Treeshade: Lens mount: Canon EF, Canon EF-M, Fujifilm X, Nikon F (DX), Four Thirds, Micro Four Thirds, Pentax KAF, Sony Alpha, Sony E (NEX), Samsung NX
This 2.8 wide-angle would fill the long-overdue APS-C prime range. Even EOS M got some love. Now everybody is happy!
@tkbsic It's a prime and thus by definition smaller and lighter than a zoom and therefore preferred over a zoom. (But then it doesn't stick to that definition but that's an unimportant detail.) ;)
jpr2: Again NO built-in EVF? which means again a DOA - what a pity and what a joke :( !!
Like the Panasonic GM1 is a joke?
This is welcome, though 16 bit is overkill. Take for example the Nikon P330 pixel of 1.8 μm size (most smartphone pixels are smaller than this) and it gets less than 12 stops of engineering dynamic range with a very flat read noise curve and a very high QE of 75% (possibly somewhat a calculation artefact). I haven't done the math but I would estimate that a 1 μm pixel with a QE of 100% and a read noise of zero wouldn't get more than 12 stops of DR.Add one bit for over-encoding, hey even two, and anything more than 14 bit is just encoding noise. And for real sensors with a QE of less than 100% and some read noise, a 12 bit encoding is very likely completely sufficient.
AndreyT: At first one wonders what was the point of reposting these images again, after we have seen them hundreds of times already (they were making rounds around the Net for a few years now). But then one notices that there's an obvious political bias in the selection of these images: out of all those well-known Lego photo recreation pictures only the ones were cherry picked that fit certain propaganda-censorship agenda. And then a few "neutral" pictures were added to masquerade the original intent. Apparently someone at "dpreview staff" saw this veiled trolling opportunity and took it.
@thomasw333 & HobbiesAreFunYou have to see it the other way around, everything published that doesn't contain accusations about 'agendas' by definition has an agenda. Anything not openly trying to get a message across must actually be trying to secretly do this.
noirdesir: I think this photo would be even better without the blue sky as a blue sky doesn't match the lighting of the ground (I'd probably cut off the top). At least that's my 2 cents.
And somewhat off-topic, what was the reason to build the road elevated on some sort of a dam? Ground not stable enough, needed a thick layer of gravel or such? Torrential rains not washing onto the road?
Maybe I am just more into abstracted shapes and compositions such that I evaluate photos more like graphic art.
I think this photo would be even better without the blue sky as a blue sky doesn't match the lighting of the ground (I'd probably cut off the top). At least that's my 2 cents.
HaroldC3: Dang and I was hoping for a 200-400mm f4 from Tamron ;)
It's the FF equivalent of the APS-C usage of a 200-400 mm f/4 lens.
yabokkie: 5.5 fps
does it mean D600's shutter?
And/or D600 mirror mechanism (apart from the sensor read out electronics which for a D4 sensor aren't limiting here, shutter and mirror movement are what limits frame rates).
spiderhunter: I am thrilled as it brings back the nostagia of a time gone by. For me, my romance with photography is suddenly resurrected. I miss photographing with the old style era camera.
But having divorced Nikon since 2005 (used the film system professionally since 1973) when I dumped Nikon DSLRs in favor of the Canon, this is the first that my heart started to race when I saw a Nikon new model. Since 2005, I have since invested heavily in Canon and sold every single Nikon lens I owned ... But I felt I was never really back into photography. It was as if something went missing. Now I know, it was all those missing manual dials that made me feel that way.
My first thought was: how good is the AF tracking system? Is it as good as the D4 minus the FPS? 5.5 is ok.
However, I do wish that they have made it thinner and slightly smaller. In any case, if it can fulfill my needs, I will buy one.
The frame rate however is D600 not D610 (I guess all the D600 shutters they haven't sold yet have to go somewhere).
falconeyes: @anybody commenting on price:
The 3000$ claim was fake, there is nothing known about the price. DPR article has been updated too.
Yeah, but there are rumours that come from trusted sources (ie, those that have in past provided correct information about not-yet-released products and have done this multiple times) and those that come from a new unknown person.
The difficulty when publishing rumours is figuring out which are made up and which are real. And if you are not ready to put a reasonable effort behind separating the wheat from the chaff, you'd better don't publish any.
And if you see this not as publishing rumours but merely as reporting what important public figures (ie, the Nikonrumors editor) have published, it is not good journalism when a person you are referring to has put out a correction and not amend your article.
HeyItsJoel: I think I read somewhere that 58mm is closer to 'normal' point of view than 50mm. Can someone confirm or deny this?
The only aspect in which 58 mm is closer to 'normal' is that it is the focal length for which it is the easiest to design a lens on a Nikon F-mount in front of a FF sensor. The reason the Noct was 58 mm was that it was easier to design a high quality lens at 58 mm than at 50 mm.
Scripps23: If Nikon wanted to make this new lens in the tradition of the retired Nikon 58mm "Noct" lens, as its press release states, then it should have made it an f/1.2 lens. To charge almost $1,700 for a 58mm f/1.4 lens when you can buy a Nikon 50mm f/1.4 lens for $439.00 is a joke! This new $1,700 lens will certainly separate the rational photographers from the fools and obessed collectors.
To charge $1700 when Zeiss is only charging $4000 is simply outrageous.
GeraldW: My first thought is that Mr. Butler should not be calling this a "superzoom". 200 mm does not qualify. What it is, is a "bridge" camera in the same sense as it was applied back in 2004 to the pro 1, 828, C-8080, etc. With that out of the way, I like it!
The price is high; but fair for what you get. To get similar performance, the ILC's and DSLR's are going to have to use lenses that are faster than f/4-5.6 (thinking of the Panasonic 14-140 or the Canon 18-135 f/3.5-5.6).
Yes, it's pricey; but the old Canon Pro 1 and Sony 828 were in the $1000 range in 2004.
OK, it's not pocketable; but you are allowed to own more than one camera. And it's not long enough for wildlife; so I'll have to keep my FZ200 (which really is a "superzoom")
Any fixed lens camera that exceeds a certain size (essentially thickness), and has a lens that has a wide zoom range is a superzoom to me. The key parameter is camera size for me (which makes the Leica X vario an odd camera.
IKnowin: DMC-G6 Compact System Camera with 14-140mm Lenses, HD 60p 1080 - Larger Sensor, same sort of size, lower price and interchangeable lenses.
I love my Sony RX100 because the quality is up there with many DSLRs but the real reason for the love is this quality comes in a pocket sized camera - as soon as you can't pocket a camera the alternative options are endless and it doesn't help when this camera appears to be over priced by a factor of 2.
Not sure who'll buy it. Too big for the most, too small for the rest and costs at least 50% more than better competition. IMO
The RX10 is still about a stop faster at the long end (f/5.6 on 14-140 on m43 sensor vs. f/2.8 with the RX10 on 1" sensor).
WhyNot: Interesting camera... Interesting price.. I think at this price point the question is “Is this lens of a quality that Zeiss would offer as stand alone lens and at what price?” and if the question is yes and the price is right then do I need this lens in this form? I suspect that for me I'd just as soon have the Panny FZ200 for less than half the price (as I suspect they are both sunshine cameras.) .....
I just had a crazy idea (triggered by your comparisons): What if somebody made a sensor where the central part has smaller pixels? If you needed a lot of reach, you would only use the central part but still have about same number of MP. Probably won't fly since such a sensor would as expensive as a sensor with the small pixel size on its whole surface.
Kim Letkeman: Was there someone out there who thought that sending most of our manufacturing to the far east while accelerating our demand for dirt cheap pricing on everything from cameras and phones to boots and jackets was going to be free of consequences?
China and others get rampant pollution (as just one consequence) and North America gets governments who must now borrow to stay afloat (as just one consequence.)
Much of this is our fault and so long as we all pray to the shareholder value gods while demanding that WalMart roll prices back weekly it is rather unlikely to change. So why are we complaining? Surely missing out on the view of the Hong Kong harbour is rather low on the list of calamities to be addressed and hopefully one day reversed.
Sure, that is part of the reason but what is the solution? Limit trade by declaring one country as being ok (eg, Canada, USA) and another country as not being ok (eg, China)? Is such a black and white solution really a practical and even remotely efficient option?
You can get more sophisticated by, eg, levelling a duty on steel imports based on the 'pollution level' per unit of steel in the country one imports from. But it gets complicated to calculate the 'pollution level' if you want to trace back imports that that country makes from another country.
SeeRoy: One wouldn't have suspected that the Chinese government were capable of something this witty.
It won't be too long, as the world's population goes on expanding, with the level of consumption ramping up (as required by the prevailing economic model), before they'll have to put up posters of the current pollution levels to remind people what a paradise has been destroyed.
Population growth. Maybe a few wind farms will help.
There are enough areas/countries in the world with a similar energy consumption density that have much less pollution. It's not rocket science to reduce smog producing emissions from coal-fired power plants or cars, it just costs money. And the Chinese do have the technology, they have some of the best coal-fired power plants in the world, just only very few of them so far.
In the end this can always be broken down to political will, which in democracies is more aligned to popular sentiment than in non-democracies where living (eg, as a power plant operator) off the backs of the general population is much easier as the elite is only answerable to the elite itself.
noirdesir: Isn't the low light test a bit arbitrary if you are not controlling the shutter speed? Yes, one argue that almost everybody will never actually try to control the shutter speed, and matters is what you get out the camera using stock, all-auto settings.
A camera might select a rather long shutter speed in your test setup and thus create a better IQ but adds more motion blur and the real question is whether a grainy or a slightly blurry picture is the better one. To which there cannot be a universal answer, for once motion blur will vary from image to image, will depend on the situation and the shooter and last but not least one the preferences of the person viewing the image.
What you test here is only the low light performance 'on a tripod' using auto settings. And while auto probably is the most relevant setting for the vast majority of users, I'm not so sure about the 'tripod' aspect.
Since this is a photography enthusiast site, there might be a fair share of people who want to know which camera does better at, eg, ISO 800. They also want to how effective the OIS is but they want to know both things separately because for moving objects the OIS doesn't really help.
Just posting the shutter speed (and f-stop, though the aperture will be wide open anyway) would be instructive. Posting the ISO would also be instructive but about something else, namely that a manufacturer's ISO value is rather loosely defined.
Lumia 920: ISO 640, f/2, 1/15 siPhone 5: ISO 500, f/2.4, 1/15 sSamsung: ISO 1600, f/2.2, 1/30 sLumia 1020: ISO 800, f/2.2, 1/11 s
And for your camera tests, what matters is IQ per shutter speed and f-stop (for a fixed lighting). Anything else is just complicating things, eg, by using a calculated ISO as a proxy for shutter speed.
Isn't the low light test a bit arbitrary if you are not controlling the shutter speed? Yes, one argue that almost everybody will never actually try to control the shutter speed, and matters is what you get out the camera using stock, all-auto settings.
Artak Hambarian: Rallyfan mention something very interesting. Why Lytro does not advertise the capability of creating a one shot stacked focus pictures? That is an amazing feature. It may be realised both in camera and via post processing. One shot means that you have perfect set of pictures to focus stack.
Does a focus-stacked Lytro image have less diffraction softening compared with stopping the lens down in the first place?