tkbslc: It's as expensive as a Canon G7X, with the same image quality, but I can't use it without a phone attached. Instant fail.
It's definitely capable of great output, it's just in a form factor that makes zero sense for 99.9% of us.
Then it's like a Leica M60 :)And much cheaper :)
BobYIL: Typical Leica: 30 x 45mm sensor with 1 (one) AF point for $16.900? Hi Seal and Medvedev! How are you guys?
@noirdesirYes, Pentax has 27 but they are so clustered in the center (because they were designed for an APS-C cam) to make it irrelevant. You still need to focus and recompose.The best solution in MF land is Hasselblad's True Focus that calculates the compensation for recomposing. It's accurate in around 95% of cases.
Just a Photographer: Now all mirrorless camera manufacturers are profitable.Sony, Fuji and now Olympus all presented black figures recently for their imaging business.
While Nikon and Canon are suffering. Its not that these DSLR manufacturers make losses on selling systems, but they do loose heavily in profitability and marketshare over the recent years.
Times are changing.
As far as I know, Nikon published yesterday better results than expected and camera division is profitable.
QuarryCat: ok - a "cheap" Super-Tele for the second best camera-system - not a bad idea.But when you see how good already Tamron and Sigma are placed on this market, I doubt about a success für Nikon.It is on the heavy side, maybe it is mechanical better then Tamron.I don't like the starting point at 200 mm - I would favor a 5.6/100-500 mm or a 5.6/100-600 mm.
The 2.8/24-70 mm VR also inspired by Tamron and right before Canon comes with a new version in IS.
If I still had my D3, I would buy the 1.8/24 mm - that is right in the middle, not so expensive, not so heavy and large like the 1.4/24 mm - a great idea!
Nikon is still fighting - that is always good news!
@QuarryCatJust as Canon jumped on when Nikon released a high dynamic range sensor. Nikon's lens is not stealing market from Canon when you can't mount it on a Canon camera. I doubt there will be a lot of switchers when Canon's lens is already excellent. It will be renewed in a regular 7-8 year cycle.Their bigger priority now is releasing a good 16-35 2.8 than updating an already excellent lens.
Lassoni: Very skeptical about 200-500. It's much heavier than Tamron's older 200-500 (maybe due to constant aperture, and addition of VR). Still, way too heavy for my liking. A real shame they chose not to use PF in any of these lenses.
1.2kg vs 2-2.3 kg. I really don't see point in this. PF would've made the lens 1.5kg
@p5freakIt could, but it's quite telling that they didn't incorporate DO in new 100-400 zoom.
Daniel4: I'd rather have a lightweight 24-50/2 for better low-light and bokeh. I can easily crop from 50mm to 70mm.
There would be nothing lightweight in 25-50 2.0. It would be bigger than this lens. Look at Sigma 24-35 which only goes to 35mm and weighs 100g less with same filter thread.As I said earlier, god bless the lens designers around here with all their knowledge and ideas.
God bless all the lens designers and optical engineers visiting these forums. Maybe Nikon and Canon should employ all of them to finally design some decent lenses, I'll not even mention Zeiss or Leica.@p5freak - Canon 70-300 DO had some serious optical compromises and was never a big seller like their normal 70-300, so I don't see any point to your comment. Or you just want a lens with a certain technology inside irrespective of quality?! If you want small and light with some image quality compromises it's easy to go to a mirrorless smaller format.
I highly doubt you'll se a Canon 24-70 2.8 with VR in next five years since it'a a fairly recent lens and these lenses have a long lifespan. If they wanted to release something like that, it would have been released instead of the current one which came after the Tamron. Just designing such lenses takes couple of years. So, if you are in Canon mount the only VR option with 2.8 aperture is the Tamron which advises against using it for video by the look of it.
DVT80111: Read the review in lenstip. The score is unprecedented which made me salivated a little.
However, lot of my portraits taken with Canon 70-200/4L already required a lot of softening and edit to hide all the facial imperfections. So sharp lens is great, but does it make a practical difference?
I am not so sure.Beside, using the legs as zoom is not always possible.
Sometimes IS can make your images less sharp than not using it.
Serious Sam: Lens is often loved or hated. As far as I can remember, hated many lens…..2.8 FF zoom for its weight, Sony Zeiss prims for its price, etc….. I had never question a lens fundamental existence until this one comes along. The exact reaction is HELLO!! YOU SERIOUS??
For its price, I can get a Nikon 35 1.8G, on the wide get a Tokina 2.8 UW zoom/ Sigma 24 1.8. This combination is much more flexible.
At such a short focal variation and only F2, what is Sigma thinking??
@ Serious Sam
It replaces a 28mm prime as well, hence the three primes.
Thuravi Kumaaran: Great improvement in DR - if things go like this Canon will surpass Sony, in sensor DR in which they were lagging.
You could equally argue that Nikon is free to take the best sensors on the market and tweak them for top performance (since it's clear the Sony sensors perform better in Nikon bodies than in Sony), then having to protect their own outdated sensor supply unit.
There are pros and cons to each approach, but a camera is significantly more than it's sensor. Sensor is like 50% of the whole picture, so to say :)
fatdeeman: Unfortunately the output seems awfully similar to my Canon 60d, the noise levels are intrusive even at low iso with very limited potential for adjustments before even more of it is stirred to the surface.
The level of detail is impressive but I can just tell those files won't stand up to even some levels and contrast tweaking before getting unpleasantly gritty, especially in the mid tones and shadows. I don't think anyone was expecting this to do wonders at high iso but it should be better than it is lower down the range.
I can't help but feel this camera is going to look pretty stupid when the A7rII comes out and I say that as a Canon user.
Unfortunately, what is holding back the a7r II for me is quite poor ergonomics compared to Nikon and Canon pro bodies. I seriously considered all a7 series cameras and went to try them at a Sony dealer's place. I actually significantly preferred the way a99 and a77II worked and lay in the hands. I just can't believe how Sony had such a good and intuitive handling with the joystick and everything and then switched for the a7 layout. If the a99 came with a7s and a7r sensors (but without the compressed RAWs) I would have seriously considered it when we changed our whole Nikon setup (three D700 and two D300 bodies) 10 months ago. Since it didn't, we went with four D810 bodies.
lancet: Could somebody please explain why anyone would use real world samples taken by someone else as a measure on which they would decide whether they purchase the camera or not.
When I think about the next camera I'll buy, I first look at the specs and whether it will mesh with the current setup I've got. Then I go to a dealer and see how it handles. If I'm unsure, I will rent it for a day to use it beside my current camera in a scenario that I plan on using it later, process the files in my normal way and see how it compares to my camera. If I like what I see and how it feels, I will buy it.
Looking at the samples here or anywhere else gives you absolutely no idea how the scene actually looked when it was photographed, what was the quality of the light and whether a 24MP camera wouldn't have made a similar image. Finally, since it was used by a completely different person, there is no telling whether your technique will provide similar, better or worse images.
@ Vanitas - I agree on live and let die, but it seems most posters don't, otherwise they would just look at the samples and move on, without the outpour of criticisms.
@ Abhijith - Specs never tell the whole story and when looking at the specs of my, used professionally till recently, D700 you would say that it's barely usable compared to modern crop, not to mention 5DIII used by pros all over the world. Regarding the feel of the images, I can't be sure until I actually take them, so testing still remains the only option. I knew that this would be a good camera. It's not ground breaking, but definitely will provide the highest quality of images in Canon system, and if I was shooting Canon I would be taking a pair immediately, never mind the samples here.
I'm all for sites providing samples and will have a look from time to time, but to actually base purchasing decisions or even compare cameras based on samples taken on different days seems kinda strange to me.
Could somebody please explain why anyone would use real world samples taken by someone else as a measure on which they would decide whether they purchase the camera or not.
Esign: —My cam... car is now some years old and I’m very pleased with its performance, mileage and reliability.—Oh yeah, how many horse powers?—Only 150 but that’s enough for me, it’s been a nice car to drive and I have used it every day for all kinds of transports.—Meh, my car has 300 hp, so it must be a much better car than yours in every aspect.—Well, but you haven’t got the Special Sport Edition X with 500 hp, why didn’t you go for that version to have a better driving experience?—LOL, didn’t you read the road test of the new monster 800 hp XXX, zero to 60 in three seconds? Imagine how it outperforms everyone on the highway!—Still that’s nothing, the new X-egg have 1800 hp, doing over 270 mph. This car makes a world of difference to your daily commuting so that’s the car you must have to stay on top!
There is not a single camera out there that will by the virtue of itself put you on top or keep you there. So, no worries...
Boky: LX100 is a clear winner. It is bluntly obvious - at all ISO's (in particular high 3200 ISO where Sony and canon start falling apart..). Even the corners look very good. In other words, you get the high quality sensor AND optics in one package.
Sony's learned from canon... all the bad things - repackage, change/increase the number, and charge $200 more. Lame.
Maybe the sharpness is more uniform, but all the faces look significantly less sharp on LX100 than on the Sonys. And the reason why I never bought the LX100, although I thought about it, was that lens performance left a lot to be desired.
The most fascinating thing for me was how much less moire IQ180 has compared to Nikon & Canon since it also doesn't feature an AA filter.And second thing is a personal preference, but I have always found that Canon sensors gave skin colors with more magenta and less yellow compared to Nikon and in this case (D810 & 5DsR) it seems to be the opposite with Canon significantly more yellow and significantly different than the others (noticeable both in caucasian, asian and african skin tones to me). And the green that used to be more intense on Nikons (like my D700) now seems more subdued compared to Canon. I know that all of that can be modified with post processing, but I found the difference in default capture interesting compared to what I previously noticed, i.e. that Canon cameras had better skin tones.
The last one is exceptional.
lancet: Great idea. Great execution. And his body of work shows that he is capable of producing high quality work at a regular basis.That's why ESPN hired him and not the commenters bellow.
If you ever saw the video on how he shot Rudy Giuliani, you would probably never say that about his lighting technique. Or you would, because you never did such things.Taking a Nikon or Canon dslr and going out shooting portraits is much easier than shooting 8x10 film with a view camera and complete artificial light setup (and no WB correction in post or such) and doing it without mistake in a timely manner.If you could do it, you would be shooting it, and not him.
maxnimo: So this needs an external computer to work? Samsung will eat them for lunch.
You obviously don't understand to whom this product is targeted, but it's obviously not you. So, be happy with the Samsung.