steelhead3: Capture 1 is waiting folks
I actually bought Capture 1 and like it. I guess it will take some time wean myself off raw processing in CS6. Also, I probably need a faster computer as Capture one taxes my computer more by comparison.
This may encourage some persons to hang on to their good equipment and not to rush into upgrades
Life isn't free. You must pay for upgrades. That said, it is obvious that Adobe is attempting to drag persons kicking and screaming into their subscription-based software, with no appreciation for the customer loyalty that helped them to reach where they are now.
VREN: Nice to see, but conservative speed for not so conservative price.
I am just a lover of Nikon DX cameras but totally confused by their DX lens strategy. I find the DX cameras are very capable and good value. I got excited when they brought out the 35 f1.8 for $200, and thought, that I like where they are heading. I also got a new 18-105 for just over $300 . I Just can't find many Nikon Dx lenses which I think are great value since. So I eventually ended up with the Sigma 18-35. I know, not even fully 2X zoom and sometimes difficult to focus, but great image quality, value and exciting....like the Nikon 35 F1.8 was when it came out. I haven't been exited by a Nikon DX lens since the 35. Look at all the lenses starting at 16-18mm....18-55 Version 1-3, 18-70, 16-85 18-135, 18-105, 18-200, 18-300 I, 18-300II. All slow lenses some quite expensive. I guess I was just hoping for something faster and exciting (even with less zoom range), especially when the price is over $1000.
Nice to see, but conservative speed for not so conservative price.
I bought the A6000 along with some fast glass last December, and the D7200 recently. I agree with your comments about the focusing consistency and accuracy of the mirror-less vs DSLR, when using fast glass, especially in relation to my 4-year old D7000. However, the dedicated focusing sensor still has benefits. My D7200 is simply better for continuous focusing and low light situations compared to my A6000. I also find my D7200 to be superior to my D7000 in the focusing department especially when using my sigma 18-35.
So my point is that while mirror-less cameras are likely to focus on static subjects more accurately than the modern DSLR, the advantage is very slight once the DSLR camera-lens combo focusing is fine tuned. However, my D7200 has a noticeable advantage in continuous and low-light focusing over my A6000.
Thank you for the wonderful review of the D7200. I greatly respect the approach and the effort put into your reviews.
This is the most definitive comparison that I have seen so far on these "large" sensor "compact" rivals. I assume that these shots were taken at the optimum aperture for each camera (where the lens performs the best). From my point of view, the lx100 performs the best of the three in RAW, even at the lowest ISO level where I thought the higher Mpix rivals might shine. It seems to have the best clarity, good corner performance and maybe even sharper despite lower pixel count. I had my doubts about the lens performance, given its size, but after seeing these I believe Panasonic is worth the extra money as it is the most capable in feature set, ergonomics, and image quality. I also don't like huge raw files and this is another plus of the Lx100.
I have had this lens (Nikon version) for a couple of weeks and it has opened up a new world of opportunities for me and other APS-C shooters. I have a few focusing issues which I hope will improve when I get my USB Dock, but to be fair I sometimes have inconsistent focus with my Nikon 35mm f1.8 as well. In my opinion it does 35mm f1.8 better than my f1.8g prime. CAs are better controlled on the Sigma.
Some persons complain about the limited zoom range. I look at it another way. It is a flexible prime that goes into territory that Nikon has refused to approach. It is a tool that if used carefully and patiently, can produce some stunning results. Canon, Nikon and others should thank Sigma for creating new opportunities for their cropped bodies...or maybe they want to curse Sigma for keeping us away from their full framed bodies and lenses.
This definitely has been my "Gear of the Year."
vesa1tahti: I have this lens and D7000. Several focusing problems. Only in live-view focusing is accurate when wide open.
I have had this lens now for one week and have the same issues that you have been complaining about with my d7000 and d5100. Inconsistent focus. Great sometimes and out at others. I ordered the USB Dock but haven't received it yet as usps messed up. When I compare the focus of this lens with my 50 f1.8g, I find that the 50mm tries harder on a difficult subject but gets it right while this one confirms focus quickly and often gets it wrong. I have been trying different modes and surprisingly I find it noticeably more consistent using continuous focus mode when focusing on stationary objects. The only drawback is no focus assist light, but it is so bright it does fairly well in conditions that will normally require focus assist
This product may be a runaway success. It looks nice, in my opinion, but the feature set and pricing confuses me a bit.... just like the Nikon 1 did.
VREN: I have used my brother's D600 and it is a really great camera, but I have also experienced the mess and understand the additional work required in post processing (to clean dirty pictures) or to regularly clean the sensor. Nikon response to these owners have been unsatisfactory.
Nikon's management seems to have used up all their "innovation fuel" after a period of exciting products. They need to refuel and remain profitable through good honest service to their customers. They also need to stop trying to manipulate money from their customers by crippling the exciting products that their engineering teams have developed and also replace what appears to be successful products like the D300s.
M DeNero. I don't think this camera is critically crippled. As I said I think it is a great camera. I have used it. It just has some small annoying omissions most of which are probably firmware related. Take a good look at the D7100 and D600. The Focusing system in the D7100 is more sophisticated and it allows exposure bracketing up to 5 frames but they crippled the buffer and it doesn't have dual axis virtual horizon which I really love on the d600. The D600 has dual-axis virtual horizon, comparatively generous buffer, but you can only bracket up to 3 shots. I don't necessarily think the 39 point focusing as a huge disadvantage (apart from its coverage), just wondered why a camera costing so much less has the 51 point system. Even the 1.2 crop on the d7100 sounds usefull, why leave it out of the d600? I know my brother would have loved a 1.2 crop on the d600.
I have used my brother's D600 and it is a really great camera, but I have also experienced the mess and understand the additional work required in post processing (to clean dirty pictures) or to regularly clean the sensor. Nikon response to these owners have been unsatisfactory.
VREN: Another slow 18-something slow lens. I have been a DX user for the past 4 years. Tempted by the 17-50 F2.8 from Tamron and Sigma, but wanted Nikon....an average sized fast standard lens not the behemoth (size and price) that is the 17-55mm. Even an F4 lens equivalent to the full-frame 24-120. For some reason they refuse to fill the huge gap between the 18-*** slow lenses and the 17-55. I have had good experiences with Nikon lenses and wanted to remain Nikon. However, they have convinced me that Sigma is the way to go. With USB dock we can now be "future proof" and this was my main concern with third party. I think I agree with the opinions of many experts, they are trying to push us towards full-frame, where they have more lens options. Too bad for persons like me who think APS-C is the sweet-spot between size and performance.
You are correct when comparing with Full-frame. My only comparison with full-frame is the "standard" field of view. I am comparing the F2.8s to the 3.5 which gets slower very quickly to 5.6. I have shot low-light with my 35 at F 2.8. The difference between using this and my kit 18-105 is huge. So for me (and many others), F2.8 is fast compared to F5.6.
Another slow 18-something slow lens. I have been a DX user for the past 4 years. Tempted by the 17-50 F2.8 from Tamron and Sigma, but wanted Nikon....an average sized fast standard lens not the behemoth (size and price) that is the 17-55mm. Even an F4 lens equivalent to the full-frame 24-120. For some reason they refuse to fill the huge gap between the 18-*** slow lenses and the 17-55. I have had good experiences with Nikon lenses and wanted to remain Nikon. However, they have convinced me that Sigma is the way to go. With USB dock we can now be "future proof" and this was my main concern with third party. I think I agree with the opinions of many experts, they are trying to push us towards full-frame, where they have more lens options. Too bad for persons like me who think APS-C is the sweet-spot between size and performance.
The output is a definite improvement on the D7000. But to my eyes, a bit of a disappointment when you compare its output to that of the K5-IIs. Maybe the raw converters have not been optimized for the D7100. The colours are a bit less saturated on the Pentax. But it is possible that Pentax is cooking its raw output more than Nikon. I don't know, but I thought the 7100 would be notably better that the K-5IIs and it isn't in my opinion.
Very nice. My entry level DSLR the in 2009 was the D60. It definitely couldn't deliver low light images like this. I wish my skill as a photographer can move at the same speed as the technology :).