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.
The "super high-powered lights", by the way, are for continuity. Do you think people won't notice when a single scene, after editing, seems to flash back and forth between several obviously different times of the day? Even an hour's difference can mean a huge change in shadow direction.
Lukas Gal: Little mistake RAID = redundant array of independent disks not Inexpensive.
Yep. Thinking (or reading) "independent" rather than "inexpensive" is just an indicator of excess youth (or pathological pedantry combined with a willingness to accept Minitrue's new version of history).
NiklaiN: Use Nikon software for Nikon RAW files. You will see miracles!
It's not a particular mystery - it's Google's patent (from Nik), as is the control point idea that's used in Viveza and CaptureNX 2. Google isn't licensing it to anyone else (which is why Nikon can't further develop CaptureNX 2).
LJohnK2: - No mask function- No blemish removal - No CCP- No generic clarity slider- No, No, No,
Hey Nikon com'on up here to Canada.... we have Community College Programs that have 2nd year Co-op students that can produce better than this.
What the hell is Nikon thinking !!!....seriously Nikon just open source your ADL algorithm so real programs like Lightroom can include it and be done with this.
That "years ago" is less than two years, and any updates to CaptureNX 2 were just Bayer extraction matrices (database stuff, not software changes). Look, Nikon lost the rights to the technology (after a reasonable transition time) with Nik's acquisition because Google wanted Snapseed and an improved feature set in Picassa, and Google just can't be outbid. It's not like Nikon has deliberately played a rotten trick on you (us, since I'm a Nikon shooter too).
qwertyasdf: I had been using the PS I bought like some 5 years ago, I don't even know if it's a CS 5 or 6. No issues, no subscription crap.
Does having the latest (not necessarily the greatest) PS matters so much to a real photographer?Aren't there many great photos created before PS even existed?
Sorry guys, if you think that having this CC is so important to your pictures, you might just not be a good enough photographer.
Yes, they did - and they make better software now, with fewer work-arounds and kludges needed to do the same work we've always done, and with better results to boot. Do you need the latest and greatest? Only if you want to do a better job faster, with more immediate feedback. Don't romanticize a past that never was; the REAL past was expensive, smelly, seriously hard on the eyes, took days to perfect a single "straight" photo, and involved a lot of swearing.
Complain about the licensing if you want to - I pretty much agree with that - but not about the software. It's necessary for "real" photography, and CC 2014 is a significant step up from CS 5.5.
G Sciorio: It's a beautiful lens. Shame they don't make one with a native M43 mount. I ended up buying the parts and built my own which cost me about $150 and a few days of time. Mine is not as pretty, nor does it have aperture control but the bokeh rocks like nothing else.
No, you don't want a native mount - you want a nice cherrywood-and-brass cabinet-sized housing for the MFT that has a Canon or Nikon mount up front. With a dark cloth, of course so you can see the LCD "ground glass", and matching sticks. And to really do it up right, you'll need to have your subjects hold very still for a second or twelve after the exposure is complete. The film holder would just be a frame holding a dark slide, but if you're going to do it, might as well go whole hog, right?
Ken G1999: I use CS6 only and concerned that when I get my next camera the RAW converter may not be compatible as I believe there will be no more updates for CS6. Does any one know if this is correct. I am happy to stay with CS6 for some years yet and although I can use Canon DPP to convert my RAW files I find it very clunky and without the great features of Adobe. What are the alternatives as I am not going CC. I guess I will be stuck with DPP. Any ideas please
If you aren't using Lightroom and are happy with the process engine in ACR in CS6, you can always use the DNG converter utility. Basically, that takes in the raw sensor data, along with a baked-in version of the Bayer matrix/camera profile and the profile for the lens (if the lens is in the Adobe db; custom profiles are not supported), and stuffs it all into one file so that it can be processed by an older version of the raw processing engine that doesn't support the camera. Of course, this will only work for as long as the camera you're using is still using a Bayer-pattern colour filter array, so it's not completely future-proof. And there are quite a few alternative raw processors out there, some of them quite good. (If you're a Mac type, you can always use Hasselblad's Phocus, which is a free download, at least for as long as the basic raw codecs are part of the Mac's OS.)
I see this getting a lot of likes, which is really sad. It indicates an almost complete lack of knowledge of what went into photography in the past. We chose our film emulsions for their responses. We chose our developments. We chose our papers (and processing for them). We dodged and burned and scraped and masked and sharpened and softened and bleached and spotted and sometimes even airbrushed and rephotographed. Last I checked, you couldn't easily swap sensors in most digital cameras, and dodging and burning on an inkjet printer while it's printing is a real pain in the buttocks; post-processing takes the place of not only the darkroom but an awful lot of the decisions that we once had to make before the shutter was clicked. Photoshop (and other image editors) didn't change what we do, it just changed how and when we do it.
benbammens: I like this article :) Makes it easier to understand what Nikon changed in the camera :)
The "What You Need To Know" feature is a new one here (and the D810 isn't the first product to get the treatment, even if it is the first *camera* to get it). The site is improving, and you're complaining about it?
Nukunukoo: I don't get it. With or without an OLPF is a binary thing: you either have it or not. It's like saying a woman became "slightly" pregnant! So all this while that we have been hearing that the D800e has no OLPF, it actually has and the "effect" is created automagically? So does that mean that the D7100 without the OLPF will suddenly be like the D800e when the D7200 comes out? Kindly clarify.
> once the information is missing (filtered out) nothing will restore it.
That's not exactly true, but only because of the way the OLPF works. We use the word "blur" as a sort of shorthand, but it's actually a very controlled (and directional) spreading of the light when it passes through a crystal. Ordinarily, there would be one spreading the light left-right and another doing the up-down (so light "bleeds" controllably into the 8 pixels surrounding the target pixel). But these crystals are directional; passing the light "backwards" through a crystal oriented in the same direction but flipped front-to-back will bring the light back together. Like splitting then recombining a spectrum using two prisms, it's not perfect, but it's awfully close. It's not like sharpening a blurred image; the second filter isn't trying to create something out of nothing, the "data" is still there. Removing the OLPF altogether just gets rid of the remaining imperfections (and makes the system simpler).
David Myers: I would buy it for the 24mm 'wider' angle lens and the 'real world' viewfinder. These are two things that every expensive 'prosumer' should consider as being the bare minimum items for a pro's 'pocket backup' camera!
The 24mm 'lens equivalent' matches the angle of view of the Zeiss 38mm Biogon on the Hasselblad SWC - perfect for interior shots. This is the 'Goldilocks' wide angle: Not too close - not too wide: A really wide shot without details being too small in the image! I can then do a simple crop if I need more magnification at the 'long' end and all is well!
And EVERY pro needs a proper eye level viewfinder. You can't 'lock and brace' a camera into your face like a 'human tripod' for precise shots if you have to wave the camera around in the air with one hand while shielding the LCD screen with the other!
David Myers: www.digitalmasters.com.au.au
Really, when you think about it, this machine is essentially the equivalent of a very nice entry-level APS-C DSLR/MILC + kit lens that's a smidge wider but just as "fast" (whether you're talking about ultimate light gathering or DoF) *that fits in a pocket or purse*. No, you can't swap lenses -- but an awful lot of people don't ever swap lenses anyway. And an awful lot of people that might have been DLSR/MILC buyers have really been looking for a camera like this one. The fact that it makes a really handy second/third/fourth camera for the obsessed or the professional is just an added bonus.
saralecaire: Goes to show that technical know how and skill plays second fiddle to the people/connection you have.
Most of what makes Peter's work stand out is a phenomenon I've described as creating "a person who happens to be in a picture rather than a picture that happens to have a person in it". There are an awful lot of highly competent camera operators, lighting technicians, colourists and designers out there who pretty much forget that the end game of headshots and portraiture is to have the viewer look *through* the picture *at* the person. The purely photographic aspect is often about not making any real mistakes; the human connection is what elevates the merely good to excellence (in this genre). It doesn't matter whether you're talking about Hurley's running banter and simple setups or the intricacies of a Karsh, it's the ability to breathe life and the sense of "knowing" the subject into the picture that makes all of the difference.
photo perzon: So what camera got you started?
Peter started with a Mamiya 645 (a smallish medium format film camera that now lives on as both the Mamiya and Phase One 645 bodies). That made a lot of sense at the time for anyone who was aiming for pro work - not too tremendously expensive (as these things go), and enlarges well with a LOT less grain than 35mm. And digital wasn't really a thing yet at the time (2000). You can do pretty much the same thing he was doing at the time with any of the current generation of larger-chip enthusiast/pro digital cameras (film grain isn't a concern anymore, and the ISOs where noise becomes a problem would have been strictly double-naught spy work stuff in the film days; nothing you'd use for headshots). You still have the sun, and any lighting you might want to use is a whole lot cheaper at the entry level than it was back then. And the learning resources today compared to then?! All you need is the drive.