If you value action and/or reach albeit in only good light this camera is pretty awesome. I'd love one.
nerd2: I am really puzzled who Nikon is aiming this system at with that sky high prices.
V3 body - $120032mm f1.2 portrait lens - $899 (which works like 85mm f3.5 on FF)10-100 f4-5.6 VR - $549 (which works like 27-270 10x zoom)30-110 f3.8-5.6 - $249 (which works like 80-300 zoom)
This system may make sense for outdoor sports shooting if nikon released lightweight, affordable f2.0 or f2.8 telephoto lens but all the zoom lens they have is SLOW f5.6 ones!
"works like 85mm f3.5 on FF"
You mean in regards to bokeh only? It still F1.2 in regards to light gathering isn't it? And that is very good.
No the birdy was real :) Not many people have noticed it though :)
Richard Franiec: Nothing can tame boundless love for Fuji cameras and prevent 84 point (balanced) score to happen, even this:
"One point we do have to make is that the X-T1 is nowhere near as good a movie camera as it is for shooting stills. Manual control is limited, and video image quality is unusually poor. It's OK for casual use, but if high quality video is high on your list of priorities, you'll probably want to look elsewhere."
Video is a consideration sure.. but the "P" in "dpreview.com" stands for "photo".
Terrible image of a great bird! Harsh light, distracting background, noisy pixels.. too tight a crop etc.
Lots of mushy noise removal it seems giving poor detail.. also nasty sharpening haloes and harsh light doesn't help :(
Nice pic - i wonder if cropping a bit of empty space on the left would help?
bottom of bottom wing quite sharp but unfortunately head/eyes not which is usually critical for wildlife. Also suffers from harsh light - the shadows are muddy and a lot of noise in the image.
cool action but very noisy and perhaps a little over exposed and not enough contrast...
Rated low because of poor image quality - lots of pixel clumbing and nasty sharpening halos etc... a nice image in thumbnail view only :(
Not a bad shot but I think you've tweaked the shadow/highlights a bit too much to give it a bit of a HDR look? I think more natural contrast would've been better...
Sorry I scored this low because of the image quality.. you have lots of pixel clumping and really bad sharpening halos and artefacts.. it looked quite nice in thumbnail view! :(
Sorry I scored this low because of the post processing.. whats that horrible smudge around the edges of the bird? its like you tried to do something with the background or something...
lovely image - what was the shutter speed?
Thanks guys.. i was rapt to capture it.. :)
I can't believe some of the comments here.
Its a fact that an iphone will be used by millions of people to create digital photographs with. I for one am not that interested in using one for the majority of my own needs. But I am interested in how they stack up against things like tradition cameras etc.
Thanks for the review - its of interest to many photographers.
Can I use my 4GB Sandisk clone CF card with this?
slsphoto: Lots of hype about super resolution and sharpnest....that's great, everyone wants that; but I haven't seen any bragging about super low noise or low light prowess. Makes me wonder...? I need to see a good review which determines if there is really any noticable image quality improvement over the D700, except in bright light with the highest resolution lens.
I don't care about video; I'm one of many advanced amature/semi-pros trying to create the best wall art I can; more for love than money; often shooting low light land/sea/cityscapes.
Don't forget low light performance and high ISO performance aren't always the same requirement.
I shoot low light landscapes - eg last light of a sunset - but shoot at 100 ISO because the subject isn't going anywhere, I want maximum quality, and I'm using a tripod.
This camera will most likely be amazing at low light, low ISO landscape photography. I don't want to shoot landscapes at ISO3200. Hmm I guess it would be nice to freeze leaves on a windy evening - but yeah not at the cost of noise in the rest of the image. I wouldn't shoot a landscape at ISO3200 on a D4 unless there was some unique requirement to record that scene in a certain way.
Ruy Penalva: Goes OLPF out and get a moiré reduction tool in!!! If it is to have moiré why do not leave the OLPF in place?
Errm... you might want to go back and read about all this again :)
Obviously if you had to use software moire reduction on every image (or even on a high proportion) you wouldn't remove the OLPF and charge more for it...
Its for people who believe they'll benefit from extra detail in the images and these images are mostly the sort that won't suffer too much from moire (or at all).
Of course anyone might still take some images that suffer from moire so the software tool is useful for this.
For instance I'll mostly do natural landscapes but perhaps I might photograph my sisters wedding one day and have to fix the patterns in her veil or something... or the odd pattern even in my landscape images (eg sand ripples on a beach).
abolit: what is so special about the D3S that can't be done with some other cameras?
That sounds fast but remember the subject isn't 10 meters away or something.. so the actual movement of the subject across the image frame isn't anything like that sounds...