"basic edits can be made via a dedicated button that pulls up Nikon's NX-D software" What does that mean? Is it no longer possible to edit basic parameter of a picture without Nikon NX-D? One of the nice features of View NX 2 was that basic changes could be done within View NX 2 and that these changes were saved within the file. You could save the changed file with a different name to keep the original image unaltered. Nikon NX-D saves the changes instead in a seperate file.Also, no shadow slider any more? Nikon makes very fine cameras, but its software has never been on the same level. Nikon could do much better so provide a professional solution that fully utilizes the edge in image quality of Nikon sensors instead of leaving customers with unsatisfying solutions.
Edgar_in_Indy: Seems like there's a bit of defensiveness and aggressiveness in many of the comments from Canon and Nikon users. You should be happy to have more choices, instead of feeling threatened.
I love my Pentax DSLR, but I wish that more of the new and exciting lenses from Tamron and Sigma were available in my mount.
@tharp: the 16-35mm VR is better in my judgement. Not f2.8 but that is becoming less relevant with noise reduction becoming better and better.
Colin Franks: I was recently considering a new wide angle, and my interest was piqued whenI heard of this new offering from Tamron, but the moment I learned that it doesn't accept filters, I went out and bought the Canon 16-35 f/4.It seems strange to make a lens like this that will not accept filters. They're losing a lot of potential buyers.
The 16-35 is a fanastic lens, and can be used very diffently compared to the 14-24. I have tested the 14-24 several time and it is fantastic. But as a walk arount lens during sightseeing and walking and partcularly indoors and in low light it offers far more options (because of VR) than the 14-24 mm. The only negative about the 16mm step is visible distortion and the need to corret it in processing.
WordsOfFarewell: I think I'll pass until the rumored Sigma UWW with screw in filter support comes out. But I'm really interested how this can put up with the current king of the hil Nikkor 14-24.
Lenses coming close to the image quality of Nikon lenses are also coming quite close in price. Reselling a Nikon lense will always be a better option.
Roman Korcek: Erm, what will this Tamron have that the award-winning and one third cheaper Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 does not have? Is it just about the image stabilization? Or those 3mm at the wide end? What am I missing?
For an extrem wide angle lens 3mm are a lot!
The importance of this release will be decided by the correctness of Tamrons first point in their press release. If it is on par or close to the quality of Nikon 14-24 it will be a bestseller.
Just Ed: It seems like the high rating for the D750 was warranted looking at the specs., However, my Canon "L" glass is too treasured for me to KEH it all and start over. Not that Nikon doesn't offer great glass as well.
There will always be a newer and greater DSLR body offering. Just purchasing the latest design does not necessarily make my photos any better. The photographer is the most important element in the image making process.
Fair enough, but this goes both ways. For some time Canon was in front in some respects, now Nikons seams to lead in image quality. But switching from one brand to the other is in my opionion not an option or necessary once you own a certain number of quality lenses. The difference in quality is small.
(unknown member): Well as nice as this camera is, I'll wait until the D760s comes out.
Wait for the perfect camera. It'll come next year, unless a better camera comes a year later, or another better one the year after. - Mind you, the image quality of cameras increases constantly over time, though it is my impression, that the steps are becoming smaller. So there is really no reason to postpone a decision.
Pixel Pooper: "It also boasts a faster frame rate than any non-professional full-frame Nikon DSLR since the D700."
This is a very diplomatic way to say that the frame rate hasn't improved in the 4 years since the D700 was released.
Frame rate is a special feature. Very important under some very narrow circumstances - sports in particular - but of very minor importance under almost all other circumstances. I have used my D800 often for sports also and even than most of the time the 4 frames per seconds are enough most of the time. Nikon uses this feature to seperate different cameras from each other to reserve the highest frame rate for high priced premium models. For most, frame rates should play a very limited role in chosing a camera. Frame rate functions like horespower and max speed for marketing cars. More important for marketing, than for real shooting or driving respectively.
Fantastic to see, that image quality improves constantly, though in smaller steps. As a longtime Nikon user I am thrilled to see that Nikon leads the competition in many segments. Since 2005 I have used D200, D700 and now D800, all of them groundbreaking releases. The D750 is in the same category as it is at the sweet point of image quality and price. Regrettably, Nikon increased the price of the D810 compared to the D800 considerably. The D800 really was a bargain when it was introduced. D750 is really a great camera, though I personally prefer the lay out of the D800/810 body.
Suave: Surprisingly reasonable price. Looks like someone at Canon has learned his lesson.
Have you ever used the new Nikon AF-S 80-400? It is not necessarily a bargain. but the lens is of such superb quality and is worth every cent. It is far far better than the old version, the inexpensive 70-300, which has the best value for the price and it outperforms many prime lenses. It comes big and heavy, butnot expensive relativ to the quality. A stellar performer.
Please open up again.
What a silly comment regarding the new base ISO of 64 instead of 100: "Now we can more easily use fast aperture lenses wide open in daylight hours to enjoy the dramatic separation of extremely shallow depth of field and selective focusing." First of all it is by no means clear whether the ISO 64 is so much better than the Low 0.3 or 0.7 that the D800 already has. More importantly, this is 2/3 of one aperature stop. With speed up to 1/8000 sec you can use any aperature in any lighting situation. Under what circumstances is 1/8000 sec when you want to use 1.4 or 1.8 not enough? Also the difference between 100 ISO and 64 is roughly the differnce between 1.4. or 1.8. I would argue that no can say by looking at a real picture whether 1.4 or 1.8 has been used. So this "advantage" is nearly pointless in the real world.
Steps of imrovement with all recent releases are getting smaller. Cameras remain competetive in image quality and features for a longer time. And even more important: needs for improvement also become smaller. This will extend camera cycles. I used my Nikkormat Ftn for 20 years, my F 801s for 10 years, my D200 for five, and now I expect to use my D800 again for more than five years. At least I am still using almost all of my old primes.
Assuming the new sensor is as good or better than 5300, professional image quality in bridge camera size. Not the best for all, but the best for the rest. Great camera!
Adding to my previous entry: the two Exacta photos are also very well done. Hasselblad and the cat: Please save this icon of old days from any mistreatment!:)
Very interesting challenge. Some nice approaches and well done. FED and Olympus through the zuiko lens are my favorites. Though some entries are very very simple. What I noticed is, that there is no real still life. Still life was once very popular in painting, but today lives on only as a subcategory of product and comercial photography. A nice still life arranged around an old camera would have been a very nice approach There are only two or three coming close to a still life. To late to submit. I nonetheless applaud the winner of this interesting challenge.
For next years 2014 annual challenges competiton I would suggest a short list to vote on in the categorie "Best photos taken with the five worst reviewed cameras". That would be fun!
25 out of so many challenges is simply not enough. 100 entries like so many challenges would be much better. There could also be more than one category "best shot", but rather several categories, like people, portrait, landscape, wildlife, sport, macro..
Leandros S: I'm going to boycoot this one as my personal favourites aren't here, and it feels a bit stupid being only allowed to vote for what the DPR team have deigned permissible. Condescending, too.
I agree. The typical challenge has 100 entries and that would not be to much as a short list.