sghound: i wonder if this is more of a failure or the DF?
I have my own raws from both, and I'm quite sure of what I speak.
Also ISO 3200 is not a high ISO for a full framed body in 2013 terms.
The D610 stops being useable at ISO 12800, while the Df can be easily used thru ISO 30000.
If you don't have use for these ISOs, why comment on high ISO bodies?
One uses high ISOs in doors in places like theaters, the usefulness is well established and in 5 years regularity shooting easily at ISO 50,000 will have become normal.
Dismayed: The price point is absurd when compared to the Sony NEX or to the Samsung NX lines.
Go by lens use not testing claims.
Yet again, I've avoided the price thing. And I don't dispute the price claim.
The Df's high ISO work is much better than the D610. It is not simply a detail thing, the magnification thing is a point of confusion. Resolution is not everything.
Sony is not the same company as Nikon. And Sony has much more experience in this area. As you say: External recorder.
Too bad that with fewer MPs, the Sony A7S can't match the high ISO capacity of the Df, or the color.
True to a point, but for whatever reason Nikon decided to go with a smaller sensor, makes for lighter bodies and smaller lighter lenses.
It's not a choice that I'd have made, but it's still completely valid.
There are heat and weight reasons the Df doesn't have video.
The Df has a significantly better high ISO sensor than the D610.
JanMatthys: This should be a very popular camera with parents videotaping their kids at baseball, soccer, football games etc. Being able to record 4k video at 30fps, with continuous AF and picking out individual 8mp Stills for print up to 8x10! for $900? Wow, great set of features for sure
Storage/data recording isn't really a problem.
It's editing that's the problem.
Drop the boring misdirects from your mistake.
The 1 system has a smaller than full framed sensor, a point which you continue to ignore. It also has a smaller than APSC sensor.
I'd read and consider bluevellet's point too. (Though I can't confirm.)
CameraLabTester: Nikon makes great and fantastic DSLRs and scientific optical equipment.
Majority of their photographic gear are groundbreaking and leading edge.
This camera series called "1" is a shamefull product launched by a most respected brand.
For this segment of the market, Nikon has truly lost the plot.
Since I've not used the 1 as an action camera, I'm not in a position to judge the current Aptina sensor for that kind of shooting.
For notmoving things the Aptina sensor sure seems to work well.
I've tried not to use flashes since digital became so much better at high ISOs in 2004ish.
Anyhow focal plane shutter syncing is a pain.
I'm not saying there's no use in 4K, I'm saying using it fully will be difficult for some years.
This is boring misdirection on your part. It's not a native APSC lens.
I didn't say a thing about price.
No the fixed focal lenses for the Nex APSC system are not amazing. Even the 24mm SonyZeiss is just good.
Being able to record 4K is a bit different from being able to edit it.
AdamT: The Sony is actually £100 cheaper at the this moment in the UK - £699 Minus £50 cashback !! .. No doubt the panny will drop after its been on the shelves a few weeks (when it lands)
Right, preorder in the US too.
Once released it will likely drop a bit after a month.
Raws seem to have nicer color than the RX10 raws.
Has the Pana released in the UK?
Yeah I get that point, but it's not the problematic system lenses I'm referring to.
I don't exclude, but I'd not call it a native Nex system (APSC) lens.
You missed the point entirely.
The problem remains that the native Nex APSC lenses are mostly bad.
One can fit all sorts of lenses on to mirrorless bodies.
And that FE 55 is a full framed system lens.
It's not reasonable to compare it the the 32mm Nik-One lens because of the vastly different sensor sizes. Also in FF terms, the 32mm is 85mm for field of view.
Timmbits: Don't want a swivel-out screen (I prefer the vertical pivot type), don't want the larger size, don't want the nx300's buffer lockup. I've waited a long time for this camera, and now I'm just learning to love my NX20 just the way it is.
The Canon G1XII only has a decent lens. Isn't anywhere near as good as the NX30 at higher ISOs.
Mike FL: As a "Me Too company" the good thing about Samsung is to keep the competitors' price down, so far.
You've confused me with someone else. COMPLETELY. (Now that I've reread my above post, you're really wrong, and really sloppy not to have checked.)
Never enthused about mft cameras, some of the lenses are nice.
Never enthused about the Pentax Q either.
HowaboutRAW: Using the Nikon f/4.0 16mm-35 zoom, even shooting low ISO+raw, colour is not real promising from the Nikon D810.
I guess a Zeiss or Sigma Art lens could help.
I've not tried Capture NX-D with these D810 raws yet, but will.
This D810 is better at higher ISOs than the D800, that's above 6400.
I'm not talking about colour accuracy problems with the D810 raws that I have shot.
With a raw file colour "accuracy" is easy enough to adjust with the tint and hue sliders.
Even with not great for colour Nikon lenses, both the Df and D4s do better colour than this D810 from what I've seen, including low ISO shooting.
The Panasonic FZ1000 raws from IR look really impressive when extracted with ACR 8.6 beta.
ecube: I wonder how many users who posted comment have D3 or D800. Of those who have at least one or the other, how many have master all the features and properly used those features. How many are dissatisfied with the quality of the photos they have taken. How many believe Nikon D5 or D5S will improve their photos?
How many use Nikkor lens exclusively? How many use the so called "Pro Series" Nikkors? How many use the Schnieder, Zeiss, Leica, or Swarovki lens? How many use the photos direct from the camera WITHOUT post processing (except perhaps for removing effect of dust specs or straightening)?
What good is buying and using the latest and greatest camera if you still have to rely of post-processing?
And some hobby shooting types like to push into really high ISOs and maintain good colour and dynamic range. That rules out many cameras, though not the D4s or Df (or D3s), irony that quest is where Nikon lenses start to have trouble.
The D4s can also be set to shoot significantly more quietly than the D4, D3s, D3.
I don't think the average joe will buy this D4s, partly because of cost, but also weight.
starwolfy: Nothing beats a leica summilux f1.4 asph.Cheaper than an Otus, way smaller and way lighter than both Otus and this Sigma lens. The only thing this Sigma has for it is better value per dollar and autofocus. Its a very good lens but I still cannot accept weight a size compromises you have to make to enter dslr world. The biggest joke is when u compare an Othus to the Leica Lux...it looks like a serious joke from size.
I've not used this Sigma 50, so can't be sure. But good Leica and Zeiss lenses, besides being sharp, do subtle colour real well.
And that's something that's pretty easy to see with a decent print or raw file and a good display.
So this Sigma looks real promising, but thinking that resolution is the only reason to use say a Leica M is misleading.