I believe many users of APS-C Canon/Nikon want the road open for eventual migration to FF, so I would choose the 70-200 2.8, or 70-200F4 if portability is a main factor.
PerL: Doing frame grabs at 100 fps sounds lot more interesting than what it is. The Casio high speed cameras has been on the market a long time, but you never see any interesting sports/action photos from them. The difficulty is not catching the moment with with todays pro still cameras. Its choosing the angle, light, lens etc. That will remain no matter the fps.
@FrogThen we agree, but not everyone does.
@FrogThe planet I live on is the one where there is a current discussion if frame grabs can or will replace still photos. I dont know what you are discussing.
@Zerixos,I am not talking about the technical quality, but that an uninteresting shot won't be better if you got 100 versions of it.But as we speak about the technical issues - how well does the RED AF track fast moving sports with shallow DOF? 10 frames in focus is better than 100 frames out of focus.
Doing frame grabs at 100 fps sounds lot more interesting than what it is. The Casio high speed cameras has been on the market a long time, but you never see any interesting sports/action photos from them. The difficulty is not catching the moment with with todays pro still cameras. Its choosing the angle, light, lens etc. That will remain no matter the fps.
beavertown: Another overly priced piece of junk from Nikon.
800 USD, are you kidding?
Sigma is better.
The Nikon 1.8G series is among the best value/performance on the market.
Daniel from Bavaria: I am in Fujifilm, but this seems to be a lovely lens - also compared to the upcoming Fuji 50-140 f2.8 lens.
I expected that this lens will be a bit bigger and heavier. But 160mm length and 880 grams weight for that lens is very reasonable. The reach of 80-300mm with f2.8 is also great and a novum in the market.
Well done Olympus!!
@JorghinoBut the resulting images will be very much like for instance with a premium 70-200 F4 on a Canon/Nikon APS-C or like the 70-300L Canon F4-5.6 on a Canon FF. If I walk around a day shooting with say a Nikon D7100/70-200F4 or a Oly EM-1/40-150 2.8 the experience (in terms of size and weight) and the result will be rather similar.Of course its a very good addition to the m43 system but its not a magical replacement of a 300 2.8 on FF.
The "reach" of 300 mm eqv at 2.8 is not a novum in the market. APS-C Canon and Nikon users have had it for years with the 70-200 2.8 lenses. However, as anyone, who has used a true 300 2.8 on FF knows, its not really the same. So no free lunch this time either.But I am sure it is a very useful lens for m43, but then again its starts to look like a regular DSLR system.
D750 with the 1.8G primes = Affordable super quality, high performance, compact low weight FF set. Pretty much a sweet spot. What surprised me the most was the low price, compact size and low weight of the 20 1.8.
MY first thought is "ergonomics anyone?"
Poweruser: I guess this camera is fine and all. But it´s still a brick and a technological dead-end. I know my little mirrorless is "worse" on paper. But so much more fun to have it with me all day.
Couple the D810 with a decent Nikon zoom and what you get is almost grotesque in size and weight.
The D810 is a tool, the author does a professional job.
3systermuser: read DXO mark on this one, you will see the IQ is the same or extremely similar to that of the D800E.and considering the price difference between the D810 and the D800E, there is no point getting it if you do not need a touch better AF, a bit better LV,etc over the D800E.I think this is what D800E should have been, but it is now already dated even at this point, Nikon should focus its very limited R and D money onto FX mirrorless.for me , the Sony A7R wins over all this extremely old dated D-SLR.
Mirrorless fans should realize that EVFs is not up to par in several key areas, important to many - like lag, limited DR, long black outs etc. So its not about being out dated, it is about being demanding.
"Extremly old dated D-SLR"? One has to understand that EVFs are subpar for many discriminating users (lag, bad dynamic range, longish blackouts, timing precision, lacking true-to-life-representation, etc etc). So its not about being dated, its about being demanding. All things considered, this is one of the absolute best cameras on the market, in some ways the best. The images will look even better when Adobe does a real update on the RAW-conversion.
PerL: A few comments regarding the final thoughts. Personally I would definitely prefer to carry the better camera for an exclusive trip like that. And a 7D with a 70-200 is really not that behind in reach - 320 eqv vs 400 eqv on the super zoom. Not to mention that the 400 mm on the 7D is a 640 eqv, quite a bit longer. Finally, the AF of the 7D should be more capable of dealing with breaching whales (read M Reichmanns experiences from Antarctica).
@technic. The trip to Antartica Jeff Keller mentioned sounds more like a photographic adventure than a family holiday to me. For a family holiday I might choose a compact APS-C DSLR with an 18-200 lens instead of a super zoom on steroids.
@technic and Lab D. It was the author of the article that mentioned the 400 mm on the 7D. I pointed out it wasn't comparable to a FZ1000 since the reach was much longer. But if I was on photographic trip like that? Sure, I would take a 400 mm on a 7D anytime instead of a super zoom. I would also have another body with shorter zoom. But then, I enjoy taking photos, I don't think of it as constant burden that has to be lightened by choosing less capable equipment.
A few comments regarding the final thoughts. Personally I would definitely prefer to carry the better camera for an exclusive trip like that. And a 7D with a 70-200 is really not that behind in reach - 320 eqv vs 400 eqv on the super zoom. Not to mention that the 400 mm on the 7D is a 640 eqv, quite a bit longer. Finally, the AF of the 7D should be more capable of dealing with breaching whales (read M Reichmanns experiences from Antarctica).
0MitchAG: TIL:Full Frame is simply the best.APS-C is the middle child who just seems out of place.M43 is the minimum with the maximum price.And Nikon 1 is just noisy rubbish.....
One may talk about APS-C being "out of place" but it is by far the most sold format, the closest to a de facto standard in digital photography.
If this request for soccer images was posted in the Open Forum instead I am sure it would have received a lot more responses. Personally I totally missed it.
Zoron: 2014 is transition year to 4K, and this is the last chance for Nikon to milk money from 1080p, in 2016 when D900 is released with 4K.....D810 will be obsolete..
Why is that? I can't watch 4k on my TV. I can see 1080p with my Blu Ray player, but frankly I don't enjoy films more than with 720p unless in some special cases. I thought people would be interested primarily in a D810 because its extremely high capacity as a still camera.
Rob Sims: I'm slightly struggling to tell who this is aimed at. Cheaper superzooms lenses nearly always compromise on a speed and image quality... two of the main reasons why most users would have upgraded to FF for in the first place.
Is the 'beginner' FF-user category really large enough to warrant creating this lens? i'd have thought someone interested in this sort of lens would be better off with a superzoom attached to an m43 / aps-c sensor instead (just my 2ps worth).
For travels, occassional convinience etc. The low weight is the key.540g + ca 800 g body = about 1300g or so for 36x24 mm sensor. Pansonics FZ1000 super zoom is 830g for 13x9 mm sensor.