Valiant Thor: Nice camera. What I'd really like to see Nikon release is a very cool M4/3 retro-looking (OM-D-ish) camera with a revolutionary sensor with the same lens mount as the Olympus and Lumix M4/3 which would give a broad base of lenses to use. I thought that the Nikon 1 system should have been M4/3 compatible instead of yet another lens system. I'm a mid-grade amateur and have a D5200, OM-D and GH3. It would be very nice to share lenses on multiple M4/3 systems.
There's no way Nikon would do that. Why would Nikon support a competing system?
chillgreg: Ren Kockwell:
" it won't make much, if any, visible difference at less than 6-foot (2-meter) wide print sizes, and only if you use the very finest NIKKOR lenses and technique."
" Readers tell me that their Sigma 105 Macros don't work on the D7100."
" It's pretty much the same as 2010's D7000,"
" There's also an inexplicably silly 1.3x crop mode"
" Only the 15 central sensors can see horizontal lines ('cross type'), the rest only see vertical lines, just like the single focus sensor of the Nikon SP of 1956."
" The extra resolution means nothing in actual shooting"
" The D7100 and D700 are pretty much the same."
" If you've found the time and expense I incur to share all this for free... "
What a f#@$ing tosser.
Ken Rockwell is an idiot.
Haider: 24MP is useless for TV slideshows, 8x10 or A3 prints. You'd rather just have bigger photosites to give you even better DR and low-light/available light performance. The lens required to make big enough prints for 24MP ain't in the price range of the camera body purchasers???
35mm f/1.8 - $20050mm f/1.8 - $20085mm f/1.8 - $400
snow14: No optical low-pass filter at this level of the market ? Most people in this market segment are amateur whom want nothing to do with moire and the extra time required fix it in pp.
At this pixel density the filter is not required.
Loving the fact that they took out the AA filter. If the ISO performance is significantly better than the D7000, i might consider upgrading.
Vitruvius: So the 16MP, 7FPS, with 1.3X crop factor would be almost exactly the same crop and resolution as a Micro 4/3 camera, except slower frame rate than the M43 cameras.
Nope, Xeliz, you need 4 m43 frames to fill a full frame. The crop factor of 2x is the diagonal of the frame rectangle...
smatty: The Sony RX1 scores 79% in this review and is therefore is on par with the X-Pro 1's score of 79%
And while the comparison in this review is currently against the Fuji X100 with its 2 years old conventional sensor, the X100s with the version 2 of the X-Pro1 X-Trans sensor should surpass the RX1 at a fraction of the cost.
I am looking forward to this head to head comparison - and while I love FF sensor cameras for the great DOF control, in almost all other aspects of IQ the APS-C sensor have caught up.
Great times for serious compact cameras :)
@Frederico: It is because of "pros" like you that the market is ruined with uselessly large sensors and antiquated lenses. Bigger does not mean better. Had Canon and Nikon invested in a better sensor size, those systems would have been way superior to what we have now. But because ego-trippers only buy the biggest, they had to revise their strategy and fragment the market.
JustinL01: Has anyone actually picked up and used the camera before slating it! The shortcomings are nothing compared to the quality that you can achieve. There is no point comparing it to the current nex range, Fuji or Olympus ranges as they can't touch either the sensor or lens.
This is not a cheap camera, it has a best in class FF sensor and a stunning CZ lens that has been designed to work together. The engineering is supreme and the build quality excellent. Just go and have a look what the professional photographers that are using it are saying, look at the results they speak for themselves. Read the interviews with Sony to understand why there is no viewfinder and how the camera was put together it might open some eyes. I'll let the naysayers enjoy slating the camera where I will be out enjoying taking shots with mine.
The corner sharpness is terrible.
acidic: Wow, the corner sharpness sucks bad on this camera (based on the studio shots).
Also, the studio comparison tool for this camera is jacked up. Move it around the image and the zooms are not the same crop as other cameras.
Sexy, but no thanks. For this price, I'd expect Superb sharpness all the way into each of the four corner pixels.
You are right, the image is incredibly soft towards the corners!
This is all I have to say about NEX: the size advantage is an illusion, you get big lenses with clumsy small bodies.http://camerasize.com/compact/#325.90,393.321,ha,t
Jefftan: The problem is not 24MP sensorthe problem what lens you need to use in order to get that 14 MPwith kit lens you won't even get 16 MP let alone 24
if not going to purchase top quality glass just kidding yourselfWhat you really get is bad high ISO performance
@Marike6: what lens choice? Micro four thirds has a wide variety of wide angle primes, Nikon DX has none. Until DX has a competitor for the 12mm f/2, 14mm f/2.5, 17mm f/1.8 and 20mm f/1.7 lenses your comment is utter nonsense.
Also, some of these lenses outshine Nikkor glass by a large margin. The Summilux 25mm f/1.4 is outstanding compared to the mediocre 35mm f/1.8 Nikkor.
Vitruvius: What the HECK are you guys talking about the "great IQ?!? You obviosly have NOT actually used the camparison tool and still you blather on in complete ignorance. Do the comparison before speculating how great it is (isn't).
Both the NEX-7 (much older) and the OMD EM5 (much smaller sensor and far fewer pixels) have at least as much detail and far LESS noise than the D5200 at 6400 ISO.
Go ahead, burry your head in the sand. It just makes you look like fools. Either you work for Nikon or you are completely blind.
Perhaps it just looks impresive compared to another Nikon.
Marike, do you own a m43 camera? I own both a D7000 and an Olympus PEN, and I'm getting much more detailed images (edge-to-edge) out of the PEN.
the reason: So after almost 5 years of being announced, people are still claiming the doom of the system is not far away? What I keep seeing on and on is people migrating from other systems TO m4/3s and not away from it. I keep seeing lenses being announced that give you FOVs that simply dont exist in APS C, and I keep seeing more and more companies joining the consortium. How is that gonna doom the system? Now even dpreview is quoting equivalencies, in all the years digital has been around this was never brought up in APS C. People here use the word IQ and genuinely believe they know what theyre talking about.
The funny thing is most full frame shooters use a 24-70 f/2.8 or 70-200 f/2.8 zoom lens 99% of the time and are happy with the results.
If you really believe a Summilux 25mm f/1.4 or M.Zuiko 75mm f/1.8 will deliver inferior quality to those zooms, you are delusional. Sure, you trade the flexibility of a zoom for extreme compactness, but often that is a compromise worth making. Especially if your entire lens collection fits in the same space as one FF zoom lens.
Dr_Jon: Okay, so for everyone who glazed over after the 997th misleading post on equivalence there is a good one buried in the middle about how Panasonic only designed the 150/2.8 so someone could do a coffee mug from it... :-)
IMHO almost all the equivalence posts are wrong as they miss out on various important facts. FF and m43 are both great camera systems (well, now m43 finally has a couple of decent sensors available). For best quality and the best overall system FF is where it's at, for something you can carry around all day and get decent photos m43 is the way to go (or Fuji XE1, or NEX6, or RX100, ...).
FF = best image qualityAPS-C = best value for moneyMFT = best size
Considering the increase in IQ of APS-C/MFT, FF will continue to slide into a product for people with large egos. It will actually be the downfall of Canikon that they invested all their energy in FF just to please egos, because now their lens line-up is not competitive with mirrorless systems, while it could have been.
The big problem Canon and Nikon are facing today is how they have multiple DSLR sensor sizes rather than 1 streamlined product. They were forced into providing the archaic 35mm sensor format due to the "bigger-is-better" ego-tripping from many photographers and prosumers.
Using common sense, one digital sensor size (1.5x APS-C) would have been fine for every type of DSLR, from entry level to professional. The difference in noise performance is marginal: one sensor generation provides a higher improvement than doubling the sensor size. Like this, Canikon could have designed high quality f/2 zooms and a high quality set of primes. The same bodies could have sported compact f/4 lenses to please everyone.
That boat has sailed, now Canikon have to defend both crop and full frame sensors, and the whole line up makes no sense.
Four thirds had a much smarter strategy here, and it's now paying off in micro four thirds...
The 70-200 f/4 seems like a competitive product next to the Nikon offering. I hope this means they will also update the little brother, the excellent DX 50-135 f/2.8 with VR. Now that is a stunning lens on DX.
The 12-28 is another obsolete lens on DX compared to the 11-16 f/2.8. With the 11-200mm range covered with excellent f/2.8 zooms (11-16, 17-55, 50-135, 70-200), and 35-50-85mm covered with excellent primes, DX needs some wide angle primes to be revived. With no fast 18 and 24mm DX primes, the system is dead compared to FX and MFT. MFT has 12, 14, 17 and 20mm primes.
Airless: This has got to be the worst product announcement in the history of digital cameras. Nikon is going to get destroyed by this failure of a system.
Why? One day these 1" sensors will outperform today's full frame sensors. Nikon is offering an alternative to micro four thirds. Nikon 1 and micro four thirds are the only future-proof systems at the moment...
Sam Carriere: Every lens ever made has other lenses that can be substituted for it. That sure doesn't mean they are equal either in value or quality.The XF 18-55, given its amazing build quality and superb optics, is actually priced quite conservatively People who want something cheaper matched to the camera with a third party adapter, should go for it. But they should not delude themselves into believing that a Focus is actually a Mercedes.
I suspect the Fuji is based on the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8-4, which is $200. These new Fuji lenses are overrated.
digifan: Looks like some license money for Olympus, if true. The 12mm and 17mm already have that tech.
Tokina has had this for years... I bet Tokina's patent expired or something...
Guidenet: I really don't like the term "Travel Lens" when it comes to these optically poor long ratio zoom lenses. I think this is an excuse to put convenience ahead of quality for someone who has lost some of their passion for photography and are looking for an easy way out. I know that sounds insulting and I really don't intend it to be so, but have a really hard time understanding interest in these type zoom lenses.
When we travel, it's often a special time away from the daily grind of work or maybe the boredom of retirement. Regardless, we're going somewhere we wish to visit maybe more exciting than staying at home. Why would we want to record this special time with mediocre glass? Wouldn't we want to take the extra effort to carry our best when taking once in a lifetime shots?
What do we use our "good" glass for that stays at home during these holiday events? Do we own and use good glass? I would think traveling is a special time where we can really put the good stuff to good use. :-)
The ultimate "travel" setup is an Olympus PEN-style camera with a handful of high quality primes.
Lugging around a DSLR with a giant mediocre lens kind of defeats the point.