Hugo808: I used to like the little red dot on my lenses (no, not that sort) that showed where to refocus if I was using infra-red film. Because IR has a different and non-visible wavelength, normal visible light focusing would put the pictures ever so slightly out, so we had to focus normally and then move the lens barrel to allow for the IR shift. Imagine how tricky that's going to be with today's super fast lenses!
That's going to be a neat trick to pull off in an autofocus camera, and fun to watch on the screen. How many will think their pictures are out of focus?
It makes sense but is that what's going to happen? Have you tried it? Does the autofocus still work with only IR light?
I'm assuming Fuji tried it with a dense cut-out filter but the press release has no mention, maybe they've provided some pics or rear screen grabs elsewhere?
Interesting - and hopeful - responses.
Yes, I meant a visible light cut out filter for proper IR shots but you really won't be able to see much and the focusing will be severely hampered by the lack of light, unless Fuji have developed a new unit which they omitted to mention in the press release.
But if you are using an IR cut out filter you won't be able to see anything through the viewfinder? I can't wait to see how this works...
I trust a review will be with us swiftly!
Yep, that's exactly what it's for. You focus normally then move it obviously roughly to the red spot position.
It's a quaint but useful thing that must have fallen out of use when AF lenses became the norm back in the 90's.
I wonder how Fuji are going to cope with this? I have no idea as I don't have one of their cameras, so unless the lens is thus marked with an IR position or the camera software takes it into account you're just going to have to guess or be disappointed!
I used to like the little red dot on my lenses (no, not that sort) that showed where to refocus if I was using infra-red film. Because IR has a different and non-visible wavelength, normal visible light focusing would put the pictures ever so slightly out, so we had to focus normally and then move the lens barrel to allow for the IR shift. Imagine how tricky that's going to be with today's super fast lenses!
IchiroCameraGuy: Excellent review you guys
A typically excellent review.
rrccad: "Now, at the price point of the 85mm F1.8s, it's unlikely that either Canon or Nikon is spending a lot of time tuning each copy, so the better results of even the F1.8 Nikkor suggests that the Nikon design is very well matched to its production methods. "
Gee I dont know .. maybe it's something to do with the fact that the canon 85mm 1.8 EF was designed in the early 1990's for film?
comeon dpreview you can do better than this.
"maybe it's something to do with the fact that the canon 85mm 1.8 EF was designed in the early 1990's for film?"
What would that have to do with production quality?
Pat Cullinan Jr: I beg your indulgence, but Imakefoto4U is right. Many of the sample photos would be great in an art show, but we need more pedestrian shots "demonstrating what that sensor is capable of." Please, please eschew the art photos. We are serious people looking for red meat.
When they do everyday pictures people complain about that too!
inlawbiker: I have to wonder if the sports car forums are full of pricing complaints too. Hey guess what luxury items cost money! I just tell my wife to be happy I'm not into sailboats. Just wait a while the price will come down.
Some people just have more money that sense. There's always Leica if you really need to spend more...
Hugo808: Why is it so big? The attraction with M4/3 is that it's mall. This looks Leica sized.
"If you feel this camera is too big, you're probably not its target demographics."
Is there a demographic of people who like small sensors in huge camera bodies? Far out!
Why is it so big? The attraction with M4/3 is that it's mall. This looks Leica sized.
Can you post a bigger version so we can actually see the four horsemen?
chillgreg: Photographer captures once-in-a-lifetime photo: 96 comments
Sony autofocus analysis: 745 comments
Yup, that's the DPR audience alright!
This has always been a gear site. It is nice to see people's work but mostly we come here for the reviews. There is good photography everywhere. But not such good reviews.
Lovely. Shame we don't really see the world like this, but this is the magic of photography, it can reveal things we didn't know about the amazing place we live. Whether it's macro or high speed photography or even what a slow shutter pointed at the sky can reveal, it's a way of seeing more and I think it's great that we get an off-the-shelf option to do it.
Hugo808: No lens hood? Shame on you Nikon, you don't want to be cutting cheap corners like that and expecting us to be happy about paying £40 for an optional one. Not when the lens is this pricey anyway!
Thanks for the research JoeJack951. I was assuming that Nikon were expanding their policy, the 18-140mm has the hood as an optional extra. I think it's a worrying trend that saves little money and annoys the customer.
No lens hood? Shame on you Nikon, you don't want to be cutting cheap corners like that and expecting us to be happy about paying £40 for an optional one. Not when the lens is this pricey anyway!
Cool, I could finally replace my 16-85mm for, um, no reason....
Cometh the hour cometh the lens.
I was thinking the ohter day that I won't get rid of my Lumix compact because the wide angle macro feature gets such good results and SLRs don't have anything similar!
Just one question: how do you pronounce DxO?
dynaxx: I know the DPR journalists are constrained by matters commercial but I fail to see how you can discuss this topic without at least acknowledging that the two biggest camera companies have chosen not to take a promising new camera format seriously.
It is the backdrop in front of which, this photographic drama is being played out. But for this, 600 odd passionate comments would not have appeared ( sorry, it is not your jaunty journalese, Richard).
I am sure you have an opinion as to why they have pretty much ignored MILC for so long it is impossible for them to change course ( 5 years for a decent set of lenses for a new mount ? ). Some say, it is the same mantra the cigarette manufacturers used ; "we are giving them what they want".
But aren't we are looking for leaders not followers in a business driven by technology ? Imagine the hoo-ha if Ford / Toyota had said they are sticking with internal combustion and not making electric motors.
I think the difference is even more dramatic than that. It's like comparing IMAX with holding one of those 2 inch portable TV's from the 80's up to your eye. What it does to your vision long term I can only guess.
The only advantage would be weight but when you look at any FF mirrorless camera that advantage disappears as soon as you put a lens on.
Different strokes for different folks I guess.