SergioMO: I´m still in love with my Note 3 ! You can see a nice comparision in gsmarena.com (http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_note_3_vs_nokia_lumia_1520-review-1027p7.php). Videos in Note 3 are better and the photos are closer in bright conditions.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but to the best of my knowledge the Nokia 808 does not shoot raw and can't be updated to do so--at least with an approved OS update.
Yes some future version of the Samsung Note may indeed shoot raw, not clear if the current versions can be updated to do so.
dw2001: how much extra $ can one charge for a madiocre camera just because it's semi-retro styled? looks awful btw...
Let's see, many have reported and experienced the AF as being just fine in lowlight.
The Df easily bests the D800 and D610 for high ISO lowlight shooting. At anything above base ISO, the Df has better dynamic range than the D800.
For a SLR it's reasonably quiet.
The only thing close from Canon, only sort of in performance, and yes price is the 6D, not the 1DX.
So those are all reasons it's worth plenty for many purposes and to many potential users--including those that already own a D4.
Then repeating myself have you used the Df?
Yet again, video takes battery life and cooling and AF is best with a different kind of sensor, so there are pretty clear reasons for Nikon to skip video in the Df. Get a D610 if you want video, has the video AF problems though.
Richard Schumer: The more I think of this and the Df -- and certain Sony and Hasselblad models -- the more it seems to me there must be lots of people with the belief that "you get what you pay for."
Even the focal length is retro: Contax, when they designed their first SLR, which had a fixed pentaprism, chose 58mm for their fast standard lens for it (Biotar, a Sonnar design, I believe) because it gave a 100 per cent lifesize view at most distances. Their groundglass had a narrow bevel which gave a "bright line" finder effect. The idea was that, like a good rangefinder camera, one could keep both eyes open while also being aware of the edges of the frame. I doubt this is true for this lens on any Nikon DSLR. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, please.
I know about that, using one (actually three "Hexacons," but that's another story) when it was current.
For what it's worth....
I've tried out the K3 (though not a base ISO), it's a plenty good ASPC sensor. Perhaps a better lens would improve the performance of the K3, I've only used the kit zoom. But I don't find it great at ISO 800 unlike the D4/Df.
As a rule, though I won't claim it's absolute, APSC sensors don't have the dynamic range of full frame sensors. It's certainly true of the sensor in the Nikon D7100 versus the sensor in the Df/D4.
I mostly try to avoid the DPReview test scene.
The sensor in the D4 remains the best high ISO lowlight sensor available, and at many ISOs it beats almost every other full framed sensor for dynamic range.
Specifically, why do you think the Df “mediocre”?
By all appearances it's well made in the sense of durable, has excellent image quality, and once familiar has easy enough to use controls.
Have you handled the body? And shot with it?
You may in fact think the body looks awful, others don't so that's only a reason you'd not buy it.
Dibyendu Majumdar: Thanks for trying to do justice to this lens - as Nikon has said it is not designed for doing well on MTF charts.
Pricing is designed to match Canon's 50mm f1.2L. We can argue about this but I guess Nikon sees the Canon as the primary competition.
Performance wise clearly better than Nikon 50mm f1.4, but I suspect also better than Canon's 50mm f1.2L, Sigma 50mm f1.4 and Zeiss 50mm f1.4. But not in the same league as the Otus.
Would be interesting to compare with Sigma 35mm f1.4 - which seems equally well corrected for coma and is very sharp at F1.4. But being 35mm focal length bokeh will not be comparable.
That's clearer, just wanted to confirm that you've used some of the 50mm lenses you cited. I too owned the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4.
Of course you've used all of those 50mm examples?
But I wasn’t commenting on this lens, I think there are those who’d seek it out for the look of the photos it can produce.
As for the Df, clearly you don’t have a clue about that sensor–at anything but base ISO its dynamic range is better than that in the D800. Drop the claims of “ancient”; the D4 released at the same time as the D800.
Then irony, many would prefer that the Df have the older sensor from the D3s instead of the D4.
For fun look up how much a refurbished Nikon D2Hs sells for today in early 2014.
Even in digital photography newest is not always better in every respect. Though usually yes newer signal processing is an improvement.
scopes: Nerds!!! You're all nerds!!!
And 4 total comments in nearly 18 months and you take this opportunity?
Debankur Mukherjee: After reading this review there is only one question to ask - Why Nikon made this lens so expensive ?
How is a 55mm 1.4 Zeiss MF lens "completely unrelated"? More pricey yes.
mcshan: These look good. I know it isn't popular to say but I don't find the X-Tran sensor to be anything miraculous. I like my X-E1. It is a good camera but I can't rave about it.
Guess I skipped the "These look good."
"The Fujifilm X-A1 is nearly identical to the X-M1 except for one key detail - it uses a 16MP sensor with a conventional Bayer color filter array." So no Xtrans in this body.
As for your XE1 are you shooting raw and using ACR, CaptureOne and/or PhotoNinja to do extraction?
The XE1 samples I've seen and test shots I've done look excellent; the AF isn't great though.
I'd bet the new Leica M 50mm F2.0 is sharper than the Zeiss Otus. Just saying.
And how is the Nikon Df like a reboxed Sony mirrorless?
Which other DSLR body has the sensor from the Nikon Df again? How much does that retail for new?
What does the Nokia 808 have to do with shooting raw?
And will you be able to update your Samsung Note 3 to the newer version of Android (4.5?), so the Samsung can shoot raw?
Okay then the Note 3 shoots 60p, that's not raw.
If it were as good as the Zeiss 55mm Otus, would you think Nikon right to charge $4000?
And I don't particularly like this Nikon lens, and think the $725 Zeiss 50mm 1.4 much better, but I see what Nikon is trying to do and acknowledge that some people would pay good money for that bokeh.
12345ccr: this lens should not have gotten 84%. The rating is absolutely ridiculous. In the sharpness test, the 50mm F/1.4 is sharper at most, if not all F stops. Plus, it's between 3-4 X as expensive as well. The most i would give is a 60%. As a Canon shooter myself, i can get a faster and better lens for less money and im sure Nikon users can as well.
If the wheel barrow can run at 70 MPH for 3 hundred miles, and carry four people, and requires little more effort to use than a 4 passenger car, sure then one could easily go with the wheel barrow, may even be "superior". That manual focus 50mm 1.4 Zeiss sure has better colour than anything from Nikon, not the sharpest lens.
harold1968: To try and move away from Leica, one needs a f1.4 50mm lens that's sharp at f1.4.It seems that Leica is the only game in town with a well run second of the excellent Canon 50mm f1.2.Of course the Canon 85mm f1.2 is sharp at f2, and the Olympus 75mm (150mm) is sharp at f1.8 and the Nikon 85mm f1.4 is sharp at f2, but 50mm is that unique combination of a less claustrophobic view with thinness of field which can capture an artistic ideal for many types of photography, people and objects.Sadly this is not the Nikon equivalent I was hoping to mount on a 610 or 800E.Leica Summilux is still the king (and noctilux is still the emperor) and for them you need a M240. Oh well, bang goes the second car then ....
The A7 does NOT have a curved microlens array in the sensor plane.
So it is simplistic to say one can just substitute a different full framed mirrorless body for the Leica, best if you're going to go with a substitute to use an APSC sensor body to avoid vignetting. But then there are other compromises, like the 50mm lens is now 75mm.
kewlguy: Even though we can always say "sharpness is not the only thing that matters" - still, a $1700 lens with poor sharpness? Does it get better stopped down? yes, but for the price, IMO, not good enough. I tried it for a day and my first thought was the awful plastic build. Yes, it produces 'unique' rendering, but the fair price should be $700 less.
As you may know it’s not possible to mount M lenses on a 35mm SLR body.
However I’ve shot with the current Noctilux on a M240 and then shot with two examples of the Nikon 58mm on a D800 (guess that the D800E would have been a tad sharper). And this Nikon lens just isn’t particularly sharp. The Noctilux is when stopped down a bit.
There now the information is “online”, you can believe or live in the land where one can mount an M lens on a F mount DSLR body.
The Nikon lens has nice bokeh, not great colour though. And it’s not a colour problem that can be fixed with PhotoShop/ACR.
Does the Samsung shoot raw?
And I wouldn't go by the Nokia 1520 "examples" from above. Find full resolution DNGs.
raztec: Is HowaboutRAW a paid Nikon employee? Just wondering. Look at the number of posts he's made here. I mean who's got time to respond to nearly EVERY single criticism of the Df? Even Shotcents has a wife he needs to keep happy.
Thought you'd just asked a question.
The colour subtlety of good lenses isn't opinion. Nor is the failure of resampling to reduce high ISO noise in anything like a real world example.