Photographer Joshua Cripps was lucky enough to get hold of one of the company's new lenses recently, for a shoot in Patagonia. Joshua took the new AF-S Fisheye NIKKOR 8-15mm F3.5-4.5E ED, along with his D810, to the southern area of the country. There, he shot the mountains, lakes and glaciers that make Patagonia such a popular location with photographers.
The sun setting over as mountain in southern Patagonia. Photo by Joshua Cripps, used with permission.
While many people avoid fisheye lenses on the (mistaken) assumption that they will always create unnaturally distorted images, Joshua found that with practice, the 8-15mm can be used to create very naturalistic compositions, with the benefit of a much wider field of view than would be possible with a conventional wide-angle lens.
As well as stills, he also used the new 8-15mm to create some time-lapse video.
I'm sure this is a fantastic lens that's a lot of money. I have a Rokinon 12/2.8 and a Altura 8/3.0 and both of these are fantastic with some cool little features. I've use both in astro work and I can't complain at all. They aren't big money so may not get rave reviews but I'm not big money and I'm giving both of the 5 stars when shot on my 3 Nikon crop sensor cameras.
Hi all, do you think this 8-15mm can substitute the 14-24 at the ultra wide end of this lens, when the distortion is corrected. I shoot funky events and see this lens useful for some fun effects. Thus I can carry the 24-70 and skip the 14-24, then go to the 8-15mm. I save weight but also can increase range at the wide end.
Buy the Rokinon 8mm fisheye as a declicked cinema lens. Much cheaper and better. I carry the Rokinon 8mm, 50mm Nikon and a Petzval. The Petzval is especially interesting for video where you want to control dynamic focus, vignette, bokeh and depth repeatedly with two distinct mechanisms.
The ability to shoot photos like these are why I have wanted the Tokina 10-17mm fisheye in Nikon mount for years and years. I need to get off my duff and buy a D5300 and that lens . . . or this new Nikon lens.
You would be better off buying a refurb D7100 with the Tokina. If you want the ability to AF (you may be saying "but it's a fisheye!!", fair enough, but in low light you'd be screwed), go with a midrange body. I use the D7100+10-17 and it is fantastic.
There is no difference in image quality between the D7100 and the D5300. Same sensor. The D5300 has full AF-P compatibility, while the D7100 only partial (can't turn off VR). That said, the handling improvements of the twin dial D7100 body might and superior AF system make the choice a no brainer for some.
I'm not yet convinced a fisheye is something I want to get anytime soon. Yeah, you can do some real cool stuff with them, but I'd much prefer an ultra wide, like a 12-15mm ultra wide instead. But that's just me, as I focus on landscapes and architecture. Maybe at some point in the future, I'll consider getting one (After prices have dropped--hopefully--and settled down a bit or there are some used 8-15mm Fisheyes for Nikon FF on the used market... Plus, while it's not the same, I'd rather give images the fisheye-effect later in post, rather than being locked into an image that was taken with a fish eye (yes, I know this goes against my belief that you cannot always do everything in LR/PS). That or I'd have to take two shots: one with the fish eye and one with a normal/wide angle lens. I guess the compelling thing about this lens is that it has AF, whereas most of the others I've found for Nikon FF are manual focus.
Nikon already makes a 10-24mm ultra-wide, and this 8-15 fisheye is not a replacement for that, but a wider option. You can't get anywhere near as much into the photo with the 10-24 as you can with this fisheye.
But isn't the 10-24mm a DX lens? I'm looking for something for FX (I think I might be able to use DX mode on my D750 for that lens, but I think I'd only get an effect resolution of 12 or 16MP. I was also talking about getting an ultra-wide and doing fisheye effects in post, rather than out of the camera (for now, until I decide to get a fisheye, which I'm not sure about at this point).
If you want a super wide straight lens for FX, try the Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 II. It has worked well for me, but needs "post processing" most of the time. Extremely reasonably priced, and remember to look used. The new Sigma 12-24 f/4 I don't believe is worth the extra money or the extra weight and bulk. Nikkor will only take super-wide FX down to 14mm.
I'm mostly doing landscapes anyways, or architecture, all of which I would normally shoot at f/8 or higher apertures (up to around f/16 or f/22) so I'll have to look into the 14-24 Sigma, if it does produce similar results as the Nikon (the extra post processing isn't an issue, unless I'm spending a lot of time--1+ hours--fixing issues that otherwise would not occur in the Nikon version).
Venus Lens Laowa has got a great 12mm f2.8 prime with almost no distortion. That may be a great option, especially if you shoot architecture. No AF and no zoom, so it isn't an allround solution.
The photos look great and they make good use of the fisheye effect! Your fisheye timelapses are inspiring for their beauty and tranquility. I already have a manual focus Samyang 8mm which sees quite a bit of use in daylight, astrophotography and infrared. While autofocus would be convenient, I'm a little skeptical for the need for a zoom fisheye, especially when the resulting selling price puts it so far out of reach ($1700 CAD).
A very ODD lens indeed. From circular fisheye to full frame fisheye on FF.
Personally, I have zero interest in the circular fisheye part of this, and little need for a zoom that ends up filling the frame. I already own a Nikkor 16mm f3.5 so I am pretty much covered, fisheye wise.
In hands of people who don't know better, ultrawide photos can get boring real fast even in supreme settings. You know, the kind who go around saying no one needs ultrawide because pano works just as well.
It's actually pretty easy to take a boring photo when you go so wide, as alluded to above... Look for threads of a first timer's UWA shots, there's always more than a few that feature 1/3rd of a frame of huge empty sky, 1/3rd of featureless ground, and a tiny 1/3rd of the frame depicting some sorta far away looking landscape. A FE might not push the middle away quite so badly but it still has the same potential, letting the distortion overpower every shot etc.
Actually, it's quite possible to take bad photos in this area. Light changes all the time, from dull overcast to super-harsh contrast. Shooting the eastern face of Fitz Roy in the morning was a new experience in dynamic range, the mountain just laughed at my 3+2 stop ND grads.
Except for the bee shot, I can't find another shot that would not have been better served by another type of lens.
I really hope Joshua has taken aditional optics, as this is the kind of trip that would be a pity to have been wasted on such a uninspiring optical tool.
What is better is obviously subjective, but I personally find fisheyes look more like what I see with my eyes for some reason. I used to have a non zoom 15mm fisheye, and I loved it on a crop body. Great for close portraits in my opinion, as they don't distort like a typical wide.
But here's the thing, if you don't like the effect, you can adjust the amount of rectilinearity (real word?!) in post process. Lightroom makes this easy for example. You can do the same in reverse to create a fisheye effect from a normal wide, but it never looks quite right.
I'm with PhotKhan on this, though I'd stop short of calling it an "uninspiring tool". Perhaps the shooter just didn't find the right inspiration. My 14-24 can rest easy, as this FE zoom sure isn't going to displace it.
Just to make things clearer, I meant "uninspiring" in the sense of what was lost in those locations, with that light, by being forced to use this lens instead of a, say, Nikon 14-24. Fisheyes on landscapes are not very effective tools unless the "narrative" specifically makes use of their characteristics - like it so beautifully does in that bee shot.
Well, I have to say the photo of the river with the waterfall at the right would not be possible in a single photo with a 14-24mm f2.8 G. That's my favorite photo of this set, and without that 8-15mm fisheye or some other fisheye, that photo would not be possible.
BTW, an 8-15 fisheye is like three lenses in one, so why would he need anything else?
I'm sure he would never bother taking anything else, like a 24-70. I mean what use would a lens with such a narrow view offer to a landscape photographer?
Will this be the last Nikon lens produced by Fujifilm take the company over? Will be interesting how things work out for Nikon. I've never owned a Nikon but have a lot of respect for the products, especially the SLRs going way back. Having now adopted Fujifilm X series, I hope that it does indeed stay a Japanese firm and not get watered down with quality issues if China gets a hold on it.
The Canon 8-15 is a regular in my bag and, with care, can make some great shots. A lot of people when thinking of fisheye lenses forget that any straight line will stay straight if it runs (or can be extended to run) through the centre of the FOV.
So horizons stay straight if through the middle of the frame.
Of course, the number of clients happy with circular images does limit the amount of use at shorter focal lengths, but the Canon lens has helped produce some excellent 44" square prints (circular image @8mm) that work very well.
Add to this tools like fisheye hemi and you have a lot of options for how you choose your final image geometry
Hope that gives a bit of a feel for how I use fisheye lenses?
Stick with it when you get one - they really can justify the time to get a feel for what can be done. Let others dismiss them as just for trick use ;-)
Thanks for the links Keith, some nice shots and good advise in there!
I already have a Nikon 10.5mm DX Fisheye, so I am not a complete fisheye newbie, but it is not wide enough to provide a full circular image. I also use Fisheye Hemi to correct the shots, so it was really useful seeing how it worked with the 8-15mm :)
Am I the only one to notice that this lens doesn't cover Full-Frame at 8-12mm, which for most film-makers it means "Don't Buy, avoid". Or am I missing something?
hi, i wonder when you say Patagonia what place are you referring exactly. I mean it can be confusing for people as Patagonia is an extremely big region of Argentina and Chile. It would be like saying US West coast, or the likes... The first one looks like Perito Moreno Glacier, Santa Cruz, Argentina.
Agreed. Patagonia is a massive area. For the most part these photos were taken in Torres del Paine National Park in Chile and Los Glaciares in Argentina. There are also a few from the Alabama Hills in California.
For those of us who have been lucky enough to have been to the Perito Moreno Glacier--it's unmistakable.
I'm not sure I see much to recommend this over my 12-24 lens. But since I've never shot with anything this wide, real-life shooting experience might, of course, change that opinion.
Actually Chile does have impressive glaciers, they are just hard to get to as there are no roads in western Patagonia. Boat might get you there. And Perito Moreno starts on the Chilean side to some degree - some of the peaks you see in the pic are on the Chilean side.
sorry, my point was to encourage to be more precise when mentioning places outside of US. In the Patagonia region you have the mountains but also the shores, so for instance from July-October you can see Australis Whales, they go to breed to Valdes Peninsula, at Port Madryn. There's many other sea wildlife. So with enough time and seek for adventure someone could start there and then go to the Andes side of the country through Eskel, Bariloche, San Martin de los Andes, then Calafate, Ushuaia cross to Chile or whatever you want. The region has several national parks from Argentina and Chile side too, however distances are big as I mentioned "Patagonia" is an enormous region. There are also cruisers expeditions that goes to amazing places https://www.australis.com/. My dream would be to be able to visit them all, someday.
"on the (mistaken) assumption that they will always create unnaturally distorted images" 'Distortion' surely refers to scale and perspective, as well as lines. Ultra-wide and fisheyes will always result in distorted images, distortion which we might or might not like; but it is unavoidably there.
No, distortion refers to linear objects not being linear. Most UW lenses do not result in distorted images because they are corrected (optical design and or software processing).
Exactly, for a fish this would be perfectly natural! Joking aside everything that is not projected to an half sphere (like our retina) will seem unnatural, unless you have no reference to understand the projection (like it happens with natural landscapes, if you keep the horizon in the middle).
All lenses cause distortion. This is because they are smashing a spherical world onto a flat surface. Since long lenses are smashing only a tiny portion of that sphere, the distortion isn't very noticeable. Ultrawides always create noticeable distortion because they are capturing so much of the sphere.
This issue is, what type of distortion is preferable for a given shot?
Rectilinear ultrawides keep straight lines straight but turn circles into ovals and stretch the heck out of anything near the corners.
Fisheye ultrawides keep circles circular and don't stretch the corners but they turn curved lines that don't point at the center of the image frame into curves.
Personally, I find fisheye distortion preferable to rectilinear distortion on about 98% of my ultrawide shots, and I absolutely love my Canon 8-15 on my crop camera where it's wider than the 11-24 on full-frame and can be fisheye or defished, in part or in full, to rectilinear.
@virtualreality We can perceive the word as: - keeping eyes still: 180°, but projected on an half sphere, and only the middle is sharp; - moving the eyes: only the sharp middle is important, we see the world as a scan of a lot of pictures of a fov like a 200-300 mm, that merged are like a spherical projection. I may say that the problem is not the lens, nor the world, but the way we have to see pictures, flat prints and screens. Seen from a VR, or printed inside a sphere they would look natural. That's the same exact problem of flat world maps.
From the point of view of the lens aperture, which is small relative to the world, the world is spherical. The aperture is a point looking around from the center of the sphere (let's ignore macro and telecentricity for this discussion). The mapping of that spherical world onto the flat plane of the sensor or film (called "projection") is the same problem as trying to map the spherical globe onto a flat map - something has to give.
And you're wrong, since rectilinear lenses have exactly the same problem (mapping a spherical world onto a flat plane). And as I already said, at least for me, most of the time rectilinear distortion is *worse* on ultrawides. To put it another way, when I got my fisheye, I nearly stopped using my rectilinear ultrawide.
Toselli above said it right - those 180 degree IMAX domes use a fisheye lens with the image projected onto the inside of a half-sphere. That's really the only way to do imagery without distortion.
A room with round tables - an ultra wide rectilinear makes the walls looks straight but makes the tables look badly shaped. The fisheye will give curved walls but the tables will look right. Fisheye large group shots looking down from a step ladder look far better for people because the people at the sides don't look double width. You can try and remove volume deformation from a rectilinear lens and you can defish a fisheye image either in both axis or just one.
virtualreality - the world is spherical from the point of view of the camera aperture. This is utterly obvious. The camera aperture is a small point and the world is all around it.
@virtualreality: so explain why to my eyes (and pretty much everyone else's) both fisheye and rectilinear feels wrong approaching wide angles. Try an 11 mm lens on a landscape, grass leaves on the extreme borders will look huge compared to their sisters in the middle (at the same distance obviously), even if the lens is perfectly level. Narrowing the FOV the rectilinear projection feels natural, at the same way you can compare lenghts more accurately on a flat map of a country rather than using a world one. A spherical globe by the way is accurate, as a picture on vr.
One of the reasons Photography as a serious or semi serious hobby sucks is the cost of lenses, this looks a lot of fun to use, to have in the bag for certain shots, and of a quality that will not let down your craft skills , but it over 1200 bucks, naaaah! not happening.
I'm always baffled how people can tell properties of lenses or cameras they never used. They sure must be very experienced to be able to judge this well.
How can anyone tell from the small size and sharpened images that were posted? I have the Canon one and it's amazing on a 20MP camera, it's pretty amazing on a 50MP camera but needs a bit more work. I'd assume as the Canon one already existed the Nikon one is in the ballpark. A few examples at 50MP (combined): http://www.viewat.org/?i=en&id_aut=7366&id_pn=26879&pag=1&sec=pn
No. Three points made: excellent imagery; food for thought on time lapse; and I'm an M43 user, who has 7-14 and fisheye with which I'm very happy. A 2x crop factor is a price I'm happy to pay. But then, it pays back with the 100-400mm. Clearly, you should try getting out of the other side of the bed tomorrow morning.
You jumped into the convo on a lens that your format has absolutely no equivalent for, 4-7.5mm, to proclaim you prefer your format's options that are not at all the same or even able to cover the same focal lengths.
I made an original comment, you were the second person to reply, albeit unnecessarily negative when you could've kept you could have simply said nowt. Get over it. I just did :-)
I've never seen anyone on DPR jump into the comments for a product that has nothing to do with their camera system to say, "muh unrelated camera system is cool!"
One of the best fisheyes one can buy for DX is the Sigma 10mm, hands down. Incredible sharpness, flare-resistance, beautiful sunstars, and nice colors.
For FX, the Sigma 15 is VERY good.
Not zooms, but you aren't giving anything up, IMO.
I have the 15/2.8 sigma on full frame, and I can say that it is really good, especially at the price it can be found. It has an incredible sharpness, even at 2.8! it can also focus pretty close, really important on such a wide angle! The only downsides are the colors, they are balanced as other classic sigmas, the sky as an example usually has an unpleasant slight magenta cast (to me at least).
It would be interesting to see side by side comparisons with other 15, 16mm fisheyes to see how the projection geometry compares. Optically, I bet it is optimised for full frame settings and believe it will be superior to other fisheyes available for F mount. The specs indicate very high magnification and this would give the lens another function and use. The original set here - more excellent images on both formats https://www.joshuacripps.com/2017/05/nikon-nikkor-8-15-fisheye-sample-photos/
#1, 4, 5, and 8 show how it's easily possibly to mask fisheye distortion in nature by just keeping the horizon centered and level. Well executed shots... Not sure I'd ever splurge on a FE zoom but I do love my little Samyang/Bower FE.
It's easier to look at the AoV than the FL, there's more than one way to defish and crop the result (and more than one projection to choose when doing so, straight up rectilinear vs Panini etc), but generally it'll still present a wider view than an equivalent rectilinear UWA.
My Pentax 17-28mm fisheye on APSc sensor shows left-right coverage similar to a 14mm rectilinear. Even at 28mm one gets wider coverage than a straight 28, though I don't have anything to compare it to.
I tried once with the lightroom presets on my sigma 15/2.8 (diagonal fisheye), and the effect was incredibly unrealistic. It seems something that doesn't even exist like a 6-8 mm rectilinear on full frame! Things towards the margin look a lot bigger than the ones in the middle! And obviously you loose a lot of sharpness outside the central portion.
Technically, it doesn't zoom -- the full Rectangle image simply becomes a Circle image surrounded by black. Its not a zoom lens. Or do you mean that you want to see a video of the circle progression, as one twists the lens?
@global Ofcourse it does zoom. What you describe is exactly what zoom lenses do. The only difference is the image circle, wich seems to be small and hard limit.
So, we all know that the *DIAGONAL* viewing angle of a fisheye lens is 180 degrees, but can anyone measure the freaking horizontal and vertical viewing angles? The angles that are much more important to folks who are considering something like this, versus a 12mm Sigma fisheye (potentially wider horizontal viewing angle) versus the classic Nikon 16mm fisheye? (barely wider than a 14mm, let alone a 11mm or 12mm rectilinear...)
Diagonal fisheyes have all roughly the same angle of horizontal and vertical view, and exactly the same diagonal one (180°). Don't think the following sentence for zooms, but for diagonal fisheye primes: keeping the same fov (180°) between different lenses the focal length only enlarges or shrink the central portion, thus making the objects towards the border thinner or thicker. Theoretically you could make a 300 mm fisheye for full frame, the things on the middle will look big, but those on the edges of the "bubble" would rapidly shrink, as the lens has to see 180°.
@Toselli, not true. Unless one of these fisheye lenses is not technically "diagonal". The difference in horizontal angle of view is HUGE. https://youtu.be/9zZTUyKlu0s?t=4m51s
Also, based on my inspection of images from the Sigma 15 Fisheye versus the Nikon 16 fisheye, neither do I believe that central "magnification" is directly correlated to the mm of the lens. (The Sigma, though 1mm wider, has a way MORE bulging, bloated central area.)
@matthew saville You are right, there's a difference between the two, not really big in my opinion but still appreceable. I thought the focal length of a fisheye was correlated with the central magnification, and thus to the kind of projection, but at this point I think that the focal length is only a number without correlation on the real world. I had the samyang 8 for apsc, that really behaves like the 12 for full frame, and I have to say I preferred its projection to the one of the sigma 15 I have now, it was wider all around, more natural looking than the sigma that makes a strong "bulge" in the middle. But the sigma is way sharper and more contrasty...
There are no "recilinear" shots with the 8-15 as it's incapable of making them. Full frame fisheye is often used to describe a fisheye image that covers the entire frame. Of course that's confusing given that "full frame" is also used to refer to the sensor size.
If you take something like Nikon's current 16mm fisheye, hold it dead horizontal, it produces a fairly normal-looking but wide image. Pointing it downward or angling it upward makes the fisheye effect more apparent.
Some might simply be cropped, or there's just nothing in the frame to make the distortion obvious. #4 is the only one where I see a very off centre horizon, the rest have mountain ranges and a bunch of stuff that feature very few straight lines so it's harder to spot the distortion (several have a slightly curved horizon regardless).
Beautiful use of the lens. But still doesn't have 1:1 pixel images for us pixel peepers. I still have no idea how this lens compares to the 8mm and 16mm fisheyes I own now. I'll have to try one in person I guess. Local shop says they may have one this week!
Even luckier to have access to such exotic locations! Very envious! I'm stuck in the city doing wedding shoots and only occasionally go to the beach resorts for wedding-related events. Business being good also means not having time to do other stuff, but a person's got to pay his bills...
The catch is that a fisheye is a very special-purpose lens and this isn't cheap. The budget way to do this is either style of fisheye lens and a teleconverter or focal reducer to give you the other style of fisheye. For example, an 8mm Samyang on FF gives a roughly circular image (slightly clipped, but about 190 degrees), but using a 1.4X-1.5X teleconverter makes it cover corner to corner.
Nikon has announced a full-frame 8-15mm F3.5-4.5 fisheye lens. The lens is circular at its wide end and non-circular at its long end on FX bodies, and will set you back $1249.
In addition to traditional landscapes, Emily Dickey and Dustin LeFevre photograph self portraits in formalwear at the remote locations they seek out. Read more
Recently, DPReview staffer Carey Rose took a personal trip to Iceland with the D810 in tow, while one of his travel buddies packed a Theta S along with his usual kit. Check out how the current state of accessible 360-degree stills capture compares to a good old-fashioned DSLR. Read more
José Francisco Salgado is an Emmy-nominated astronomer, photographer and educator. He joined us when took Nikon’s D810 and D810A down to southern California recently to capture the stunning desert vistas and night skies near Death Valley. See video
Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.
No Nikon camera we've tested to date balances stills and video capture as well as the Nikon Z7. Though autofocus is less reliable than the D850, Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless gets enough right to earn our recommendation.
Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. While it's great for lunar and still wildlife photography, we found that it's not suited for much else.
As a stills camera the Fujifilm X-T3 is a pleasant update to one of our favorite APS-C cameras, significantly improving the autofocus. If you're interested in stills and video, though, it's knockout.
The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.
What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Nikon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.
What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.
Keith Ladzinski is a wildlife and adventure photographer and filmmaker based in Colorado. In this interview he explains the background to his most recent project, and looks back at what's changed since he bought his first digital camera in 2004.
As a D750 owner and someone primarily concerned with still photography, DPR staffer Dan Bracaglia does not see a compelling enough reason to go Nikon mirrorless - yet. But that may not be the case for you.
Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.
We spoke to wildfire photographer Stuart Palley about his experiences shooting the recent Woolsey fire, why the Nikon Z7 isn't quite ready to take a permanent spot in his gear bag, and 'that' Tweet from Donald Trump.
The Z7 presented Nikon with a stiff challenge: how to build a mirrorless camera that measures up to its own DSLRs and can deliver a familiar experience to Nikon users. Chris and Jordan tell us whether they think Nikon succeeded.
Nikon's D3500 may be an inexpensive DSLR, but the company didn't cut corners when it comes to image quality. See how it handled fall colors and tropical seas in our sample gallery.
Nikon has released firmware version 1.02 that resolves a flickering issue when scrolling through images, an ISO limitation problem, and an occasional crash that could occur when displaying certain Raw files.
DxO announces the latest update to Nik Collection (version 1.1) that brings better compatibility, fewer bugs to the plugin suite it acquired from Google a year ago
Nikon USA has announced that its Z6 full-frame mirrorless camera will be shipping Friday, November 16th at a price of $1999 body-only and $2599 with the Nikkor Z 24-70 F4 S lens.
The Insta360 One X is the company's latest consumer 360-degree camera, supporting 5.7K video, including excellent image stabilization, as well as 18MP photos. And, in our experience, it's a really fun camera to use.
Comments