The specs of camera and lens definitely makes me put this on the list to consider for the next acquisition. I've been Eyeing Sony's stuff and waiting for something rational to come out of their line-up - alas up till now, it's been a whole lot of ifs and buts. This Samsung revelation puts a whole new spin on things - the biggest probably being that Samsung products and service is excellent where I live, in contrast to Sony.If the image quality and AF performance works as hyped, Sony will be in deep trouble.I'm looking forward to the reviews on this system. My money is ready to spend.
If I'm not mistaken, Samsung will have used Schneider's technology in this one. Could be an interesting outcome with the image quality.
qwertyasdf: This might be the first and last time that I say this to a M43 lens:
It's priced reasonably. Given it's longer range than 70-200 FF lens, it is way way more versatile, and I have confidence in the IQ of a Oly HG lens. Oh....also, the 0.21x magnification, taking into account of the crop factor of M43 sensor, is class-leading.
...and unfortunately those lenses are all f/5.6 at the long end....almost useless in dark environments unless you have a very high ISO capabality in your camera - but then the weight will be killing you.....
800g for a f/2.8 lens is not bad. they might even have gone the whole way and made it f/2. I think they missed a great opportunity to create a really, really special lens here.
most of these pics are underexposed. no wonder there's such a lot of noise to be seen
Well, still no touch screen and still no tilting LCD, so crack your neck for low down shots continues....just a rant.
I don't understand the reasoning behind the 20Mp, surely one would want to improve image quality by having larger sensing elements at this level. I reckon 16Mp would have been more than sufficient for phone use. The extra real estate could then have been used for noise reduction.
forpetessake: This FF lens is far superior to the APS-C version. It's APS-C equivalent is 18-200mm f/2.3-4.2, which is quite usable, unlike the slow f/3.5-6.3. Or if you are using APS-C mirrorless put it on a focal reducer and get the same benefits. The APS-C version is just boring and slow.And as an observation, despite all those ignorant posts that crop sensor somehow means smaller lenses, because of smaller image circle, this is just another demonstration that image circle has little or no effect on the lens size.
I think the reference to f/9.5 refers to the increase in depth of field that gets associated with the APS-C size sensor when coming from the FF sensor in this particular case.
Someone else has probably made the same comment before but I'm too lazy to read all of them:WHY, WHY, WHY the silly f/6.3 aperture at the long end. At least f/5.6 would have been so much more appreciated.If NIKON can do it, then surely, so can TAMRON.Please TAMRON, get on the same page!!!!
The fact that this camera is able to use all the glass from the past 50 years is a sure indication of how Nikon has ripped off its userbase.
They could have made it such that ALL NIKON AF cameras made up to now be able to use the older glass, but they chose to force their supporters to buy new lenses - if this is not greed then I don't know what is.
CFynn: I'd like to see a shot of the focusing screen
Yes, does it cater for manual focusing? That's the issue.
spidermoon: but where is the aperture ring on the lense ? This camera is mainly for people with lot of old manual Nikon lenses.
"The vertically-mounted front dial controls the aperture when shooting with Nikon's G-type lenses that don't have aperture rings."
This is a lens Sony users have been shouting for for a long time but now Sigma has gone greedy and removed the OS. Which means that a whole market segment that wants to use this lens on the FE or Nex E mounts with LA adapters will have no stabilisation.
Perhaps they should simply bolt on an FE mount with stabilisation and watch it take off. It'll give the 24-70mm f/4 Zeiss a fair thrashing since that lens is priced at $1000.00.
So here we have a team of highly intelligent engineers work together, using the latest equipment and techniques in technology to create a very complex piece of equipment - which just so happens falls far short of the capabilities of the eye of the dragonfly.
The eye in the dragonfly is connected to an unbelievable control system which allows it to keep track of parallel flying insects and keep itself perfectly synchronized in order to fool the prey that it is not pursuing it.
So how does the dragonfly get to get it's eyes and control system together, all by the mindless, random machinations of biological mutations?
Me thinks it's a bridge too far. But then, your mileage may vary.
About the tech itself- great stuff! The possibilities for applications are almost endless.
noegd: Would be interesting to see how this new 24-70 f/4 compares to Nikon's 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 (which in practice is no different than f/4 constant).
Maximum RR of the Nikkor is only 0.22x, but I'm not sure how many people would use a 24-70 for macro work.
MIght be more interesting to see the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 VR......this should be announced soon....
beautyintheeyes: April fool's joke?
Maybe it's because they don't have to....?
bimmerman: Wait a minute, did they say zoom type is extending??? Meaning the length of the lens changes when zoomed??? Oh no!!! say it ain't so Nikon. Why can't they make one like Canon? This is going to be a dust pump!!!
I think you're the only one who sees "extending" anywhere. Doesn't show up in the "find" function of IE. except in your post.
Looks to me like this is a result of Nikon's competitive spirit. So Canon users should be doubly thankful for that competition.
Canon was totally content to chase the sale of high price lenses by limiting the sensitivity.
Now they have to provide a feature that was available all the time but that's been suppressed by simply not enabling it.
Even the Nikon D600 has sensitivity to f/8. Competition is good!. Long live competition!
This lens is basically overpriced. Perhaps it's to compensate for the potential loss of super FAT profit that might disappear if or when they try to introduce f/1.8 versions of the 35mm and 24mm lenses.In my opinion, there's absolutely no reason why the lens should be so much more expensive than the 50 or 85mm f/1.8 G lenses.Perhaps someone would like to chirp in on that. OK, it's so late in the game most people interested in this kind of lens have long since moved on.
I have a difficulty understanding how one can compare different sized files to each other and expect to get reasonable answers. The MKIII files are so much smaller than that of the D600 one has to wonder if / how noise and sharpness has been changed from the original.
fastprime: Can someone explaing/expand on what he meant when he said:
"With this camera you can focus at a combined aperture of F8, which isn't possible with the D7000."
When the maximum available aperture is f/8. For instance if you use a 2x teleconverter with say the 200-400 f/4 lens, you end up with a maximum available aperture of f/8 instead of the f/4 that that lens supports without the teleconverter.It does not refer to the fact that lenses can be stopped down to f/8, i.e. you choose a setting of f/8 for the lens.