Martin Datzinger: Mirrorless is oh-so-much lighter than SLR, yeah right. Compare this lens to Leica's own 28-90mm f/2.8-4.5 Aspherical Vario-Elmarit-R: The SLR lens is 4cm shorter and 400g lighter.
Yes, comparison is not fair, the Nikkor has a 1/3 larger maximum entrance pupil.
It is what it is: Significantly heavier and probably larger than a D750+24-120/4VR (at ~4 times the price). Mirrorless cameras were once promised to be lighter and cheaper than SLRs!
Sorry, didn't see it was stabilised. And I don't question its optical superiority. But sorry, look at image #2. That just looks like a cartoon.
Mirrorless is oh-so-much lighter than SLR, yeah right. Compare this lens to Leica's own 28-90mm f/2.8-4.5 Aspherical Vario-Elmarit-R: The SLR lens is 4cm shorter and 400g lighter.
Virtual Reality immersion depends heavily on 3D and being able to move around. Unless you have live and exclusive access to a stereoscopic camera on a robotic arm following your motion tracking data or have the whole scene available as a massive volumetric point cloud, vast transfer speed and enormous computational power - or visualised by other means, true VR is not going to happen.
Sir Nick of High Point: Just an FYI for those who may not know. The reason that this lens needs BR Optic technology, as well as being so big and expensive, is because it is an SLR lens, which puts it at a disadvantage for anything less than 50mm.
The reason is due to the space behind the lens, which is required for the mirror.
If you want to shoot this focal length and don't need a an SLR, you would probably be better off picking up the EOS M3 and the 22mm f/2, which will not suffer from any of these problems. Not trying to diss this lens or step on any toes. I'm just trying to be helpful.
Sony / Zeiss Distagon 35 1.4 78.5 x 112.0 mm / 630 g / $1,598Canon 35 1.4 L II 80x106 mm / 760 g / $1,799
So that mirrorless bulk and budget wonder is 18% lighter, 5% longer and 12% cheaper.
WACONimages: 24-70mm $2399 In what world is Nikon living, on Mars maybe ;-)
Question is if the Nikkor is anywhere near as sharp and well built as the Canon
Martin Datzinger: Initial speed test with 15 D810 files, MacBook Pro Retina mid 2012, 2.3 GHz, 8GB RAM:
- Export 02:30 (LR5) -> 01:45 (LR6) with nearly optimum multicore utilization- Exposure adjustments very fluid- Graduated filter approximately ca 5-10 times as fast
And there is a very slight change in shadow rendition, LR6's is more natural IMO!
Hats off to Adobe, nice job!
Test on the desktop machine:
- Export is down to 1 minute straight- Building 1:1 previews is down to 01:30- 1:1 preview still useless in development module
Oddly enough, the Mac version is measurably faster in some aspects than the Windows version on the same hardware. Especially the setting changes (which I still applaud Adobe for) aren't as fluid under Windows as under Mac OS X. Which is odd, since the hardware I use isn't even from Apple and god knows why Nvidia even bothered to write a driver for a GPU that can't be ordered with or retrofitted into currently available Apple hardware.
I'm not impressed with this last test, most of all since pre-rendering 1:1 previews doesn't help image switching in development module as effectively anymore. However, one definite advantage remains: As soons as the initial calculations in LR6 are done after a switch between images, dialing in any sort of adjustment (apart from those on the "Detail" and "Effects" planes) happens in real time. LR cheats a little bit (at least noticably on retina displays) by doing it first in a lesser resolution (full resolution follows after about a second), but for getting an idea of the effect of, say, a shadow boosts or tone curve adjustment, this doesn't matter at all. In the end, LR6 feel a lot more fluid due to GPU support, even on my nearly 3 years old laptop!
I'm curious how this turns out on my new i7-5820K (6cores @ 4.4 GHz) desktop with nVidia GTX 980 (@1450 MHz) GPU!
- Switch between images with no previews rendered in Library module 11sec -> 11sec - Switch between images with no previews rendered in Development module 8sec -> 11sec (a decrease in performance)
- Build 1:1 Previews (Previews.lrdata files of both catalogs deleted first) 02:15 -> 02:00 (CPU utilization shows no substantial improvement)
- Switch between images with 1:1 previews rendered in Library module: both instant- Switch between images with 1:1 previews rendered in Development module 1.5 sec -> 6sec, this actually got much worse!
Initial speed test with 15 D810 files, MacBook Pro Retina mid 2012, 2.3 GHz, 8GB RAM:
Martin Datzinger: Flyaway issues solved by 4K camera and Lightbridge technology?
I remember videos where the drone isn't drifting away from wind, but heads of full speed to some distant point. At least it looked like it.
GPS getting completely confused due to the loss of 1 satellite? Seriously?
Thank you Kasra A, I guess most of the flyaways are/were pilot's fault but I don't believe all of the were. Good to see measures taken by the DJI!
Flyaway issues solved by 4K camera and Lightbridge technology?
Martin Datzinger: The production of a good video is such a completely different, more labour-intensive approach from the making of good photo, just because the consumption works so differently, that I have to smile when a camera claims to bridge that gap on its own. I have to laugh when someone demands both types of coverage ready-made by the same person, at the same moment of the same unrepeatable event, for the price of one photo assignment. And I have to cringe when I look at the outcome of a photographer who doesn't get this, but still tries, just because there is this red button on his DSLR. And it is more likely for a great photo to be taken with an iPhone than be pulled from a video stream.
Of course, there is great talent out there that is able to produce fantastic sequences with DSLRs. But most of the time that is artistic stuff and always dedicated videography. The claimed convergence however, in my opinion, will never happen. Or, as a media consumer, I hope it never will.
I know that. Because after a day shooting with the D810, I can feel it, having been rotated all the time. Which I wouldn't to the same extend if the Nikon's grip was as angled backwards as, say, an Oly E-5's or a Pentax 645Z's. Luckily the situation it is much better than with the D800, which I rejected partly because of this reason. Why are DSLR grips more or less straight? Because they stem from film cameras, which were more or less thin, straight vertical boxes. This severe ergonomical flaw was brought back to fashion with the advent of retro CSCs, which at least are significantly lighter, unless you put pro zoom lenses on them.
Of course it is happening, because it is highly trivial on a technical level. Sadly it also inevitably takes away from ergonomical dedication.
BTW I give kudos to the XC10's rotating grip. I'd like my photo cameras to have a more angled grip than very vertical ones they typically come with, which force the wrist joint in an extremely unhealthy position.
The production of a good video is such a completely different, more labour-intensive approach from the making of good photo, just because the consumption works so differently, that I have to smile when a camera claims to bridge that gap on its own. I have to laugh when someone demands both types of coverage ready-made by the same person, at the same moment of the same unrepeatable event, for the price of one photo assignment. And I have to cringe when I look at the outcome of a photographer who doesn't get this, but still tries, just because there is this red button on his DSLR. And it is more likely for a great photo to be taken with an iPhone than be pulled from a video stream.
Martin Datzinger: ZA 35/1.4: 79x112mm / 630g / €1600ZM 35/1.4: 63x65mm / 381g / €2000ZF 35/1.4: 78x120mm / 900g / €1650Sigma 35/1.4: 77x94mm / 665g / €700Nikon 35/1.4: 83x89.5mm / 600g / €1500
Of course, A7+ZA is smaller than any Nikon with any 35/1.4. But the difference is not so staggering as one is led to believe by the CSC hype. This isn't a 4/3 sensor to be illuminated after all (luckily). Still, I have best hopes that Sony will one day come out with a 35/1.8 in the size and price range of the 55/1.8. By then, the valid A7II points of criticism will be sorted out as well.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. A7II+55/1.8 combo is what I'd consider well-balanced and right what I'm looking for in a CSC+prime combo. 35/1.4 not so much.
I'm actually not going the Sigma Art Prime route right now because of the reasons I mentioned above.
So I hope Zeiss might come up with a 35/1.8 with the same focus on compactness as they did with the 55/1.8. Gladly, I'm not in a rush. If I need a fast prime, I can just rent one a few tram stations away.
I'm very much tempted to go Sony for prime shooting, btw. Mostly due to the 55/1.8 and because, owning a D810, I believe are CSCs are naturally better cameras for fast primes, in terms of on-plane AF, size and proper DoF preview. But the bulk and price of the ZA really puts me off.