pancromat: going to their website i don't see spotting scopes and binoculars. i see a manufacturer of high precision industrial and CCTV lenses. so they chose a few lenses off their portfolio which are capable of 4/3" and affordable, put on a MFT mount - thats it. no big invention, no "joining the MFT waggon".
And your logic is?
FT is not the same mount as MFT and also the focus & aperture controls look very different to me. So obviously more than just "putting on a MFT" was needed for producing these.
Especially those wide angle versions would be very promising if the lenses actually deliver high resolution and low distortion as promised.
tkbslc: People have been making these same arguments for and against the F1.2 or other uber-primes in Canon's collection for years. For most people, they find the cheaper, slightly slower alternatives to be more than adequate. For others, they simply want the best and/or fastest and they pay for it.
Canon 85L is almost $2000 more expensive than the also good 85mm f1.8 for Canon. Canon 50L is almost $1000 more than the 50mm f1.4. People make good pictures with all four lenses.
I'd bet that the 42.5/1.2 will easily beat those cheap Nikkors wide open.
The real problem with Nikkor 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 is heavy focus shifting. That often makes focusing really difficult in low light situations. At widest aperture they offer mediocre IQ. Compare that to Zuiko 75/1.8, which according to Photozone tops the resolution chart already at f1.8.
King Penguin: I'm a D600 user (amateur) and shoot with AFD primes, using the aperture ring on the lens....I just prefer it.
The Df doesn't offer much more but I'd buy it like a shot if I had the cash, it's a great camera.
......and by the way to all those sad M43 freaks trying to find ways of justifying their mistake in buying into a small sensor, if you get a bad back carrying a Df with a nice little AFD prime and perhaps another in your pocket..........the expression drama queen comes to mind..........Merry Xmas :)
Perhaps the biggest mistake with DF was the decision not to include video. Besides lowlight performance, I really can't find single feature why this would be more appealing choice than the D800 or D600.
Nikon should produce full frame mirrorless with shorter flange distance and adapter that would accept DSLR lenses. Sort of like Sony a7r but with more intuitive user interface and controls.
And why this silly MFT bashing going on? My EM-5 is very fine camera with nice features such as sensor stabilized video.
MarkByland: Interesting review. I have questions about the low light AF performance of this versus the D600/610. With the same AF engine, why the difference in performance? Seems the 600/610 rated satisfactorily. Why the lack of similar performance in the Df? Were all AF modes tested? Phase detect, etc? Do they perform differently with older lenses under varied circumstances?
I'm not willing to fault this camera based upon retro appearance merit, alone. I understand its place in the market. I think the retro movement is capturing what got skipped over by all-things-plastic at the onslaught of digital. I also think full backwards compatibility with all F mount lenses is a major feat to have accomplished. The fold-away aperture control tab is top notch engineering, IMO. If some one were looking for the finest thing to hang their collection of Nikkor glass off the front of, they've found their calling.
With the D800 there's red flash ONLY when half pressing shutter button, NOT on focus confirmation. I would be glad if that could be improved with FW update.
If that's the case then Nikon might finally be on bar with Canon EOS... but it only took about zillion years to do that.
If it works the same as on D800 then it's still quite lame method. Green dot on corner of the image is very unintuitive and inaccurate vs. how it should be.
lolopasstrail: Congrats to Olympus. I have an EM-5, but passed on this new Olympus EM1. I find it too big and bulky for the format.
It's the same size as the Sony A7, but with a much smaller sensor. This gets away from the entire raison d'etre of micro 4/3, and it's a trend that makes me uneasy.
No doubt it's great for the 100 people in the world that have the old full 4/3 lenses, but it's way too full figured for me. I'm holding out for the EM-6.
You forgot that obviously A7 has much larger lenses.
Compare length of the A7r with FE 55mm/1.8 to EM-1 with 45mm/1.8. The Zeiss is much larger lens than Zuiko.
munro harrap: To be asked to pay out £1949 for this machime when you can buy a brand new Nikon Full-frame D800 and a good secondhand 28-105mm lens for the same money today says you are pushing poor product on purpose. I do not believe you actually ever bought one any more than Ken Rockwell buys all his.
I have an Oly 8080 with a similarly excellent Olympus zoom lens that delivers as much detail as is in your woodland scene, which is flat-no dynamic range to speak of, and I can guarantee that a Sony R1 would trash the IQ of this micro 4/3rds machine and all such, it just would and the lens-on this showing-is better.
£2000 is a lot of deception-amounting to fraud, sir, shame on you!
Btw. that price includes the Zuiko 12-40mm 1:2.8 lens, which has superb IQ already @ f2.8. Same cannot be said for cheap FF zooms, which has to stopped down atleast one stop to be useable at all IMHO.
If the price for EM-1 is too high for you, then EM-5 is still a very good camera.
Stanchung: Nikon might wanna go and do a 58 f1.4 V2.
Is there still doubt about that? The Zeiss has ca. two times better resolution @ f1.4. Quite amazing...
I was interested in the Nikkor 58mm until I saw some samples shot @ f1.4. Not worth it IMHO. And stopped down two stops to f2.8 there's so many cheaper alternatives with very good performance. Micro-Nikkor 55/2.8 AI-S shot at widest aperture renders very nice portraits too...
Sad Joe: Well - don't shot me - but I thought the WHOLE idea of this lens was that it WOULD be SUPER SHARP wide open ...? If not then frankly was is the point? The 50 1.8 bog basic lens is pretty good and a TON of money less. Seems that Nikon have failed to do a ZEISS !
Next up - bring on the Canon 50 1.2 L MK2 (but please Canon give it some faster AF and whilst your at it IS ) and if you could ensure it sells for less than the new Nikon everyone (apart from Nikon users) will be very happy.
Oh, test samples from completely different scenes ;)
The 58mm doesn't look too fabolous wide open either. Mushy details and low contrast. There's also LOCA. Center sharpness should be better at this price point.
CFynn: Wonder how this compares to the Voigtlander Nokton 58mm f/1.4?That lens is the same focal length and speed, but available at less than one third the price. Has nice bokeh too.
Seriously yabokkie...from what I've seen, the Summilux would beat this Nikkor easily @ f1.4 :D The 58mm samples are soft and not much better than 50/1.4G wide open.
samhain: If I shot Nikon, I'd be getting this lens. The sample shots I've seen have been absolutely beautiful. The bokeh, coma, rendering, micro contrast, 3-d effect, etc, just lovely results.I've learned to not put so much stock into numbers & resolution testing and focus more on real life shots/examples of what the lens can produce. There's so much more to a lens than numbers. For a landscape lens- yes I want max sharpness. But for a portrait lens, I'm much more concerned with rendering characteristics. does it have 'mojo'?
I've owned lenses that didn't test well but the results were breathtaking. My old (made in Japan) Pentax 77mm is a prime example. That lens can produce portraits that are down right haunting. Rendering & characteristics that I couldn't get out of a canon 85/1.2 or Sony Zeiss 135/1.8. Both of those lenses are best of the best portrait lenses, yet the Pentax 77(especially on a FF film camera) could just do spooky things that I could never recreate with other lenses.
You can't judge resolution by those tiny web sized images. There's was also no aperture info available. All full res samples I have seen so far suggests that the 58mm has to be stopped past f2 to get decent performance. At f1.4 Nikkor 58mm is just not very good at all...
Compare this to Otus 55/1.5 which got very high performance straight from f1.4 and creamy bokeh. The Sony 55/1.8 FE is very sharp wide open too and seems to be an excellent lens.
Also bokeh qualities can't be judged without reference shots with other lenses from exactly the same spot and background. I bet those photos would have looked OK with about any other 50-58mm/1.4 lens out there. It is not about the tool anymore but examples of fine photography which is completely different thing.
People talk about lack of CA but still there's LOCA present. Contrast is not so good @ f1.4.
DigiMatt: Are you guys incapable of reading the English language? You don't have to agree with the way DXO scores, but they did clearly state the reason they knocked the score down. That reason is: not being sharp wide open and not being sharp across the frame until f11. How do you people make it through life without a basic reading comprehension ability?
"On the downside, sharpness is low at full-aperture and isn’t uniform across the frame until its stopped to f11. At larger apertures there’s as much as 30% deviation in sharpness from the center to corners."
"Individually the new Nikkor has the higher sharpness overall but the current 50mm is sharper at full aperture, while both are sharper than the AF-D model.
Stopped down to f2.8 and the new Nikkor is sharper in the centers than either but the outer field, edges and corners are similar to the old AF-D model and someway behind the current 50mm model until f11, where the new 58mm has high sharpness from corner-to-corner."
Corner sharpness is not too relevant for portraits but center sharpness could be better @ f1.4 to justify the price.
sharkcookie: I just shot an important job where I used both the 85/1.4G and the 58/1.4G. They perform pretty much equal in terms of sharpness. Both are really impressive. Maybe DXO had a not so good copy of the 58 because they rated it much lower than the 85. I'm surprised how they rate it so low. Definitely not what I see in my shots. There are a lot of qualities and aspects that make a lens worth it's money. People make the mistake to see these reviews as the ultimate answer. They are missing so much. Nevertheless, most people will be fine with the 50/1.4G considering the price.
Ok, did you use it @ f1.4 or stopped down for your job?
The samples and data suggests that performance wide open is not spectacular (compared to Zeiss Otus).
There's no question that the lens performs very well @ f2.8, but then many other lenses with similar focal length do... like Micro-Nikkor 55/2.8 AI-S.
Just another Canon shooter: DXO lens tests are pretty much useless. I am not saying that they are doing it wrong but for a lens of this class, sharpness is not everything.
Somehow Zeiss Otus managess to get both smooth bokeh and high resolution @ f1.4. It seems to have much better wide aperture performance overall.
For the Nikkor 58mm results @ f1.4 are truly disappointing. Samples shot wide open exhibit also coma and lower contrast.
Stopped down to f2.8 center sharpness seems to be really high, but I'm not sure it's good enough compared to 50/1.4G which renders fine pictures with nice bokeh.
DarkShift: Nikon should release mirrorless FF camera with high resolution EVF. There's no need for yet another SLR model. Mirror cameras will be doomed in not too distant future anyway.
OVF in fe. D800 is not accurate enough for manual focusing, because view finder is limited to ca. f2.8. It is very hard to focus at f1.4 because of this. Modern EVF gives more accurate focusing results.
To my experience another problem with current Nikon PDAF seems to be focus shifting with some lenses. It means that focus point will change according to chosen aperture. Its quite severe and propably accounts for front & back focus issues I've had.
My D800 has been two times at the service center for AF focusing issues and I still do think its not as accurate fe. Canon 5D mkII was (with less AF points). Some say it is result of 36Mpix sensor but if you can see it on small resolution samples, then it must be focusing error.
lagalagnewyork: i have sen the future and the future is a7r. was waiting for nex7 update but looks like sony is giving up the nex models. will wait for 6 months to buy a7r because i am sure they will improve it later just like what happened to rx1 and rx100. kudos to sony for this earthshaking models, heard round the world. have sony nex5k and rx100. wonderful cameras. if you will buy just 1 camera in your lifetime buy the rx100/rx100II.
a7r has great sensor, but its biggest problem seems to be the shutter. No EFCS is bummer for a mirrorless FF camera IMHO. Even Canon 5D mkII had this feature in LV mode making it much faster than D800.
I wonder if a7r would suffer from the same limitation as D800: after zooming in certain amount its LV frame rate will drop massively making focusing not so easy.
Also X-sync speed of 1/160s is very slow today.
Nikon should release mirrorless FF camera with high resolution EVF. There's no need for yet another SLR model. Mirror cameras will be doomed in not too distant future anyway.
RStyga: What a massive lens compatibility headache! So, if you are to maintain the compactness of the system and retain AF what choice of lenses are offered for less than $350?? I know, for example, one can get Canon EF 50mm F1.4, 28mm F2.8, 40mm F2.8 STM, or Pentax FA 50mm 1.4, XS 40mm F2.8 all within a price range $150-350.
My fear is that there is none! I, for one, would not be willing to spent $1000 for a plain old 50mm F1.8 even if it's made by Star Trek's tritanium.
(PS. Oh my, will we see those permanent black markers dancing over the non-phtographic ugly "SONY" camera-forehead logo until it is erased from sight, or what....)
Max. aperture is not relevant if quality is not good enough for serious use. EF 50mm 1.4 is not very useable wide open.
FE 55mm/1.8 seems to offer excellent resolution even wide open and nice bokeh.
Anyway a FE-mount camera can use most other full frame mount lenses via adapter. Finally one could use Canon's TS-E lenses together with high resolution 36Mpix sensor.
tabloid: Hasselblad cameras are used mostly by professional photographers.
Hope this has been of some help to people here.
Oh really? It is very hard to imagine a pro photgrapher who would be willing to spend ca. 6000 euros for a APS-C camera made by Sony. Real photographers don't use so called luxury items.