stratplaya: Serious question for the pro and semi-pro Nikon shooters. What would you like to see in the D5? What do you feel is lacking with the D4s?
@RPJG - It's a Yiddishism, and it's proper. It implies that you *could* care less, but that caring less would require a degree of effort or caring *about* the caring that isn't warranted. It's actually a stronger statement than "I couldn't care less", but with a bit of biting humour thrown in as well. (The phrase isn't just American either. Just as importantly, English isn't a system of formal logic. Why, for example, would "head over heels" mean anything other than "largely unaffected by the circumstances and going about business as usual"? Your head is normally over your heels.)
Just one little niggle: when it's done right, internal focus is the cure for focus breathing, not its cause. With a unit-focus (old school) lens, bellows draw when focusing closer increases image size (a 210mm lens can be both a wide-angle landscape lens and a normal studio lens on an 8x10; it even approaches an 85mm 135-format-equivalent for tight head shots, which are almost 1:1 macro). Reducing the focal length when you focus closer keeps the subject size and field of view constant -- provided that the lens design permits the focal length reduction to compensate exactly for the closer focusing. That's not easy to do with real-world multi-component lens; granted. But traditional (unit focus) designs are worse in this regard, and all of the high-falutin' cine lenses (the big Sonys and Angenieux) that have essentially eliminated focus breathing are all internal focus.
Aaron801: I think that it's less of a real problem than just a new paridgm created by new technology. The type of folks that used cheap cameras before are now using cell phones and the type of folks who were more serious photographers are still using more expensive, more complex cameras as they were before. There's less overall cameras being sold becasue the largest segment of users only need something very simple and that's going to be cell phones. There's no compelling reason for that crowd to buy a seperate device... even if it's cheap and easy to operate..
For folks that want to experiment with gear that's a little more capable, they can do so pretty easily. Almost any camera on the market these days has a full automatic more... so you can buy the thing, start with that and only later, if you want to experiment with more direct controls.
I don't really see a problem with the choices available, for the expert or for the beginner.
Frankly, Aaron801, most of the people who would have been buying point-n-shoots never wanted cameras at all, they just wanted a thing that takes pictures. That may have been a 120 or 620 box camera at one time, or an Instamatic type (whether 126 or 110) or even a disk. They bought digital P&S cameras because the pictures were "right now" instead of next week, next month or next year, not because they wanted a new camera and thought digital was the way to go. Now they own a thing that takes decent-enough pictures and is always with them anyway; they no longer need to buy the camera they never really wanted to buy in the first place, and the Rebel or D3xxx or high-end P&S sits on the closet shelf beside Dad's old Brownie Hawkeye Flash and a half-used box of #25 Blue Dots. Lugging a specialized device around is only fun if you suffer from the same abnormality that we suffer from, no matter what the color scheme of the body or menu graphics look like.
Ad B: Hi,here's written, the sensor allows ISO ratings above ISO 6400.Even ISO 12,500.But on the spec sheet as we can find at the Leica site it says, the S is going towards ISO 1600... Maybe in auto ISO?What is the truth?
...and for what it's worth, ISO 1600 on the old CCD was pretty bad (CCD "cross stitch" noise, which comes from bucket-brigading the data across sensels, doesn't clean up well at all). At low ISOs, though, it had great tonality.
Roland Karlsson: A very beautiful camera. I wonder who buy them? Studios tends to have the digital back kind of cameras AFAIK. This one seems more aimed at hand held work. Who carries around an S camera? The huge Nikon and Canon with long fast teles for sport I understand. But this one?
Basically, if you can think of a good reason to use a leaf shutter (high sync speed without relying on HSS-capable lighting, all of which is power-limited at the moment, or tail sync, which is a half-assed solution at best) and a good reason NOT to use a detachable-back MF camera (form factor, bulk & weight when hand-holding), you can think of a good use for this camera. So anything daylight with supplemental lighting - location fashion, feature editorial, and the like - where an SLR-format body makes sense and losing 3/4 or more of your flash power to an ND filter or shutter curtains doesn't. (That assumes that you can charge enough to make it pay for itself. Or that money's not a worry.) And it's not a bad camera even with just ambient light using the focal plane shutter. Or if you're an optical viewfinder fetishist like me, you can just look at that all day and forget about everything else - it's gorgeous.
Steve Bingham: After 60 minutes and 3 phone calls I still can't install ParticleShop! Windows 10. I have PS CS6. Now I have to deal with PayPal. Yuck! It downloads the exe file but about half way threw the install it hangs. Restarted the computer, deleted the old exe file, and tried to install version 2. Same after deleting version 2 and version 3.
What a piece of junk.
@aut0maticdan - ABR doesn't support anything like what this does; it's a long way from merely "installing brushes".
Photoman: Pentax 645Z offers far better value than Blad. You should have stuck to a simple design instead of bling for small markets or rich toffs. Sad to see another camera brand about to go broke.
Well, except that the 645Z doesn't have anything in the way of leaf shutter lenses to offer (there are some virtually-antique lenses on the used market, but they leave a lot to be desired - they were barely "good enough" for ISO 400 colour film, and certainly not up to 50MP) and the back cannot be detached and used on a view camera. Flash synchronization at high shutter speeds (above 1/125, certainly) with real lights (not speedlights) and camera/lens movements are not optional for wide swaths of the professional market. It's a great camera, but among the people most likely to have bought it, the general tone of the conversation has been "what were they thinking?" The detachable back is probably never going to happen (it severely complicates connections), but they need LS lenses to compete with Hasselblad or PhaseOne/Mamiya.
igor_s: I was always sure that the PDAF with third-party lenses was just a matter or marketing. Bravo to Sony for doing this as it will impact the sales of own Sony and Zeiss cameras.
The only global thing I can think of in this area is Z-shift sensor AF that would allow for AF with with fully manual lenses.
And 5mm is a lot, and won't cover much range with many lenses. I get the idea; it's just not practical outside of a *very* limited range, which would approximate what you'd need for focus holding in a focus-and-recompose situation. (In those cases, since the shift you'd need is governed by the field of view of the lens, and the field of view of the lens becomes more restricted as the focal length, and thus the required sensor shift, increases, it would likely be practical at least to a degree.) The camera would need to be thicker by the amount of movement required, and by the basic mechanical overhead of the jacking system, so there's only so far you can go with it before it becomes unacceptable to the vast, vast majority of people who would use the camera.
That might be a little difficult; the required shift can easily get into the centimetres range in a hurry. A helicoid adapter would at least take the jacking mechanism out of the body, but since you'd need to move the entire lens (or the entire camera if the lens itself is tripod-mounted) I'd imagine it would either be terminally slow or require a ginormous battery (once you allow for damping and so forth). A "manual focus maintenance" arrangement - something adequate to keep the focus fine-tuned once you've established it manually on a relatively static subject - might be more practical. (I'm picturing something that works sort of like Hasselblad's True Focus feature, but without having to know the lens characteristics intimately.) It still sounds power-hungry and expensive, though, no matter how I think about it; I'm not sure Sony could go there with an a7. Perhaps an a9?
Class A: Good to see some balanced discussion in the article. DSLRs are by no means the "dinosaur technology" that they are often characterised as.
One point that rarely gets made is that image quality is largely determined by the lens and that lenses that provide high-quality images even in bad conditions tend to be large (that's just physics that no engineering can get around). A tiny mirrorless body more often than not then just provides an inadequate grip for such lenses, yielding a combo that is imbalanced and not well-matched, with the overall size of a quality kit negating the small body size and weight advantage a mirrorless camera offers.
Surely mirrorless cameras have their perfectly matched application areas, but so do DSLRs. This sustained hailing of mirrorless cameras as the future technology that is still misunderstood by customers got old quite a while ago already.
Curved sensors won't do anything for apochromaticity; you'll still need multiple elements with appropriate dispersion characteristics. And then instead of designing to a flat field, you'd need to design to a particular non-flat field curvature, or stick to a fixed (non-interchangeable) lens. Our eyes are lousy cameras; we've just got excellent built-in raw processing (featuring content-aware fill!).
dialstatic: Such negative comments! I think this is an interesting development with potential applications outside the field of (hobby) photography. In any case, such research always makes me marvel at the complexity of the human brain. After all, 99.9% of the time, we have no problems distinguishing reflections from the actual scene (and even 'subtracting' them to some extent in our minds).
It also has a great application in forensics - from both sides. You can clear away reflections OR isolate them (the whole "zoom... enhance" TV/movie deal, modulo reality), depending on which is interesting. But yes, it is disappointing to see people reading the announcement and thinking to themselves, "cool, I can do the whole 'Ansel Adams' trip without even getting out of the car/bus now!" It ain't all about the shutterbugs.
jhinkey: Here I was hoping that this would have even higher capacity than the 405 - which is just barely adequate for my uses and could use having the gearing re-designed to be even stiffer.
The 410 is too light weight and this is even less capable than that.
Heavyweight gear may a**.
It looks cool and that's about it.
I think that there's a major clue in the XPRO nomenclature; it pairs with the 055 and the 190 XPROB 'pods (which are pretty well weight-limited by their articulated centre columns). And compared to a ball head or a non-geared three-way, it will be significantly easier to adjust cameras that are approaching the top end of their capacities. (And if the 405 doesn't cut it, there's always the 400. That works fine with a Sinar P2 8x10, extension rails, 480mm lens and compendium shade. )
oselimg: I'm not a specialist, nobody is specialist, I'm not even a photographer but this camera is a specialist one. It doesn't even have touch-sensitive oled screens. Therefore a bad camera. I hate Canon because they don't recognize me as center of the universe.
... and that's not the market they're shooting for with this camera. That will be the 5D Mk IV's territory, and we've yet to see what they'll do there. The expectation will be that this camera's use case will be the more deliberate world of the landscape/architecture shooter or the tethered studio shooter (where the chimping can be done on a gloriously large monitor with greater detail and accuracy than on any back-of-camera monitor). There is nothing wrong with specialty tools, either from a user's perspective (fewer compromises to make) or from the makers' perspective (sales). That won't keep anybody from hoping for the (soon-to-come) shirt-pocketable gigapixel 60FPS 8x10 with a 42-inch touchscreen monitor and sub-megabyte file sizes (along with the 12-600mm-equivalent f/1.4 collapsible zoom lens that will fit in the same pocket) -- at some level, we all want that -- but being able to pick the best tool for the job at hand isn't a bad thing either.
ChrisH37: I played around with LiveView on my D750 this evening, and you know what I was actually pleasently surprised. I've owned mirrorless cameras before (OMD EM5, A7) and obviously shooting with the rear LCD is nowhere near as quick as those, but it's also not that bad and much, much quicker than earlier DSLR implementations of LiveView. I can certainly see myself using it quite a bit with the tilting LCD.
Also, the 3D tracking really is staggering, I tried and quickly stopped using it on a D7000, but after reading this review I figured I may as well move away from Single Point AF for once and try it out, it's next level stuff and genuinely usable.
Just to put that into some kind of perspective: the *metering sensor* on this camera has about 20% greater resolution than the rather expensive (>$1.5K) QVGA camera I was using in the early '90s, and with enough DR to act as a meter to boot. (As if I didn't already have good-enough reasons to feel old.)
Just Ed: My only observation is that for almost the same money you can get a 6D, have had two and love 'em. About to buy a third but only because one was stolen.
Its the final image that counts not who makes the sensor or what the specs are. Honestly that final image mostly has to do with the photographer or lack thereof.
The point of this camera, though, is to be able to cover the high school/college game without having to drop a fortune on the NFL camera (or the lenses for it). You may have no reason to want one for your photography (and may have very good reasons for wanting a full-frame sensor), but the idea that one ought to sacrifice getting the shot or have to purchase lenses twice as long in pursuit of "ultimate image quality" is nonsense - the shot you didn't get is never going to be as good as the one you *did* get, and the tiny crop out of the middle of your sensor (because it saved you $5-6K on the lens) will be no better than the uncropped APS-C shot. Horses for courses and all that. (And no, I have no need of the 7DII either, but the camera I need for my work would REALLY suck for sports or birding.)
Scales USA: I remember when jpeg replaced gif images. It was painful.
Changing over the web browser infrastructure will be much more difficult than it was in the early 1990's. It was a clear choice due to very limited bandwidth, but the image quality suffered due to artifacts.
I'd go for a new standard, but likely won't live long enough to see it.
PNG makes a tremendous amount of sense... just not for photos. For static paletted images, it's a better GIF than GIF. (No animation, though.) And for full-colour images that can easily be losslessly compressed to small sizes (graphics with flat colours or smooth gradients), or that require alpha transparency, it's great. With photos that can stand a little bit of loss (that is, photos for viewing, not for editing) all it gives you is larger files that download slower for no *visible* advantage over optimally-compressed JPEGs (which usually involves saving from an editor at highest quality then running through an optimizer like JPEGmini, which can take full advantage of variable compression so that areas of the image with lower detail get more compression). It's not our fault that the minute fast wired broadband became available, everybody stood up from their desktops and went mobile.
quokka: I am surprised that there appears so little interest in Canon's 400mm II DO lens, and that few have linked the advent of this lens to the 7d II. The combination of these tools should be a BIF shooter's dream, with NO real competition. Furthermore, based on MTF charts, this lens should take the 1.4x and 2x adapter quite well, delivering lightweight, yet very functional 560mm and 800mm capability. Good time for birder's.
...of course, this is all on paper. We shall see.
I seem to recall BIF pictures being "a thing" when, for most amateurs, a 400/5.6 or a freakin' f/8 or f/11 reflex lens was a stretch, focus and exposure were manual, and "spray and pray" meant (if you were lucky, and your camera supported a winder or motor drive) 3.5 FPS with a maximum "buffer depth" of 36 shots -- all of which you had to pay for. (Some of those appeared in photo magazines that featured a youngish photographer/columnist by the name of Peter K. Burian.) Look, nobody appreciates the advantages of current tech over the caveman stuff we used to use more than I do, but I've been reading altogether too much lately about how the latest-and-greatest will finally make something *possible* that people have been doing for decades. You might have to take the time to, say, learn a bit about the behaviour of the animal (or get intimate with the sport, or what have you), and maybe put yourself into more uncomfortable positions, but that stuff still works with the latest tech.
Mister Joseph: I don't get "high budget" shoots. They use super high-powered lights during broad outdoor daylight then stack a bunch of ND filters on their lenses.
Not nearly as much as you'd think. Of course, I only have actual experience to go by, but...
solarider: Can do the same combining 50 mp raw files with the Pentax 645Z while saving ~$12,000 on the body alone. I'm sure the Hasselblad is quite the camera nonetheless.
Have fun moving your Pentax exactly one pixel, then exactly half a pixel. Just the four-shot mode (50MP image that's de-Bayered by full-pixel shifts) does more than super-rezzing a huge stack of random images; the extra half-pixel moves provide enough to give the added luma detail. I'm not calling the 'Blad a bargoon by any means, but you can't get the same picture out of the Pentax without a precisely controlled mechanical rig that will pretty much make up the price difference (and will also subtly shift the POV, which will produce parallax smearing on anything that isn't flat).
Ellis Vener: There are some pretty stringent limitations on multi-step backs-the camera cannot move, even a tiny amount, between frames.-same thing with subject: absolute stillness required.- the lighting needs to be absolutely consistent exposure to exposure, during the sequence.
So is this camera for?
If you photograph fabrics , especially carpet and rugs;, or certain types of products including furniture, sculpture, and artwork.
And there's always single-shot mode for when multishot can't work. Of course, you'll have to settle for crappy old everyday 50MP images, but it saves you having to have a second camera.