The Sony Alpha is amazing! It can create detail![on closer inspection even the 5D3 does this] o.O
Nukunukoo: Df does show marginally better noise performance at the upper ISOs, especially when compared to the D610. No real advantage though, except for legacy lens and those who love lotsa knobs.
don't get too excited
Thanks for the jpeg comparison.
How's about the RAW comparisons?
About the diff aperture setting, couldn't that be sorted with a shutter speed compensation instead of using different apertures?
Nikon might wanna go and do a 58 f1.4 V2.
wherearemyshorts: $4000 Zeiss Otus 1.4/55
f/1.4 Falloff: 1.59 stops at corner
for a $4000 lens this seems terrible
only seems terrible but it may add character to the shot.it sounds easy to correct in post.
what's terrible is the price and perhaps being manual.
i was hoping my retina mbp didn't look like an ipad. ^^
Biowizard: This is 100% the fault of the lens manufacturer: the lens design should allow clearance between the front lens element and the base of the filter screw thread. It's a poor design that lets the front element protrude into the same plane as the threads.
It's a design oversight, plain and simple.
Take that Nikon, the whine club this thread has become.
D610 it is then since I waited.
In time, this will become the 'Zotus' range of lenses.
Dreamed of by many.
Some of you may get to fondle one through rentals or at the shop but alas a dream only for many like me.
I still think they should make an AF one. Then, like my dream of buying a Porshe, they will give me reason to buy one when I'm old and a bit blind. [it takes time to save for one!]
Keith in Calhoun: I'm sorry, but this lens is nothing more than a status symbol to say, "look at what I can afford!"
Funny, my friend just traded his Z4 for a Renault van. haha. Priorities my friend!
slncezgsi: I do not think that this item wants to be a luxury item. Sure it is pricey as the design is complicated and the tolerances are most probably tighter than for other Zeiss lenses to meet the image performance.
I think this lens is supposed to say - "we at Zeiss can do the best lenses out there when it comes to optical performance"
Whether you need or even want this lens is entirely different question. And I agree that very few photographers need this lens. Similarly as very few photographers need Leica Noctilux ;)
Agree, the Zeiss Ultra Primes are workhorses in the TV commercial industry. Well loved by cinematographers for it's sharpness & signature colour.
They're really good & robust. I don't think they intend it to be a luxury more than something people will use in that instance.
However, being so expensive, it really isn't going to sell a lot IMO and is going to get the luxury tag nevertheless.Like buying a hummer and driving it in a city.
Kodachrome200: All this stuff about how you dont need AF is sort of misguided. modern cameras are not designed to be manually focused. without using live view or the focus confirmation light your not going to get tac sharp focus. certainly you wont be able to manually focus on the fly the way you were able to with old school SLRs
"modern cameras are not designed to be manually focused."
Maybe they should. There's a lot of fine manual offerings to choose from.
This item looks very high up on the shelf due to the price.
tokugawa: Out of curiosity - with so many people bashing Canon's DR and noise performance - are there any links to actual image comparisons between a current Canon sensor and any competitor that outperforms them? I mostly see numbers, which of course do tell something, but the point is, is the difference really that visible in actual shots?
Yeah the crops looks poorer when comparing with the D7100 even at ISO 100 RAW processed files. :/
Still, some good tech there with the AF for live view.Not a bad camera but disappointing for those who wanted it to trump the D7100 in the IQ dept.
Wow, that is a sexy line up.
sdh: I cannot figure out a reason for this camera's existence. What does it offer over an entry-level SLT model (or generic entry-level DSLR for that matter)? Is the price floor that different? And even if it is, once you start buying lenses, like you're supposed to with any I.L.C., then body price differences diminish further.
And FWIW I'm generally a fan of Sony. In the MILC world I like the shape and feel of the NEX's over the most of the m43's bodies, outside of Pana's mini-DSLR early G models. And I still don't understand why the SLT system didnt become a game changer. (Because on-sensor phase AF will supercede it soon?)
But I just don't see the point if this new model...
Maybe you haven't been a poor student picking up photography as a minor in art college.
It's a smart move in catering to the 99% instead of just snobs like us. Yes me included. The difference is I can see why.
Ed_arizona: The alligator tasted a Canon and barfed
It's too plasticky I bet. hahahaha
I'm sure the judges were only interested in this part of the throw as they were there to notice all the others and don't need further sequential pictures as proof.
Good job on the part of the photographer.
peevee1: "'Film was never this sharp. It’s sharper than real life. You shouldn’t be able to read a hair inside the tear duct of someone’s eye. On one of those high-end backs, though, you can almost read what someone is thinking. It’s kind of terrifying'.
What he really needs, says Ockenfels, is better low-light capabilities - 'being able to shoot with a medium format camera at ISO 2000 would be really nice. You have to know you can’t have too many dark areas'."
If MF gives you too much resolution but not enough low light, switch to D800E. MUCH cheaper and easier to use. :)
Probably prefers the lower DOF MF gives or in love with his Hassy/Phase Obe lenses.
Even expensive made for Arri film lenses get banged up & lose quality/sharpness because of rentals. Think Zeiss, Angenieux, Cooke- especially large zooms. No surprise.
Nathaniel George Weir: Canon makes better lenses than Nikon, and if you don't agree with me, then check out SLRGear.com and the Digital Picture's "ISO crops" and then compare Canon and Nikon glass. You shall see that Canon lenses are consistently sharper and have less CA.
Nathaniel, erm, is it because Canon sharpens their pictures a lot more?Before digital Leica and Zeiss were legendary but suddenly Canon is up there?
Go to http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM and compare cameras and you'll see why Canon looks sharper. It's in camera sharpening BS.
5D3 vs D600. Halo's anyone? Isn't that like unsharp mask in PS?http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5533/9451777073_cbb58233e7_o.jpg
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review