must me a Sony shooter...
zenpmd: A lot of people were hoping it would be focus peaking, but its not, and so the suspicions are confirmed that the processor cannot handle it. Glad I got rid of my XE1!
I dont think this is the update everyone has been waiting for.
Lee W: Just tried the XE-1 with new 1.05 firmware. Autofocus certainly no faster with the 35mm 1.4 as claimed :(
Marty4650: Fuji must be following the Microsoft business plan.
They seem to be very fond of marketing products full of bugs, then releasing lots of firmware upgrades ("Service Pack 2?).
Does "Version 1.05" mean that this is the fifth firmware upgrade for this relatively new camera? If so, it makes you wonder why they didn't do a better job testing the camera before release.
Fuji might want to consider making firmware updates into a subscription service. Each time you connect your camera to your computer it checks with headquarters and automatically installs this week's upgrade. The concept seems to be working well for Adobe. :)
Marty, maybe the testing process for the new lens af algorithms was not complete at the release of the camera. Everything has to be tested and re tested and tested again. They could have not released this(like most companies) and no one would have complained. The could have made this a "new feature" on an upcoming camera(like oly and panny do). But they decided to improve the current cameras out instead of releasing new cameras every year.
FW updates are good. No matter how small. Lets everyone know that the camera is still getting some love.
devlin2427: Weirdly enough being the best entry level mirrorless doesn't warrant a gold award.
@AbortabortIt would have been nice to have the PDAF sensor in the 3N, Im sure thats what he is meaning.
flickr is just an easy way to steal images.
Want a wide angle shot of a barn that looks good. Search for nikon 14-24 lens. Im sure youll find a barn you like, poof that image is now in some book that you wont know about. I found one of my baby goose pics in a book and the author told me to screw myself and that the image wasnt copyrighted.
Water marks are easily removed or cropped out.
This is always a good idea!
Mescalamba: I would only add, that Sony ZA 24-70/2.8 SSM dont have stabilisation for simple reason that Sony system doesnt need it. Should be noted there that all Sony dSLTs and dSLRs have built in stabilisation system, so every lens on it is stabilised (as long as camera knows there is lens on it and it has proper focal length in chip coded).
So simple "No (stabilisation in camera body)" would suffice.
Gesture, i agree, sensor shift shines more at the telephoto end vs the wider side of lenses. So having the choice is good.
Wow....Very nice lens at a very nice price!
PhotoKhan: Microsoft is, indeed a bullying gorilla (...like Apple, like Adobe, like...)
How could they ever come up with that described blatant violation of YouTube's Terms of Service and their API Terms of Service in such naive, cretin way?
Isn't there a single soul inside MS that participates in those endless, endless meetings that can't go "We can't do this" without running the risk of being immediately labeled a "non-team player" and getting a ticket for unemployment?
I tell you guys, this wonderful new IT world is sadly, recurrently and increasingly proving to be the dirtiest, non-ethical business activity EVER.
yep, people dont care no more. Then want to get in, make money and run.
Capture one pro is looking really good! Im very very used to ACR, but its time to learn something new!
So what will DPR be using for the camera reviews? Still adobe? Or are you guys going to be switching?
thx1138: Here's a tip Olympus, be the first manufacturer to make a high quality water proof camera, with superior optics and RAW output and you'll take that segment of the market over. The IQ of the tough series is third rate.
Yep a waterproof XZ-2 would rock!
jonikon: Although this 32mm f/1.2 lens is no doubt a stellar lens, it is also an outlier in terms of price compared to other Nikon CX mount lenses for the Nikon 1 cameras. On the plus side, at least all the other Nikon 1 lenses are reasonably priced, and most Nikon 1 owners can easily live without this lens, and purchase the superb 18.5 f1.8 for a mere $200 instead. I doubt Nikon will sell many of the 32mm f/1.2 at this lofty price, but it is nice to know that Nikon is committed to making excellent lenses for the Nikon 1 cameras. The future of the Nikon 1 system is looking brighter all the time!
10.8-11 vs 12.4 in DR is....a decent difference.
Sonys sensor beats many of the 1.5x sensors in everything BUT low light.
While i do agree comparing the master piece sensor sony made vs the nikons is very very very wrong. The N1 system has alot of potential. Focusing is the key that Nikon actually got right. No other mirrorless can focus like it. I don see another focusing like it for atleast another year. Once that happens, if they havent gotten there crap together, they are dead in the water. Focusing speed is the N1's saving grace, take that away, you got just another mirrorless BUT with a small sensor. If fuji, samsung, canon or sony gets focusing down(like the current nikon 1 series) it'll be close to game over for nikon.
SeeRoy: Wotta lotta twaddle here - the usual endless piffle about FL/Aperture equivalence. I don't use a Nikon 1 system (I own FX and M4/3) however I did buy, and have used, a V1 system for a woman friend as an alternative to her Canon DSLR. And I wouldn't be likely to buy this overpriced lens even if I was a CX system user.I agree that the existing cameras fall well short of what they might easily have been; many people might have been prepared to overlook the limitations imposed by the choice of sensor size had the ergonomics been better. However I feel it's likely that, given the rapid development in sensor technology, before too long we'll see a Nikon CX range that meets the requirements of many of its current critics.There's a lot wrong with my OMD too but it doesn't stop me finding it a much more enjoyable experience than an FX body with a 2.8 zoom attached.Edited for typo.
I agree with you.They really need to get a good body out, with a good sensor! They either need to make it much smaller or somthing. The V2 is downright ugly.I think a range finder type of camera in this format would do really well. If the size is right!This thing just focuses so dam fast! It just needs a sensor to live up to that. The 22mp sensor in the RX100 shows us that it is possible to make a pretty dang good 1 inch sensor with pretty high DR. Doesnt need to have 22mp or anything, but the better the DR the better and the better the low light the better..Also make low light focusing better. With that...they need to put out a sharp high quality zoom, a F2-2.8 24-90 or something. Maybe a 24-120 F2.8 with 1:2 macro maybe.If the 24-120 F2.8 with 1:2 mcaro wasnt giant, and it was sharp, they made a range finder type with a very good(rx100 like but with better high iso) sensor. I would buy that with no problem. If the zoom being a power zoom would make it smaller. I would not mind.
Mssimo: "depth of field control of an 86mm F3.2 lens for a full-frame system" Why not just say this is a 32mm f1.2. It has the same DOF on a FF or a Crop system. Bokeh and light intensity of a f1.2 is also the same.
So you if like the Bokeh or DOF you get with a 32mm f1.2 lens...it will act the same way on a crop than a FF.Only thing that changes is the crop/FOV.
Oh.... Sorry about that. Lol stupid dof! Gets me all worked up when I'm bored!! Lol
I recant my statement , to late to edit now.
Broncobro...What are you talking about? I never claimed anything, i just stated the DOF and FOV of specific FL's with specific sensors attached to them FL's. Nothing more then using a simple DOF calculator.OBVIOUSLY a 32mm 1.2 on FF vs a 32mm 1.2 on a 2.7x camera is going to be quite different. OBVIOUSLY.
Dennis....I did use a DOF calculator....I have the site posted in my post. It tells me you would have 0.77ft of DOF on a FF on a 85mm at 3.2 at 10 ft. it also tells me you would have 0.77ft of DOF on a 32mm 1.2 lens at 10ft on a n1. same FOV...same DOF...
Well...Have you ever shot with a 32mm 1.2 on the 1 system? I know i have not. It would be nice to know what FOV and what kind of DOF your going to get with it. I dont just think well 32mm on a 1 system is 86mm and 1.2 will give me around F3.2 on a FF.Its good to know information. Should you say that it has 0.77ft of DOF at 10 ft?http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
You can also add in there that it will give the same FOV of a 56mm on a D7100 with a F2 lens.Or as much as a 43mm @ 1.6 on a M43 cameraOR you could say its almost exactly what you can get DOF(0.79ft) and FOV wise(minus 2 mm) as you can get from the Oly 45mm 1.8 that costs $399.Theres lots of ways to say it. The most common is telling the FF equivilent.
Also i think it would sadden alot of people knowing you can just get the M43 system and get the same DOF on the 45mm 1.8 vs a 1.2 lens on the 1 system.
Just makes the lens sound ALOT less special.
What you do gain is 1.2 light gather ability! :) So there is that
Peiasdf: Well, I hope the Fuji 56mm f/1.2 will be cheaper. That lens is going to kicking ass and taking names.
Yea....I dont think the Fuji will be cheaper.