Well, the Nikon 1.4/58 has 9 elements (2 asph), the Zeiss 1.4/55 has 12 elements (1 asph, 6 ED). The published ZEISS optical MTF figures quote MTF for 40 lp/mm to stay at or above 50% across the entire image field and for *ALL* apertures (before diffraction hits), right into the corners. That's quite stunning and probably not matched by the Nikon.
OTOH, the Nikon has AF, is cheaper and may still be good enough to bring true medium format quality to the D800E. Will be interesting to watch :)
Looked up MTF figures on Nikon USA website: I was correct, it cannot compete with the ZEISS. Nikon publishes MTF at less challenging 30 lp/mm to be down to 25% in the corners. So wide open, the Zeiss seems to be *much* better in the corners.
The main difference is: the Nikon still is a rather traditional symmetrical design while the ZEISS is a rather challenging retrofocus design.
falconeyes: I mark this day in my calendar!
DPR, for the first time and eventually, seems to understand the notion of equivalent aperture.
I can only hope that NEVER AGAIN will DPR quote equivalent focal lengths mixed with non-equivalent aperture figures. I really really hope this nonsense will now come to an end.
@don_van_vliet: Both.Most people ignore that actual ISO must be adjusted to reflect same equivalent ISO (aka same noise level) too.
DPR didn't seem to get this either prior to publishing this article.
Some day, all enthusiast photo cameras will be like the A7r, i.e., high MP FF mirrorless, more or less. Who will own this market is an open race though.
Photato: FF stand for Fullframe Fixation.The high cost of 36x24mm sensor production will relegate this line of cameras to the niche of affluent enthusiasts and given it a competitive disadvantage.APS-H is the way to go. For 1/3 of the price and almost the same quality.You know, FF backward compatibility is no longer that important, specially with mirrorless much shorter flange distance where it makes a lot of sense to go with the much sharper native glass.
Do yourself a favour and forget about APS-H.
BTW, APS-H has no significant cost advantage anymore. Masks grew to accomodate FF and yield rates have improved to make APS-H a no option.
I mark this day in my calendar!
peevee1: Nikon - how about innovating, paying more to engineers, not lawyers?
It seems they do. Which is why they protect innovations by patents and design work by design patents. Seems Sakar infringed their US design patent. Nikon cannot but sue in such a case. It simply is against the law to infringe design patents. Design patents serve to keep products distinguishable which isn't a bad thing.
IvanM: After just skimming through the article it would seem that once the AF micro adjustment was sorted the 'normal' af was ok and as good as live view dual pixel focussing...so was this test not flawed in that the AF was off to begin with?
Keeping a consistent AF microadjustment table is not a practical option really.
However, I wonder why cameras can't still autoadjust their PDAF system, combining CDAF and PDAF. It could be as easy as pointing the camera towards a suitable target and press a calibrate button ...
It almost looks as if there were no competition anymore in the camera market.
olypan: It's like trying to explain to children why there are no dinosaurs around anymore. They don't want to hear that they were slow, oversized, and failed. They just like that they were big and scary.
Dinosaurs were not slow, oversized, and did not fail. They were massacred by a cosmic catastrophy like most other species. Actually, they dominated all other species until then. Almost like humans do today. Not exactly fail. Not at all. A few mammals and smaller dinosaurs (birds) survived. Assume a catastrophy where only insects survive. Not exactly the humans fault then ...
mpgxsvcd: The 70D is a much better camera than Canon has ever produced. However, if any of the latest m4/3s mirror-less solutions had the issues that the 70D has they would be blasted out of the water in the reviews.
M4/3s was ALWAYS critiqued heavily for not having good AFC during burst. Now they have great AFC during burst(GH3/OMD) and yet the reviews still say that it is not as good as a DSLR.
Canon's latest and greatest camera won't even attempt to do the AFC during burst with its new Dual Pixel feature.
I just don't understand why Canon's cameras are held to a different standard.
It's no different standard. The 70D does have another AF (PDAF) which M4/3s don't.
vladimir vanek: what the...? I mean, what's wrong with the world today? Do we need hundreds of phone models in every tenth of inch of screen diagonal? flat, round, black, red, white, blue, with this and that OS, with all sorts of resolutions. one with LED flash, another one with dual LED, and a third one with bi-color dual LED. oh yes, and a xenon of course. those with 8 mpix, 10 mpix, 13 mpix, a water resistant one, crush resistant, made of plastic, made of metals, made of glass... And most importantly, a new one every few months? why don't they make a flawless design, say in 5 different specs and that's it? cooperation instead of competition? and focus on more important things, like saving the planet, feeding people and living happy lives without all those twitters and facebooks even in our bedrooms? sorry for my essay, I'm just tired of this neverending competition that brings nothing but pulling out some money out of everyone's pocket as often as possible.
Vladimir may be right. But the cure is more challenging tasks to direct talent and capital towards. The current redundancy is a sign that we are running low on vision or goals. Or on mechanisms to fund visions or goals. It used to be a political task, now it is investment banking.
Having said this, I think Samsung's flexible display technology is a break through. Not the phone, but the technology behind.
Now, Jony brought to cameras what he brought to iOS. Jony, please, focus with what you are great at: designing computer hardware.
In an interview ( http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/19/4748572/apple-jony-ive-ios-7-interview ) Jony describes his philosophy ("objects whose forms don't hint at what they do"). And that's the problem, both for a UI and for tools: their forms SHOULD hint at what it does ...
And a camera is a tool.
falconeyes: From the image, the lens would be no more than a 1.8mm aperture. Which is only half the 3.3mm of the Nokia 808's lens, the current smartphone class leader. Therefore, this new device can only capture 1/4 the light of the class leader and won't be that interesting.
F-number is irrelevant for cross-system evaluations. Physical lens diameter is the only parameter left in any equation.
From the image, the lens would be no more than a 1.8mm aperture. Which is only half the 3.3mm of the Nokia 808's lens, the current smartphone class leader. Therefore, this new device can only capture 1/4 the light of the class leader and won't be that interesting.
misha marinsky4: I read diglloyd's review.
Here's my request: DPR has a double blind print test, Zeiss vs Sigma. 11x14, four apertures: 1.4, 5.6, 8, 16.
Would the Zeiss do better than 50/50, which is random?
I*ve test shot the Zeiss lens at Photokina. In the corners at F/1.4, the difference is shockingly large. The problem actually is to focus at F/1.4 exactly enough to deploy all this sharpness.
I look at this lens as a tool turning a D800E into an MF camera equivalent. OTOH, MF cameras are AF typically ...
InTheMist: Watch the video. Much better images than those overprocessed (hiding faults?) examples here.
It's worth noting that the video shows thousands of dollars of studio lighting equipment used. No wonder they're good.
Very good quality can be produced with the 808 and fairly affordable studio equipment. I wonder why they didn't share high rez samples like I did (cf. my post below). I hear the 808 has better IQ than the 1020 and it might have shown ...
This is the comment I left on Nokia's blog:
Thanks for the article. But note that I already reported about PureView studio photography about a year ago:
It includes a technique to properly sync the PureView with studio flashes. And it includes a full size sample image. Where are the full size samples from THIS article btw?
Nice article otherwise.Kind regards Falk
P.S.If you wonder if they knew about the article... it is the seventh hit if you search for: pureview studio
Mathematically, deconvolution is an unstable operator. Therefore, expect no wonders.
It is most useful with a "perfect" convoluted input signal, i.e., without any noise.
Therefore, DPR's assumption that it may be most useful with smartphones lacks a certain degree of understanding.
falconeyes: 0.01 lux is -8 EV.
I heavily doubt it was this dark, as it would correspond be about a moonless starry night. But the fireflies then would illuminate the scenery (or their direct surrounding at least) as main light source and I didn't notice the effect in the video.
Anyway, while dark, -8 EV corresponds to (F/1.4, 1/24s) ISO 1,200,000. I saw extreme noise at 640px web resolution. Scaling web resolution to full 24 MP resolution, the would be the screen pixel noise (24MP) at ISO 14,000. I'd say a normal full frame 24MP dSLR doesn't have this much pixel noise at ISO 14,000.
Therefore, I conclude that the demo shown by Canon is technically lame, more of a marketing gig than anything else.
I was only wondering if it really was pitch black dark as they claimed. Because fire flies then actually illuminate a scene, I have seen it with my own eyes. But in my actual argument, this plays no role, I assumed 0.01lx to be a true assertion.
It is lame because any full frame dSLR can do this already, in still mode at the same shutter speed. The news is that Canon works around a bug how they produce video. And this IS lame.
Roland Karlsson: Few and large pixels is a very good choice for ultra high ISO work, like this one. But, when there is more light, more pixels gives better IQ. So, if you want few and large pixels or more and smaller pixels is a choice. Do you want to maximise high ISO performance or do you want to maximize low ISO performance.
As I said below, the fact that the pixels are large has nothing to do in this. It is that Canon doesn't throw away any pixels for video in this case as they do in their consumer dSLRs.
Look up sensorgen.info to see that larger pixels gain no extra sensitivity for SLRs.
falconeyes: This is one possible approach to decent low light capablity in video.
The other approach is to stop the nonsense to subsample sensors in video mode, reading out maybe 1 out of 6 pixels. This is what creates noise and aliasing artefacts in video. Unneccessarily so, as a few cameras (Panasonic, Nokia) show which don't subsample but create a video signal from all pixels. I.e., it is quite feasible.
Therefore, Thumbs Down for Canon to work around a problem they rather should solve.
I mean that the typical SLR from Canon or Nikon only reads out a small subset of pixels (aka subsampling) used to create the video signal from.
This is contrasted by supersampling where all pixels are read and the video is a full downsampling from the frame.
P.S.Some call it line skipping (esp. for Canon) but line skipping really is a special case of subsampling.