nachos: I use the BosStrap. I don't like strap systems that use the tripod mount. Besides getting in the way if you're on and off a tripod, that mount is not designed for hanging. You can find plenty of pictures of bent camera bottoms when a heavy lens has been shlepped around for awhile. And that point can easily rattle itself loose.
The BosStrap just uses one of the existing camera strap hooks which are designed for supporting such loads. And it doesn't get in the way of moving on and off a tripod.
I'm not affiliated with the company, just found it to be a good solution...
I may be wrong, but it looks like it uses both the strap lugs and turns into a normal neckstrap that way? On the BoS it functions similar to a rapid strap and only uses one lug.
I use the BosStrap. I don't like strap systems that use the tripod mount. Besides getting in the way if you're on and off a tripod, that mount is not designed for hanging. You can find plenty of pictures of bent camera bottoms when a heavy lens has been shlepped around for awhile. And that point can easily rattle itself loose.
Mature market approaching saturation.
Gollan: Who is the target customer for this camera and what photos are they selling that can return the cost in a reasonable time-frame? I know it says "professional photography", but is someone going to hike into the wilderness with this camera system and stand in an icy lake to take photos? Certainly no one will use this expensive 100 MP camera in a studio to take pictures of clothes, products and food... or will they?
I won't get into that. From the professional perspective, which includes a business cost-benefit analysis, it's hard to justify the cost - even renting it. That's why I think there's a larger market with wealthy amateurs for who cost is less of a factor.
Who knows though, there could be some defense/military uses that sell a lot too.
Most professionals don't have a use for the resolution or have the budget. Some might rent it on a job by job basis, but it'll still run you over a grand just to do that, before lenses. I'm a working ad photographer - very few clients know or care about equipment, but they do care about the estimated costs. Unless there is a very specific technical reason to rent it for a job, almost all would prefer to save the money.
The wealthy amateur market is not to be disregarded. There are plenty of jewelry brands and stores making a living selling $50,000 watches and far more expensive shiny baubles. For those types of customers - if photography is their hobby, such a price tag is not too much. I think that would be larger than the rental and studio market combined.
Dotes: I am sure it is great and all but what makes it different from all the jpeg optimizers that have been around, like, forever?
Those work by carving out extraneous information like profiles and exif data and/or using the progressive jpeg algorithm. It's a little more recent. Progressive jpegs are actually smaller, when you get above 10k bytes.
They don't do much, if any, analysis of image content to select a compression setting. That's what jpeg mini does, in addition to the above tricks.
notpc: Just tried it for the first time. I was excited given the results seen here, but what I found out was that with my existing files saved by photoshop, the typical savings was only 1.3x to 1.4x. That's something, but nowhwere near what they're claiming.
On the other hand, I'm already compressing quite a bit. Perhaps jpegmini's compression is superior if the original compression is at very high quality. If that will give me better final files then great. But since I typically use raw and compress tiffs into jpeg, this seems lke an inefficient way to do it. After all, the initial compession introduces artifacts, so the second copression has to deal with those as if they are detail. Seems that better files could be generated if jpegmini could accept tiffs or pngs.
A photoshop plugin would be nice, yes.
We use it for images going on the web. It's a timesaver because it picks the right balance of quality and small file size. But we don't want to give up perceptive quality. Small file size = reduced loading time = better google rank. Very popular websites may see reduced bandwidth charges.
Your images are already fairly compressed and it can't do much better. It won't touch them at all if it can't do any better. Think of it like this, when you're saving a jpeg do you painstakingly find the best quality level, or just pick something like 5 or 6? This software analyzes the image and picks the most compression it can get away with without affecting visible quality. It varies for each image and that's where the analysis algorithm comes in.
bobbarber: I'm curious as to what this software does that isn't already possible.
When I save as jpeg in gimp, I get a "quality" slider that lets me choose a percentage. It defaults to different percentages depending on the photo, but is often around 90%. I used to say, "Oh, no!" and immediately bump it up to 100%.
Then, in order to send jpegs via email and reduce their size, I tried reducing quality. I found that I could really bump down the "quality" without noticing a difference. I'm hesitant to put a number here, because I don't really remember, but I certainly could get to 50% quality without noticing any differences (are my eyes just not good?) and I believe even 30% and lower in some cases. At some point the images were affected, and at the lowest quality settings were posterized.
So here's the idea. Depending on the image, you might be able to get away with 30%, others artifacts will be noticeable at 60%.
We used to just save at 80% for web. It was always very good. But for many images, this is overkill and a waste of bandwidth. You can experiment with different levels - but who has time for that? That's where jpeg mini comes in. It analyzes the image and then picks the most compression it can get away with. If it can't get away with any, it won't touch the image.
The devil is the analyze stage of the process and they have a few academic papers out there describing how it works.
The best use for this is for reducing transfer time. We recompressed all the photos on our website using jpeg mini and saved a good chunk.
From a business standpoint, google rankings are affected by how long a page takes to load, especially on mobile. We carved about 3 mb off the front page with no loss of quality. It was an easy improvement. Over time, this increases business.
If you have an image heavy website, jpeg mini works great. I put it through its paces before buying it, trying some of the other plugins like RIOT, but it was by far the easiest to use and its claims held up.
No relation to them, just a satisfied customer...
brownie314: Is Nikon not aware of the current situation in the camera market? Why throw more uber high priced lenses at a market where people are willing to spend less money?
I am the market for it, a commercial photographer. I picked up the outgoing 24-70 to replace my 28-70 a few months ago during a KEH sale, and I'll say while its a good lens it's not a great lens. I've struggled with autofocus throughout its range (even with microadjustments) and the rendition quality is good but not great on a D800E. I'm not a pixel peeper type either. It basically fixed some old issues on the 28-70 which I probably could have held on to.
This new lens has more glass as you can see by the wider filter front. This may fix edge quality issues as it will crop off where a lens is at its weakest. The VR will help keep it sharp on higher resolution cameras. I think I'll hold on to my current 24-70 though, it only sees occasional use and just have to watch out for AF misses.
FocusBogus: Still not fully electronic shutters on mirrorless cameras in 2015? Sounds like a conspiracy: camera industry can sell some generations of cameras with mechanical shutters and later generations without them.
Global electronic shutter exists on feature film sony cameras, eventually it will trickle down. It's a technical challenge to implement at a yield rate that will allow for lower costs, on high resolutions (4k video camera not as hard...) Eventually though. And that will be great when it does.
exapp: Hope they fixed the performance issues with Lightroom CC, develop module is almost unusably slow.
CC version is a disaster to use and is many many time slower than LR 5.7 and that's on a current gen PC with lots of RAM and SSDs hate to see what it would be like on an old machine.
I've seen a few graphics glitches appear with the last CC update. Could be an OpenGL/CL issue. Try updating your video driver.
christom: Aerial camera? Military?
A more interesting story would be the ultimate aerial camera ever made, the one that was on the SR-71.
Now this is a camera... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-9_Hexagon
Gionni Dorelli: Once I have sold my phase one system few years ago, I never looked back.I just rent them sometimes when I really have to.When do I really have to?When we need to print the photos for cosmetics and jewelry Ads for large displays to be used in luxury shopping malls and in the rare eventual case that an AD push for using one. Or for shooting "groupage" with many models.
The big draw back of these systems are that even with the highest Mp resolution, because of their slowness in Af and operation, they will give you way less keepers and most of the images will not be not tack sharp if the models are moving even so slightly. Negating most of the advantages of the high MP count.No mentioning that Schneider lenses or the Fujinon design of the Hasselblads lenses deliver a very nervous and aseptic look and bokhe.
We end up spending so much time just checking menial things like focus and flipping back and forth between candidates. It's such a huge waste of time when micrometers become significant and it takes away from the artistry
RPJG: As pointed out, you can shoot at F/22 and still have extraordinarily small DoF that a small shift in model or camera position will throw out, and it becomes more visible as pixels increase.
And of course you use AF - with high MP systems you have to rely on it. The human eye just can't resolve well enough in the viewfinder to make critical judgment. With static subjects you can use live view, but with dynamic shoots, good AF is a must. And even good AF is hit or miss.
It's a hard problem to solve. Pixel counts are honestly kind of getting in the way of making good work now. Technical issues that would've once been minor are now significant and take time away from the more important "big picture" issues.
With enough pixels you may be surprised how visible movement is at even seemingly high shutter speeds. High ISO is not these camera's specialty so it would not be unusual to keep the shutter speed down under 1/400 where movement is VERY visible. It is a common issue that is not easy to work around.
groucher: Medium format starts to gain some of the useless clutter and featureoids that bedevil smaller formats. Depressing.
internal wifi networks are quite different than an external connection - where your modem connects to the internet. Two computers connected over 802.11x moves data much faster than the common cable modem. For example, my cable connection downloads at 50mbps and uploads at 5. My internal network is moving at well over 10 times that.
As for EyeFi, it's not a great piece of equipment and I don't think you can extrapolate what it does to others.
MAGMATCICO62: Greatly overpriced. The Pentax 645D is much much cheaper with the same CMOS sensor
Until very recently, one of the D800's other advantages over MF was much better moderate and high ISO.
Mirrorless isn't shutterless yet....but soon. Once global shutter trickles down from the video market, there will be no use for leaf shutters.
Like I said, if I already had a back on a technical camera - where these backs really shine - and was looking for a handhold platform for that back, this would certainly be a step in the right direction. But investing in leaf shutter lenses and a $41k+ rig... yeesh. I don't know. It's hard to make the numbers work.