Zoron: D900 better be good....or else
you do have to realize a lot of people shooting D800/D700 type of cameras are just hobbyists. And the A7 series happens to be a bit cheaper as well.
at this rate, if Sony can keep up improving the tracking performance of its AF in the A series cameras, I am afraid a good portion of the non-pro Nikon FF shooters might consider jumping ship. as these Nikon FF shooters age their tolerance for heavy equipment goes down, and the light and small A7 series do look very attractive for that...
Sony really need to up their game with a RX10 Mark II. I had shot with a RX10 for a while and the biggest problem is 1. Continuous AF really sucks, despite having a very bright lens. 2. The lack of a better codec for video. Sony need to put their 50Mbps AVC-S codec found on the A7S or even the small action cameras on RX10 II. I would also gladly take 50/100 Mbps MP4 found on the GH3/GH4.3. The stabilization can be better.
A lot of folks bought the RX10 as a video camera and with panasonic finally realizing their cameras (GH3/GH4) shoot better video than almost everyone else Sony really need to catch up.
11 fps with focus tracking on an APS-C sensor?
sounds like a Nikon D300 replacement for me! IF the AF tracking on this thing works, matched with a Sony 70-200/4 Nikon users can forget about the D400.....
Maverick_: The MFT is becoming more and more a gear for indie filmmakers not wanting to go the 5D route. At the end of the day, it's sensor size that matters for stills. I am a long time GH series user and will not upgrade to another GH. My next camera will have a large sensor.
Or use GH3 for video and casual shooting. Nikon D800E / Canon 5D3 for stills. Best of both worlds this way.
Why on earth would Panasonic intentionally cripple the 1080/60p functionality?
If it is the same sensor as GX7, then the sensor does 1080/60p by default.
This is so sad. it would have been the perfect pocket camera for me. now GX1 would definitely get the nod instead just for having 1080/60p alone.
map1273: For the money, I'd rather have the new Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 that's coming out in a few weeks and use a teleconverter if needed on that.
almost totally forgot about the Sigma. $2700 for a 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 VR, versus:$3600 for a 120-300 f/2.8 OSGiven the recent improvement in quality from Sigma, the only downside is the size and weight.
Poor Nikon users. Sony is already onto their 2nd generation 70-400mm with SSM. The first version of the Nikon AF-S 70/80-400 is still yet to be found!
the resolution of the said lenses seem to correlate with age more than anything. for premium lenses, the newer ones always resolve more.
Canon had a 24-70/2.8L for quite a while before the Nikon 24-70 shows up. Nikon 24-70 was crowed as the best out of the best for the past 5 years, until the Canon MkII shows up and claimed the throne.
I am sure once a Mark II from Nikon (hopefully with VR) shows up it would be the best again, so would be the Mark III from Canon. it's always a leap-frog between the two.
I'm not trying to be a snob, but if my daughter (or yours) fork out three grand of depreciating-like-no-body dollar for a once-in-a-life-time wedding, and you see the pro photog using a OM-D EM5, what would you think?
The photog might well be super duper skillful, but one would have a hard time wondering how much better the pictures would look if the same shots were made with a Nikon or Canon full frame. 2-3 stops better dynamic range and high iso noise characteristics. Whether it is a D700/D3, D800, D4, 5D2/5D3, 1DX, it doesn't matter. Given the aesthetic qualities are the same, you still cannot beat the law of physics. large sensor takes in more light and pictures do look better.
The m4/3s and NEXs has made themselves into very fine cameras. But would they be up to heavy duty pro use one day?
D800E when matched with any of the modern nano-coated f/2.8 zooms or better yet primes produce an IQ that's totally out of this world.
The UV filter option is for people who are paranoid about scratching the front element on their $2K Nikon 14-24.
Worth considering for people who shoot around salt water, sand, snow and ice. the new lens cap also elminates the need for the original plastic cover which falls off all the time and scratch the hood.
Londongal: I'll purchase the Really Right Stuff tripod mount ring instead.
I bet almost everything from RRS would be better made and more sturdy than Nikon's.
Lightroom 4 as a complete package was on sale for $75 during thanksgiving in the US.
The DXO upgrade from v7 elite to v8 elite is $99 US. Even during promotion period it was $69.
So a DXO upgrade cost the same or more than the LR4 complete package.
Not to mention starting with LR4, LR actually understand Nikon colors better than DXO. With DXO you usually have to start with ViewNX/CNX conversion to TIFF, and then run the TIFFs through DXO to fix the geometric distortion or perspective distortion. LR / ACR is now close enough to do it in one shot.
back in the days when Light Room actually cost $299 or $199 MSRP, the DXO pricing made a lot of sense.
Now that you can get LR for practically $79 or $99 with any lens or camera at B&H, why would anyone want to pay $299 (or $199 when they have special offers) for DXO optics elite?
People might own a full frame camera, but FF-owner doesn't translate into easier prey!
I got the v7 this June. I think V7 was out for a year perhaps? I am afraid DXO might have became a $69 annual subscription.... even LR/PS doesn't update to new major versions so often. CS5 was around for quite some time, as was LR3.
delete: If this lens would have been available 6 months ago, it would be in my photo bag. Now I already have the f/2,8 VRII. Which is an excellent lens, but per physics also a very heavy and large one.
Not sure if to trade it in for the new f/4 would make sense for me. This would cost me probably nada. On the plus side would be the ~700g less, smaller size and better VR, on the negative side the one stop aperture.
Need to check my photos made with the big one, see how many of them were actually shot with f/2,8.
you paid $2399 for 7 pieces of ED glass on the f/2.8 version, now you are down to 3 for $1399.
rekky: $224 for a tripod collar? You have got to be kidding me!
and chances are RRS would make a better one
it's a pity Nikon doesn't allow higher fps with 8 AA battery, as in D300s/700/800.
Catallaxy: The reviewer failed to review one of the most important points about a battery grip - how it does on a tripod. Some of the third party grips have a bad reputation for flex or give or otherwise not being a sturdy platform when the camera plus grip is mounted on a tripod. Just because the body/grip interface does not appear to flex in normal operations does not mean that it will not flex or contribute to vibrations on a tripod.
I had the original MB-D12 grip mounted on my D800 for a while. Even with Nikon grip, no matter how tight I tried to bolt the grip onto my D800, it would still flex on my tripod. you push the viewfinder compartment and the body would move around a bit.
Before you would ask, I was using a RRS lever clamp and a wimberly body plate, on a gitzo 2-series tripod. the same combo with the D800 body itself leave very little play.
Mr Fartleberry: Remember you need 36MP to do landscapes!
and then a 10-core server with RAID array to process the pictures?
Jord: This does seem a very good package but for the life of me I can't work out why the Elete version is double the price. I'd imagine the work going into calibrating a cheaper camera is the same as a pro camera!
I'd buy it tomorrow if the Elite version was the same as the normal version but the gap between this and lightroom is now nearly 3x.
Rant over. Great kit alas now my demo has timed out before I could check it on the D4 files.
Apparently in their eyes, the non-pros who bothered to own a full-frame camera are rich/serious enough to pay more?