Retzius: "So if you're one of those people that's still holding out for a replacement for the D300S... well, you might be looking at it."
I have said all year that Photokina was the year I would stay with or leave Nikon based on the appearance or no appearance of the D400.
It appears I will be leaving Nikon then. Sad really, I love my D200 and have waited almost years for a D400. I am still holding out for a surprise show announcement; if it does not come I will sell my gear and go for the Canon 7D MkII. At least they want my business.
I wonder what you guys espected from a D700 successor: The only issues are the frame rate and 1/4000s. Yes, 6,5 fps is worse than 8 fps of the D700, but that framerate was possible with battery grip only, without the BG the D700 had 5 fps (or thereabouts).1/4000 is a flop though.
brelip: dpreview kept referring D750 closer to spec of D810 than D610. This is a joke. Stop kidding yourself. This is D620. The body style is completely different than pro Nikon's. Build quality different. Sensor different. only 1/4000 shutter. No pro cameras would have 1/4000, period.
Re "build quality is different": DPR writes that D750 is completely from magnesium, rather than magnesium-plastic body of D610, which also implies it is on higher level.
nerd2: NIKON ARE YOU KIDDING? 'Fast' camera with 6.5fps continuous shooting and 1/4000 max shutter? How dare you use 7xx naming on this? And separate wifi and GPS? Come on, it's 2014 now and just ever other camera have them built in!
Well I have 6 fps on my camera and never felt like needing more; if there was some trouble with high speed shooting, it was the buffer. And that seems OK with D750.
tkbslc: I am pretty sure it would cost more to put together a high end kit from Fuji than it would a FF kit from Nikon, Sony or Canon. I can't think of any APS-C lenses that cost more than these two.
The story does change since D7100 (the best and most expensive Nikon APSC) is cca. 900 eur, whereas X-T1 is 1200 eur. And don´t forget the Pentax, not only K-3 is cheaper than X-T1, also it´s zooms are APSC and cheaper than Fuji/Nikon/Canon lenses.
What about a price comparison between Fuji and comparable (meaning high-end) APSC DSLR? D7100? K-3? With comparable lenses they are way cheaper than X-T1 plus f2,8 zooms.
Harry S: There seems to be an automatic assumption that everyone buys into mirrorless because it's smaller, therefore lenses like this are pointless.
I would guess many of these people have not stopped to think there may be a whole host of other reasons why somebody owns a mirrorless camera, of which size may just be a small part of. Even taking size into account, you can still have a very compact system when required (i.e. X-E2/35mm 1.4), but that doesn't discount bigger lenses like this, particuarly as there are a lot of pros using Fuji X gear now, particuarly for weddings.
Even with this lens in their bag, an X-T1, this, and a bunch of the X primes is still going to be significantly lighter and smaller than a DSLR setup.
I personally shoot with a Sony a7, size isn't on my radar at all, in fact I bolt a big LA-EA4 adaptor on it and use a Sigma 35 1.4 and Zeiss 135 1.8.
Re: "Even with this lens in their bag, an X-T1, this, and a bunch of the X primes is still going to be significantly lighter and smaller than a DSLR setup." I dare to doubt it.As has already been said, this telezoom is huge, same or even bigger than DSLR lenses: http://img01.quesabesde.com/media/img/noti/0075/fuji_50_140mm_01.jpgIf I take Fuji X-T1 plus a set of lenses to cover different FL, there is no significnat difference.Example (sorry, there are not exactly comparable lenses available):Fuji X-T1 + 14mm/2,8 + 35mm/1,4 + 56/1,2 + 50-140/2,8 = 2,26 kgPentax K-50 + 14mm/2,8 + 31mm/1,8 + 55/1,4 + 50-135/2,8 = 2,47 kg.So is this what you call "significantly lighter"?And if I didn´t consider the speed, I could take the Limited primes: 15mm + 21mm + 40mm + 70 mm, that weigh alltogether 550 g.So the summary: if you want to go mirrorless because of light primes, they are also available for DSLRs; if you want fast zooms for mirrorless, they are the same weight as DSLR lenses.
The Mick: Lovely early morning colors and nice symmetry!Mick
Thank you. The colours changed every minute and this shot had the nicest colours.
iudex: From the dawn of mirrorless cameras we have been told their advantage over big heavy DSLRs is the smaller size and weight: smaller bodies that do not need mirror and mirror box and smaller lenses that have smaller flange distance. So let´s take two examples:Fujinon 50-140/2,8: 995 g, 72mm filter threadPentax DA 50-135/2,8: same speed, similar FL, but 685 g and 67mm filter thread (just adding that it is a DA* lens, i.e. Pentax´s top and optically perfect, plus iit´s weather sealed).So where is now the advantage of CSC/CSC lenses?The point is: if CSC manufacturers want to build a fast lens, especially zoom with longer FL, the laws of physics are the same as for DSLR lenses and mirrorless lenses will be the same size and weight as DSLR lenses. The only difference is that the combo CSC + telezoom will handle worse than DSLR (with big comfortable grip) + telezoom. ;-) P.S. I like Fuji lenses and I could imagine having some (e.g. 56mm/1,2). But on a DSLR. ;-)
When I take the E-PL3 we have at home you are right that ISO above 1600 is better avoided. But the latest sensors (those in E-M1/E-M10/E-P5) are performing much better, just like APSC sensors (not the best ones like Fuji X-Trans, but definitely better than 18 MPx sensors of Canon).As regards the DOF every crop is a compromise of course, but when size is crucial, 4/3 sensor seems like the best compromise of size and picture quality.
That´s is why I believe M 4/3 is the best mirrorless system: 4/3 sensor allows for smaller bodies and lenses (while still delivering decent picture quality), thus gaining size/weight advantage over APSC DSLRs, something a CSC with APSC sensor cannot achieve. So if I ever switched to mirrorless, it would be something like Oly E-M10: great sensor, small body but with VF and lots of controls plus enormous choice of nice small lenses.But then I look at all the small and beautifull Pentax Limited lenses and I know I´m gonna stay. ;-)
TangoMan: This lens could have been 400g easily. Yep, less than a pound. And it could be small too! If only they had used a three lens element design in a sliding cardboard tube, all the weight savings they could have made!Alas! They decided to weight down each and every past and future Fuji X camera owner by releasing on all of them that epic optic.
While I appreciate the humor/irony, other manufacturer´s lenses are not primitive optics, but still manage to make the lense lighter and smaller, e.g. Pentax 50-135mm/2,8.
Thorgrem: I don´t follow Canikon that closely, since I am a Pentaxian. But Pentax generally has smaller lenses than C/N, partially because C/N lenses are designed mostly also for FF sensors, whereas Pentax can build smaller lenses designed for APSC only. But even if Pentax has FF lenses, they are still smaller than C/N equivalents, e.g. my Pentax 100mm/2,8 Macro is a fullframe lens, but is way smaller and lighter. So switching from C/N DSLR to Pentax DSLR can bring the same benefit as switching from C/N DSLR to mirrorless. ;-)
Just to add to my comment: this ad by Fuji still uses the abovementioned traditional CSC argument: http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/uploads/post/5106/images/910/large_Bildschirmfoto_2014-09-06_um_08.29.17.pngIn connection with this new huge lens it is ridiculous.
From the dawn of mirrorless cameras we have been told their advantage over big heavy DSLRs is the smaller size and weight: smaller bodies that do not need mirror and mirror box and smaller lenses that have smaller flange distance. So let´s take two examples:Fujinon 50-140/2,8: 995 g, 72mm filter threadPentax DA 50-135/2,8: same speed, similar FL, but 685 g and 67mm filter thread (just adding that it is a DA* lens, i.e. Pentax´s top and optically perfect, plus iit´s weather sealed).So where is now the advantage of CSC/CSC lenses?The point is: if CSC manufacturers want to build a fast lens, especially zoom with longer FL, the laws of physics are the same as for DSLR lenses and mirrorless lenses will be the same size and weight as DSLR lenses. The only difference is that the combo CSC + telezoom will handle worse than DSLR (with big comfortable grip) + telezoom. ;-) P.S. I like Fuji lenses and I could imagine having some (e.g. 56mm/1,2). But on a DSLR. ;-)
Thanks DPR, I always appreciate such photo tutorials.
D1N0: I have everything I need for this except a pregnant woman. Where to get one?
Well if you have one that is not pregnant, I tell you a secret how you can change it. ;-)
Spectro: no real issues with the photos, but the UK don't seem to have much wildlife to photograph. sad photo of the puffin.
Maybe there will be a Scottish wildlife photo competition: Best Loch Ness monster picture 2015. ;-) In that case you surely win over this boring British wildlife pics. ;-)
nick66davis: mmm.....mainly birds, fish and seals....bit limited in scope. The best picture is the silhouette of the gnat.....my numble opinion.....but tbh...none of them make me go...wow!!
I understand your standpoint. I know it is difficult to take a good picture of a wild animal, mostly they are shy and it takes some effort to get close enough to make usable photo, you cannot influence the environment. To be honest I haven´t taken a single decent wildlife photo that I would dare to show and having given up I sold my telezoom. Therefore I consider perfect animal shots where also the surrounding is perfect (either almost nonexistent like the b&w shark shot no. 5 or giving special mood to the shot like No 6) an art.
Nice photo too, indeed the snail has a funny expression in his face. But technically it is mediocre as you realize, composition is not ideal, the surrounding is distracting. The content (idea) is fine, the form isn´t. If this should be in the macro category, compare it to the winning gnat picture: it it almost art, nothing distracting, pure minimalism, just the gnat, black and white. Content and form, both are perfect.
AngularJS: Wide angle duck FTW. Not sure how they took the picture though, need to be very close to the bird.
"The subjective nature of photo competitions are why I never wasted much time on them." Translated: I never won so I gave up entering photo competitions (?) ;-)
Exactly, the picture does not impress at first, but the longer you look at it, the more details you find. First it is a wild goose so it is interesting the photographer with WA lens got that close. Than there is this nice contrast of a wild animal walking through centre of one of the biggest cities in Europe. On the other hand the picture is free of people, boats etc. so kinda resembles deserted wilderness. And also there may be a hidden idea of London being a wild and savage place to live in. The muted colours nicely represent British weather, also thegrey goose matches nicely the grey cityscape. The technical perfection (composition, exposition, sharpness) is self-evident.So not a picture that impresses at a first glance, but there is a lot in it and it deserves to be among the winners.