mycle: i am waiting so long for a conversion lens for my 20mm pancake or a new prime 40 or 45mm, but nothing. any informations of panasonic releases for 2012...?
Why not just buy the Olympus 45 1.8? It's really superb. Small, lightweight, cheap, sharp, really good bokeh, and pretty much silent AF. If there ever was a no-brainer in a lens, the Oly 45 is it. Nice compliment to the 20 1.7.
The video specs say: 1080/24p but page 4, paragraph 4 say 1080p30. Seems weird to have only 24p like the just announced Canon GX1, but that's what the specs seem to indicate, but the Preview text seems to contradict this.
Looks awesome. Only wish they hadn't made the ridged focussing ring, as it looks like it will collect dust just like my Panasonic lenses.
If the IQ is similar to the X100, this will be a huge hit.
agilestyle: Bulky and expensive!Given the numbers above, a presumable 35mm kit will come at least at 2300$.With that bucks you can buy a Canon 5d Mark 2 body sparing 200$ to invest into some serious glass...Ok, mirrorless camera are the fashion of the moment, but i am happy with my GF1+20mm kit at 700$.Sorry pals, target missed!
A 5D Mk II is huge and heavy compared to this Fuji. And how cheaply do you think they can create a quality all metal body, with good fast lenses, sell it, and still make a profit?
When camera manufacturers make plastic "made in china", people complain. And when they make solid metal, "made in japan", people complain.
That D4 is a thing of beauty. Nikon really has the manufacture of rock solid pro bodies down. And I've always liked the round viewfinder with the eyepiece shutter. Much better than the cheesy cover that you slip on your neck strap.
marike6: Seems that only Panasonic, Fujifilm, Samsung, SLR Magic and Voigtlander, and only since recently, Olympus with the 12 f2 and 45 1.8, seem to understand that photographers want large aperture lenses. Especially on m43, and ASP-C where DOF is not as great as FF, it is essential to start with as fast a lens as possible.
If Sigma or Tamron make a constant f2.8 zoom like their excellent 17-50s, I'd buy one in a heartbeat. But for primes that are not wide-angles or macro lenses, there really is no reason but economics to produce lenses with f2.8 max apertures. Not complaining, just saying.
@Jens_G Look at the Panasonic 20 1.7 and Olympus 45 1.8: Both are superb optically, and as small and inexpensive as you could want.
The E-Mount Zeiss 1.8 is because the NEX mount needs a spacer to get the rear element away from the sensor for infinity focus. I should not be used as a measuring stick for other lenses.
Jens_G: Why does nobody ever seem to realise that lens design is about compromise?
On any camera/lens article you'll invariably find comments like:
- it's too big- it's not fast enough- why isn't it a pancake- should have been longer and wider (for zooms)
I'm pretty sure Sigma know what they're doing. These lenses are f/2.8 for a reason, or multiple reasons, whether it's for the size, the inclusion of silent linear AF, price point, image quality, or a combination of all the above.
brendon1000 is absolutely correct. Nobody is whining. As consumers, and photographers, if we can get a 20 1.7 for approx. $300 USD, why would we buy a 19 2.8? Because we like cranking up the ISO to get an exposure?
KevinD65: Put an EVF in it and we'll talk.
This is not directed at you, but why is everybody so into EVFs these days. My GH2 has one, not as good as the NEX 7 EVF, but a pretty good one, and as soon as you have low light, it gets grainy, lags, stutters.
My 5D Mk II, has a OVF that big, bright, and super easy to manual focus in any light.
Unless I'm shooting video, I'll always take an OVF over an EVF. I understand that you can get tons of shooting data in an EVF, and you can preview WB, etc, but honestly, I'd rather be able to get a sharp, clear finder than a grainy mess in low-light. I hope this EVF trend doesn't filter into the nicer DSLRs, other than Sony's.
Seems that only Panasonic, Fujifilm, Samsung, SLR Magic and Voigtlander, and only since recently, Olympus with the 12 f2 and 45 1.8, seem to understand that photographers want large aperture lenses. Especially on m43, and ASP-C where DOF is not as great as FF, it is essential to start with as fast a lens as possible.
Fujinon does make great lenses. When I used to shoot 4x5, the 2 Fujinon lenses I had were every bit as good as my Rodenstock lens.
And the X100 23 f2 lens is a heck of a performer, with beautiful bokeh.
Re: the X-Pro1 lenses, fast metal barrel lenses, with hopefully, EBC coating. What's not to like?
sesopenko: Have a look at the sample shots floating around. They completely lack the ability to define fine texture, just like the X10 did. Fuji needs to give up on these experiments with sensor patterns because they're making crap cameras at expensive prices to do so.
I would never pay this price for something that resolves so poorly. Real shame.
@sesopenko What they? The X10 does not equal the X100. The X100 has one of the best, cleanest ASP-C sensors there is. And if you look at the still life of the pears on the samples, you'll see that this camera will produce the same highly detailed, super clean files as the X100. You have the right to think they make "crap cameras", just as X100 owners have the right to tell you you're clueless. No offense. And I guess "expensive" is a relative term, because to me, Fuji has some of the best prices in photography. And X100 outshoots a Leica X1 at half the price. That's what I call a bargain.
Digital Suicide: If canon would fulfill your desires and put in it 24mm and F2.0-3.3, - it would probably sign the kill werdict to its' rebel line...
No camera with a variable aperture zoom is going to kill the rebel line, just as no fixed lens camera will ever compel people with an investment in Canon glass to drop their DSLRs. This will be a nice second body, but that's all.
This looks really nice: 1080/24p with a built-in ND filter. How much, because I extremely interested?
I had a feeling this was coming when I saw the Vixia (Legria) HF-M41 was discontinued on B&H's website. Not even one month has passed since I bought my M41, and now this!!! That's the way it goes, I guess, but sometimes I wish retailers would give us a heads-up on upcoming new models, and the discontinuing of "old" models. Anyway, since I bought a GH2, I haven't used the Canon once.
Guidenet: The CF Association decided this new standard, not Sony or Nikon. CF cards have long had issues like expensive bent pins and such. SD cards are too small for many of us and have connection issues at times making them not as reliable for professional use. These new XQD cards have been a long time coming and I welcome them.
Using various tranfer methods in the future will mean much faster transfer from the cards to my computer as well as the faster read rates in the camera. They are not so small that I might easily lose or misplace them at a shoot but they are handier than the CF format now. Thank God for no bent pins.
For most using entry level models, you have nothing to worry about and will continue to be happy with cheaper, smaller SD cards. If you pay over a couple of thousand for your camera body, then paying a little more for a much better format is of little consequence.
"For most using entry level models, you have nothing to worry about and will continue to be happy with cheaper, smaller SD cards. If you pay over a couple of thousand for your camera body, then paying a little more for a much better format is of little consequence."
nakeddork: I'm not impressed.
The D4 should have had a 32mp sensor that utilized pixel binning, and optimized for 16mp shooting, so you can get all the speed, performance, and ISO benefits of a modestly sized sensor, but still have the option to shoot at high resolutions at lower ISO. To get the best of both worlds.
Sony managed to squeeze 24mp into an APS sized sensor, and retain very good ISO performance. I don't understand why Nikon couldn't incorporate hi-rez in a full frame and utilize pixel binning to give the sensor versatility.
No dust removal, no info about focus peaking for video, no dedicated ISO dial? Pro bodies should adapt to technological advances. Seriously, ISO performance is insane now, why doesn't it have a dedicated dial?
The reason the video is 29:59 min, is because of a European video camera tax. Nikon should have made a non-capped video version for the countries that don't have this restriction.
Nikon really thought inside the box with this one.
@nakeddork Who shoots TIFF? Professionals in publishing, magazine photographers, anyone who wants doesn't want to loose data when compressing an image. You think all those glossy magazines print from JPEGs?
shaocaholica: 24Mbps video is so 4 years ago. With 2012 storage prices and processing power, video on a $6k Pro DSLR should be at least 100Mbps.
@shaocaholica 100mbps 444 files will be huge. This is a camera for press/photojournalists who need to produce multimedia news stories, and push them around over the network. But like Jogger said, if you want to shoot uncompressed video you can. That is huge. And if the D4 has the high ISO ability of the D3, this camera will be extremely popular with videographers.
fmian: Here's how I see it on the 1DX vs D4 debate.
Sensor: Totally remains to be seen as both cameras haven't come out yet. I don't think a 2MP difference means anything at this stage.
Auto Focus: D4 has 51 points, 1DX has 61 points. 1DX seems to AF up to f/5.6 lenses, while D4 does F/8. What would someone with a camera like this be doing with a lens that can't open to F/5.6?
Speed: 1DX @ 12fps and D4 @ 10fps. Don't know about buffer sizes but D4 may have the advantage with the new memory card type whatever it's called.
Card Slot: People who want 2 CF slots (many) will want the 1DX, and people who want to buy into a new expensive card type when there is little support will want the D4.
Hardware ISO: 1DX ranges from 100-51,200, while D4 ranges from 100-12,800. Final verdict remains to be seen.
Video: Pretty much the same for both, but the D4 has some useful tele-crop modes. Perhaps this can be added to the 1DX before release?1DX has the nifty feature of overcoming the 4gb limit.
@JMichaelsPhoto IMO, on paper the 1DX is a better camera.
It's not a better camera if the IQ of previous Canon cameras vs. the Nikon alternatives is any indication. The Nikon D3x, and D3 have better high ISO, DR and basically, better sensors. This is a fact. All the bells and whistles don't mean a thing if IQ is not there.
Canon is sure being secretive about the 1DX, where Nikon D4 already has video samples on Vimeo, and it looks excellent.
mnoble: I bought the new Nikon 50mm 1.4 which was in the same price ball park and I absolutely love it. I suspect that this new 85mm 1.8 will be just as good. It is definitely going on my to buy list. I will, however, want to see it reviewed by dpReview. So I hope that they get a sample to work with before the lens comes out in March. Get to it, guys! ;-)
Review? Any 85mm prime by Nikon is certain to be at least good, probably great. Not many prime Nikkors that are absolute stinkers.
Alexsfo: New camera with the largest photosites. Finally, megapixel race is officially over. Waiting for the photosite size to become the next marketing thing (like DR, ISO, etc.)
The 7D is an OK camera, but it's sensor is weak compared to the D7000. High ISO is worse, and DR is worse, by a lot.
Judging from past Canon DSLRs, I wouldn't want to bet that the 1Dx will produce less noise than the D4. If the D4 has even a little of the D3's DNA, it will be no contest, with Nikon trouncing the Canon 1Dx at high ISO and DR.