels have an advantage here).
So what is the free working distance at 1:1? MFD 150mm - length 91mm - flange distance 18mm = 41mm, I guess (I assume it does not extend)
itsastickup: For portraits it's not long enough and the aperture isn't big enough.
And it's not long enough for macro either, other than document copying.
I really don't get this lens.
What don't you get about a common "short macro" lens? There is one such in most lens lineups. Indeed they usually have short working distances @1:1 (5cm to 10cm) and do not produce as much relative background blur as longer macros. Notice the total lack of really wide-angle macros around 28mm(FF)/18mm(APS/C) or wider, that would produce quality images with the perspective of P&S macro modes - I assume 1:1 is infeasible at such wide angles.
ThePhilips: Can this lens AF fast? Or it is a dedicated macro?
It doesn't have an AF limit switch does it?
Nukunukoo: Oh why didn't you guys even go at least F2.0?
Tamron does make an APS-C 60mm/F2 1:1 macro-portrait lens, and with 10cm working distance @1:1We shall see if this one produces better quality perhaps.
mpgxsvcd: Basically, if you complain enough they will fix the problem. If you don't, then they won't.
It likely takes a few shipments to the service centre, a couple of weeks each. You might acquire a mirrorless to avoid "downtime" and lose interest in Nikon wares...
pca7070: Feveon X3 or ailke is the way to go.
Or maybe a monochrome sensor with DLP ;)From 1900: http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/2009/10/21/color-photography-from-russian-in-the-early-1900s/544/
Daniel Lauring: IMHO, this is stretching the envelope of usefulness of tablets. It is "trying too hard" to fit a 10lb brick in a 5lb basket. For RAW editing anyone would be way better off with an Ultralight laptop (like Macbook Air) or Windows tablet (like Microsoft Surface.) Heck, you can buy last year's Surface Pro for $600 with an i5 processor and 128Gb SSD. Better still the Surface has true Wacom digitizer support.
Considering that camera processors can turn raw into jpg, it shouldn't be a surprise that a tablet processor can do it, indeed it should be able to provide some extras. The small screens aren't the best editing environment.And I think storage space is currently the main issue with tablets. Even with USB OTG or Eye-fi, you're still stuck with tablet flash card, plus one microSD, optionally. Not remotely suitable as the regular raw converting device, and for storing batches of images. I can imagine it as a viewing device for jpgs (shooting raw+jpg), and occasionally checking if a harsh-lit scene is recoverable using such a raw converter. A tablet could be used to make backups on the go, for instance from USB OTG to spare microSDs. But once I did try a similar operation, and it wasn't as convenient as it may sound at first glance.
As for ultraportables, they're not so much better, the main difference is that they contain a SSD disk rather than cards. I prefer a regular laptop.