DaytonR: Hi DPReview , this great but were is the D4 review ? The last I read you were working on it .........then err now the D4s has arrived ! Is it going to be the same thing again this time around ? :)
actually, just for fun, I checked today's shoot I had. About 6,500 shots on a battery, which btw was far from depleted. Most shots were at ISO 6,000 or above, using image stabilization and continuous focus.
Thanks Smizles for the the link. Some of the stuff is not right in the tables though. For instance 1DX says to be 1500shots/battery charge, which is ridiculously off. I am pretty sure you can get more that 5,000 shots with it. Also lag time on the 1DX can be set as low as 36ms
Lightweight003: Go back to sleep Nikon!!! - OR start getting INOVATIVE - AND giving value-for -money please. STOP doing silly little upgrades - especially to your Consumer range of DSLRs, try incorporating Vari-angle screens on at least the D7000 range, - AND perhaps on the D3000 range; - NOT just on the D5000 range. DONT make the bodies any smaller; we want a DSLR that we can see & hold comfortable; - those who want smaller cameras will buy compacts or CSC cameras. Sony is being INOVATIVE, so is Olympus; - you USED TO BE.
these are really welcome additions to me. The issue for my taste is: how much of this could not be incorporated in the D4 already? 2 years life cycles on pro bodies id just too short. 4-5 years make you feel better about your investment.
well they should define a scale with more resolutions, as most of these cameras I find it fair to score similarly. Also they have different strengths and weaknesses so they cannot exactly be compared. Especially the D800 and the 5D, better scoring for these 2 cameras is really user preference dependent.
select: I was expecting better burst frame rate... 11fps when canon 1dx can do 14fps...when you do sport photography there's a huge difference
still using XQD and CF cards?? I hoped they put SD UHS II slots
no gps and no wifi
no 4k video, no focus peaking and no Zebra
what are you doing Nikon?
1DX 14fps are also in jpg only mode, no raw
parson: This camera just saved me $6500!!!! There's so little difference of any great significance between this and the D4 I have absolutely NO desire to replace my D4. Thank you, Nikon, for saving me money!
Still lost market value to your camera thanks to the wonderful Nikon marketing strategy (well wonderful for themselves...)
probably together with the 1DX review, of which there is not even lab data to compare from
ondrejbobek: Not bad, but 1D-X has faster fps, more sRAW options and stiil better(?) AF fort sports (much, much faster USM lenses)... hopefully better colors are true (from D600/D4/D800 its really hard to work with this "in tests great sensors").
vFunct, do you work with both D4 and 1DX? I do photography with a partner, mostly sports/hockey and I see D4 1DX head to head all the time. I still need to see a proof of the "MUCH better" statement. Some advantage in the dynamic range but not so much especially in the higher iso range. My experience is in line with Kai:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YnhJk4hoq8. Very close to the same actually
vFunct: Amazing high-ISO comparisons of D4 vs D4s (per Macrumors): http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1375310
It's at least 1 stop better than the D4, which already has a much better sensor than the Canon 1Dx.
I am skeptical of 1 stop improvement, . I am sure it is better, but we are talking incremental. Less noise but more smudging. I do find a better white balance in the pics. And noise wise D4 is not much better than the 1DX. A bit better in dynamic range, not so much in noise. At least up to 25,000 ISO
Heaven is for real: People who are complaining about the price of this awesome premium lens should find a new hobby, passion or business...
I agree with yabokkie here. I just spent a fortune yesterday on a 500f/4, nevertheless I would not spend the money sony is asking for a 35/2.8. They can have it gold plated if they like, still not buying it. I think it is also bad for the new system introduction. They could cripple the success of such a revolutionary camera system because people will start thinking they have to spend and arm and a leg for an average lens for a brand new system with limited options. Sharp as you like, built as you like, but creative as average. I though photographers are supposed to be creative, not sharpness slaves....
attomole: This is a good lens better than the Sigma as the Sigma is too big for street photography where 35mm is an ideal focal length IMHO the additional speed and edge performance are not important to me and not much anyway.
however because it says Zeiss on it an it's 700+ quid it going to meet with a hail of brand snobbery, and well let's face it is rather expensive for simple formulation.
Nikon surprisingly are doing quite well in this sort of space, their more recent 1.8 G lenses 85, 35 50 mm come in at often well under this price and offer decent performance. If you want to shoot primes on full frame. I doubt you will get a better value rig than a D610 with the aforementioned lens line up. shame their SLR line up at this level makes people so angry
My 5DMKIII+sigma 35/1.4 are a wonderful combo for street photography! I am not sure what you are talking about . Gear does not need to be tiny for good street photography
Mike99999: For everyone who is comparing this tiny lens (the size and weight of an Olympus 17/1.8) to the Sigma 35/1.4... the Sony Zeiss FE 35mm f/1.4 is coming next month.
price should linearly scale with size in this case ;-)
TN Args: Let's say Sigma released a 35mm f/2.8 for $150 and its optics were the same. Everyone would say "well la di da, I expect no less, 35mm and f/2.8 is hardly a challenge."
And they would be right.
the new budget canon option is a 35/2.0 with IS, more attractive and cheaper that this already. Canon has a new 35/1.4L in the pipeline, and I bet it will match sigma's lens.35/2.8 is a joke, in inexpensive pancake is the only value for that.
photogeek: Should have been f/1.8 at least. If Nikon can do it for $200, I'm sure Zeiss should be able to do it for $400. $700 for an f/2.8 lens with vignetting and less than ideal sharpness is ridiculous, no matter how you slice it.
subject isolation in the wide range has a unique look! Have you ever seen shots with a 35 or a 24 mm at 1.4? My sigma 35/1.4 replaced the 24-105 for walk around lens about one year ago. Why? Subject isolation! The same shot at 2.8 is boring, at 1.4 is WOW!
I agree, I have the sigma 35/1.4 and it is astounding! and look at the price! Sure people here can argument too "look at canon and nikon 1.4 options, so overpriced!"But how many years ago these lenses were first released? Let's see how the next generation canikon 35/1.4 are going to be optically
an underpowered sport car... wonderful corner handling, craftsmanship style, and PRICE, forget the adrenaline of the acceleration though.
armandino: the big attraction to me for a wonderful FF mirrorless is the true advantage over an SLR: the minimum distance from the optics to the sensor. When am I going to see superwide angles that truly take advantage of this?
Plastek, your argument is valid, however there must be some degree of freedom as TrojMacReady (ouch, got to watch this guy as I use a mac...) pointed out. Pushing the limit will give problems, but you got to be able to pull off smaller and faster wide angles...
Macadesigner: Seriously? under CONs"High-res sensor requires dedicated approach to shooting""Tools for shooting with third party lenses need improvement""Lacks a built-in flash""No in-camera Raw conversion"....what kind of Cons is that....just enough to make the CONs list as long as the PROs list?
The camera for sure is not perfect, but...com'on thats lime...
It is a good thing to point out limitations that somebody could easily overlook when purchasing, no matter how minor they might look to some.
the big attraction to me for a wonderful FF mirrorless is the true advantage over an SLR: the minimum distance from the optics to the sensor. When am I going to see superwide angles that truly take advantage of this?
lenseye: Marketing nonsense to get people buy new products. If excellent image quality is what you're after, just get a D7100 for 1/3 of the price. You'll never be able to tell the difference. Actually you will... D7100 is probably better... there are other similar brands too, I'm not an ambassador for Nikon...
$35,000 for the new Phase One back must be the most retarded product then...