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?
lightleak: Very curious to see how this lens performs. What irritates me is that they chose to make a 50mm first. I don't see a lack of great 50mm lenses for FX, if there would only be a great lens between 20 and 24mm.
@coudetI think you should have said great fast (as in f/1.x) 50 mm lenses for Nikon. The Zeiss 50 mm f/2 is a great lens.
Dimit: Boooored! 16-85 VR is fair enough.When we're about to build an arsenal we always mean primes.Would someone have more than simply one kit zoom?? Meaning never buys or should buy a non bundled kit zoom.Provided this is the case,I'm sure it will be bundled with a high end DX gear in the near future,so why should we bother now?
Why does it need to be bundled? Are people incapable of ordering a camera and a lens as two separate items?
JakeB: f3.5 to f5.6.
These lenses are designed for people taking pics on vacation in bright sunlight and very limiting in most other photographic situations.
If constant f2.8 is overkill in terms of weight and price, at least go for constant f4.
No, they are designed for people who want range with one lens. They don't want to carry extra lenses, they don't want to change lenses, they don't want to carry a heavy lens (like a 18-105 mm f/2.8-4 would be in comparison).
Neodp: A. Beside overly costly(now), it's too slow. You don't just make/buy slow lenses; because you might be able to do higher ISO. We need both, fast, wide aperture, and cleaner, higher ISO. Clean up ISO 3200, and give us f/1.8, and now you're talking. How much money is wasted on "kit" lenses? How is that a value?
B. It not fast lenses, or the color depth of sensors, that can be beat back(in design balances), it's having ultra-wide, and ultra-tele, in the same lens. Until, tiny sensor somehow improve. The (current) necessity, and showing up under all photography types, is the good light (color & B&W) tonality! Also, including the better DR, and lower noise. Camera's are light gatherers. Make them so.
@attomoleAny Nikon DX DSLR will ship with a 35 mm f/1.8 and a 55-200 mm if you order it. But most people don't order that combination. Maybe Nikon is developing what most people actually want?
Did people also complain when the 70-200 mm f/2.8 AF-S VR II was released? Oh no, yet another 70-200 mm f/2.8, we already have one that is perfectly fine.Or about the 80-400 mm AF-S? And those two lenses didn't even get an extra 5 mm.
It is absolutely ok to be disappointed. But to equate Nikon's sales potential with one's own desires is little bit too self-centered a view.
Didn't know they had such good cameras back then. ;)
Colin Stuart: Some blurry, unsharp picture with a very photoshopped looking bunny in it WON?!?!
I don't even see the point in competitions with crap like this.
Colin probably didn't read the title. I know I didn't it until I read your comment.
AllOtherNamesTaken: Wow, $12,000 and almost a full stop slower than advertised (Just like the 24-105L is T5.1). Not as sharp as a $2,000 Nikon 70-200/2.8 G. Nice lens and all, but grossly overpriced. Don't get me wrong I wouldn't turn one down, but I don't know what Canon is thinking with this one. I would expect a lot more for my $12K.
The Nikon 200-400 mm f/4 also has a t-stop of about 5 (measured by Marianne Oelund and posted in one of the Nikon forums here).
bcalkins: Nice to see more options for the mirrorless and APS-C crowd. I'm not sure I see the appeal of the 16mm for micro four thirds specifically, since we already have the 17mm f/1.8, 20mm f/1.7 and 14mm f/2.5, which are all pancakes compared to the 16mm... But for APS-C dSLRs there are few dedicated fast wide angle primes.
Few as in none.
joe6pack: Is this suppose to be something new? Isn't Eye-Fi suppose to upload photos via Wi-Fi? Didn't Eye-Fi support Direct mode long ago?
SD card uploads via Wi-Fi + Device with Wi-Fi = photo on device???
I've seen the claim that WiFi direct also allows a device to quickly switch between two WiFi networks such that it is effectively connected to two networks (even if one of the two networks is only a one-to-one network).I don't know if this is correct but if possible that would something worthwhile for Eye-Fi cards.
io_bg: Good luck shooting in low light with this...
More like a guy in a Mack truck telling someone in a Honda that carrying 20 tons of dirt in that Honda won't be a pleasant experience. Or translated back to this camera, that IQ at the long end will suck in most situations other than on a sunny day outside.
Good luck shooting in good light with this...F/16 rule (ie, sunny day) means f/6.3 at ISO 100 will result in 1/650 s. Which means, including the optical stabilisation, you'll probably have one or two stops leeway (in terms of available light) before needing to increase the ISO. And considering that this camera will be held at arms length, maybe not even that.
Not too long ago, some people preferred a large format camera because composing on a big 'screen' is more precise, easier and more enjoyable. Why should composing with an iPad screen thus be something ludicrous?
M Lammerse: APS-C (crop format) is absolutely not dead. At least in Japan it is still the majority of DSLR camera's sold, probable in other places around the world as well.
Nice fast and very useful focal length. Makes you also wonder if Sigma will complete this with a 35-70 or 35-105mm fast lens.
Yeah, the Sony RX-1 is good indicator that we are marching really fast towards sub $400 point and shoots with FF sensors.
A 24 x 36 mm large piece of silicon chip is not going to get tumble in price to a tenth of what it costs now any time soon. Electronics get cheaper because we are able to cram more transistors per square millimetre on chips, not because the square millimetre of chip is getting cheaper.
Stephen_C: Do the people at DPreview understand the concept of the f-stop? An f1.8 lens gives the same exposure no matter how large the light circle. When I shoot medium format the exposure is not affected by the final crop I use of the image. An f-stop of f1.8 means f1.8. The f stop does not go down if you use a smaller sensor or crop the image.
@rfsII Define sensitivity. If you define sensitivity as the SNR at a standard output size, smaller sensors are less 'sensitive'. The question is always whether you mean sensitivity per square millimetre or sensitivity per whole image.
The other point is that if you ask people why ISO 1600 is noisier than ISO 800 (for essentially any camera), as long as people don't answer, "Because the sensor receives half as many photons at ISO 1600.", they will have problems understanding cross-format comparisons.
jacketpotato: There was sufficient body girth (looking at handgrip) to put F2.Maybe even F1.8 with a litte extra portrusion that the phtographers this is aimed at would been fine with .. what a camera that woud have been.
You mean a little protrusion like that of the Fuji X-100?
Sergey Borachev: Blame the f/2.8 on two things:
- Cost. Exotic lens elements and advanced aspherical shapes needed for fast and compact lenses cost a lot. But this is a fixed lens with limited controls and features priced at $1,100, or $1550 with EVF!?
- Size of the sensor. APS-C sensor means big lenses. Just compare the size of lenses with the same speed in NEX and M43 cmeras. An M43 camera can be significant smaller or faster as a result.
Also, Nikon picked a less popular focal length, 28mm, which in f/2.8 can be very small even for APS-C.
Most ofl the complaints of this camera or any NEX camera are due to this fundamental problem of making a small camera with a largish APS-C sensor. There is no cure for this physical limitation, or for the stubborn attitude in continuing with APS-C when makers change to small mirrorless cameras.
Once again, this shows M43 has the optimal trade offs in size (camera dn lens) and performance for small cameras. A M43 camera with 35mm f/2 will kill this.
I fully predicted your falling for sexy numbers, 'f/2', in a post 2 hours ago: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50982292
A f/2 m43 camera is sexy, a f/2.8 DX camera not.
noirdesir: On page 6, you talk about frame lines:"FW 1.10 still offers improvements with the frameline displays."
Does this refer to frame lines in the optical viewfinder of the X-Pro 1?
There is another one like this on page 7:"These hoods also intrude on the lower corner of the optical viewfinder notably more than the vented variety."
On page 6, you talk about frame lines:"FW 1.10 still offers improvements with the frameline displays."