Back in the 1970-s, Nikon had several camera bags that had F-mount rings to secure lenses. I had one and it was pure joy - one could change lesses while walking with no fear of dropping a lens, and even when the case fell during hiking on rough terrain, no hint of damage to the cameras and/or lenses.
In the film days there was a Leical CL, which was smaller than the Leica M series cameras, yet took standard 35 mm (full frame) film and has the same Leica M lens mount. It was actually manufactured in Japan by Minolta for Leica.
Does not the iPad have a similar App?
Richard Cooper: Thank you for the information about TS lens for panoramics.I use a Minolta AF 35-105 lens on my Sony A850 for panoramas.I usually shoot full manual at f22 and get my sharpness as follows. I focus on the distant objects (infinity) and slowly back focus toward my camera until infinity is just out of focus. Than I slowly move the focus toward infinity until it is sharp. My image sharpness begins about 3 feet from my camera until infinity. Gives almost a 3D appearence.I do my stitching in PTGui with an added plug in that removes any blur in the over lap area by rerouting the seams. The blur is usually caused by moving objects such as people, birds, clouds, etc. PTGui also will remove lens distortions and corner vignetting.I have been creating panorams for about 12 years and through trial an error found this method produces a sharp detailed panorama from front to infinity with no lens distortions or blur in the over lap areas.Richard
If you want the most resolution, better not use f/22 on a DSLR. For most landscape photography f/11 will give you enough depth-of-field.
rogerhyam: I may be stupid. Infact I almost certainly am. But...
All the pictures on this page have been down sampled to less than 1500 pixels across and nearly all the images one "consumes" are on-line or in printed books.
It is all about angle subtended at the eye. If the picture doesn't work when viewed from at least its diagonal away then it doesn't work because you can't see the composition!
The diagonal of a 16x20" print (a very rare thing) is 25". Visual acuity of human eye (20/20 vision) is 1 arc minute which is resolving two lines 0.006 inches apart at 25". At 300dpi the pixels are 0.003 across - double the visual acuity. At 600dpi they are 4x the visual acuity. A 28 megapixel file will get you 300 dpi but you need 115 megapixel image to do 600 dpi and probably won't be able to tell the difference. That is a lot of pain for probably no gain!
Just buy a D800E and use some nice sharp prime lenses and you should be able to print 16 x 20" off every frame without stitching.
The reason for Medium and large (film only, yet) format goes beyond DPI:
a. Large format means long focal length lenses, resulting with more depth-of-field control which is function of the physical aperture, not the f-number.
b. Given the same amount of pixels, larger format have fatter pixels: for the same ISO rating, more photon per pixel, significantly lowering the noise level and resulting with better color (and black-and-white) graduation. This is why 35 mm format DSLR-s have 12 or 14 bit A/D converters whereas medium format digital cameras can use 16 bit ones. More bits gives more post-processing headroom (if you use "raw" formats).
c. The pixel count of Bayer style sensors (in all cameras except Sigma's and the Leica Monochrome) is based on cheating: the actual number of pixels per color is half or one quarter of the nominal specs-sheet number. Also, anti-aliasing (either optical or digital lowers the resolution by its nature. Thus rogerhyam's calculation is wrong.
cseiler: Great! - This adapter can use auto exposure without any information from the lens. Shouldn't it be easy than to "reverse engineer" this to allow non-Nikon lenses to meter? Or will I have to buy one of these and cut it off and bolt a Pentax mount on?
.... or is there finally a firmware update to get rid of this stupid "no lens mounted" message if you are in A mode with a 3rd party adapter?
One can buy third-party "scope" adapter that converts a standard (or tele) lens into a telescope or monocular field glass by adding an inverting prism and an eyepiece. Add to this the new Nikon adapter and you can fit practically any lens to a Nikon 1 camera. Of course, image quality will be somewhat degraded, but for many of us, cost savings will be reason enough.
Coupling vintage lenses to the Nikon 1 series is not just a matter of software - old lenses used mechanical coupling for exposure and focus, whereas new ones use electronic coupling. Only the more expensive Nikon DSLRs support both.
fberns: Feature-wise a great camera.But the viewfinder is lowest entry level!And the viewfinder is one of the most important parts of a camera, isn't it?
" the viewfinder is lowest entry level"?
Simple - electronics is cheap these days - once you develop the design and the production process, per-item cost is relatively low. Optics (pentaprism vs. "pentamirror") still costs real money.
h0tsauce: lol people are b1tching about the weirdest things. This sensor will be top notch, the AF will be class leading, and the images coming out of this camera will be class leading as well. The things that I'm kind of disappointed with are.
Max shutter speed = 1/4000sec. Pentax K30 = 1/6000sec. Viewfinder = 95% pentamirror . Pentax K30 = 100% PentaprismNot weather sealed, Pentax K30 = weather sealed. (not big of a deal but worth mention).
"Class leading" defines the class, not the camera...
the 7000 (series, I hope) are in a different claa, and so are the Dx00 series.
"Light weight" is a positive way of saying "plastic".
I keep wandering why Nikon started with their "class leading" 24 MPix sensor from the bottom up - it would make more sense to have it in a 7000 series body first, than in lower priced ones;... unless this sensor needs debugging, and Nikon prefers having amateurs, rather than more critical semi-pros, as its Guinea pigs.
My suggestion (NIKON - ARE YOU LISTENING?) would be to revive a version of the old Nikon SP rangefinder camera http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/rangefinder/sp.htm and get it up-to-date. The Nikon SP has two interesting features:
a. 1:1 optical viewfinder - unlike most rangefinder and optical view finder cameras - you can keep both eyes open, which decreases fatigue.
b. Lens focusing by a wheel on the body that is coupled to the lens - you can design a camera body that will autofocus all legacy SP lenses.
My "ideal" camera will thus be based on the Nikon SP, use full frame Foveon sensor, offer shutter priority auto-exposure and autofocus with old lenses, a triangulation electronic rangefinder. As an icing, the viewfinder can have Fuji-like live-view option as well.
I think that this camera would appeal to the kind of people who buy Leica M* digital cameras, and to professional news photographers.
The so called translucent mirror Sony camera line seems to combine the disadvantages of "mirrorless" cameras - no through the lens optical viewfinder - even the best EVF exhibit limited resolution, image lag and brightness issues in daylight, particularly when compared to full frame SLRs, with those of conventional SLR camera - bulk and weight and limited selection of lenses.
By the way, the term "translucent" is inappropriate here - it means "permitting light to pass through but diffusing it so that persons, objects, etc., on the opposite side are not clearly visible" (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/translucent?s=t ). the correct term is semi-reflective mirror or beamsplitter.
Sam Bennett: I would actually argue that while lens can't produce the same amount of "background blur" as an equivalent FF lens/body combo, it actually can provide as much or similar "subject isolation".
Subject isolation for me isn't just about DoF - it's also about the focal length you're using, how it influences your distance to your subject and hence the perspective of the shot and how much background "clutter" is present. With the same amount of DoF present in two photos shot with different focal lengths (and different distances to maintain a consistent subject size) the wider focal length will result in less subject isolation and more background clutter.
In my experience, focal length is actually the more important factor in terms of isolation - that's why in practice the 45-200mm actually provides a good amount of isolation at long focal lengths, despite it's relatively slow aperture.
For a given object distance, DoF is determined by the focal length divided by the f# - a 200 mm f/4 lens will have, to a close approximation, the same DoF as a 100 mm f/2. When you compare different formats you mus, however, remember that the 4/3 sensor image needs to be magnified (for same size print or screen) twice as much as full frame, so the out-of-focus blur becomes larger.
David Rosser: I really think that the only satisfactory way of testing lenses is independent of camera using equipment such as this http://lenses.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/carl-zeiss-camera-lenses/industrial_lenses/products/lens-measuring-technologies.html#inpagetabs_41a6-0 I am sure that with the backing of Amazon DPReview could afford to purchase such equipment. The Zeiss lens testing equipment also has one important attribute that your methodology does not - it test the lens at infinity focus, your tests cover near focus only.
The Zeiss system you recommend is nice to have convinience, but is not a necessity. With proper knowledge and a calibrated target like http://www.aig-imaging.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=AIIPI&Product_Code=M-6&Category_Code=Sinusoidal-Precision-Sine-Test-Array
You can get equaly precise results.
JKP: Hopefully you'll have a change to test multiple copies of the same lens (ideally from multiple manuf lots) to find out the variation between the units.
For example, my copy of EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM is clearly less sharp than my EF 85mm f/1.8 USM. I believe it should be vice versa. Not happy.
Hello sxhortx - I looked at your link for DxO lens test result, and I wonder... how can they compare resolution of various lenses when the term "resolution" is an ill defined measure (MTF at several spatial frequencies and field positions must be used to get objective results) and they test each lens on a camera with different pixel count?
It would be nice, though, if DPreview will publish extensive details on how lenses are tested and how the ratings are calculated.
Another nice-to-have feature will be to group tests, so at one time several lenses from different brands, but similar specs will be tested, and readers could make up their minds on which lens is the most suitable for them.
tongki: I don't think this topic is relevant for dpreview class,or should I say dpreview already lost their classsince they reviewed an iphone, nokia, toy cameras ???
come on dpreview, this is SUCKS !!!
1 more thing,
NICE TATTOO !!!
There is nothing wring in reviewing Nokia, especially if their built-in camera is actually better than some "dedicated" cameras. People who use cameras must use camera bags, and we need to know which are the better ones and which are just overpriced.
On the other hand, it would be nice to have reviews of medium format cameras, particularly in these days where some DSLRs (D800, Merril) claim to give the same kind of image quality.
I would skip the review on thenew lunatic Hasselblad, though...
Adrian Harris: I still can't see the point of these cameras. Still far to big to fit in ones pocket. Shame it doesn't have a smaller sensor and hence small light lenses. Thank goodness for M4/3.
For each, what he likes... Since technology and physics link image quality to sensor size, micro-4/3 cameras will always have slightly worst image than DX cameras of the same generation of technology. On the other hand, as a proud former owner of the original Olympus Pen-F FILM camera, which used half-frame film format of the same size as DX format, and was smaller than the current micro-4/3 digital "Pen" CAMERAS, I would expect mirrorless DX cameras to be much smaller.
PS: The old Rollie-35 and Minox-35 pocket-able cameras, both full frame (=FX) FILM cameras were still much smaller - if you accept collapsible non-zoom lenses,there is lots of room for miniaturization without sacrificing image quality.
KevinD65: Crazy thought ... Get this lens and a Nikon FM10 and you'd have a very light weight full frame camera for under $1K. Of course, it wouldn't be digital, but it would be a small, light kit for backpacking. Carry a digital P&S for test compositions and exposures, and for times when the shot isn't film worthy.
A better idea yet - I can take my 1971 Nikon F, which, after all those years survived so many falls, and its 55 mm Micro Nikkor (which I tested against the newest 60 mm auto-focus, vibration isolated 60 mm Micro Nikkor and it won). No digital camera is more rugged than this. Unfortunately, while the camera is as good as it was 40 years ago, my eyes are not, and now I absolutely need autofocus. Oh, getting Kodachrome 25 film is somewhat difficult too...
gl2k: Does someone really still buy such a cam ?Smartphones have taken over.
They don't, but the people looking for this kind of camera would not see the difference.
My favorite one-light setup is missing: put the light source behind the subject so that the camera is in the shade of the subject. Place a large white or metallic board near the camera 9preferably to one side) so it get illuminated by the lamp and reflects light towards the subject.
This set up does wonders with hair, and at the same time it is soft enough at the face so wrinkles etc. would not be too visible.
That's bad taste!!!