Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 05/03/14 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    That will change. If you have a good look around the web at all the influential photographers with blogs you'll see that they are all embracing mirrorless. There are good reasons for that. The new cameras work better than DSLR's do. They cost less and the lenses are lighter and smaller. There used to be trade-offs. Those are gone.
  2. 2 points
    The grouping of a diverse set of observations into one tag, "doubters", is somewhat offensive. It's part of a practice sometimes described as "othering" in different contexts and I think you'll find if you study history that it is universally toxic. Damian
  3. 2 points
    Let me bounce this one of the doubters: A few million years ago a dirty great meteor hit the Earth and formed the Mexican gulf. The dinosaurs perished as a result of the global winter that followed and caused the lush vegetation that sustained the bloated, oversized dinosaurs to die off in the ice age that followed and the dinosaurs to starve to extinction as a result, yet the small and burrowing animals - the small reptiles, mammals and insects, and the small flying dinosaurs - the birds - survived, thrived and went on to repopulate the earth with smaller, more efficient life forms. Colloquially in the modern age, that which has evolved to its full potential, that which is obsolete, that which is superseded by more modern versions, and that which is generally larger than efficiency or technology dictates it has to be has become commonly referred to as a "dinosaur". See what I did there? :sungum:
  4. 2 points
    Well, I have issues with the mirrorless cameras ... the buttons are so small that they're difficult to use, many basic functions require going to the menu, and the EVFs cause me to feel sick so I'd prefer to use the back LCD, it doesn't cause nausea like the EVF does, since it's a tiny part of my visual field (but then I can't see the details at the same time as the whole image, so I think it's mostly suitable for the next step up from the mobile phone). With the optical viewfinder of the FX DSLRs I can see the subject without flicker or update artifacts, in real time, with enough detail that I can see the subject's expression clearly and time my shots correctly, which I can't seem to be able to do with EVF. At least if I use the back LCD I can look past the camera entirely and see the subject in real time. For short focal lengths this seems to be working ok. Of the DSLRs I prefer the D3/D4 form factor as these are large enough to fit my hands and comfortable to use also in vertical orientation. They also offer reasonably good eyepoint and recessed ocular which makes their use easy. I'm delighted with the extensive system of FX cameras and lenses that Nikon is now offering. Finally things are moving to a direction which I like. FX first revolutionized photography by allowing high image quality up to ISO 6400 (D3s) and then it did the same for low ISO captures with the D800, solving the most restrictive technical issue that has affected photography during the time it has existed: the issue of limited dynamic range, needed to tackle situations where the existing light is high contrast (e.g. candle light, or bright sunlight). After using the D800 since it came out, I now see images from MFT and Fuji X100s as being made of sand at base to mid ISO, and at high ISO ... well the less said the better. I can't possibly imagine going back to smaller formats for my photography after experiencing the tonality of the D800. On the contrary, due to the viewfinder issue of mirrorless cameras (apart from some Fuji models and Leica M series) is that they prevent me from seeing and timing exposures based on human emotion thus I couldn't do what I do at all with these other cameras that are based on EVF. And for the X100s, it is so far behind in image quality especially DR at base ISO that it feels like 5-7 year hit back memory lane to the time before FX, when I was using the D200. For high ISO the results were better than D200, for sure, but not something I found acceptable given what I have today. I think a healthy human should be able to carry about 20% on top of his body weight without difficulty. I normally carry just 10% over my body weight in terms of camera gear when I'm on foot for long periods and it is fine. I think 20% is a bit unpleasant. If one never does any exercise then I can see it would be an issue. When I use lighting or transport lighting to a location it can be about 25kg and I can do that even in public transport but wouldn't walk around for ten km with it personally - some who go backpacking in the wilderness and carry their clothes, camping gear, tent, cameras do, though. I think FX lenses and cameras are heavy but effective in terms of results and that's, in the end, all that matters to me. When I want lighter weight I use a prime or two and this substantially reduced the load while not giving up on the potential for high quality images in any light where a human can see the subject. It is likely to be my next camera. Who are those photographers you speak of? Wifi cannot be used at e.g. large sports venues since there is too much traffic and too many people wanting to use wifi. Ethernet works by contrast fine. I think Nikon knows very well what the target customers for this camera want since they're there watching and helping them out during the event. Also, the D4 and presumably the D4s supports the very small yet powerful WT-5 for wireless connections in situations where there is less traffic in the air. Some here requested more modularity - this is more modularity. Sony is also using XQD in a video camera. Anyway, XQD solves the two primary problems of SD and CF cards, namely the former have a mechanically fragile cover which is easy to break, and they're also so small that they're easy to misplace. The CF cards are used with devices that have pins that have been known to break in some cases. XQD has neither problem thus it would be best if it were adopted widely. No, we won't buy whatever they make. I was upset for a number of years when Nikon wouldn't make an FX camera. I bought a Mamiya 7 to compensate for Nikon making only DSLRs with tiny sensors. I can't really agree with that. Try photographing a choir concert in a dark church, ISO 6400, 1/80s, f/1.4, with a walking precession of singers purely lit by the candles they hold in their hands. Let me know how it goes with the Sony. To Fuji's credit it does have an optical viewfinder, and indeed the central shutter is quiet, but in the end I couldn't present concert images from it and the D800 together simply because of difficulty in getting consistent results from the two systems. The Fuji AF is unreliable in dim lighting unless the focus assist light is turned on, which in turn would look like the photographer had turned on a flashlight and pointed it at the singers (what is the benefit of a quiet shutter if the camera has such poor AF sensitivity in low light that it requires the use of a pointed light to get the camera to get any results at all?) Without the assit light the AF system was totally at a loss what to do (I didn't get any useable images in the church). I also didn't like the difficulty in getting similar colours from the X-Trans and my Nikons. The images up to ISO 1000 were detailed but nothing special; higher ISO images were distinctly blurred to mannequin level instead of showing the natural texture of skin, and didn't seem to have much tonal information in the jpgs; the RAW files didn't look that much better and I don't like the available raw conversion software that supports the non-standard Fuji X-Trans files. The low ISO (200) files shot in bright sunlight looked noisy in the shadows; this is not something I've seen in many years with my Nikons; in fact the only case where I remember having this issue is with an old Coolpix which also didn't have enough dynamic range to work with in sunlight. The D800 is much, much better in this respect. Any new camera worth investing should present a significant further improvement in dynamic range to justify investment. The D4s should do that for the mid to high ISO range (640 to 25k). But above all it lets me get ergonomics that I like, and is unlikely to clog down to too much data traffic in a fast paced situation. Who is Ashton Kutcher?
  5. 1 point
    Kapaa, Hawaii From this batch of 8: http://ronscubadiver.wordpress.com/2014/03/02/places-without-locations/
  6. 1 point
  7. 1 point
    I think the blue trees echo the starlight, so no problem for me. But if it bothered you, you could pop it into Lab colour space, mask it up using the blue, and warm up the light...
  8. 1 point
    Fred, when we are in Botswana later this year I will let you take some photos with the E-M1. Promise. You may not want to give it back. Just remember, I've used them all; DX, FX and m43. I chose m43. I get better quality from the E-M1 than I got from my D700. The most startling aspect of using the E-M1 is that I barely touch the images in post production. All these shots I have posted here this year from the E-M1 have only had minor toning applied to them (shadows, highlights, contrast). As good as my D700 was, I had to do a lot more to the NEF files than that before I put them online. Anyway, I didn't make this site for people to argue about cameras and sensors. It's a place of discovery, so let's not ruin that with petty stuff that is about as important as the municipal by-elections in Bora-Bora.
  9. 1 point
    I think both sides here are right! First, I have never used a Nikon D800 or D800E of DF or D4, but from what I've read, they remain top performing cameras. I really doubt that the mirrorless cameras that I'm using can compete with them, especially for things that move. Second, I still own a Nikon D300 camera. It's been my main camera for years now. I don't use it at all anymore because it's IQ looks like garbage compared to my mirrorless cameras. My first digital camera 10 years ago was the Sony Mavica. My mirrorless cameras today make photos I've made in the past with my D300 look as if they were made with an old Mavica camera. I've got a large inventory of digital image files from travels I've made with my D300. The fine detail in tree's leaves, and in grasses look like shear mush compared with the detail that I'm now getting with my mirrorless cameras. If someone were to ask me if I'd trade my mirrorless cameras for a D800E/D800/DF/D4, I'd do it in a minute. But I don't believe I'd do it for any of the other Nikon digital bodies which I consider to be inferior to the best mirrorless these days..
  10. 1 point
    There is thing in physics, mathematics and computer science called signal processing, that you don't mention. This enables even m43 and Nikon 1 to give excellent imagery and the Nikon D4s to achieve 400k ISO. The sensors have also achieved much better efficiency of collecting light than the case was just a few years ago. There is so much more to it all than just sensor size.
  11. 1 point
    Danie, The EM-1 also strikes me as a piece of art. It's just beautiful. I'm a sucker for great design, quality, and ergonomics. I almost want to sleep with it in bed next to me.
  12. 1 point
    I think we shall just use whatever suits each and every one of us best. Both EVF and OVF and rangefinders are technologies good enough to satisfy the users. Personally I still keep a dinosaur, the Leica M8 rangefinder. It's a dinosaur even with respect to ISO performance, but lives on and is still a great camera to use. The Leica rangefinder couldn't be made extinct by SLR, nor by autofocus, nor by digital and lastly nor by EVF. Maybe that is food for thought. OVF, EVF and rangefinders may live together for a long time to come to please and cater for different tastes and needs. Some millions of years old species have defied extinction, since they could adapt to a new environment. The OVF will stand a chance, by the manufacturers looking back at how good OVFs were in the manual focus camera film days and then acting on that. And find a way of adding live histogram to the OVF.
  13. 1 point
    I have Nikon, m43 (panny and olympus), E-mount. After giving up the DSLR for professional and personal shooting my photos got much better. I feel after these last few years, the DSLR held me back creatively, and the form factor was never comfortable for my face. @5 years ago the lack of primes for DX indicated that Nikon was abandoning APS-C for professionals. That is when I started investing in mirrorless, and now, it turns out my instincts were entirely correct. I am soo happy I didn't invest in FX, which I consider an antiquated system with no future. My present outlook is that if you have a DSLR with an OVF you are working so hard to get results that are much easier with mirrorless systems. Also, you are forced into a system where the top tier FX requires lenses that are so cumbersome and heavy, the hobbyist photographer now carries a rucksack that could fit a Tiger tank. And look at the massive failure that is the D4s! Photographers weren't asking for higher ISO or gigabit ethernet, they wanted WiFi. And what about the SQD debacle? The D4s supports a memory card that is already obsolete and Nikon is the only customer. Sony must be laughing all the way to the bank, they obviously can tell Nikon to do whatever they want. What is pervasive in everything I mention here is the corporate culture that fails to innovate because an installed professional user base of millions of Nikkor lenses will buy "whatever we make". A Sony A6000 does way more than a D4s could ever do, faster, probably with better image quality, at 1/10 price. Eventually people will figure that out, and all the Ashton Kutcher commercials won't be able to help the big "N". Just my 2ç
  14. 1 point
    Very nice image and pretty great sky. The Milky Way stands out well, being so low on the horizon.
  15. 1 point
    I love it. The slope of the hill is amplified by the patterns in the sky. Blue trees are fine, who cares about reality?
  16. 1 point
    1978 around 36 years Still a customer I have never had a negative experience with Nikon until the release of Capture NX-D, software I paid for Capture NX2 which will no longer be supported but replaced with a ”tarted up” version of View NX-2. Yes and No, Nikon has my e-mail address, why do I have to go to web sites to discover that a new version of camera software is ready for download and installation. Why do I have to discover the left focus problem on the D800, and oil spot problem on the D600 via the web? I really want a 300mm Nikon lens, yet the web claims the Nikon will release a new version of 300mm F4 very soon so I hold off, Nikon can beat the rumor, "best guess" mill with just a bit of information about their future plans (help me plan my purchases brought the D800 at 1:00 AM based on rumored specs, the day it was announced .) Help me be a customer, you make great products, you a good (the F-Mount (my 36 year old 50 mm series E works on my d800)). Your survey methods suck, your software is not really a good representation of Nikon. Please continue to surprise me( the D800 was a very nice surprise)
  17. 1 point
    1) Since 1982 off and on (but at least 20 years in total). 2) Yes. 3) N/A, but I'd like to add that I've had issues with the products (mostly the lenses) of any brands including Nikon that I have used. 4) Yes (Japan). 5) Nothing specifically. I just want Nikon to keep going. Survival is the best counterattack!
This leaderboard is set to Johannesburg/GMT+02:00
  • Create New...

Important Information

By visiting this website you are agreeing to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy & Guidelines.