calson: Backfocus in my own experience with Nikon DSLR cameras has been always the result of the camera's autofocus system selecting something behind the subject that provides greater contrast with a harder edge that is aligned so the single axis autofocus sensors can use them to compute when the lens is properly focused. The end result is perfect focus on something behind the primary subject and the new system while maybe easier to use will do nothing to address the key backfocus problems of the past.
A few years ago, when I owned a Nikon D7000, I used the 16-85mm as my walk around lens. It front focused at FL under 28mm (by 4 units) and back focussed at FL above 70mm (also by 4 units). Does that sound like the AF system was grabbing onto something in the far background? Doesn't sound that way to me. Nikon's Rube Goldberg AF contrivance is no solution to such a problem, which occurs quite commonly among zoom lenses. The 16-85mm was no exception. However, once tuned properly, it was a very sharp lens, much like the 16-80mm lens that replaces it.
Baba Ganoush: This new feature is essentially an automated version of horschack's clever Dot-Tune procedure. I'm wondering how sensitive the results are to the shape of the actual fine tuning curve of a given lens. If the curve has the ideal bell shape, the result will probably be very accurate. But not every lens has the ideal shape. The tuning curves of some lenses can be very asymmetric. The tuning curve of my Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8, for example, based on the results of tests I made with both the Focal and FocusTune software on my D800 camera, was nearly flat across a large range of micro adjustment values. In other words, this lens was capable of producing sharp images almost regardless of the tuning value I chose to dial in, which of course is GOOD, not BAD.
@LynniePad: "I've tried Dot-Tune, but it is not very sensitive, and confirms focus over quite a wide range."
I agree with this comment. In fact, the procedure does not work at all for my 80-400mm VR II on my D7200. Thom Hogan, IIRC, reported a similar issue with his 80-400mm lens. And that is why in my earlier post I raised the question of how well Nikon's implementation might work on various lenses. We will soon know the answer as more people get the D500 in their hands and do all sorts of tests.
Frank C.: AF module....mirror.. over complicate cameras.. and are destined for the dust bin, as technology progresses sensors and EVFs will get so good they will provide the answers to everything, just look at how advanced cpus and gpus have gotten over time. So now we have Nikon trying to fix a limitation with what in reality is another limitation, they should try and concentrate on technology instead like Sony is doing
@Eric: "I fully expect to see cameras, and software become less complicated". Indeed. What Nikon has done is technologically akin to adding epicycle upon epicycle in order to avoid having to admit Copernicus was right that the Earth revolves around the Sun instead of vice versa. Nikon and Canon are both "Mirrorless Deniers."
@Lynniepad: "Did you test you 70-200mm in the field wwith different AF-FT settings?"
Since I do a lot of landscape photography, none of the standard tuning techniques works for me. I need to fine tune the camera to focus "at infinity," not at 5 m or 10 m. To calibrate my lenses I go out in the field and take a series of shots with different micro adjustment values and then I choose the sharpest one of the bunch. Utility poles are useful for that purpose, given all the electrical cables and circuit breakers and insulators and bolts you can find on them. It works for me. Over the years I've examined and evaluated more than a million images; by now I think I can tell, at least to some degree of satisfaction, when an image is in sharp focus and when it is not.
As so many others have posted here, the DSLR autofocus setup is archaic. It's a scheme no engineer worth his salt would design today if he were tasked to create an AF system from scratch.
This new feature is essentially an automated version of horschack's clever Dot-Tune procedure. I'm wondering how sensitive the results are to the shape of the actual fine tuning curve of a given lens. If the curve has the ideal bell shape, the result will probably be very accurate. But not every lens has the ideal shape. The tuning curves of some lenses can be very asymmetric. The tuning curve of my Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8, for example, based on the results of tests I made with both the Focal and FocusTune software on my D800 camera, was nearly flat across a large range of micro adjustment values. In other words, this lens was capable of producing sharp images almost regardless of the tuning value I chose to dial in, which of course is GOOD, not BAD.
jhinkey: Still a kludge of an approach since distance matters a lot with many lenses. Also, what about manual focus lenses that have CPUs where you want to use the green dot in the viewfinder to confirm accurate focus - that indicator needs major upgrades to really be useful.
Also, could this not be added to older models via a firmware upgrade? Doubt that will happen.
@jhinkey: "Still a kludge of an approach since distance matters a lot with many lenses."
Don't forget the proper tuning can also depend on the internal temperature of the camera. If your camera is out in the hot tropical sun all day, or if you are shooting in the cold Arctic or Antarctic, the optimal tuning values may be quite different.
I was seriously considering the TZ100 as a (near) pocketable replacement of my bulky Sony RX10, and had almost put in a pre-order for it, but after looking at the TZ photo gallery and doing a comparison using the studio scene, I am disappointed in the IQ of the TZ and glad I did not complete my order. The IQ of the TZ is inferior to that of both the RX10 and the RX100. Unless it turns out DPR got a poor copy of the camera to review, it's no sale for me. IMO, the TZ100 is a 1" sensor camera with a MFT camera price and 1/2.3" camera performance. Too bad. I was really hoping it would match the IQ of the RX10.
The conductor is also the same person. But what the heck is the Concertmaster doing looking back over his shoulder instead of at the score?
Zvonimir Tosic: Start up time for .. lenses? What is this? Do Sony lenses require cranking up of lenses before they are able to be used, haha? :)And that is new feature of digital photography, I suppose? Incredible.
If I read the Sony eSupport page correctly, the firmware update is only needed if you use the Smart Remote Control application of the Sony PlayMemories Camera apps. I don't use that app, so I won't be updating my A6000.
This camera, we're told, is highly specialized and designed especially for astrophotography, so why does Nikon display it with a 24mm wide angle lens instead of a long telephoto (or even a telescope)? Does Nikon think this lens is appropriate for astrophotography or are they trying to suggest the D810A has other, more general uses? Seems to me like another case of a disconnect between Nikon and actual Nikon users.
Nike's logo lacks four elements that are intrinsic to the original image: the logo shows the player in B&W silhouette rather than in color, and it is missing the hill in the foreground, the basket, and the sun. The photo and the logo are thus sufficiently different they could be considered distinct works of art. That said, Nike, would it hurt you to throw a little money the photog's way? How's about showing a little goodwill?
If, btw, the photographer has made no effort to market his picture since he first licensed it to Nike and it is entirely Nike's marketing that has made the logo a valuable commodity, would that make a difference in the legal case?
Which photograph would you rather own as a work of art: (a) Gursky's Rhein II, or (b) Steve McCurry's Afghan Girl? My choice is (b).
rowlandw: Full moons have the least contrast and interest because the overhead sun washes out most detail. Much more interesting are half-moons where shadows reveal the lunar topography.
"The best point made in this article is to include something in the composition that shows relative size." True, but you may also need to make sure the sun has not yet set before the moon rises. This is a critical point that's never mentioned in such discussions. If you adjust your shot to get the bright moon properly exposed, the foreground will be underexposed; if instead you adjust your shot to get the foreground properly exposed, the moon will be grossly overexposed ( the contrast is so great it exceeds the dynamic range of your camera). On the other hand, If the sun is still up as the moon rises into view, the fading sunlight on objects in the foreground may be bright enough that they, the sky, and the rising moon can all be properly exposed at the same time. Tonight is one of those nights when the sun sets after the moon rises and so it is ideal for shooting pictures of the "supermoon." Tomorrow night will be too late, since the moon will rise long after the sun has set.
The body is a close copy of the Panasonic FZ200.
Handheld, manual focus through wire cage
brkl: It's been mentioned, but I'll mention it again in case they're listening. Proper DNG support is a must. I would have bought the thing when 7 came out if it read my DNGs.
What Axel wrote at 22:11:28 may be somewhat misleading for people who are unfamiliar with Optics Pro. Optics Pro supports the native raw files generated by certain brands of cameras, e.g., NEF raw from Nikon, but it does NOT support Adobe style DNG files that are created by other raw converter programs like Adobe's ACR or DNG Converter. In fact, if you process a camera raw file within Optics Pro and create a DNG file as output, Optics Pro cannot read the file it just created if you wish to process it further.
I purchased Optics Pro about a month ago and have installed version 7, which I run on a first gen Mac Pro under OS 10.6.8. The installation was flawless, the UI is actually pretty logical, certainly no worse than Lightroom which I use constantly, and the processing speed on my machine is quite good, almost frisky. As it happens, v7 has modules for all of my cameras and lenses, including the Panasonic G3 that was just delivered to my door 10 minutes ago!
wb2trf: I think this is a pretty fair overview, generally speaking. I take issue however with the degree of disadvantage with shooting young children. I think if someone were reading this and interested in buying a camera to photograph young children they might lean toward a dslr, which I think would be a mistake.
I don't think the AF issues are as bad as you characterize for this subject. Even in poor light I usually have no problem with the Nex and kit zoom. The "child in swing, shot from front" is the extreme. I don't deny that there is some adaptation of photographer to equipment that occurs, but I find that the AF speed issue is not a large one for this class of subject.
You rightly note that dslr's can be intimidating to subjects. For children the strong issue is that you need to stay engaged. Viewfinders are inimical to engagement. Live View on dslrs is dog slow. The mirrorless lets you stay with the child keeping the camera away from your face. This is the biggest issue by far.
I appreciate your comment about the AF issue when taking pictures of moving objects, since I was wondering how serious the problem is in practice. I'm truly puzzled why there should be any problem at all since the online camera reviews I've read claim that the AF SPEEDs of most mirrorless cameras are almost identical to those of the DSLRs, at least in normal light if not in low light conditions. For example, reviews of the NEX and G series cameras claim those cameras autofocus as fast as the Nikon D7000. But such results are based on controlled studio tests, not on actual photography of moving subjects like children or race cars or basketball games. So it's good to hear from actual users how their mirrorless cameras perform in different situations beyond the confines of studio optical tests. Thanks for posting your impressions. I hope others do the same. It's very useful to the rest of us.
A Bull: Can't anybody else do maths?The sensor in this camera & the X10 is: 2/3" That Equals= 16.933mmSo easily bigger then the Nikon V System Plus most offer Bridge & compact cameras.Stop be so stupid as to think that you could make a lenses like this to go on a full frame or APS-C size sensor.It would be big & heavy plus very expensive.So This camera fills the cheap super zoom market sector with the X-10 as a high level compact.Fuji have done there homework very well.Also keep in mind that Fuji have already said they well do an interchangeable lens X version next year.As they do not have a lens mount made for anything other than medium format now.I could see them using the Leica M mount, as it is not licensed.This would mean a full frame interchangeable lens rangefinder. Cheap M9 anyone?Or make a APS-C mount, So a cheaper option.Again they have done there homework.
The sensor in the XS-1 is not 16.9mm along its diagonal. Its sensor has dimensions of 8.8 mm x 6.6 mm, which corresponds to a diagonal of 11mm. The designations given to camera sensors do not specify the diagonal dimensions of the sensors but are only historical holdovers from the days of TV tubes: see
It is only a coincidence that the diagonal dimension of a sensor is typically 2/3rds the size specified by the sensor's designation. This is true in the case of the XS-1 sensor, which has a 11mm diagonal.
Baba Ganoush: For those of you who think the sample pictures posted by Fuji are fine, I suggest you download the full-sized pictures and look at them with some care, for example, the picture of the lion. If you look carefully at that photo, you'll find that the whiskers and teeth of the beast aren't even in focus. Ditto with the picture of the bridge: at full size, you'll see that the focus is fairly soft. When I compare those early pictures released by Fuji with pictures I can take with my Panasonic FZ28, the Fuji comes in a poor second best.
What I'd like to have is a 2/3 sensor in a compact fixed-lens body like that of the Panasonic ZS5/6/7/10 series, which has a small P&S 1/2.3 sensor and 10X zoom. The ZS cameras are great travel cameras.
How far away from the XS-1 camera do you think the lion was? I estimate 80 feet, maybe 100 feet tops. At that distance and at a focal length of 480mm (35mm camera equivalent) for my FZ28, a tack sharp picture would have been a slam-dunk.
For those of you who think the sample pictures posted by Fuji are fine, I suggest you download the full-sized pictures and look at them with some care, for example, the picture of the lion. If you look carefully at that photo, you'll find that the whiskers and teeth of the beast aren't even in focus. Ditto with the picture of the bridge: at full size, you'll see that the focus is fairly soft. When I compare those early pictures released by Fuji with pictures I can take with my Panasonic FZ28, the Fuji comes in a poor second best.