daddyo: Sorry Nikon, but this seems like a bad joke. If you compare image quality between this and the Olympus E-M10, it's not even close. The E-M10 with 14-42mm lens goes for $799 right now, and includes a built-in EVF.What am I missing here?
LGJim (3 days ago)
BTW, just how good is that lens that comes with the V3 ?
The true speed of the V3 is 20fps with focus. It's astounding. Easily faster than the Canon 1DX and Nikon D4S. You have to see it to believe it.
Interestingly it's not action I use it for. It's for kids and groups. When you have a limited time to pose or capture the difference between eyes open or smiling is huge. This allows you to say 'Smile', shoot for a second, and get the best result. Else you're guessing, trying to hit the shutter when the child finally turns, and often missing. Given the lack of movement between frames at that speed, compositing 20-40 images is easy too.
As the the stock lens. I'll admit I've never mounted it. I use the 18.5 which is a great 50mm, the 32mm which is amazing period, the 10mm - good not great, the amazing wide zoom and the 70-300. It's a tiny kit that fits in a messenger bag, weights nothing and can do almost anything.
Retzius: Image quality is sub-par for the price point.
If I am going to drop $1200 on a camera I want the image quality to reflect that.
I can buy Nikon's own D7100 for the same money for far superior image quality.
If Nikon had released this at $799 I think they would have created a lot more 1 system shooters.
image quality can only be measured if you have an image. The V3 allows you to capture images no camera under $5,000 can.
That's the value. It's niche but it's real.
You're missing speed. I can afford to buy any camera I want. I have a V3 because there's nothing faster (I mean nothing - seriously). I'd rather get the shot, with a little noise or grain, than miss it.
I love m4/3rds lenses but I don't own a camera yet because for compact image quality APS-C still has them beat (and likely will forever). For speed bigger cameras have them beat (and the V3).
Thus for me - and many others - the only option for DSLR speed and tiny size is the Nikon 1.
Of course those who think burst modes are 'cheating' will tell you 10fps is 'enough'. However there are things I can do with 20-60 fps you can't do any other way.
nerd2: If we consider just the DOF and price
85mm f1.8 for FF = 56mm f1.2 for APS = 42.5mm f0.95 for m43(4/3 stop and 2/3 stop difference between FF - APS and APS - m43)
NIkkor 85mm 1.8G = $499Fuji 56mm 1.2 = $999 Leica 42.5mm f1.2 = $1499
I heard that all lenses are quite sharp at wide open - so this fuji lens has pretty good value, even compared with larger format lenses.
Penicillin wasn't discovered by crackpots before Fleming. You're claiming that because mold was used for treatment penicillin was known. It wasn't. The same fools using mold as a cure were poisoning themselves with innumerable junk 'cures' also.
You're avowedly unscientific. You claim that your own eyes are more important than blinded tests. You claim that you can detect differences in things repeated tests have shown people can't. You have no scientific support for those claims.
You started by claiming Zeiss glass records color that Nikon lenses don't, that you can detect the difference by eye, and that the difference can't be corrected for in post.
All of that is nonsense.
MrSkelter: This is a great way to distort your colors, add noise and simulate grain. Thank christ I shoot my D800 at base ISO.
I hope in version 7 they can emulate using uncoated lenses and perhaps defocus due to film curvature. I'm dreaming obviously but, if it all took a day and a half to process like film development, and we occasionally lost everything due to light-leaks I'd finally be a happy man.
I'm all for filtering and editing. I just don't see why flaws need to be rehabilitated as assets. Grain isn't desirable, it was just unavoidable. Nostalgia for something doesn't make it art, it's just old.
Also a believer in 'alternative medicine' - I'm shocked.
It's a pity that for 100 years before the discovery of penicillin people died en-masse from simple bacterial infections. Quacks have been drinking mercury and doing energy healing for centuries. That it convinces people like you doesn't make it smart or valid. You can't ret-con facts.
The thread speaks for itself. You're the audiophile, cameraphile - a 'phile let's say. Team John of God, Psychic and Homeopathy. I'm with Sagan, Tyson and science.
Fine with me.
You're saying that film captures something digital doesn't because it distorts things more and that distortion is how we see.
That's not true.
There's nothing 'natural' about the distortions of film. You're just used to them. Just as the 'sound' of vinyl is just compression and distortion some people like.
It's fine to love the look of film. It just means you're old or nostalgic. It's rubbish to suggest it's a true representation of reality because it's distorted.
None of the benefits of film, like high dynamic range with soft clipping, can be added by a filter. These filters only add the stuff film shooters spent careers trying to avoid.
The more you write the worse you look. Wine container - you're right. I was clearly talking about a feedbag which is what people normally drink from.
I've offered you a chance to back down. I'm going to exit the thread victorious to allow you time to flail and equivocate.
You find your delusions too comforting to let go of. If you'd read any of the links I'd posted you'd be smarter now and would have let the idea that a wine 'aerates' in a glass go.
I'm almost disappointed. You seem to be into every pseudo-science going. Are you a fan of alternative 'medicine' too? Do you believe in ghosts? It's the 1400's in your house I'm guessing.
I'm telling you the facts don't agree with your biases.
I mentioned wine glasses, you move the goalposts.
"Does wine taste better out of different shaped glasses? Yes - if you think it will. Just as expensive wine tastes better than the cheap stuff if you know it's expensive. It doesn't make any of those perceived differences real."
What are your easily repeatable results? You saying "There's a difference" when you're unblinded?
Now meat? I eat grassed beef exclusively. Could I tell a difference in taste double blind? Maybe.
You clearly thrive on backing your choices with bogus "obvious" differences. I enjoy nice things for reasons I can back.
It must suck to be so insecure. I pity you.
I promise you. Try being tested. You'll fail on the coke and you'll also fail on the wine. The 'massive' difference caused by the glass is in your head.
However it's pointless trying to educate someone who's outlook is pre-scientific.
"If my senses agree with other tests, then my senses are indeed scientific." - HowaboutRAW
You're just not very well educated.
As for wine glasses? A glass that narrows towards the top makes them easier to smell. That's it. Check the research.
This is you on the other hand - pure nonsense.
Shall we do audio next?
This is a great way to distort your colors, add noise and simulate grain. Thank christ I shoot my D800 at base ISO.
1. I wasn't talking about a TV show. 'Myth busting' predates reality TV.2. You know, and I do, that you can't tell the difference between any of the things you mention - including the Coke. You have no understanding of cognition. Does wine taste better out of different shaped glasses? Yes - if you think it will. Just as expensive wine tastes better than the cheap stuff if you know it's expensive. It doesn't make any of those perceived differences real.3. I love that you call scientific testing in a blinded environment 'distracting'. I guess your golden ears and eyes only work when you know the outcomes in advance.
You're a joke. If you believe in cable magic and other woo everything you claim has to be filtered through knowledge of your own fantasy world. Trusting your senses isn't scientific.
I have some wooden pucks you can rest your SD cards on to sell. They improve image 'clarity', 'micro contrast' and 'slam'. Just $500 a puck. Message me.
You're dreaming. 320 kbps is what I was referencing. I'm sure you knew that. Unlike you I've owned a recording studio.
You can't tell cables or sources. No one can. You don't want to be tested for obvious reasons. If you want proof of the tests I'm happy topmost links. Thus myth has been busted so often it's not funny.
Enjoy your cables. Make sure they face the right way.
Okay - I win.
Anytime, anyplace I'll take this on. You cannot tell the difference between cables. You cannot tell the difference between vinyl and CD either (it's easy to test fairly, you listen to the vinyl straight and then digitized - if you can tell when the vinyl has been digitized you win).
I will bet you $1,000 in cash that you can't tell the difference between any record deck you can name and the output of an iPod's DAC in a double-blind test.
You also can't tell the difference between a 300kbps MP3 and any setup you can name. I promise you. The tests have been done a thousand times.
Clearly your favoritism is driven by your mystical beliefs. It's very common. You should try to grow out of it. It's all BS.
If you are up for the challenge let's do it.
nerd2: I am really puzzled who Nikon is aiming this system at with that sky high prices.
V3 body - $120032mm f1.2 portrait lens - $899 (which works like 85mm f3.5 on FF)10-100 f4-5.6 VR - $549 (which works like 27-270 10x zoom)30-110 f3.8-5.6 - $249 (which works like 80-300 zoom)
This system may make sense for outdoor sports shooting if nikon released lightweight, affordable f2.0 or f2.8 telephoto lens but all the zoom lens they have is SLOW f5.6 ones!
It's aimed at people like me.
I have a lot of cameras but not one which does what the V3 does for me. It's small and it focuses and tracks as fast as professional bodies. That's all it needs to do. Small means I have it with me. Fast means I don't miss the shot. Worrying about noise reduction and pixel quality is moot when you are comparing a shot you have against a shot you've missed.
That said the quality is perfectly fine and putting more light on the sensor, with the 1.2 lens, is a better solution than more processing.
I've been shooting digital since 1997. The photos I took then aren't worthless because they're low res on 'bad' sensors. The idea that anything off the cutting edge is worthless is silly.
No one is the 'discerning' with color. HowaboutRAW is a fantasist. If he/she can determine the brand of lens based on color reproduction when viewing an image in a blinded test I'll eat my hat.
All this talk of subtly different renderings and micro contrast is audiophile-like BS and wishful thinking.
The idea that Nikon and Canon are incompetent and have now been shown up as such by Sony, Fuji and Samsung(!) et al is a conspiracy theory which has little to do with reality.
Color is highly malleable. Especially at the fractional level you're talking about. I challenge you to tell the difference in a double-blind test between equivalent Leica and Zeiss lenses. You'll do no better than guessing.
First you say not optically great, now you say 'sharp' but not great. There's more to quality than acuity, but you sound like an audiophile. You simply want to believe what you want, and will use any argument to justify your opinion.
The Nikon 58 1.4 is a 'great' lens that isn't very sharp. It's other qualities and coma rejection are astounding. I presume you're a fan.
I own. Hassablad, Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, Canon, Sony, Fuji, Olympus and more. Complete systems in many cases.
You are claiming your eye is better than DXO testing, on a site which uses DXO as the standard. What in your view is a better objective test?
As for color - you're showing how little you understand. Color is only barely a factor with digital cameras. Shooting RAW means color's entirely malleable. There is no good lens which produces uncorrectably bad color. It's not even a consideration. Post processing has much more effect than glass.
As for Nikon. Their steppers for industry are world class and their micro-lenses legendary. They are the camera used by NASA. Highest resolution DSLR, D800. Fastest system, Nikon 1. Lowest noise, DF. Best wide-zoom, Nikkor 12-24. Best 24, Nikkor. Best 85, Nikkor. Best 200, Nikkor. Best 800, Nikkor.
You have nothing but a single opinion in the face of an industry.
Prove your point or stop saying 'because I said so'.
You're wrong. I don't know how you drew your opinion but Nikon is one of THE optics companies. To say they're even average is really misinformed.
Look here for the 200 f2. Sharper than the Otus, half the distortion and massively less vignetting.
As for the 85 f1.4 - better than Sigma, the Zeiss 100 etc...http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Best-lenses-for-the-Nikon-D800E-Standard-and-telephoto-primes-and-zooms/Best-standard-and-short-telephoto-primes-for-the-portrait-studio
I own this glass but I'm not making points of opinion. There is certainly weak Nikkor glass - the 35 1.4 is as average as the Canon L in the same length - but the best Nikkors are the best period.
There's no better AF glass than the 200 and 85 at their lengths. Not on any platform, at any price, for 135. The current Sigma 85 isn't in the same league.
The problem Lytro have is their marketing is wrong. They're selling depth control the way movie studios tried to sell 3D (in the 50's and more recently). Composing photos so subjects are on different planes is, at best, contrived. Like selective color it encourages the worst instincts in the worst shooters.
They should sell this tech to enthusiasts as a fix. Control the focus point in post, photograph like you always have. Missing focus is a real problem Lytro can solve. Zooming through photos is a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.