Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: Hulyss on October 21, 2013, 05:16:16 am
-
Hello,
Some of you may already know what is rumoured since yesterday : Nikon will announce it soon. Rumor say it is 90% accurate.
¤ Standard F-mount
¤ SD memory card
¤ 2016-pixel RGB image sensor
¤ 9-cell framing grid display
¤ 3D color matrix metering II
¤ Native ISO range: 100-12,800 (incl. ISO 50 and ISO 108,200)
¤ 5.5 fps for up to 100 shots
¤ 3.2" LCD screen
¤ Battery:EN-EL14
¤ Pentaprism viewfinder (meaning the camera will not be mirrorless)
¤ The camera will meter even with non-AI lenses down to full aperture
¤ The camera will ship with a new special edition Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G lens to match the look/design of the body
¤ The camera will have physical controls and excellent build quality (which explains the 765g weight)
¤ Expeed 3 processor
¤ Same sensor as in the Nikon D4
¤ Nikon calls it a "hybrid" camera - not sure what exactly they mean with that
¤ The announcement most likely will take place in the next 1-3 weeks
If shutter is 1/8000 or ala V1 ... I'm in.
-
That's interesting. If it is the size of the FM/FM2, I want one.
-
Seems like a smart move, if it materializes. We go back to having FF AF cameras and FF manual focus cameras from Nikon?
-
I suspect that if the rumour has any truth to it, it'll be AF, just size-wise like the FM/FM2/FE/FE2 etc
-
It's about time FF DSLRs became the same size as the old 35mm cameras. I'm fed up with carrying around a huge lump of metal that's about the same size as my old 6x7 Pentax and which has a viewfinder smaller than my OM cameras despite the bulk.
I'm very taken by the new OMDs and was considering buying one and then Sony made their dinky FF announcement and now Nikon are joining in. I'm hoping Canon finally get their arse into gear and start to innovate again or they'll be losing a lot of customers.
-
Focusing will be interesting - split-image, or if AF, multiple points. If the latter, I just hope it isn't a stupid set-up like the D600/10, with multiple poiints all clustered together in the centre. I'd like focus points right out to the edge of the screen please
-
I don't grab whats so thrilling about this announcement.
A light EVF mirrorless would be another story, but another DSLR?
Okay - getting a D4 sensor for cheap would be great, but apart from that?
-
A small real camera with a great sensor, not a cigarette case with a lens stuck on it, and an optical VF, is just my speed. When I was a photo journalist I used a pair of F4s, an FM2 and an M6. With my D800, this new Nikon and my M9, I'm ALMOST back to where I was in 1992. I say almost because the VF of the D800 is leagues below the F4 finder. Some thing this progress.
I don't grab whats so thrilling about this announcement.
A light EVF mirrorless would be another story, but another DSLR?
Okay - getting a D4 sensor for cheap would be great, but apart from that?
-
I don't grab whats so thrilling about this announcement.
A light EVF mirrorless would be another story, but another DSLR?
Okay - getting a D4 sensor for cheap would be great, but apart from that?
Because it's what a lot of people want from a camera.
-
Accurate VF manual focus...I'm interested. Otherwise...nope.
-Dave-
-
I don't grab whats so thrilling about this announcement.
A light EVF mirrorless would be another story, but another DSLR?
Okay - getting a D4 sensor for cheap would be great, but apart from that?
Not everyone is crazy about mirror less, it's not as if you are short of options recently either.
You can't beat a really good pentaprism viewfinder for absolute clarity
-
This camera is likely to be a smashing hit!
The request for a FE2 digital has been around for years.
Let Prius owners buy their EVFs and real man get this baby! :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Not everyone is crazy about mirror less, it's not as if you are short of options recently either.
You can't beat a really good pentaprism viewfinder for absolute clarity
On the other hand you can't beat an EVF for showing where the focus actually is when shooting wide open with lenses faster than 2.8.
-
This is the part that got me:
Pentaprism viewfinder (meaning the camera will not be mirrorless)
So, full size sensor, NOT mirror less, does that really make this a "compact camera"? Does that mean we have to move this thread now to another spot on the board? Maybe they will need to make a whole new category on this forum? :)
You can read the whole thing here for yourself at:
http://nikonrumors.com/2013/10/21/the-upcoming-nikon-retro-full-frame-camera-will-not-have-video-possible-announcement-on-november-6th.aspx/#more-65670
So i don't know what we are looking at. Sounds cool though - fully compatable with all Nikkor lenses (even non-Ai), full FX sensor, supposed to be built like a tank. Depending on price, got me sold already.
:)
-
This is the part that got me:
Pentaprism viewfinder (meaning the camera will not be mirrorless)
So, full size sensor, NOT mirror less, does that really make this a "compact camera"? Does that mean we have to move this thread now to another spot on the board? Maybe they will need to make a whole new category on this forum? :)
Good point. Though my old film OMs are certainly very compact and a digital version of those would be amazing. The new OMDs don't quite count because as nice as they are and they do echo the old OMs they are still not FF.
Not including video! ??? That seems either incorrect, spiteful or dumb. Hopefully the former.
-
It's just a thought, but given that the lens suggested to accompany the new camera is a G lens, it won't have an aperture ring. Wouldn't it be nice if Nikon placed one around the mount, like Olympus used to do with the shutter control on the OM1/2 etc? This would echo the old manual focus cameras, so adding to the retro feel, whilst maintaining compatibility with the new G lenses (which come sans aperture rings). This would also shift the sensor-lens distance, which might allow for the slimmer body that an FM/FE form would suggest. With a traditional shutter control on the top-plate, it would indeed handle much like the older Nikons.
-
It's just a thought, but given that the lens suggested to accompany the new camera is a G lens, it won't have an aperture ring. Wouldn't it be nice if Nikon placed one around the mount, like Olympus used to do with the shutter control on the OM1/2 etc? This would echo the old manual focus cameras, so adding to the retro feel, whilst maintaining compatibility with the new G lenses (which come sans aperture rings).
After reading this thread, I was just looking at my old OMs and was thinking that a control function like the shutter around base of lens is a much under-utilised design in DSLR type cameras. Though several compact cameras in last year or two have such a ring, customisable to function of course.
-
No video ?? If not I do not think I will go in.
If this camera is "that" rugged and good, I mean AF, OVF ... I might take it, selling the D700 to buy Black magic camera... But selling the D700 is not an option ...
If video then, I will be very happy.
-
Yes -- no video.
If the idea of an FM/FE digital turns your crank, unfortunately the rumoured specs don't support that. The latest Nikon Rumors blog post (now at 90% confidence) says more like F3HP, and the posted dimensions agree, as vs the FM2:
- Nikon retro: 143.5x110x66.5mm @ 765g
- Nikon F3HP: 148.5x101.5x69mm @ 760g
- Nikon FM2: 142x90x60mm @ 540g
- Nikon FM3A: 142.5x90x58mm @ 570g
- Nikon D610: 141x113x82mm @ 850g
Suggests design goal is not smaller camera, but re-creation of metal system camera design from pre-plastic, pre-automation era. Meters with even pre-AI lenses, which suggests something to make use of all those MF and AIS lenses many people have lying around. But the fact that the kit lens is a 50mm G (no aperture ring) says it fully supports AF and electronic aperture/shutter, as well. But I haven't seen any indication of AF level.
The sensor is 16.2 MP FF, which apparently immediately suggests Nikon D4, but could be a refresh or something different all together. The low pixel count stands out, but a reasonable explanation is that much older glass will be happier if limitations not emphasized by huge pixel counts. Plus, you get super low light handling.
The word "hybrid" has been associated with this camera from first rumour. Most likely this relates to a patent Nikon has for a VF that switches between electronic and optical, not digital overlay on top of optical view. An early misconception after first rumour was that this would be mirrorless, but absolutely not possible: F-mount and pentaprism. So, unlike many other new camera lines (and even Nikon's own DX), at least no painful wait for lens line-up to be fleshed out.
Timing of this rumour on heels of Sony's A7/A7R, together with fact that camera won't be announced until Nov 6, after the PhotoPlus Expo, suggests to me that what we could have here is an engineering prototype that won't be ready for release for 6 months or more. Seems not meant to be competitor with A7/R in compactness, but more Nikon's answer to Leica M digital series -- put digital guts inside classical interface and support large lens legacy.
A lot of the digital tech is strangely last-gen and not top-of-line, like 2016 pixel 3D colour metering, D4-ish sensor, Expeed 3 processor, 5.5 FPS. Really makes me think this is a prototype from several years ago that has been hastily resurrected, perhaps in hopes to address falling revenues crisis. Instead of delaying another two years to aim at cutting edge tech, this could be more a trial balloon to see whether there will be a market for SLR retro.
Use of smallish battery -- EN-EL14 -- is another design compromise that gives concern. Presumably chosen due to lack of room due to little or no grip. OK: maybe "hybrid" has nothing to do with finder but instead means dual power source: battery + film advance crank repurposed as manual power generator. ;)
Yet another concern is how far the exterior retro will go. True re-creation of a former classic a la Leica, or pseudo retro a la Olympus? The G designation to the purported kit lens concerns me in that regard. No aperture ring as part of the default experience jars with a true retro gestalt.
I'm neither a tech whiz nor a Nikon historian. Any corrections to my thinking are welcome.
-
Was looking at the X100s as a lightweight travel camera for the foreseeable future, and was on the cusp of selling all my Nikon lenses and F4 bodies. Might still sell the bodies, since I never shoot 35 anymore, but now that the lenses can find a potential home in the digital realm, I might rethink selling them...
D4 sensor in F3 clothes... Dare I say a match made in heaven ;)?!
Besides, who REALLY needs more than 16mp of info except pixel-peepers and circle jerking MTF-chart junkies who never take pictures of anything but their hallway flower vase or their cat/dog staring out the window :D? C'mon guys... What we need with this new Nikon is the beat-it-to-hell-and-it-still-keeps-clicking reliability of the early F's, but sporting new digital innards...
Just wish it'd take CF cards, though. These dinky "leave-em-in-your-pocket-then-your-wife-finds-it-in-the-wash-after-the-rinse-cycle" SD cards are a royal PITA... Give us something durable...
Oh, a (100%) OVF too. None of this "92% visible" business like with the F100.
:)
-Dan
-
What is the basis for believing this rumor, beyond a nostalgic desire for it to be true?
The original source http://nikonrumors.com/2013/10/20/breaking-new-nikon-full-frame-hybrid-mirrorless-camera-coming-soon.aspx/ does not [added missing word!] inspire confidence, since the original version starts by saying
The new full frame camera will most likely be mirrorless, but it will have some kind of a special (hybrid?) viewfinder.
but then an update flip-flops to
Standard F-mount
Pentaprism viewfinder (meaning the camera will not be mirrorless)
P. S. The idea of using the video-capable D4 sensor but not providing video is another hint that this is a retro fantasy, or someone trolling the nostalgic: once the sensor is capable of it, not supporting video has no significant benefits in cost, size, weight, etc., but will instead reduce the sales volume, and so worsen economies of scale, and thus if anything make the product more expensive, not less.
-
When I first saw this rumour I assumed that the camera would be significantly innovative, for Nikon. My guess was that it would roll out the first example of on-sensor PDAF for a Nikon FF camera - a precursor to what must surely arrive before too long, namely a mirrorless "pro" Nikon FF camera. Clearly the obstacle to designing something that can accommodate F mount SLR lenses is size - unless it incorporates a new lens format plus adaptor approach like Sony's; a truly dreadful solution. So it isn't going to be very small, unfortunately.
But it seems, from a quick reading of the recent posts, that this is just another DSLR - apart from a bit of OVF/EVF gimmickry - albeit a "retro" design intended to appeal to photographic nostalgics. As for it enabling the use of all the earlier manual lenses, didn't the vast majority of the previous pro-am Nikon DSLRs? OK, the pre-AI lenses need a simple conversion (I converted an F4 200 and even managed to get hold of an original Nikon kit), but really! What has been stopping people using these lenses previously apart from the challenge of focusing them. Isn't there still a source of alternative focusing screens for at least some of these cameras?
I know that some people still love OVFs but I am happy to substitute an EVF which displays comprehensive shooting information. Like a histogram!
I still have an FM2n (an F100, a Nikormat and an FG too) plus quite a few manual lenses but on the rare occasions I wheel one out I quickly recall why I prefer AF and digital. The robustness and tactile quality of these cameras is undeniable, to say nothing of the longevity, but they are primarily attractive antiques. I'm curious to see what Nikon produce in November but if it's another DSLR it's a missed opportunity and I would say a blunder.
Roy
-
Regardless of the look, many have been dreaming of a compact FF camera using the D4 sensor.
So it may be sees by those as the long awaited successor of the D700 (eventhough the D800 does better everything the D700 ever did).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Three thoughts about the "no video" issue here, take it any way you will;
1) I personally do not miss not having video on my D700;
2) A few pros I know grumble about the D4 being more of a video camera than a still camera. Some pros I know are sticking with their D3 while another guy I know is going Canon because he feels their top of the line FX camera is a better "still camera" than the Nikon D4;
3) Here in Canada for many years, when the military (army, navy or air force) wants a good still camera, they always seem to buy Nikon, but when they want a good video camera, they always seem to buy Canon.
Everybody has different needs, but even on my D7000 which has excellent video, i seldom use it. Also, and maybe you will all flame my butt for saying this, but why does every tool have to do everything? If I buy a Jeep, I don't complain that it doesn't do the quarter mile faster than a Corvette. If I buy Corvette, I don't complain that it's no good in off road, 4WD situations. If I want a video camera, I'll go get a video camera. Don't see what is wrong with that, and if the lack of video keeps the size and price down, well so much the better.
:)
-
... and if the lack of video keeps the size and price down, well so much the better.
What if --
... not supporting video has no significant benefits in cost, size, weight, etc., but will instead reduce the sales volume, and so worsen economies of scale, and thus if anything make the product more expensive, not less.
-
Video, no video, whatever. If you need motion move on, there are plenty of fantastic stills/motion cameras out there. I'll let Nikon worry about their business model and marketing of this camera. If they price it too high, for whatever reason, I'll pass. If its priced right, I'll bite. I suspect that any lack of video is due to the battery size. When we used to use the 5d2s for B roll it ate batteries.
Now they say its more like an F3. Still fine with me. Just please have an F3hp like finder and I'm happy as a clam.
-
Now they say its more like an F3. Still fine with me. Just please have an F3hp like finder and I'm happy as a clam.
And that yummy selection of focusing screens....
-
Video, no video, whatever. If you need motion move on, there are plenty of fantastic stills/motion cameras out there. I'll let Nikon worry about their business model and marketing of this camera. If they price it too high, for whatever reason, I'll pass. If its priced right, I'll bite. I suspect that any lack of video is due to the battery size. When we used to use the 5d2s for B roll it ate batteries.
Now they say its more like an F3. Still fine with me. Just please have an F3hp like finder and I'm happy as a clam.
If Nikon wants to make a still only retro styled camera, then good for them, if like most people here say the viewfinder is large enough to manually focus . . . and . . . if Nikon finds some way to let the camera tether.
I love all the new retro styled cameras and evf innovations but I truly don't understand any camera that has professional ambition and doesn't tether. OM1, the new Sony, this Nikon and Leicas of all stripes.
It doesn't make sense, because if you shoot for commerce your going to have to eventually tether.
I have to admit Nikon kind of surprises me in some of the things they do. Obviously they have a huge winner with the D800, but why this FM? Is it to out retro Olympus and Fuji, is it to compete with the new Sony, because the Olympus and Fuji are just different cameras than the rumored fm (f4?) digital and how are they going to compete with a 24 or 30 something megapixel sony, especially if it requires a new smaller lens set for this camera.
I also don't understand why Nikon doesn't have a whiz bang video camera. They have zero ground to protect when it comes to video, unlike Canon, Fuji, Panasonic and Sony, so they could make anything they want, at virtually any price point, but they don't seem to be that bothered with it and video is an important part of almost any commercial photography production.
I'd buy an omd om1 today if it would tether because I have a large amount of m43 lenses and I love the format. I'd consider the new Fuji's but they also don't tether, same with the Sony a7, though the Fuji and Sony's don't have the price or range of 4:3 lenses. (Well I have to admit the om1 menu like the om5 is more complicated than a new I-tunes browser so that kind of puts me off).
But speaking of video, there are numerous threads here where people want no video in there still cameras. That's fine by me, I personally do want it . . . if the video is good, but with most still cameras the video is just not that good, though nobody should discount that video is important in commerce and client expectations on what good video is goes up every day.
When we first bought the RED's my clients looked at the footage and went ooh and ahh, today they accept it as normal. The bar has moved that fast and Sony, Canon, and even Panasonic are racing like crazy to come out with 422 10bit 4k video cameras with professional features at small still camera prices . . . all but Nikon.
Anyway, I'm glad to see different still cameras coming out, regardless of features though I have to admit I don't really understand where this Nikon fits in. Maybe it will be so good it can't be denied, but they are up against some very competent competition if they're just building a retro walk around camera.
IMO
BC
-
I also don't understand why Nikon doesn't have a whiz bang video camera. They have zero ground to protect when it comes to video, unlike Canon, Fuji, Panasonic and Sony, so they could make anything they want, at virtually any price point, but they don't seem to be that bothered with it and video is an important part of almost any commercial photography production.
Because they are complete numpties?
It could be a win/win situation for them and yet nothing.
-
I'm 25, so I have probably been in this world less time than many of you 'old hands' have been shooting professionally ;)
But to me, it seems that many folks just don't GET IT. If a company wants to make a product, simply to MAKE IT, what's wrong with that? Case in point: Bugatti Veyron. Fast as f***, but expensive(they lose a ton of money on each car sold):
http://www.worldcarfans.com/113093063599/volkswagen-losing-an-unbelievable-627m-usd-for-each-bugatti
.... But they made it nonetheless. I don't believe a camera company would do something as drastic as Bugatti did with the Veyron, but if a company wants to make a "no holes barred, "We're doing what WE like" " type camera, what's wrong with that?
Look at Leica. They make these special edition cameras that end up just sitting in collectors safes. What a royal waste(IMO) ;)! But they STILL make them!
Ya, we're spinning our wheels here talking about vaporware(currently), but I know many a photographer who yearns dearly for an F3-style digital slr. 95% of them couldn't give a hoot if it had video, as they primarily shoot stills. They want a big, bright OVF that handles like their F's, Canon A1's, K1000's, Minolta SRT's, etc... They want metal, sharp-cornered cameras that are like what they used to use. Not these black smooth-out blobs we call cameras today...
Is a DSLR as capable FOR VIDEO as a professionally-designed MOTION(ala Red, Alexa, Panasonic, Sony, etc.) camera? Probably not as versatile. Will it work(and probably work well)? Most likely so.
But it seems that a company having to justify it making something, rather than making it because they want to make it.
Heck, what did ya'll who shoot/shot motion before dslr's do? You used a dedicated motion camera that was designed for that, not for stills. If you shot stills, you used a stills camera. Nothing has changed.
If this new 'retro' Nikon indeed lacks a video mode, then so be it. I'm still interested. I don't shoot motion enough to warrant bogging down a simply-designed camera with "more features, more, more, more". Less is more in my book. Simple. Dead simple. Less variables and confuddling b***sh** to go through just to set a few settings up for how you like it. Set it and go make pictures. Less tech to get in the way.
Give me a nice hi-res screen, a bitchin OVF with user-interchangeable focusing screens(ala F-series w/ interchangeable finders like on the F's) and NO BUTTONS but those on the back of the camera. Leave the top plate bare except for a shutter speed dial, and maybe a ***small*** window showing remaining frames and shooting details(WB, ISO, etc.)
Simply simple is what I'd like to see in this Nikon
A digital F3 would be brilliant! Price it @ $2k or under, and I'd bet it'll sell like hotcakes. It just has to perform well, and BE TOUGH AS NAILS. Not that hard I see.
-Dan
-
Yes to this.
And for motion prior to the 5d2, we used Sony PME3s and a Bolex. 16mm TriX is pretty nice.
I'm 25, so I have probably been in this world less time than many of you 'old hands' have been shooting professionally ;)
But to me, it seems that many folks just don't GET IT. If a company wants to make a product, simply to MAKE IT, what's wrong with that? Case in point: Bugatti Veyron. Fast as f***, but expensive(they lose a ton of money on each car sold):
http://www.worldcarfans.com/113093063599/volkswagen-losing-an-unbelievable-627m-usd-for-each-bugatti
.... But they made it nonetheless. I don't believe a camera company would do something as drastic as Bugatti did with the Veyron, but if a company wants to make a "no holes barred, "We're doing what WE like" " type camera, what's wrong with that?
Look at Leica. They make these special edition cameras that end up just sitting in collectors safes. What a royal waste(IMO) ;)! But they STILL make them!
Ya, we're spinning our wheels here talking about vaporware(currently), but I know many a photographer who yearns dearly for an F3-style digital slr. 95% of them couldn't give a hoot if it had video, as they primarily shoot stills. They want a big, bright OVF that handles like their F's, Canon A1's, K1000's, Minolta SRT's, etc... They want metal, sharp-cornered cameras that are like what they used to use. Not these black smooth-out blobs we call cameras today...
Is a DSLR as capable FOR VIDEO as a professionally-designed MOTION(ala Red, Alexa, Panasonic, Sony, etc.) camera? Probably not as versatile. Will it work(and probably work well)? Most likely so.
But it seems that a company having to justify it making something, rather than making it because they want to make it.
Heck, what did ya'll who shoot/shot motion before dslr's do? You used a dedicated motion camera that was designed for that, not for stills. If you shot stills, you used a stills camera. Nothing has changed.
If this new 'retro' Nikon indeed lacks a video mode, then so be it. I'm still interested. I don't shoot motion enough to warrant bogging down a simply-designed camera with "more features, more, more, more". Less is more in my book. Simple. Dead simple. Less variables and confuddling b***sh** to go through just to set a few settings up for how you like it. Set it and go make pictures. Less tech to get in the way.
Give me a nice hi-res screen, a bitchin OVF with user-interchangeable focusing screens(ala F-series w/ interchangeable finders like on the F's) and NO BUTTONS but those on the back of the camera. Leave the top plate bare except for a shutter speed dial, and maybe a ***small*** window showing remaining frames and shooting details(WB, ISO, etc.)
Simply simple is what I'd like to see in this Nikon
A digital F3 would be brilliant! Price it @ $2k or under, and I'd bet it'll sell like hotcakes. It just has to perform well, and BE TOUGH AS NAILS. Not that hard I see.
-Dan
-
Here is the first teaser about the thing :
http://youtu.be/2CDWV6o1o4A
Here is the crop I made out of a tiny pic found in China :
(https://scontent-a-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1380452_10200836661946963_722792859_n.jpg)
and here are my first impression based only on the sounds in the video :
#1 >> Exposure knob clicks.
#2 >> Shutter cocking sound.
#3 >> Actuation.
I think they pushed hard on the "energy saving" point by arming the shutter manually. The hybrid term employed in the rumors can be about that. Either you use it ala old school way in the "low power" mode, either you switch in full power mode and it take the control of the shutter and all (Video, rumored 5.5fps...).
Just my wild guess.
-
and here are my first impression based only on the sounds in the video :
#1 >> Exposure knob clicks.
#2 >> Shutter cocking sound.
#3 >> Actuation.
Ah, it's a film camera that can work with no battery or it's the usual completely unrealistic sounds that are useful in film to tell the story.
Here's Lloyd explaining actual sword sounds (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzbfuI0PMdA&feature=player_embedded).
-
Ah, it's a film camera that can work with no battery or it's the usual completely unrealistic sounds that are useful in film to tell the story.
Here's Lloyd explaining actual sword sounds (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzbfuI0PMdA&feature=player_embedded).
Naaa :) As I said, I'm pretty confident that the sounds are "real" and give indications. Its marketing after all. Nothing said in the clip, only "it's in my hands again". The only indication are the sounds and there is no gimmickry about it. If you can use it over VERY extended period because of the low power mode (who might only use battery for metering, essential infos in the OVF like telemetry and sensor read/card recording) then this is very clever. Really clever especially for travels/reportage. The battery might last a veryyyy lonng time in this mode.
Now I'm pretty confident too that you can use it full throttle too, allowing all modern innovations such as AF with G lenses, video and all.
And... I think the price will be in accordance with the prophecy >>> high
-
I don't understand the Veyron analogy with a low cost retro camera.
The closest car analogy would be a new vw beetle that may look a little like your father's old vw but is a front wheel drive, airbag laden, computer traction controlled, blue tooth rigged economy car at a medium price point.
Same with this fm2. It may look retro, but the only thing analog about this or any camera today is the box it comes in. Cameras today are I pads with lenses and you can take off all the features you want and pretend it's an analog camera but it's not.
And the thought of coming in at $2,000 (and $2000 being cheap) shows you where we are today on camera prices. In 2003 a Nikon F5 which really was the Veyron of cameras came in a $2,000 when 2 grand was worth a lot more than 2 grand is today.
So $2,000 for a fm digital which is a stripped down FF dslr is kind of expensive, if not almost funny.when you consider you can buy a used d3 for 1/2 to 1/4 the price of this rumored nikon, all for the pleasure of pretending your shooting film.
But to answer the question of what did we use to use for video? Dedicated video or film cameras, but the convergence of a still and motion shoot wasn't that prevalent. Back then there were no ipads and the supermarket magazine rack was half an isle long. Today it's 36" in the corner of the store.
But "back then" there was no ipad and you didn't introduce new still cameras with web videos on youtube, facebook, vimeo and in dedicated electronic documents.
If people think that holding an electronic camera that is clothed in analog takes them back to a more simple time then great . . . but everybody knows that 99% of the photos taken with this or any other camera will never become ink of paper, they'll be on the web in some kind of portal.
Personally, I have no interest in this camera. It doesn't offer me anything I don't already have, doesn't break new ground, doesn't add to my art or commerce, it just looks good and as much as I appreciate good industrial design, I try to produce what the market demands.
I have no interest in going back in time, because the world is now condensed. I travel as routinely to London as I did ten years ago to NY and it's not that big of a cultural leap. I work in multiple mediums, multiple markets and working final cut pro and DiVinci is no more foreign to me than photoshop.
Today I view it all as imaging equipment, built to tell stories.
Buried deep in the back of my brain is the thought of how simple it was just shooting stills and how easy it was to have a week to deliver film, wash my hands of it and go on to the next project or even a drive up the coast instead of running servers and backup drives, thousands of web galleries and multiple computers. Also in my heart I love still photography and always will.
But I keep those thoughts buried in the back, because I know if I don't go forward I don't have a working future and I really do love to work.
IMO
BC
-
I see your point, and certainly when I was shooting for commerce I would not look twice at this camera, for work. Now that I'm not shooting (much) for commerce this camera makes sense, in as much as the rumours are true. It looks to be a reasonably sized, (supposedly) fine looking camera with a D4 sensor, but without an AA filter. If the VF is near the quality of the F3hp/F4/F5, I'm in. And if it has a CFA that is different than the D800, more like a D700, D4 or better yet, a 5d2, I'd be very happy.
Now retro is a term often pregnant with negative conotation. I don't think that is right. Retro for styling or marketing is certainly vapid, but if retro means resurrecting the functional aspects of the old cameras that worked so well for 50 years, like a better VF, direct controls, etc., then retro is a positive. For shooting stills, which is what I do now, I want good color, intuitive controls, and a large viewfinder. I shouldnt have to use a giant and aging 1ds3 or D3x, or an MFD camera to get there. What I've been doing is using an M9, and sometimes an X100. I rarely use the D800 anymore, because of file size and the time in post color grading is killing me. If Nikon can hit those points (smallish, good VF, good color), I'm in. Latest rumor is $3000, $3,300 with 50 1.8.
I don't understand the Veyron analogy with a low cost retro camera.
The closest car analogy would be a new vw beetle that may look a little like your father's old vw but is a front wheel drive, airbag laden, computer traction controlled, blue tooth rigged economy car at a medium price point.
Same with this fm2. It may look retro, but the only thing analog about this or any camera today is the box it comes in. Cameras today are I pads with lenses and you can take off all the features you want and pretend it's an analog camera but it's not.
And the thought of coming in at $2,000 (and $2000 being cheap) shows you where we are today on camera prices. In 2003 a Nikon F5 which really was the Veyron of cameras came in a $2,000 when 2 grand was worth a lot more than 2 grand is today.
So $2,000 for a fm digital which is a stripped down FF dslr is kind of expensive, if not almost funny.when you consider you can buy a used d3 for 1/2 to 1/4 the price of this rumored nikon, all for the pleasure of pretending your shooting film.
But to answer the question of what did we use to use for video? Dedicated video or film cameras, but the convergence of a still and motion shoot wasn't that prevalent. Back then there were no ipads and the supermarket magazine rack was half an isle long. Today it's 36" in the corner of the store.
But "back then" there was no ipad and you didn't introduce new still cameras with web videos on youtube, facebook, vimeo and in dedicated electronic documents.
If people think that holding an electronic camera that is clothed in analog takes them back to a more simple time then great . . . but everybody knows that 99% of the photos taken with this or any other camera will never become ink of paper, they'll be on the web in some kind of portal.
Personally, I have no interest in this camera. It doesn't offer me anything I don't already have, doesn't break new ground, doesn't add to my art or commerce, it just looks good and as much as I appreciate good industrial design, I try to produce what the market demands.
I have no interest in going back in time, because the world is now condensed. I travel as routinely to London as I did ten years ago to NY and it's not that big of a cultural leap. I work in multiple mediums, multiple markets and working final cut pro and DiVinci is no more foreign to me than photoshop.
Today I view it all as imaging equipment, built to tell stories.
Buried deep in the back of my brain is the thought of how simple it was just shooting stills and how easy it was to have a week to deliver film, wash my hands of it and go on to the next project or even a drive up the coast instead of running servers and backup drives, thousands of web galleries and multiple computers. Also in my heart I love still photography and always will.
But I keep those thoughts buried in the back, because I know if I don't go forward I don't have a working future and I really do love to work.
IMO
BC
-
Hey bcooter :) I think you get very sensitive about it in your analysis ;)
"Retroing" things isn't a bad thing in a logical way. By retro, many people see "toughness", "reliability", "compactness". Even the D700 is considered as a "retro gear" by today standards. After come the ones who care about the look of the device.
Nikon aren't dumb. They need to feed the "need" of the photographers who want "modern old school hard core" devices and the others, who need the look on top of that.
There is nothing wrong about that.
So it seems they decided to mix it in one body : Compactness, reliability, analogue manipulations (for the ones who need to save battery on field and for the ones who only want to use it in a sort of hipster mode) and full modern manipulation (for the ones who do not have time to set up all the knobs).
There is nothing wrong about that too. Actually it is pretty smart because you do have the choice. Having this choice on a single well crafted device is kind of awesome.
-
Actually I’m not sure the FM2 (or whatever) analogy is about cast-iron bodies and fake leather grips. I think it might be just about dimensions and weight. A similar need for space in your pocket and in your hand. And that would be really really really nice to have with a FF Nikon! :-)
-
Retro is a stylistic term, it's neither good nor bad, just an object or clothes whose looks hark back to a different time. Not from a few years back as a D700 is certainly not retro in any way.
The Olympus Pen/OMD cameras and the Fuji x100, now they are certainly retro as their appearance is very much derived from cameras from 30/40 years back.
-
The robustness and tactile quality of these cameras is undeniable, to say nothing of the longevity, but they are primarily attractive antiques.
+1.
-
Few people would think I'm sensitive, but maybe I just write too fast and too direct.
I don't dislike this camera, just don't get it and I've bit on the cool looking camera thing before with a Leica M8 and the olympus omd em5.
The Leica is great other than it's not reliable and it doesn't tether at all, the olympus is more than great, except it has the most overly complex digital interface in the world, short of the dmv.
And I'm not reacting to Nikon making this, they obviously see a place in the market, but it's just not my place, though I do think that 35mm digital cameras have become way too big and I don't dislike small cameras.
I guess what I am reacting to is the comments and articles on why put video in a still camera. Video doesn't get in the way, just don't turn it on and I doubt it adds to the costs, probably lowers the cost because more people buy a camera that does more and volume always lowers prices.
Anyway . . .
I just want, like and need a camera that does what "I" need and like T says there are a lot of options out there. I also know that my needs aren't everyone's so live and let live.
So far this is my second favorite camera
(http://www.russellrutherfordgroup.com/redc_mount.jpg)
Because it does things I really need, though it is a single purpose camera.
This is my very favorite camera (and I think the least attractive)
(http://www.russellrutherfordgroup.com/gh3_lav.jpg)
But this gh3 is the most capable camera I've ever owned. It's not perfect at stills or motion, but its very, very good at both and the news that gets me excited is Pana is coming out with a 4k 10 bit 422 motion camera with xlr inputs and at the same time a hopped up m43 still camera.
Panasonic will get my money and what I like about them is they don't seem to hobble their cameras as much as some other brands to up sell the next latest and greatest.
What I love about RED is they offer the complete system, from hardware, accessories to software. They're expensive, but they're professional and they take their role very seriously.
I doubt it RED would ever make a Bolex looking camera to make people feel like their shooting a French art film.
To each his own and I respect everybody's right to buy what they like. I was just trying to point out that at the end of a shooting day, what you get from this new nikon won't be a lick of difference from what you get from a D4 or a 1dsII, III, or IV.
Man, the toothpaste is way out of the tube, whether any of us like it or not.
For fun you can go back in time, but for commerce it's full speed ahead and we're just starting to break into what is coming.
It doesn't take a fortune teller to know that someday somebody is going to have a camera, still, motion, or both that let you tap on an image retouch it, color it, wi-fi up in less time that it takes to start up a powerbook.
I assume we'll also be able to retouch and do film edits on an ipad device, probably in the grip truck or on a plane going home.
Real innovation is coming and it's probably coming in motion and stills all at the same time.
IMO
BC
-
I'd consider the new Fuji's but they also don't tether, same with the Sony a7...
I've seen conflicting reports on tethering Sony a7. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
-
I guess what I am reacting to is the comments and articles on why put video in a still camera. Video doesn't get in the way, just don't turn it on and I doubt it adds to the costs, probably lowers the cost because more people buy a camera that does more and volume always lowers prices.
Better not read this poorly written article (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_appeal_for_divergence_and_simplicity.shtml) then or the thread about it (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=83326.0;topicseen)with people wittering on about purity and other such nonsense.
-
The robustness and tactile quality of these cameras is undeniable, to say nothing of the longevity, but they are primarily attractive antiques.
Handy doorstops or paper weights too but not as good at that as a digital lump from 3-4 years ago. ;)
-
Better not read this poorly written article (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_appeal_for_divergence_and_simplicity.shtml) then or the thread about it (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=83326.0;topicseen)with people wittering on about purity and other such nonsense.
I glanced and mean glanced at it.
Don't get it, because the camera this guy wants exists, so whats the problem?
All it really looked like to me was a pitch for Alpa and a Phase Back, which is fine for some.
To each his own, but I think that Mark guy and me and me are in different professions.
IMO
BC
-
I don't get it either. If you don't want to use AF, video, metering, whatever, you don't have to. It would make sense to say I don't want video because it uses too much power, and I want a light camera. Or I don't want AF, I want a big bright VF with a nice ground glass screen, and to save weight and size. Almost any camera can be used manually, and the big Nikon and big Canon, as well as the MF cameras, can be focused manually. No one is focing anyone to shoot video, or go through teh video menus to get to a white balance adjustment.
I glanced and mean glanced at it.
Don't get it, because the camera this guy wants exists, so whats the problem?
All it really looked like to me was a pitch for Alpa and a Phase Back, which is fine for some.
To each his own, but I think that Mark guy and me and me are in different professions.
IMO
BC
-
I glanced and mean glanced at it.
Don't get it, because the camera this guy wants exists, so whats the problem?
There is a problem with some cameras certainly, but it's not due to new features but bad design. But Mark puts the blame on the wrong thing missing the actual point entirely.
-
User experience is quickly becoming the #1 selection criteria for gear in mature markets like advanced cameras.
It is precisely because all cameras now deliver sufficient levels of quality that people look for something else and buy the Fujis and the Olympus.
The Nikon FD will be a screaming success because it will probably deliver on this in ways that connect with the cameras many of us used many years ago. It is, IMHO, irresistible.
Video is IMHO totally irrelevant for many photographers and those who care about video are clearly not the target of this camera.
I find it pretty funny that Canon and Nikon are often criticized for being the Toyota of camera manufacturers but also get some blame when they come up with extremely targeted products like the Nikon 1 series and this new FD. Those are not generalist cameras, they target a well identified segment.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
User experience is quickly becoming the #1 selection criteria for gear in mature markets like advanced cameras.
The Nikon FD will be a screaming success because it will probably deliver on this in ways that connect with the cameras many of us used many years ago. It is, IMHO, irresistible.
Why? Are Nikon suddenly easy to use as I've always found them quite opaque in use and when I've had to use them, I usually need to ask how to do something quite basic and the Nikon user/Nikon staff have also had to scratch their heads too.
-
Why? Are Nikon suddenly easy to use as I've always found them quite opaque in use and when I've had to use them, I usually need to ask how to do something quite basic and the Nikon user/Nikon staff have also had to scratch their heads too.
IMHO, the Nikon FD is targeting those photographers with a long history of using Nikon film bodies. That's the user experience I am talking about.
You don't like Nikon ergonomics? Why bother spending time commenting on this release?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
Much discussion about a camera nobody has seen? Or is there a picture showing it?
Best regards
Erik
-
IMHO, the Nikon FD is targeting those photographers with a long history of using Nikon film bodies. That's the user experience I am talking about.
You don't like Nikon ergonomics? Why bother spending time commenting on this release?
I like small cameras and I like FF, which is the main thrust of this topic. Besides Nikon can do with getting as many new users as possible, chasing a shrinking subset of users is not wise.
-
I don't get it either.
Clearly.
If you don't want to use AF, video, metering, whatever, you don't have to.... Almost any camera can be used manually, and the big Nikon and big Canon, as well as the MF cameras, can be focused manually.
"Can be focussed manually" is not the same as "good at focussing manually". And when one of the unwanted features is accidentally activated and the camera doesn't behave as expected I waste time and lose photo opportunities trying to figure out what feature was activated, how to disable it and how to prevent it from happening again.
-
And when one of the unwanted features is accidentally activated and the camera doesn't behave as expected I waste time and lose photo opportunities trying to figure out what feature was activated, how to disable it and how to prevent it from happening again.
If you want to "remove" a button, use duct tape (the texture difference should be enough to stop you pressing).
If you really want to "remove" a button, use superglue (iirc that's how the military "remove" USB ports from commodity computers).
-
If you want to "remove" a button, use duct tape (the texture difference should be enough to stop you pressing).
If you really want to "remove" a button, use superglue (iirc that's how the military "remove" USB ports from commodity computers).
Superglue AND chewing gum ;)
-
"Can be focussed manually" is not the same as "good at focussing manually".
Manual focusing on AF cameras is not exactly wonderful it has to be said. But hey EVFs should help with that particularly with fast lenses.
And when one of the unwanted features is accidentally activated and the camera doesn't behave as expected I waste time and lose photo opportunities trying to figure out what feature was activated, how to disable it and how to prevent it from happening again.
If you want to "remove" a button, use duct tape (the texture difference should be enough to stop you pressing).
If you really want to "remove" a button, use superglue (iirc that's how the military "remove" USB ports from commodity computers).
Or practice with your camera, so you know how it works. ;D
-
Agree on the mf issue, although the BIG Canon and Nikon are fine, not great, just fine. My hope is that this Nikon will address this issue.
As to your other point, I still don't get it. I've used everything from ancient Linhofs to Leica's and many flavor of 35mm camera in very high pressured commercial environments. I figure out what the problems is or could potentially be before I am face to face with a "photographic opportunity", or in my case a gaggle of clients. I familiarize myself with how the thing works before any production starts, otherwise I won't use it. When I was a photo J I knew the cameras inside and out before I went on a job. I used tape where needed, electrical tape because it doesn't leave a residue. Build the muscle memory and anything is simple. Even playing the piano.
I can say that there are very few cameras I've used that have deal breaker ergonomic issues. The X100 is one due to AF point selection being on the wrong side of the camera (remidied in the X100s), and the RX1/Cool Pix A/Ricoh GR lack of a viewfinder.
Clearly.
"Can be focussed manually" is not the same as "good at focussing manually". And when one of the unwanted features is accidentally activated and the camera doesn't behave as expected I waste time and lose photo opportunities trying to figure out what feature was activated, how to disable it and how to prevent it from happening again.
-
If you want to "remove" a button, use duct tape (the texture difference should be enough to stop you pressing).
The switch in question also turns the camera on or off.
Or practice with your camera, so you know how it works. ;D
Hmmmmm... I guess 8 years of practice isn't enough.
I like small cameras and I like FF, which is the main thrust of this topic. Besides Nikon can do with getting as many new users as possible, chasing a shrinking subset of users is not wise.
It's a good strategy if it's a subset of their production and doesn't restrict the company's production of mainstream cameras.
-
The switch in question also turns the camera on or off.
Wow! Which camera does that?
-
Hi,
A good user interface would be helpful in avoiding mistakes. But, yes I have missed opportunities quite a few times because I had presets for shooting on tripod, when fast action was needed. I can agree that it is easier to be in control with a totally manual camera. I have both Pentax 67 and a Hasselblad 555ELD in addition to my Sony Alphas, so I know both worlds.
Best regards
Erik
Clearly.
"Can be focussed manually" is not the same as "good at focussing manually". And when one of the unwanted features is accidentally activated and the camera doesn't behave as expected I waste time and lose photo opportunities trying to figure out what feature was activated, how to disable it and how to prevent it from happening again.
-
The switch in question also turns the camera on or off.
This puzzled me then I wondered do you have a Canon where if you move the on/off switch to it's second position it then means the wheel on the back is functional?
If so, I have several Canons and that switch is quite hard to move accidentally and always have it so wheel works because the camera is hobbled without it.
Otherwise I have no idea what you mean, maybe the camera being turned on is a function you do not want. ;)
Hmmmmm... I guess 8 years of practice isn't enough.
Obviously not. So are you using an 8 year old digital camera then?
It's a good strategy if it's a subset of their production and doesn't restrict the company's production of mainstream cameras.
Well that makes zero sense in response to what I wrote.
-
A lot of the comments here seem to be craving a 35mm format digital SLR that is small and light like film SLRs in the good old days, instead of being a brick like modern digital ones. Anyway, the rumor says nothing about OVF details like image size, magnification, focusing aids or interchangeable screens, so I guess "less bulky" is the major hope, and the rumor does claim some precise dimensions:
143.5 x 110 x 66.5mm, 765g (not stated whether this is with or without battery or memory card)
http://nikonrumors.com/2013/10/20/breaking-new-nikon-full-frame-hybrid-mirrorless-camera-coming-soon.aspx/#ixzz2imC8eode
Compare to Nikon's latest 35mm format SLR, the D610:
141 x 113 x 82mm, 760g without batteries or memory card, 850g with battery and memory card
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d610/spec.htm
Given that the 15.5mm of extra depth is probably from the deeper grip of the D610, with no effect on the size of a working camera with lens is attached, I do not see that this rumor-cam offers any significant advantage in bulk over the existing D610.
Or is the excitement is about the claim of using the lower resolution ["less high resolution"] D4 sensor, without the high frame rate that is the main reason for the existence of such a sensor?
P. S. Just for fun, the actual FM2 specs:
142.5 x 90 x 60mm, 540g without battery or film.
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/filmcamera/slr/fm2/spec.htm
P. P. S. Sorry, I just noticed that "Dale Cotton 2" had already posted similar data.
-
As to your other point, I still don't get it. I've used everything from ancient Linhofs to Leica's and many flavor of 35mm camera in very high pressured commercial environments. I figure out what the problems is or could potentially be before I am face to face with a "photographic opportunity", or in my case a gaggle of clients. I familiarize myself with how the thing works before any production starts, otherwise I won't use it. When I was a photo J I knew the cameras inside and out before I went on a job.
Other than the point we're all talking about a camera that doesn't exist, most people on this thread would do well do take the quote from T and tattoo it on their arm.
Anyone that considers themselves close to a professional learns "all" their tools and how to work around the issues, because every camera has issues.
In fact the gh3's and the omd I bought I learned front and back and kept away from everyone on the crew.
They literally traveled in my bag across two continents because they were set exactly as
I wanted and honestly the gh3 which looks not pretty and non retro has mostly analog dials and buttons and is a snap to set up.
I personally think Panasonic is the most down to earth camera maker around and until you've used them
in high pressured situations I don't think you'd ever understand how good those little cameras are.
The Olympus which is a beautifully built and retro looking camera has the most maddening digital interface and oddly placed dials and
buttons of any camera I've ever owned, though it looks so pretty
and om like it's kind of hard to believe how horribly wrong they wrote the menu system.
But I would like a little better still quality and the Sony A7 seems like a good idea. The samples look nice, the camera won't be a video king,
but it will shoot good stills. The only issue I have is I love having those small 4/3 lenses
in one bag and even though we carry 4,000 lbs of equipment with us, it's nice to have my personal cameras that shoot video and stills with me.
It's like the old days where I was responsible for everything.
Though if the Sony eventually comes up with a lens set and allows some type of robust tethering I'll give it a try, as long as it will track focus as well as my gh3's.
For Nikon, I hope they sell their camera, but I don't think for a moment it won't end up full featured with some kind of movie play, not if it comes in at $3,900.
Whether the diehard "wanna shoot film guys" on this forum like it or not
the world has changed and a camera that is single purpose becomes harder to sell every day.
Let's face it, smart phones have ripped the heart out of the camera industry and they're only going to get better, because they have more than huge developmental money to put in R+D and feature sets.
For real cameras to survive, in the consumer world they're going to have to offer much more than ok quality video and detailed stills.
They're going to have to have large in camera processing feature sets, sync up to smart devices, maybe even have wi-fi or 4g for their
own uploading as you shoot and they are going to have to produce an image that not only has more detail but looks bloody beautiful out of the can.
They are going to have to out smart the phones and the pads.
IMO
BC
-
The Olympus which is a beautifully built and retro looking camera has the most maddening digital interface and oddly placed dials and buttons of any camera I've ever owned, though it looks so pretty and om like it's kind of hard to believe how horribly wrong they wrote the menu system.
The Sonys had a menu system that was even worse by all accounts, but I seem to recall reading that they've actually redone it because it was so bad. So maybe Olympus will do the same thing.
-
For Nikon, I hope they sell their camera, but I don't think for a moment it won't end up full featured with some kind of movie play, not if it comes in at $3,900.
Whether the diehard "wanna shoot film guys" on this forum like it or not
the world has changed and a camera that is single purpose becomes harder to sell every day.
I believe that the people targeted by this camera didn't care about video 10 years ago, they don't care about video today and will still not care about video in 5 or 10 years.
The fact that the world changed around them is not relevant to them and I believe that there are enough million of those guys for a camera addressing them to be a screaming success.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Whether the diehard "wanna shoot film guys" on this forum like it or not
the world has changed and a camera that is single purpose becomes harder to sell every day.
The more I think about it the less interested I am in this "retro" Nikon. I have a lovely FTn sitting in its bag with a nice set of old Nikkors to keep it company. I have a freezer with lotsa rolls of Provia, Astia & Velvia and I have some mailers for easy processing. If I want the look & vibe of an old film camera, why not just use one?!
The truth is, I like having video capability in a stills camera. I bought my Blackmagic jobbie for "serious" stuff (well, really to make myself jump in nearer the deep end of the video world) but I've shot far more video over the past few weeks with the Panasonic GX7 than with the BMPCC. It's fun, challenging & different. My friend Jeanne & I were at a live performance of the public radio show Radiolab two weeks ago, during which I took many pics and also shot a couple video clips. The video is what Jeanne & my other friends glommed on to. The pics weren't ignored but the video was certainly appreciated. The Radiolab folks get that a visually kinetic presentation of their show gives it an extra zip...that's why they're doing it. Similarly I think in many situations video can give still photography an beneficial kick up the arse. In any creative pursuit I don't wanna do what I did before. I wanna do something new.
-Dave-
-
Meanwhile, in Scotland :
http://youtu.be/gc1GYoLhT5o
-
The more I think about it the less interested I am in this "retro" Nikon. I have a lovely FTn sitting in its bag with a nice set of old Nikkors to keep it company. I have a freezer with lotsa rolls of Provia, Astia & Velvia and I have some mailers for easy processing. If I want the look & vibe of an old film camera, why not just use one?!
The truth is, I like having video capability in a stills camera. I bought my Blackmagic jobbie for "serious" stuff (well, really to make myself jump in nearer the deep end of the video world) but I've shot far more video over the past few weeks with the Panasonic GX7 than with the BMPCC. It's fun, challenging & different. My friend Jeanne & I were at a live performance of the public radio show Radiolab two weeks ago, during which I took many pics and also shot a couple video clips. The video is what Jeanne & my other friends glommed on to. The pics weren't ignored but the video was certainly appreciated. The Radiolab folks get that a visually kinetic presentation of their show gives it an extra zip...that's why they're doing it. Similarly I think in many situations video can give still photography an beneficial kick up the arse. In any creative pursuit I don't wanna do what I did before. I wanna do something new.
-Dave-
Dave I think you hit on it.
Still photography and "video" don't have to be exclusive, in pleasure or professional photography and finally the camera makers are somewhat starting to realize this.
Olympus introduced the em1. Beautiful camera, good quality for mft, and olympus has tremendous in camera stabilization (really incredible) but marginalized video.
But the problem with Olympus is they are selling into a ever decreasing market (still cameras) with a somewhat marginalized format (mft) with a camera that is listed as pro but has no aspirations to sell to the sports photographer or produce excellent video (olympus' words, not mine). Now they realized they missed the boat and will concentrate more on video in combination with stills.
I personally think they missed it by not offering a continuous focus sports camera, because if you've ever lugged a 400mm and 300mm and 70 to 200mm zoom lens on three bodies, for 12 hours you'd sell your soul for three micro 4/3 cameras and lens set.
Anyway.
Camera companies are trying to reach everyone and where they miss is not being complete. The Sony A7. How many more people would be interested if they had a complete lens line of e-mount zeiss lenses setting in glittering case ready to go? The Olympus OM1, beautiful camera but hobbled in video, somewhat in stills and olympus still doesn't offer a fast 25mm lens (a 50mm in 35mm terms).
Olympus has a 35 to 150 lens that won't be out until next year.
Your the market, not me. You own multiple cameras, multiple formats and use all of them. You enjoy photography and want the cameras to match your vision. When a camera, any camera stops you from producing whatever you want, then you drawn to something else and here is where smart phones come in.
They get closer every day to being able to shoot anything, steadicam video, high rez stills, all with the ability to multitask as a phone, an uploader and a viewer. This is what worries the camera companies and if this new nikon sells a million copies ok, but I bet they'd like to sell 15 million.
IMO
BC
P.S. The one feature I think all makers need to add is the ability to automatically change the format ratio when you go vertical to horizontal. I love the 4:3 shape for vertical, 2:3 for horizontal, but it takes a stop, a menu change and then shoot. Since most cameras already have a sensor that detects vertical or horizontal, why not just have a setting that allows the crops to work in auto?
P.S.2, But other than cameras of the past I want a camera of the future. A 30mm x 30mm frame with multiple ratios, 5k video, 5 or 6k stills, detachable viewfinders, articulating lcd, multiple lens mounts from Canon, Nikon, Sony, to PL. XLR inputs, sdi out, hdmi out, ethernet still tethering out, Panasonic's amazing touch screen autofocus, Olympus 5 axis stabilization, built with connectors and attachments for rods, rails without having to go to heavy cages, calibrated monitor to match the computer, and built in ND in a form factor kind of like this.
(http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/camera_images_8/Canon/1DS_replacement/mf_Canon_2.jpg)
This is a type of camera Nikon could make because they have no video territory to protect.
I don't believe it will ever happen, but to me this is a camera that would easily cover every medium.
BTW: This would drive the traditionalists mad.
IMO
BC
Just a thought.
-
Mixed view on this, honestly I couldn't really care much about video as I don't use it often at all. I've never really cried some of my older bodies can't shoot video.
I suppose being blunt I don't see a problem with an FM2 type body that "does do video"
As long as they don't mess around handling and ergonomics.
-
...
BTW: This would drive the traditionalists mad.
...
My impression increasingly is, that the whole discussion is more or less about the effect a tool has on your mindset when working.
And people start to blame the tools, because they don't know what they want.
Some people easily tend to be confused by too much clutter in their way and I can understand well they want a reduced set of options.
When I had a loaned 4x5 Sinar camera it was a great joy to use and I remember being in quite a different state of mind than when being on a stroll with my compact.
Others can filter away what they don't need and such do not care.
When thinking gear, I see myself switching between fascination by 4x5 technical cameras, Digital back solutions, multifunctional modern DSLRs and super lightweight compacts or CSCs for street photography.
In no time in history we had so many choices on what type of tool to use which makes it harder to find what suits us.
But If you know who you are and what you really need and want you'll have a great time to live in as a photographer.
Cheers
~Chris
-
I think a lot of the difference in wants is where we come from.
I've always been a commercial photographer and never knew anything about what fine art or advanced amateurs did. Never even knew one.
To me equipment was always about what I needed. If I need to pull focus on a still life or straighten verticals then I bought and used a view camera, if I needed fast action it was 35mm, and when I shoot on figure fashion it was usually a medium format film camera.
I bought what I could afford and I never saw or thought that one had anything to do with the other.
I also never overbought. The FM's worked fine for me, same with the F3 and I held off forever on autofocus until I bought a F5 hooked to the kodak dcs 760 digital. Now that was a camera I loved and wish they had continued up that path, but it's Kodak and we know how that story goes.
Digital changed it for me and I'm sure the non professional set. At first digital was limiting, it was either a 1ds or a medium format back and both had their limitations but both were the two digital still workhorses.
Now 35mm cameras produce an image almost as good as medium format, apsc almost as good as full frame 35mm, mft almost as good as aps c.
Then motion imagery came into our life. I started the moment I saw the internet, because I knew that no longer would professional imaging be limited to only still imagery. There wasn't you tube, brand videos or facebook, because the bandwidth wasn't available, but it was coming and I knew it.
I remember I had a contract with a large stock agency for a brief period and I begged them to up the production to shoot motion and they said they didn't see the point. What a missed opportunity.
Anyway,
Things have changed for professional image makers.
I sometimes get the feeling that 1/2 of all the people I use to compete with now do seminars, training, teach, or have contracts with camera companies. I find nothing wrong with that I just find it kind of strange to see someone that I know would never shoot a small camera that wouldn't tether or work 100% professionally stand on stage holding a point and shoot promising the world that the Samnikcan 100zx is just as good as any camera he/she has used. I know thats BS, they know that's BS, but today since 90% of what we shoot is distributed electronically it probably doesn't matter.
i also know that there is a group that says their overburdened with tech. E-mails every twenty seconds, text messages, voice mail . . . hell I carry two cell phones and and sometimes feel I'm tethered to the world.
So I can see the simplicity of a Nikon that just takes a still and has a manual focus lens, but then again I kind of don't get why because Leica has that territory covered and actually so does all older digital cameras, but there may be a market, because I'm still shooting for a living and will be the first to admit I don't really know what the other side wants.
Though there might be some validity in the almost analog digital world, because you can't find a Leica M9 for sale anywhere on this planet that's not overpriced and the M9 is a strange duck because it's not modern, truly not fast, not automated and has low iso, but when right it shoots a hell of a beautiful image, so maybe I'm wrong about the fm2.
Actually this forum is the first time I've had real experience with the not for money photographers and I enjoy it.
I just know what I do, what I need and it's like they say, when your a hammer the whole world is a nail.
IMO
BC
-
Putting aside the debate about whether having one more or less setting on the mode dial (which is the only noticable effect that adding video needs to have) would impair the experience of a stills-only photographer, and looking just at what the rumor sites plus "Scottish" videos show us, what are the likely virtues of this D610-sized "Nikon DF"? What I see so far is hints of an old-style user interface, with just enough knobs and dials and buttons to allow the most common traditional adjustments to be made by touch, without needing to look at a screen or dive into menus. If so, that could be fine, roughly following the spirit of some recent Fujifilm and Olympus models.
-
P.S. The one feature I think all makers need to add is the ability to automatically change the format ratio when you go vertical to horizontal. I love the 4:3 shape for vertical, 2:3 for horizontal, but it takes a stop, a menu change and then shoot. Since most cameras already have a sensor that detects vertical or horizontal, why not just have a setting that allows the crops to work in auto?
P.S.2, But other than cameras of the past I want a camera of the future. A 30mm x 30mm frame with multiple ratios, 5k video, 5 or 6k stills, detachable viewfinders, articulating lcd, multiple lens mounts from Canon, Nikon, Sony, to PL. XLR inputs, sdi out, hdmi out, ethernet still tethering out, Panasonic's amazing touch screen autofocus, Olympus 5 axis stabilization, built with connectors and attachments for rods, rails without having to go to heavy cages, calibrated monitor to match the computer, and built in ND...
Hehe. I've thought square format sensors were a no-brainer since getting my first decent digicam. Hopefully we'll get there, and it'll include a bunch of the other stuff you mention, sooner rather than later. Damned legacy restrictions...
Just found this old (and very brief) post, probably my first public comment on the subject:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/3124955
(BTW, the G2 was the first camera I owned that offered RAW output.)
:D
-Dave-
-
Hehe. I've thought square format sensors were a no-brainer since getting my first decent digicam. Hopefully we'll get there, and it'll include a bunch of the other stuff you mention, sooner rather than later. Damned legacy restrictions...
Just found this old (and very brief) post, probably my first public comment on the subject:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/3124955
(BTW, the G2 was the first camera I owned that offered RAW output.)
:D
-Dave-
Great minds think alike Dave.
Not that anything I've written is really related to this thread because we know where most stand on an almost analog camera, but how great would it be if somebody did do a square sensor with automated crops.
Vertical, horizontal, 4:5, 4:3, 2:3, 2:1.
Kodak's early digital back shot square and you could set in the software the crop you wanted and even though you captured the whole frame you would only see the crop. Very cool, very easy.
Kodak had some close to great digital stuff, but kind just dropped it all, the rest of the story we know.
IMO
BC
-
Great minds think alike Dave.
Not that anything I've written is really related to this thread because we know where most stand on an almost analog camera, but how great would it be if somebody did do a square sensor with automated crops.
Vertical, horizontal, 4:5, 4:3, 2:3, 2:1.
Round would be a better match for the image circle than square and would allow the maximum use of the image circle with each crop.
-
Meanwhile, in the forest :
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/1380282_313177228820305_744254444_n.jpg)
-
I've also been hankering after a square format camera. But rather than wanting auto crop when turning the camera vertical, I would enjoy not having to turn the camera. Which usually results in a less ergonomic grip/camera. Being able to overlay a crop through a simple toggle button or dial would be fine and dandy though.
-
Right...a square (or round) sensor eliminates the need to physically rotate the camera when switching from horizontal to vertical framing (or vice versa). You press a button, or tap a virtual one, instead and the frame of your chosen aspect ratio rotates in the VF. You could also have an auto-level feature that, rather than showing you an orientation line you straighten out by manually leveling the camera, would adjust the entire frame in the VF to maintain that straight line. Better make that an option you can turn off, though. ;)
-Dave-
-
More ad teasing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc1GYoLhT5o&feature=player_embedded#t=0) going on.
.
-
Right...a square (or round) sensor eliminates the need to physically rotate the camera when switching from horizontal to vertical framing (or vice versa). You press a button, or tap a virtual one, instead and the frame of your chosen aspect ratio rotates in the VF.
Or you simply shoot square/FF and crop if need be later. Handy if you need to shoot a shot that is hard to repeat and then you get the option of vert or horizontal layout for design purposes.
-
This square format discussion is getting way off topic, especially since neither it nor the Nikon Scottish Wilderness Camera are really about Compact System Cameras, so I invite you to join the discussion at
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=83480.msg674641#new
-
Or practice with your camera, so you know how it works. ;D
I have had some differences of opinion with wildlightphoto, but I seriously think you should have looked at his portfolio before posting this.
-
Rather than write a lot more words, I'll just say that I agree with everything that Bernard has said on this subject.
-
I have had some differences of opinion with wildlightphoto, but I seriously think you should have looked at his portfolio before posting this.
Two things 1 - I can't as it's hidden, 2 - It's not actually relevant as it was in reply to wildlifephoto saying this.
And when one of the unwanted features is accidentally activated and the camera doesn't behave as expected I waste time and lose photo opportunities trying to figure out what feature was activated, how to disable it and how to prevent it from happening again.
-
Meanwhile, close to the pure photographic fire :
(http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nikon-DF-FX-DSLR-camera-teaser.jpg)
-
Meanwhile, in Edinburgh with a kinda depressed guy :
(http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nikon-DF-camera-teaser-4.jpg)
Look like the VF has good dimensions for a superb OVF. Lets see where it's going.
-
The pentaprism has a similar look to the F3HP, which might bode well. The lens is clearly an AF lens, so we're not looking at a manual focus set-up, and being a G series lens, no aperture ring, so we're either going to be left with the scroll wheels, or there needs to be a supplementary aperture ring around the throat of the lens mount if it's going to be delivering that 'retro' feel.
-
I think all the fuss about Manual Focussing is related to the View finder and not really on other physical controls.
-
The desire for a sensor that "fits" the image circle better is common (rectangular, hexagonal, circular, oversized rectangular…). It hinges on:
-Large/odd sensor sizes being economically viable (big question mark)
-The image circle being circular (I believe that many lenses block the light outside of normal sensor area to reduce glare, internally and externally)
-The mirror movement/PDAF-stuff allowing it (if DSLR)
-h
-
I think all the fuss about Manual Focussing is related to the View finder and not really on other physical controls.
No doubt, but the issue of aperture setting remains. I don't see a scroll wheel like on my D700. If Nikon is going for a retro feel, and shutter & aperture setting is going to be part of that, I do wonder what system we'll get.
-
No doubt, but the issue of aperture setting remains. I don't see a scroll wheel like on my D700. If Nikon is going for a retro feel, and shutter & aperture setting is going to be part of that, I do wonder what system we'll get.
Body side aperture ring is likely I would think.
Or brain controlled. Press and think.
Now the hybrid VF is the key I think. The clarity of an OVF with the accuracy of a 100% sensor read out live view overlay would provide the ultimate UE.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The VF looks like it is big and beautiful, F4/F3hp big.
-
Two things 1 - I can't as it's hidden.
http://www.wildlightphoto.com
-
I hope you fellas get the "analog" camera you want, but I think you could buy a used 5d2 and have as good if not better camera and the work would "still be in your hands".
IMO
BC
-
Cooter, I just want a larger viewfinder. I could care less about the analogue retro aspect. If the VF is not great, I will pass.
-
Cooter, I just want a larger viewfinder. I could care less about the analogue retro aspect. If the VF is not great, I will pass.
Same for me. I'd rather use a camera with fewer unwanted features but that's not a critical need. The viewfinder is critical.
-
I just want to point out, the VF on the F3 (at least the HP version which I have) is not that big, about the same as the D800. For a big VF, think the Olympus OM-1.
-
For a big VF, think the Olympus OM-1.
Or Leicaflex SL.
-
Cooter, I just want a larger viewfinder. I could care less about the analogue retro aspect. If the VF is not great, I will pass.
Same for me. I'd rather use a camera with fewer unwanted features but that's not a critical need. The viewfinder is critical.
Hey T and Wildlight (is that your name Wild Light cause that's kind of cool, though I would have picked Flash Light, but still Wild Light is ok)
It's not the size of the viewfinder, it's that crazy ground plastic they use, to make everything look mostly in focus.
I know you've done this but at night, shoot a street sign to look out of focus. You know where you can tell it's a sign but can't read it.
Through the lens you can read it, when you shoot it even if you stop down further than wide open, it will be blurred like crazy.
You have to go like 2 stops down to get the same effect you see in the ground plastic.
That's why manual focus is a bitch on these cameras.
Canon did make a replacement ground plastic that wouldn't do that for their earlier 1ds series, but they don't make it anymore. It was a little darker but it worked and you could focus.
But hey, used digital backs are falling off the trees and used Contax are everywhere so they're is an answer for a real analog man like Wild Light.
The contax screen may be small (unless you use the wl finder) but it's bone accurate.
Personally I don't have any faith in any of these little cameras anymore. I dig my mft 43 cameras and thought the Sony had promise until seeing those images on dee pee review and whoa, never seen so much painterly effect since the old kill the noise in a phase back software, circa 2003. If those are representative of the new Sony, it looks like Van Gough took up photography.
But the Leica S has a big viewfinder that works and a damn good ccd sensor, though it cost more than a J.P. Morgan SEC fine. Same with the Pentax 645, and it just cost the price of a parking ticket in Manhattan.
BC
-
I think view via the viewfinder ground glass equates to around f2.8 [in Canons at least]. So with a 50mm f14 for example, I not only end up with a very different looking shot as DoF is so shallow, but focus can be way off too, if manually focusing. Shooting using Live view is a workaround for tripod work or using AF confirmation indicators in viewfinders
-
I just want to point out, the VF on the F3 (at least the HP version which I have) is not that big, about the same as the D800. For a big VF, think the Olympus OM-1.
The regular F3 was slightly better with 0.8x magnification compared to the 0.75x of the "high eye-point" HP version, but for VF magnification, even the humble Pentax K-1000 did better at 0.88x (but less coverage percentage). And the Olympus OM-1 was 0.92x; probably a record in 35mm format.
It seems that the combined shift to higher eye-points (to accommodate spectacle wearers?) and displaying more information around the image in the VF drove VF image sizes down, and then AF pushed them down even more.
-
BUT, the K1000 wasn't as bright as the F3hp, as I recall through the haze of memory from 1987.
The regular F3 was slightly better with 0.8x magnification compared to the 0.75x of the "high eye-point" HP version, but for VF magnification, even the humble Pentax K-1000 did better at 0.88x (but less coverage percentage). And the Olympus OM-1 was 0.92x; probably a record in 35mm format.
It seems that the combined shift to higher eye-points (to accommodate spectacle wearers?) and displaying more information around the image in the VF drove VF image sizes down, and then AF pushed them down even more.
-
BUT, the K1000 wasn't as bright as the F3hp, as I recall through the haze of memory from 1987.
T I know you like an optical finder, but give yourself a chance to wrap your head around the Olympus em-1 finder. Actually those 43 lenses feel just like little leicas and there are so many ways to hit accurate focus it's crazy and with proper processing (in c1, or the olympus software or the very best iridient raw developer) you'll get an image so close to your m9 you'll be amazed.
BC
-
BUT, the K1000 wasn't as bright as the F3hp, as I recall through the haze of memory from 1987.
No dispute there; I only mentioned the K1000 as an example of a far cheaper and less prestigious camera with distinctly higher VF mag. than the F3HP which had if anything lowish VF magnification compared to its contemporaries, in exchange for its high eye-point.
But more to the point, there is a natural trade-off between VF brightness and VF image size (when using comparable lenses, like 50/1.8 in each case): the same light from lens is being spread over a larger region. So it is not surprising that the 0.75x VF of the F3HP is brighter than the 0.88x of the K1000. In fact I suspect that this, combined with the increasing usage zoom lenses that generally deliver a less bright image than primes start with [going with a trend to faster films?], was one factor in the trend to lower VF magnification. My student kit of K1000 with f/3.5-5.6 zoom was not great for VF brightness!
-
Tried three of the Oympus with the electronic finders. Too jumpy and a real pain to use because of it. Also, the bright view spotlights you in the darkness and ruins your night vision. Just when you need it for stars and auroras..., you lose your vision.
-
I will check it out next time I'm in NYC or LA.
T I know you like an optical finder, but give yourself a chance to wrap your head around the Olympus em-1 finder. Actually those 43 lenses feel just like little leicas and there are so many ways to hit accurate focus it's crazy and with proper processing (in c1, or the olympus software or the very best iridient raw developer) you'll get an image so close to your m9 you'll be amazed.
BC
-
Tried three of the Oympus with the electronic finders. Too jumpy and a real pain to use because of it. Also, the bright view spotlights you in the darkness and ruins your night vision. Just when you need it for stars and auroras..., you lose your vision.
The new E-M1 tones down the EVF brightness in low light...it is a problem with earlier cameras. The E-M5 and E-M1 EVFs refresh at a faster rate than earlier versions too.
BTW, here's a cool way to look at the Moon with any camera equipped with Live View. An articulated rear screen helps as does manual aperture control. Mount a long lens on the camera--I use a Nikon 400mm + 2x TC on my m43 cameras--and then focus on the Moon. Set the aperture for a pleasant view on the LCD. Now aim just in front of where the Moon will soon be, set the LCD magnification to a high value & let the Moon glide into view. With enough magnification you'll feel like Neil Armstrong flying the Apollo 11 lander across the lunar landscape towards Tranquility Base.
-Dave-
-
actually I sold my om-2 because the viewfinder was too big for me, meaning I didn't have a satisfying view of the whole image. I still have my f3hp... that size is the optimum for me I think
-
The 5th video was released.
Besides the retro controls, it seems that Nikon has put a major focus on build quality.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Was out last night with a friend and we were checking night sky for auroras before the clouds moved in.
His electronic eye level finder camera was bright and very distracting. Shined back out the eyepiece. Looking into it was an experience in night blindness for the next 10 minutes.
Much prefer my optical finder without all the bright lights showing up.
Add in having to tape over all the blinking lights on the outside of some of the electronic marvels so they aren't so distracting...
I know many like the screen viewing on the back of the cameras but I can't deal with them in dark settings without losing night vision for awhile. Enough so it ruins it for me much of the time.
-
[quote author=Deardorff link=topic=83306.msg676025#msg676025 date=1383313247
I know many like the screen viewing on the back of the cameras but I can't deal with them in dark settings without losing night vision for awhile. Enough so it ruins it for me much of the time.
[/quote]
Surely it must be possible to reduce brightness through a menu setting, or secure a piece of ND glass to the viewfinder?
Having a software option of automatically adjusting EVF brightness in accordance with scene brightness (using e.g. exposure parameters/light metering) would seem like a sensible option for cases such as yours.
-h
-
Perhaps this thread should be moved (and retitled!): the latest images of the Nikon Df at http://nikonrumors.com/2013/11/04/this-is-the-nikon-df.aspx/#more-66660 make it clear that it is hardly a "digital FM2" and very far from being a compact system camera. Instead, externally it just adds half a dozen single-function mechanical dials in place of one of the two multi-purpose electronically-coupled dials, and keeps the mode dial down to four positions (MASP) instead of five (MASPV) by disabling the video capabilities that its sensor and processing chips certainly have.
EDIT: Maybe it does not lose the second "soft dial"; that unmarked round knurled thing on the front below the shutter release might be that. If so, the Df just adds half a dozen old-school mechanical control knobs as alternatives along-side the standard modern controls.
Plus a small top-panel LCD to display info that the old-school dials cannot, like 1/3rd step shutter speed choices.
-
Pics are up. Looks good in black. A bit busy what with all those dials.
-
Perhaps this thread should be moved (and retitled!): the latest images of the Nikon Df at http://nikonrumors.com/2013/11/04/this-is-the-nikon-df.aspx/#more-66660 make it clear that it is hardly a "digital FM2" and very far from being a compact system camera. Instead, externally it just adds half a dozen single-function mechanical dials in place of one of the two multi-purpose electronically-coupled dials, and keeps the mode dial down to four positions (MASP) instead of five (MASPV) by disabling the video capabilities that its sensor and processing chips certainly have.
A solution in search of a problem, if you ask me, but this is something that clearly was driven by the marketing department all along.
-
I really like it.
Beats those so called retro models in the past that just had a big program dial and retro styling. This is the real deal, right down to a traditional shutter release...
Well done NIKON !
-
Looks like they took the top plate of a rather over cluttered '80's film camera and stuck it on top of a DSLR. Yeuch.
-
. . . this is something that clearly was driven by the marketing department all along.
This is not my information. At all. My source, who is in advertising, tells me that a group within Nikon developed the camera because its what they wanted in a DSLR. Prototypes sat around for a long time, with different sensors, and was OK'd for production fairly recently.
-
I just hope the threat of the D600-like, 39 point focussing is wrong. It might be OK in an APS-C sensor, but not an FX - we need a wider range of focus point options in the frame. Cluttering them all together in the centre is just silly
-
This is not my information. At all. My source, who is in advertising, tells me that a group within Nikon developed the camera because its what they wanted in a DSLR. Prototypes sat around for a long time, with different sensors, and was OK'd for production fairly recently.
Very interesting, thanks.
-
I just belatedly noticed something ironic: the allegedly retro-styled, old-school Nikon Df is being shown with an AF-S Nikkor 50mm 1:1.8 G as its kit lens --- "G" meaning no aperture ring, so its aperture must be set the new-fangled way, from the body.
All I can say is "Nostalgia ain't what it used to be."
-
I just belatedly noticed something ironic: the allegedly retro-styled, old-school Nikon Df is being shown with an AF-S Nikkor 50mm 1:1.8 G as its kit lens --- "G" meaning no aperture ring, so its aperture must be set the new-fangled way, from the body.
All I can say is "Nostalgia ain't what it used to be."
My reaction, too.
But the shutter speed dial is nostalgic to me.
-
I just belatedly noticed something ironic: the allegedly retro-styled, old-school Nikon Df is being shown with an AF-S Nikkor 50mm 1:1.8 G as its kit lens --- "G" meaning no aperture ring, so its aperture must be set the new-fangled way, from the body.
But there had to be some means of setting the aperture on G lenses. I'm sorely tempted by the Df, and if I do get one, my old Nikkors still have an aperture ring ...
-
But there had to be some means of setting the aperture on G lenses.
Of course; the Df needs to support all modern control options, and simply adds some old-style ones as well, leading to its twenty buttons, eight or so dials, and two electronic screens.
My comment was just about the irony of not having an aperture ring on its kit lens; especially after reading so many posts waxing enthusiastic about this "digital FM2” supporting the old-style approach of setting aperture with a ring on the lens (which AFAIK is true of any FX body when used with a non-G lens.)
I have nothing against this niche model: if it makes a profit, then that helps Nikon to develop other products, so all Nikon users benefit, and no one is harmed. But it does amuse me a little, and the pretentious Scottish hipster teaser videos amuse me even more.
-
The $64,000 question is "does it have interchangeable focusing screens"?
-
The $64,000 question is "does it have interchangeable focusing screens"?
+1
-
Not really a $64000 question, it seems it turned up on amazon for a short time as a $2799 question ;D
I get the retro (why not Nikon have a history in cameras)
On the other hand there is a tiresome retro element that's being overdone and you might get sick of it at some point.
Fuji did it, seemed to get away with it (at the time and it made sense for that type of camera)
Now it just looks like copy cat stuff...
Anyway, my initial reaction is so what
I get full manual control on all my SLR's, shutter and aperture. Yes the dial for shutter speed is nice, I don't mind an ISO dial either (if it has one not sure) or aperture ring. But things have moved on in the industry, and a well designed camera doesn't need that to handle well. I don't have a problem with a 16mp FF sensor either plenty of resolution for most, should be a champ for low light.
More than anything though I'm left feeling..ok so another overpriced FF camera
Sure to get it's fans, but $2800? Come on does it have gold plated dials or something?
-
... I don't mind an ISO dial either (if it has one not sure) or aperture ring.
...
I don't have a problem with a 16mp FF sensor either plenty of resolution for most, should be a champ for low light.
Oh no: another person who forgets that the aperture ring is a feature of a lens, not of a body, and that the aperture rings on Nikon lenses work with all Nikon FX bodies.
I agree that many people will have no problems with the 16MP resolution limit, but why do you think that images from the 16MP sensor will be any better in low light than 16MP downsampling from Nikon's 24MP or 36MP sensor options? IIRC, the D800 IQ ties or bests the D4 in comparisons at 16MP. If all a lower resolution sensor does is reduce one's resolution options, I do not get it. If instead the lower resolution goes with supporting higher frame rates, as it does in the D4, then that trade-off can make sense. But from the leaked specs, the Df has no high frame rate advantage over the 24MP D610.
-
I am with you guys on the question of an interchangeable screen. Maybe we will find out soon.
I don't get the crappy lens it comes with. I still have the great manual focus 50mm f1.4 my FM2 came with, why not something like that? The lens in this "kit" reminds me of the old 50mm Series E lens.
Bottom line for me however is the price is too high. I need a tool, not a high priced toy. On the other side of things, maybe see some good used D800s hit the market come December.
:)
-
... and the pretentious Scottish hipster teaser videos amuse me even more.
The person depicted in those videos was quite normal. Certainly not a hipster... ;D
-
+2
+1
-
I am with you guys on the question of an interchangeable screen. Maybe we will find out soon.
I don't get the crappy lens it comes with. I still have the great manual focus 50mm f1.4 my FM2 came with, why not something like that? The lens in this "kit" reminds me of the old 50mm Series E lens.
Except that the E series were truly shitty and this G lens is really great. Yes its cheap, but far from shitty like an E series.
-
I don't think people understand what a "Hipster" is now a days. It wasn't always a dirty word.
The person depicted in those videos was quite normal. Certainly not a hipster... ;D
-
If all a lower resolution sensor does is reduce one's resolution options, I do not get it. If instead the lower resolution goes with supporting higher frame rates, as it does in the D4, then that trade-off can make sense. But from the leaked specs, the Df has no high frame rate advantage over the 24MP D610.
The videos suggested for people going on shooting trips, so for a given amount of data storage in RAW at 16MP you will save more shots than at 24 or 36 MP. I see a lot of people confirming that is why they liked that sensor in this type of camera.
This camera may be outside of the normal consumer, advanced and professional lines ups and in a new segment, so trying to validate it at spec sheet bang for buck analysis is not going to reveal much if that is what you are after. I guess if successful they may bring out new versions more to your liking if you need higher MP
-
If it has a good viewfinder with the option of using a real screen, I'd pay $3k just for the body. Otherwise it doesn't seem to offer anything over a D610/800, except for better ISO.
It looks cluttered, not at all like an FM2 or even an F4. We will see.
-
I agree. I don't think it really compares with their other cameras, its apart from their product range.
And 16mp is more than enough for editorial or moderate prints.
The videos suggested for people going on shooting trips, so for a given amount of data storage in RAW at 16MP you will save more shots than at 24 or 36 MP. I see a lot of people confirming that is why they liked that sensor in this type of camera.
This camera may be outside of the normal consumer, advanced and professional lines ups and in a new segment, so trying to validate it at spec sheet bang for buck analysis is not going to reveal much if that is what you are after. I guess if successful they may bring out new versions more to your liking if you need higher MP
-
I don't think people understand what a "Hipster" is now a days. It wasn't always a dirty word.
The suggestion someone using a digital camera is a hipster is so mainstream ;D
-
Maybe Hasselblad will bring out some special editions covered in exotic reptile skin. ;D Sorry, just really don't see the point to it.
-
I like this quote in another thread from ndevlin
I was super-excited about the A7r, but in my hand it was just another soulless computer with a lens on it. If it performs brilliantly with my Leica glass I might buy one, but otherwise the forthcoming Nikon DF is much more exciting, to me at least.
- N.
Despite being very different Cameras I can see many like ndevlin considering each one for various reasons and the charm of one could win over the performance of the other :)
-
The videos suggested for people going on shooting trips, so for a given amount of data storage in RAW at 16MP you will save more shots than at 24 or 36 MP.
Given how small and inexpensive 16GB SD and 32GB cards are these days (under $1 per GB or 4c per D800 raw file) particular relative to the weight and price of the Nikon Df, I am not persuaded by this "saves memory on a long trip" argument.
P. S. 1oz of 32GB SD cards [60 cards] can hold about 36,000 D800 raw files and takes up about as much room as one roll of film.
-
If it has a good viewfinder with the option of using a real screen, I'd pay $3k just for the body. Otherwise it doesn't seem to offer anything over a D610/800, except for better ISO.
It looks cluttered, not at all like an FM2 or even an F4. We will see.
The pictures make it look a little uh, fat. but hey photos make everyone gain weight.
I don't know who this camera is for, I assume to cash in on the fuji, olympus, days if yore look and hey it might work, though I don't get what the point is not to go with at least more of those megapixels everyone gets up for, not when the Sony is selling for less.
I don't think any new camera is going to have a great manually focuses screen, unless it's an evf and a that camp is divided into love it or hate it.
If I was going for the hipster look and wanted around 16mpx I'd just buy the Xe1 and glue a little window on the left side so it would look like a rangefinder.
At least the fuji shoots a very cool looking file.
IMO
BC
-
If I was going for the hipster look and wanted around 16mpx I'd just buy the Xe1 and glue a little window on the left side so it would look like a rangefinder.
At least the fuji shoots a very cool looking file.
Since the Df uses a D4 sensor, it is probably at least 2 stops better than the Fuji at high ISO.
It feels like night and day to me but what do I know? ;)
Combine this with the new DxO 9 high ISO noise reduction and you have a low light ability that is simply unheard of in a body at this price point.
Besides, considering that there are only 2 real contenders in DSLRs these days, I feel that Nikon deserves a lot of praise over Canon would it only be for just for doing these things as opposed to releasing another boring point upgrade of black plastic DSLR focusing on video shooting.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
No interchangeable screens, .7 viewfinder magnification.
I'm out then.
-
No interchangeable screens, .7 viewfinder magnification.
I'm out then.
same here, quite unfortunate!
To me, it looks like a fat girl in tight jeans: lots of curves, IN ALL THE WRONG PLACES!
I just wish they had styled it in more of a "retro" theme, like a FM2N or F3, like this mock-up(below):
(http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj524/picrumors/picrumors001/XoPoUxz_zps87ce1dad.png)
-Dan
-
No interchangeable screens, .7 viewfinder magnification.
I'm out then.
I'll just pop a roll of Provia in my FTn then and have an enjoyable day out with the Real Thing. ;)
-Dave-
-
Since the Df uses a D4 sensor, it is probably at least 2 stops better than the Fuji at high ISO.
It feels like night and day to me but what do I know? ;)
Combine this with the new DxO 9 high ISO noise reduction and you have a low light ability that is simply unheard of in a body at this price point.
Besides, considering that there are only 2 real contenders in DSLRs these days, I feel that Nikon deserves a lot of praise over Canon would it only be for just for doing these things as opposed to releasing another boring point upgrade of black plastic DSLR focusing on video shooting.
Cheers,
Bernard
I have a D4 and it is not much use as far as image quality goes, although the AF is very good.
The pen and the coat in the ads look nice :)
Why do I feel camera ads are now fashion ads for guys?
I am afraid James is right, the Olympus OM-D5 is probably the nearest we're going to get to old 35mm camera form factor, and with the OM-D1 we can see them go kludgy again.
Edmund
-
I'll just pop a roll of Provia in my FTn then and have an enjoyable day out with the Real Thing. ;)
-Dave-
good call :)
-
I have a D4 and it is not much use as far as image quality goes, although the AF is very good.
OK, send it to me, I'll know how to tap into its potential. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Tataaaaa! (Drumroll):
http://www.nikon.com/news/2013/1105_dslr_01.htm
and
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/df/index.htm
-
Hey, Nikon, give me this (see attached pic) with an electronic sensor inside and a few buttons on the back to deal with the basic necessities...then I'll take you seriously re. "retro." Until then, good luck with the marketeer schtick-ola.
-Dave-
-
Hey, Nikon, give me this (see attached pic) with an electronic sensor inside and a few buttons on the back to deal with the basic necessities...then I'll take you seriously re. "retro." Until then, good luck with the marketeer schtick-ola.
-Dave-
I'm not exactly sure this camera is just a "chicque" retro jewel, "Nikons Leica clone" or whatever.
Its a state of the art high tech machine with a retro style user interface with many one-function-dials and all important functions being accessible from the mechanical interface.
Its a ruggedized high-tech steampunk machine.
I am very curious how the photographer community will react to it.
-
I can get a Sony A7r for AUD 2399 so end of story for me. Even though I may be a photo bigamist I just can't see the point.
-
Tataaaaa! (Drumroll):
http://www.nikon.com/news/2013/1105_dslr_01.htm
Dear me, what pretentious marketing BS. Take this (poorly written, run on) sentence.
Not only does it support the capture of more beautiful and artistic photos, as well as a variety of photographic expression, possible with other cameras, it also allows users to take their time with each individual photo to achieve images they will enjoy, as well as making the process of photography itself more pleasing.
And despite it's retro pretensions apparently it shoots 3D! :o
The Df is also able to reproduce textures with a superior three-dimensional appearance at low sensitivities, such as ISO 100, without sacrificing dynamic range.
Sadly it seems like Nikon are indulging in a marketing exercise aimed at people up themselves.
-
Dear me, what pretentious marketing BS. Take this (poorly written, run on) sentence.
Not only does it support the capture of more beautiful and artistic photos, as well as a variety of photographic expression, possible with other cameras, it also allows users to take their time with each individual photo to achieve images they will enjoy, as well as making the process of photography itself more pleasing.
And despite it's retro pretensions apparently it shoots 3D! :o
The Df is also able to reproduce textures with a superior three-dimensional appearance at low sensitivities, such as ISO 100, without sacrificing dynamic range.
Sadly it seems like Nikon are indulging in a marketing exercise aimed at people up themselves.
You didn't get the irony, did you?
I should have marked it - internet takes it away ... :P
Still I think this cameras user interface looks interesting - pricing is another question.
I'm not interested what marketing guys tell - but I like the "everything accessible without menus" concept.
What I'd especially want if I were in the market for a DSLR (and its given here):
- Extra rings for speed, iso and exposure compensation.
- Focus ring at lens
- F-Stop ring at lens
- Stopping down preview button at front
- MUP
- Self timer long enough to let vibrations fade out after mirror slap.
-
it's a toy for optometrists with a leaning towards sentimentality to use on their holidays.
it's not ground breaking, it's a retro-bauble for fetishists and nothing more.
-
Decadence.
What's this thread doing in the "compact" board anyway? It's another dinosaur DSLR with a few grams trimmed off. The offer of a retro-look repackaged 50/1.8 only serves to emphasise the fact that this is a chunk of male jewellery in no fundamental sense different to the "Hasselblad" Loony. Of course it will produce decent snaps if you point it at something interesting like everything else on the market. Ludicrous.
"Never give a sucker an even break"
W.C. Fields
Roy
-
Colour me underwhelmed. It looks nice enough - I certainly prefer the styling to that of the other Nikon DSLRs - but a ridiculous price for what is a camera that is less well specced than a D610. For heaven's sake, it's considerably more expensive than a D800e, and given that I spend more time looking through my camera than at it, looks alone ain't enough.
I was waiting to see whether this would be my replacement for the D700. It isn't. I think I'll be sticking with what I've got for now. I did want a second body, but that might just be a Fujifilm X100s.
-
There's nothing wrong with mongrels - hybrid vigour & all that jazz. Mongrels don't tend to suffer from the problems we see in many pure-breds, and it's certainly significantly cheaper to buy a scruffy cross-breed than a Kennel Club registered fancy breed. Looking at the price of the Df, the analogy has just fallen apart
-
it's a toy for optometrists with a leaning towards sentimentality to use on their holidays.
it's not ground breaking, it's a retro-bauble for fetishists and nothing more.
I absolutely agree with you !
-
I think there is no reason to bash this camera.
What deserves bashing is the price and the way it is marketed.
That should be separated.
For people only doing stills this could be the camera they desire.
I personally would like a user interface like the one presented.
Though - if I had to chose inside Fullframe Land today - I'd go for a D800 or the A7R.
My impression also is the price tag definitely adds to the bad reception of this camera here.
As if the ostrich scrotum leather version already were on its way .....
-
Never mind retro, this camera opens up a whole new genre of cameras. Mongrel.
I resisted the temptation to say this, mainly on the "hybrid vigour" basis; someone got there before me on that too. And wasn't this thing supposed to be some sort of hybrid? What kind of hybrid are we talking about?
Roy
-
Yes, I'm sure the Nikon Df camera will be full of hybrid vigour & all that jazz.
I'm not. As I said, the analogy soon breaks down
-
I will try to see where the Df makes practical sense for some people: the 16MP D4 sensor might have some edge in low light over 16MP downsampling from the higher resolution sensor of the far less expensive D610, and some people will like all the single-purpose locked setting knobs labelled with the values they set. And a few might own so many ancient pre-Ai lenses that the Df is more cost effective than getting some newer lenses, if manual focusing through a modern 0.7x non split-screen VF is OK.
But as to the "everything accessible without menus" concept: plenty of other cameras offer that, with settings done by rotating one of several soft dials, in some cases while pressing a button (say for exposure index, aka "ISO"). The Df also requires pressing a button along with rotating a dial due to the locks. Maybe it comes down to whether you want the option to adjust settings while looking through the VF (difficult on the Df) or want the option to make them with the rear screen off and eye away from the VF (not possible on most other modern cameras).
-
I will try to see where the Df makes practical sense for some people: the 16MP D4 sensor might have some edge in low light over 16MP downsampling from the higher resolution sensor of the far less expensive D610, and some people will like all the single-purpose locked setting knobs labelled with the values they set. And a few might own so many ancient pre-Ai lenses that the Df is more cost effective than getting some newer lenses, if manual focusing through a modern 0.7x non split-screen VF is OK.
But as to the "everything accessible without menus" concept: plenty of other cameras offer that, with settings done by rotating one of several soft dials, in some cases while pressing a button (say for exposure index, aka "ISO"). The Df also requires pressing a button along with rotating a dial due to the locks. Maybe it comes down to whether you want the option to adjust settings while looking through the VF (difficult on the Df) or want the option to make them with the rear screen off and eye away from the VF (not possible on most other modern cameras).
Yep - the devil is in the details. I think we'll have to see until people have actually used that camera and compared out of practical experience. We will soon know if the user interface is going to be liked or if it is just a marketing gag missing the important details.
After all one question is in my mind:
If there were a Camera with the exact features like the D800, just with a User Interface designed like the DF:
Assuming same price and features (including video):
Would you people prefer the D800 as it is or a redesigned one á la Df ?
-
Would you people prefer the D800 as it is or a redesigned one á la Df ?
I'd go for the Df style over the current D800 build, but I'd want a built-in viewfinder cover, not the silly piece of plastic on a leash
-
I'm sure the boys and girls in Solms are celebrating.
-
I'd go for the Df style over the current D800 build, but I'd want a built-in viewfinder cover, not the silly piece of plastic on a leash
Yea that's kind of a cheap out, but so is 16mpx, they must have had an overbuy on chips.
Anyway, it's not a bad looking camera, and I think it's 1000 % better than the star trek phaser look Nikons had gone to, but I bet when Olympus looks at this camera and the Sony, I'll bet they want to kick themselves for not making a little bit larger e-m5.
I dunno about retro. I'd like a less menu driven world, but I don't really want to go back and use a blackberry either, because if I did I would have.
But then again as much as looks matter and sex sells, when I look at all the cameras I own from Canons, Contax, Leicas, Nikons, REDs, Panasonics and the Olympus, I spend more time with those blob looking gh3's because there the most capable cameras I've ever owned.
If my omd e-m5 (i think that's how your suppose to say it other than omd 1 or 2 or 3,) did what the gh3's did I'd buy a box of them.
(http://ishotit.com/gh3_lav.jpg)
Maybe doing more is important, but I guess that's the point, what are you going to do with this df camera you couldn't do before?
IMO
BC
-
Overall I think Nikon have tried too hard and over designed this camera.
They have put too much stuff on there, from the top it's an old school (mostly) design with dials which is great bar the PASM switch is awkward and poorly placed IMO.
Then on the back they've basically slapped a D600/D7000 style rear control layout.
It's an awkward attempt to blend modern with traditional it's control overload and way OTT IMO.
I appreciate it's an SLR and something like Fuji's X range is not perfect handling wise, but they seem to have been able to bring the retro theme to the market better without complete control overload.
I know a modern camera has to have more settings for stuff that just wasn't around back in ye oldie days, but in my view "less is more"
They should have streamlined the controls much much more than they have.
As it is right now they've basically thrown everything at it and hope it sticks, I don't think it works or will work for most people.
Price wise I got my email from WEX todays (UK seller)
£2749 with a 50mm f1.8 lens
This is DOA no question, didn't expect budget bargain prices, but it's just another overpriced full frame body trying to cash in on retro done poorly.
Nikon would have been far better off going for a much simpler design, or just scrap it and give people a budget FF DSLR which might actually sell!
-
D800 interface is fine. It's the viewfinder I want from Nikon's film days. A good screen and .76 at least. I'm tired of the cheap seats with .7 magnification and plastic screens. I don't want a 1ds3/D4 style behemoth or a kludge mfd behemoth. I don't want a freeze framed stuttering EVF. The old style VF is all the retro I need.
Yep - the devil is in the details. I think we'll have to see until people have actually used that camera and compared out of practical experience. We will soon know if the user interface is going to be liked or if it is just a marketing gag missing the important details.
After all one question is in my mind:
If there were a Camera with the exact features like the D800, just with a User Interface designed like the DF:
Assuming same price and features (including video):
Would you people prefer the D800 as it is or a redesigned one á la Df ?
-
D800 interface is fine. It's the viewfinder I want from Nikon's film days. A good screen and .76 at least. I'm tired of the cheap seats with .7 magnification and plastic screens. I don't want a 1ds3/D4 style behemoth or a kludge mfd behemoth. I don't want a freeze framed stuttering EVF. The old style VF is all the retro I need.
Bjorn Rorslett has one in hand at the moment. He states that while the viewfinder is not from the old film cameras it is better than the one in the D800.
-
US price is $2999 (with new lens)
UK price is £2749 (also with new lens - no body-only option here)
Given the current exchange rate, the UK price should be about £1,800. Even allowing for 20% VAT (sales tax), we're being ripped off. Again.
-
I don't get this camera. Is it a low-light street-shooter for the fashion-conscious (or those old enough to reminisce about the good old days)? Is it a DSLR-centric manufacturers response to successful (?) retro/rangefinder-esque models from MILF manufacturers? Is it about nikon having a large bin of D4 sensors that they wanted to monetize?
-h
-
Is it about nikon having a large bin of D4 sensors that they wanted to monetize?
If it was just that, a cheaper D600 variant would have sufficed
-
D800 interface is fine. It's the viewfinder I want from Nikon's film days. A good screen and .76 at least. I'm tired of the cheap seats with .7 magnification and plastic screens. I don't want a 1ds3/D4 style behemoth or a kludge mfd behemoth. I don't want a freeze framed stuttering EVF. The old style VF is all the retro I need.
Every time I read a comment like this I wonder if the poster has actually tried a recent EVF equipped camera. I suspect they haven't.
-
Looked at DPreview. It seems silly. I'm not bashing it, but . . . The good and functional aspects of the F3/F4 and even FM series are missing:
1. Its big compared to the film cameras.
2. Locking dials on the F4 were a pain in the ass. I disabled a few on my F4 bodies.
3. Plastic matte screen and .7 magnification IS NOT WHAT IS NEEDED TO FOCUS a manual focus lens. Even the lowly 5D2 had interchangeable screens that were effective.
4. Non-interchangeable screen.
5. While you can mount a non-AI lens, you have to set the exposure on the camera using the camera meter, then set the F-Stop.
Where a throwback design would be a benefit the Df does not deliver. For me. I hope they sell a bunch.
-
I have nothiong against EVFs. The most recent EVF I tried was an X100s. I hear lots of good things about the Olympus EVF, the new one that is really large. If I was interested in 4/3 maybe I'd look at it, but I'm not interested in 4/3. Many people I respect are all about 4/3, including the Cooter. If I were still working as a shooter I would consider it. As it stands, I like a larger sensor.
Every time I read a comment like this I wonder if the poster has actually tried a recent EVF equipped camera. I suspect they haven't.
-
Every time I read a comment like this I wonder if the poster has actually tried a recent EVF equipped camera. I suspect they haven't.
Which ones though?
I have an SLT model and have used quite a few from Sony's range there are some advantages, and some disadvantages to the concept.
Manual focus is great with peaking and magnify.
Definition is not up to a decent pentaprism viewfinder no EVF I've used can match the detail of an OVF
Biggest EVF issue so far is in bright contrasty light, you just can't see the subject properly (esp a problem for fill flash shots) DR of EVF's leaves much to be desired.
Using an EVF is "ok" at times, it has some good points. I can't say my EVF experiences make me want to not use a good OVF though.
In many cases with some experience you simply don't really need the histograms and live feed WB etc, but you DO NEED to be able to see your subject clearly.
It's a real mixed bag.
-
D800 interface is fine. It's the viewfinder I want from Nikon's film days. A good screen and .76 at least. I'm tired of the cheap seats with .7 magnification and plastic screens. I don't want a 1ds3/D4 style behemoth or a kludge mfd behemoth. I don't want a freeze framed stuttering EVF. The old style VF is all the retro I need.
T I think you want something nobody is going to make. Probably your m9 is the last one.
The EVF's are getting better, Pansonics evf is great, though not as detailed, everyone else seems to jump around a little.
Really I'm beyond hoping for a step back because I find all ovf's suck, even the biggest which is the H system because it bends the view.
I drone on about it, but the interface of the gh3 is tremendous. On my right hand I can set wb, +- corrections, focus points, iso, shutter and f stop, (which at micro 43 should just be set at wide open al the time.)
and never take my eye off the finder all with buttons that are labeled wb, +-, and iso.
Pretty cool, very fast, I can manually focus, though don't need to because the focus points cover every segment of the screen, the face detection is freaky good, the track focus also very good.
Still, I like pretty stuff, wish olympus would up the file quality, especially in video, do a little better high iso without going painterly and stick with the omd 5 look as that camera feels better built than my m8 and is a lot more usable.
But if I was a walk through the fields guy or a street photographer I'd do the Olympus way before I'd buy the fm digital because it shoots pretty much the same file, the Olympus I think is even a little prettier in tone and color than nikon color for skin tones and the oly is small enough to carry around and the lenses are dead sharp and cheap.
Even that panasonic shown here has a 200 to 600mm 35mm equivalent lens, the Olympus with the 25mm lecia 1.4 is a 50mm equivalent and freaky good.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/3cams_web.jpg)
IMO
BC
-
The X100s EVF is OK, but I find it distracting. That may also be the issue of looking through the OVF and switching to EVF, which is jarring. I would REALLY like an EVF to work for me, and I'm sure it will sometime soon as the manufacturers of 35mm and smaller cameras seem to have abandoned the OVF.
Which ones though?
I have an SLT model and have used quite a few from Sony's range there are some advantages, and some disadvantages to the concept.
Manual focus is great with peaking and magnify.
Definition is not up to a decent pentaprism viewfinder no EVF I've used can match the detail of an OVF
Biggest EVF issue so far is in bright contrasty light, you just can't see the subject properly (esp a problem for fill flash shots) DR of EVF's leaves much to be desired.
Using an EVF is "ok" at times, it has some good points. I can't say my EVF experiences make me want to not use a good OVF though.
In many cases with some experience you simply don't really need the histograms and live feed WB etc, but you DO NEED to be able to see your subject clearly.
It's a real mixed bag.
-
The X100s EVF is OK, but I find it distracting. That may also be the issue of looking through the OVF and switching to EVF, which is jarring. I would REALLY like an EVF to work for me, and I'm sure it will sometime soon as the manufacturers of 35mm and smaller cameras seem to have abandoned the OVF.
The Fuji's are jittery, others aren't but your not used to them. Really every camera has something you have to work around. It is a brain strain to focus my Contax for a day if I work manually, the leica is ok, but I get tired of the focus in the middle thing and then try to compensate and anything past 50mm is almost impossible.
I guess I could go on because every camera has a workaround.
I'd call lens rentals or borrow lens and rent a system for a week and go shoot. After the first few days of "what's up", it becomes normal, in fact so normal than when I go from my gh3's to the canon 1dx which has great autofocus I keep changing the exposure and wb thinking I'm going to see it in the viewfinder.
It just takes a while to get use to stuff.
The thing about the em5 is today it cost about 800 bucks and your leica lenses will fit on it and actually work. The mft 43 oly lenses are fast and cost less than flat tire.
IMO
BC
-
but you DO NEED to be able to see your subject clearly.
why do you need to do see it more clearly than EVF can provide (specifically when you can zoom in @ focus point)... it can't be for focusing, CDAF w/ CDAF designed lenses does not miss (unless you are using gigantic focus spots instead of proper small ones) - I am yet to encounter a missed one after 3 years with GH2/GH3 and now E-M1, no matter what is the light or where in the frame I was focusing.
-
I like the H finder. The bent edges don't bother me (much).
What is sad is that the Leica S is probably the camera I want, at least its analogue parts. Its sad because I would never spend that kind of money on a camera again, not when I can't write it off and there are smaller, better, cheaper cameras out there.
I will check out the Oly next time I'm in New York, looks like next month. I also want to look at the Fuji XE2. I can't get over the color that comes out of the Fujis. It takes a full 20 minutes to match the raws to the Fuji JPGS.
T I think you want something nobody is going to make. Probably your m9 is the last one.
The EVF's are getting better, Pansonics evf is great, though not as detailed, everyone else seems to jump around a little.
Really I'm beyond hoping for a step back because I find all ovf's suck, even the biggest which is the H system because it bends the view.
I drone on about it, but the interface of the gh3 is tremendous. On my right hand I can set wb, +- corrections, focus points, iso, shutter and f stop, (which at micro 43 should just be set at wide open al the time.)
and never take my eye off the finder all with buttons that are labeled wb, +-, and iso.
Pretty cool, very fast, I can manually focus, though don't need to because the focus points cover every segment of the screen, the face detection is freaky good, the track focus also very good.
Still, I like pretty stuff, wish olympus would up the file quality, especially in video, do a little better high iso without going painterly and stick with the omd 5 look as that camera feels better built than my m8 and is a lot more usable.
But if I was a walk through the fields guy or a street photographer I'd do the Olympus way before I'd buy the fm digital because it shoots pretty much the same file, the Olympus I think is even a little prettier in tone and color than nikon color for skin tones and the oly is small enough to carry around and the lenses are dead sharp and cheap.
Even that panasonic shown here has a 200 to 600mm 35mm equivalent lens, the Olympus with the 25mm lecia 1.4 is a 50mm equivalent and freaky good.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/3cams_web.jpg)
IMO
BC
-
I have nothiong against EVFs. The most recent EVF I tried was an X100s. I hear lots of good things about the Olympus EVF, the new one that is really large. If I was interested in 4/3 maybe I'd look at it, but I'm not interested in 4/3. Many people I respect are all about 4/3, including the Cooter. If I were still working as a shooter I would consider it. As it stands, I like a larger sensor.
Sony A7/A7r have the same EVF as Olympus E-M1
-
Good idea on the Lens Rental. Thanks for the suggestion.
You are so right on the issue of getting used to the EVF. When I had the X100, the EVF freaked me out. I would be looking through the OVF, and would switch to the EVF and suddenly the wold looked digital. This freaked me out. The opposite was also true, when I would shoot something close using the EVF for an acurate composition. If I went back to the OVF the scene looked like crap.
The Fuji's are jittery, others aren't but your not used to them. Really every camera has something you have to work around. It is a brain strain to focus my Contax for a day if I work manually, the leica is ok, but I get tired of the focus in the middle thing and then try to compensate and anything past 50mm is almost impossible.
I guess I could go on because every camera has a workaround.
I'd call lens rentals or borrow lens and rent a system for a week and go shoot. After the first few days of "what's up", it becomes normal, in fact so normal than when I go from my gh3's to the canon 1dx which has great autofocus I keep changing the exposure and wb thinking I'm going to see it in the viewfinder.
It just takes a while to get use to stuff.
The thing about the em5 is today it cost about 800 bucks and your leica lenses will fit on it and actually work. The mft 43 oly lenses are fast and cost less than flat tire.
IMO
BC
-
I might test the sony, because the continuous light samples i've seen of it are not good, or better put, at 800 iso not as good as any camera I use, even an m-8 which is not meant for 800 iso.
Actually, I take that back, sony messes around too much. I don't know where they're going with anything and don't want to drop 2 grand waiting for lenses, or better video.
T
Not trying to talk you into anything, but you know, I know they're not going to make what you want.
Dumbass thing is they could make a camera that would do both ovf and evf. Think about it, ovf with a mirror that you take off, clip on an evf for video or when you want it and the mirror just goes up, but that's never going to happen which should because $2,700 for the Nikon ought to be better equipped than a stripped down d4 but this is the same for the $2,100 em-1. Both kind of cheaped out and Nikon should never have taken the F stop ring off of their lenses.
Then again I have one huge gripe about cameras and that's Canons backwards focus turn. I'll never ever, ever get use to that.
I can drop a zeiss 50mm on my RED's and track focus from a subject across the street to 3' in front of my lens and not miss, with the Canons my brain just can't get use to it and it takes me three tries.
But with electronics they all can do more. The gh3's will touch screen track focus like nothing I've ever used, but it's kind of hard to move a camera, touch a screen and focus all at the same time.
Panasonic could plug in a separate tough screen you could hand to any assistant, not a dedicated 500 a day focus guy and say when they get here touch on that face.
Red could make their out of camera files great. Actually the QT F and H version file that comes out of a RED one is killer compared to the raw, but trying to batch process that file out is an excersize in futility.
They all mess around with us.
IMO
BC
-
I'm not really interested in anything from Sony. Too many odd experiences with the company when we used their video cams.
Sony A7/A7r have the same EVF as Olympus E-M1
-
This is it. Never again. They always almost deliver then move on to something else, never hitting a home run.
Actually, I take that back, sony messes around too much. I don't know where they're going with anything and don't want to drop 2 grand waiting for lenses, or better video.
IMO
BC
-
why do you need to do see it more clearly than EVF can provide (specifically when you can zoom in @ focus point)... it can't be for focusing, CDAF w/ CDAF designed lenses does not miss (unless you are using gigantic focus spots instead of proper small ones) - I am yet to encounter a missed one after 3 years with GH2/GH3 and now E-M1, no matter what is the light or where in the frame I was focusing.
As said strongly backlit high DR situations.
I shot a wedding with an SLT camera, in most situations it was fine (ie inside the Church)
When the sun came through I had to use fill flash outside
You just can't see the subject clearly, because you are using the flash to fill the subject.
I ended up locking focus and looking over the camera to see things properly, that worked ok but it's a limitation of EVF's no question about it
And before someone says "don't shoot in harsh lighting" well tough luck you work on xyz day and that's it, you deal with the lighting as best you can
You just don't get issues like that with an OVF, because it sees as well as your eyes do.
The SLT models are interesting, dare I say useful for some types of shooting, but Sony made a serious mistake by only offering these models...there are times a good OVF just cannot be beaten.
-
I'm not. As I said, the analogy soon breaks down
Another frequent by-product of hybridisation is sterility of course.
Roy
-
You just can't see the subject clearly, because you are using the flash to fill the subject.
actually you can - there are setting available to make dark subjects brighter in EVF and bright background darker... so if some particular camera does not have that in EVF, it is not (unlike OVF where you can't really see in the dark w/ ambient light or zoom in like EVF can and so on) an inherited feature... and I can flip between setting for EVF at will - do I want to see it B/W or UniWB green tinted or natural color or boost contrast or lower contrast - not a problem...
-
Despite my prior jest about wanting an FTn with a sensor inside, I doubt I'd buy one even if Nikon had the stones to make it. I'm having way too much fun exploring the new things I can do with new technologies. When the pace of change makes my head spin a bit, IMO that's a sign I'm not thinking & adapting quickly enough. That pace will only continue to accelerate regardless...so best to go with the flow rather than get eroded away.
-Dave-
-
That camera sounds (and looks) like a bad (retro) joke.
-
That camera sounds (and looks) like a bad (retro) joke.
For a retro joke it's a retro joke, for sure.
It's even a regression to fill a niche, despite the sensor.
-
Lets hope they learn from all the bashing they get and we'll see a true improvement with the next model.
An A7R/X-Pro1 fusion FF mirrorless from Nikon with D800 sensor?
Just dreaming ..
-
The Df also requires pressing a button along with rotating a dial due to the locks. Maybe it comes down to whether you want the option to adjust settings while looking through the VF (difficult on the Df) or want the option to make them with the rear screen off and eye away from the VF (not possible on most other modern cameras).
Try this vid, no sound but it really speaks louder than words...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgVGSBGAC0A
Buttons not an issue on this cam...
-
why do you need to do see it more clearly than EVF can provide (specifically when you can zoom in @ focus point)...
I think it has to do with seeing all there is to see of your subject when committing to the moment of exposure. The more I see of the subject, the more fully engaged I am. I don't like to use autofocus at all, because it detracts from the creative act. Never mind the cases where I can't discern the facial expressions of the portrait subjects.
-
actually you can - there are setting available to make dark subjects brighter in EVF and bright background darker... so if some particular camera does not have that in EVF, it is not (unlike OVF where you can't really see in the dark w/ ambient light or zoom in like EVF can and so on) an inherited feature... and I can flip between setting for EVF at will - do I want to see it B/W or UniWB green tinted or natural color or boost contrast or lower contrast - not a problem...
Doesn't work least on the Sony's I've used. You can use the spot meter to peer into the shadows, you can reduce the contrast settings and tern off the exposure simulation, but the DR is just not there. I know as I've tried this. So yes it IS a problem and a limitation of the technology. Obviously our eyes have variable exposure and a huge DR, far higher than an EVF does.
Some EVF's also have lag issues (the Sony's are generally not bad bar very very low light levels) Some of the Fuji's have issues here (though they seem to be getting on top of them)
It's not all bad news, they are great for accurate manual focus, and you can see WB errors before you take the shot. On the other hand experienced users will be very familiar with their camera, it's AF performance, WB and metering..and anyone who shoots raw too it's not really WYSIWYG as some make it out to be.
LKaven nailed it with his comments, you need to see/engage with your subject. For this reason whilst I'm ok with EVF for some tasks, it's not a satisfactory solution in some situations. I'm not sure why Sony and some other makers have not field tested their cameras to work this out..it's quite obvious at times.
I'm pretty sure that's why Canikon have not done the EVF thing yet, they obviously know it's not something most of their customers want/need, and/or the technology isn't there yet for it to be satisfactory for most people. High end sports/pros are not going to embrace it either. Maybe they will do EVF some time, but they will tread with great care, and then start at the lower models first. Sony's error was sweeping across their entire range with SLT/EVF, that instantly cut them out of any chance with some users (ie higher end APS-C and FF users/enthusiasts)
-
People, look at it this way. This is the baby D4. If you want a baby D4 for half the price of the D4, this is the only one you're going to get. As with the D700, it doesn't break any other new technical ground.
In my view, this is how they read the D700 users who refused the D800. They wanted not just the baby D4; they wanted the old-school feel, a moderate number of pixels, and a focus on still photography. If it has a good viewfinder and it feels good in the hands, then it works.
Anyone who wants a baby D4 will get it. Anyone who wants a retro body will get it. It will stay in the catalog for quite a while. Notice that it doesn't have a model NUMBER that would cue one to its lineage.
I don't know why it doesn't have the high-end AF. But I think either way, this qualifies as a high-end body for anyone's purposes. We'll see how it feels in practice. But on paper, it appeals to me more than the body on my D800. I don't like the feel of that one, at all, and I really don't like the finder on it. [I do love its images though.]
-
I'm pretty sure that's why Canikon have not done the EVF thing yet, they obviously know it's not something most of their customers want/need, and/or the technology isn't there yet for it to be satisfactory for most people.
That might apply to the pro-level bodies used by sports & wildlife photographers. But for their SLR lines overall I don't buy it. I suspect Canikon has simply been caught flat-footed by the onrush of newer tech. Market leaders tend to become complacent. Then they often get dethroned. We'll see whether or not the latter happens in this case, but from where I stand the former has been evident for a couple years now.
-Dave-
-
In my view, this is how they read the D700 users who refused the D800. They wanted not just the baby D4; they wanted the old-school feel
where did you get that users of D700 wantes old-school feel though ? instead of just sticking 16mp sensor and little better AF/frames per second in D700 body ?
-
Doesn't work least on the Sony's I've used. You can use the spot meter to peer into the shadows, you can reduce the contrast settings and tern off the exposure simulation, but the DR is just not there.
indeed, I am not looking for any details in highlights (clipped or close to clipping) though... neither I am looking for any details in shadows and if I am then my EVF will make sure to present them w/ sufficient brighness - your OVF will not and not even my naked eye can see what I can through EVF in such dark shadows (that is if I have there a subject that I care to watch and expose properly)
-
where did you get that users of D700 wantes old-school feel though ? instead of just sticking 16mp sensor and little better AF/frames per second in D700 body ?
Frequent forum fodder. The D700, among some people, struck a purist vein, but could have gone further.
The D700 was a long-lived camera I believe partly because its users were not those who wanted the very latest, but something that was a modern classic, tending towards the feels of the classic F/F2/F3 photojournalist cameras. Notice that the Df does not have a model number.
In the end, the camera might be neither fish nor fowl. It's neither the new benchmark FX body, nor the retro purist's delight. People will grouse, but will the camera flounder? ;-)
-
I just haven't had great luck with Nikon color on sin tones.
Now there's a Freudian slip for ya! :D Just what part of London are you actually hanging out in?
I like the way the D800 handles. It's not the right Big(ger) Camera for my wants & needs, but I'd get one before I'd get this new "retro" body.
-Dave-
-
Now there's a Freudian slip for ya! :D Just what part of London are you actually hanging out in?
I like the way the D800 handles. It's not the right Big(ger) Camera for my wants & needs, but I'd get one before I'd get this new "retro" body.
-Dave-
Your too fast Dave, though I did fix it.
yea I have a place in Shoreditch and I guess Sin Tones is the right phrase, or use to be before it morphed into hip.
-
That might apply to the pro-level bodies used by sports & wildlife photographers. But for their SLR lines overall I don't buy it. I suspect Canikon has simply been caught flat-footed by the onrush of newer tech. Market leaders tend to become complacent. Then they often get dethroned. We'll see whether or not the latter happens in this case, but from where I stand the former has been evident for a couple years now.
-Dave-
That only adds up if Sony's SLT strategy was actually doing damage to Canikon. I think it's had no impact at all Sony are probably not selling any more SLT's than they did SLR's, in fact probably less.
If it's not working I can't see how it's something other makers would jump on. If Sony grabbed a good chunk of market share I might buy your view. Reality is their SLT diversion hasn't made any difference at all, probably for a few reasons.
EVF's are not desired by most buyers (many probably don't care either way)
They have not really built up the system as well as they should have (obvious missing lenses, and fairly high prices on some lenses)
New tech on it's own isn't always better (focus by wire is one obvious example inferior to manual mechanical focus)
We shall see what happens, but there is no chance Canikon would do EVF's on higher priced APS-C or FF bodies, Sony should have known they were onto a loser with the A99 in that regard.
Vladimirovich says he's not looking for highlight or shadow detaiils :o
Erm ok yes you can see in very dim conditions with an EVF (gains up, gets noisy but you can see it) if that's any use I'm not that sure bar surveillance tasks!
-
I am one of those old "D700 farts" so take my post with the proverbial chunk of salt. :)
What I wanted in a "new" or upgraded D700 was dual card slots as I once accidently fried a card after removing it form a camera, so that is always nice, maybe 16mp instead of 12, and compatability with non-Ai lenses. Otherwise, I am pretty happy with it. I looked at and handled both the D800 and the D600 in person, and then I bought a refurbished D700 direct form Nikon and never, ever looked back or regretted my choice.
Sometimes you don't need to reinvent the wheel, you just have to add a couple of small refinements.
I will look at the new DF when it comes out, but I can tell you right away, looking at the specs, a few things that turn me off:
1) Battery is different than the one used in the D800, D600/610 and the D7000/7100. That is no good for me, I have a pile of batteries for my two D7000 bodies. :(
2) Only one card slot. And it looks hard to get at, under the battery cover.
3) No interchangeable screen.
4) Price, for me, is too high. i was hoping for something closer to the D600/610 price range. At this price, the D800 looks better everyday.
The lack of flash/video does not bother me, but for some, i can see that might be a deterrent too.
-
though I noticed the d800 again at David Phillips on Oxaford street in the pretty white Christmas window
IMO
BC
Nearly 20 years in London, never heard of a shop called David Phillips. Do you mean John Lewis?
-
your right, sorry. Too many late nights editing and writing between renders.
BC
-
You should have wondered up the road to Teamwork in Foley st and looked in their window, far more interesting thing to see there for a photographer (there is also a very good coffee shop in an underground public toilet called The Attendant)
I hope you are liking the lovely weather :-)
-
You should have wondered up the road to Teamwork in Foley st and looked in their window, far more interesting thing to see there for a photographer (there is also a very good coffee shop in an underground public toilet called The Attendant)
I hope you are liking the lovely weather :-)
Like it here, though spend so much time in editing haven't seen much as we're in editorial for a european client and an american client, so I'm essentially working on two time zones.
Shoreditch is very interesting, the city is inspiring and regardless of the perception of English food, the dining is the most varied and best I've seen anywhere.
I'll take your advice, next time I'm let out of my cave.
IMO
BC
-
I know you are busy but when you have time check this site out http://spitalfieldslife.com/category/photo-life/ particularly the images shot by John Claridge. spent ages looking at this site and learned a lot about the area i work in (i currently use a studio in clerkenwell that was a prison then had a school built on top, they still hire the cells out for filming)
if you need any info on where to get stuff/services/people then do give me a shout.
-
Shoreditch is very interesting, the city is inspiring and regardless of the perception of English food, the dining is the most varied and best I've seen anywhere.
It's a shame how outdated perceptions tend to linger. I was blown away by the variety & quality of London dining in 1992, after not having been in the UK for nearly 20 years. Back in 1973, when I was a teenaged picky eater, the bangers & mash & Yorkshire Pudding era was still very much alive. By '92 it was: "Indian food, you say? We've got Bihari, Manipuri, Punjabi or Gujarati restaurants all within walking distance." Alrighty then!
-Dave-
-
... "Indian food, you say? We've got Bihari, Manipuri, Punjabi or Gujarati restaurants all within walking distance." Alrighty then!
And how does that invalidates the (otherwise correct) perception about British food? ;)
-
Nothing wrong with bangers and mash.
It's a shame how outdated perceptions tend to linger. I was blown away by the variety & quality of London dining in 1992, after not having been in the UK for nearly 20 years. Back in 1973, when I was a teenaged picky eater, the bangers & mash & Yorkshire Pudding era was still very much alive. By '92 it was: "Indian food, you say? We've got Bihari, Manipuri, Punjabi or Gujarati restaurants all within walking distance." Alrighty then!
-Dave-
-
It's a shame how outdated perceptions tend to linger. I was blown away by the variety & quality of London dining in 1992, after not having been in the UK for nearly 20 years. Back in 1973, when I was a teenaged picky eater, the bangers & mash & Yorkshire Pudding era was still very much alive. By '92 it was: "Indian food, you say? We've got Bihari, Manipuri, Punjabi or Gujarati restaurants all within walking distance." Alrighty then!
I spent a week hanging out with some Aussies in London, once upon a time. They had a flat in Brixton, and there was an outstanding Indian restaurant around the corner from their flat. I was on a tight budget, and it was too expensive to eat there more than once, but I still remember that meal. That was 1977.
-
And how does that invalidates the (otherwise correct) perception about British food? ;)
Perception and reality are 180 from each other. Marin county that has more left swinging voters than any place in the U.S. has the lowest ethnic mix in the country, NY is not the only place to produce a beautiful photo and London food is damn good.
My wife who is British and raised in London has spent most of her adult life based in the U.S., though never asked or pushed me to be here, even though I love her family.
In Late August we had just finished a shoot here, I spent a few days doing edits, hung out with the in-laws and I looked around and said, I'm going to get a place here, saw two nice leases and took the first one in Shoreditch in 24 hours. Then bought a car, because I dig driving (I'd drive to the bathroom if I could fit the car in my place.)
I didn't know Shoreditch was hip, only spent 20 minutes here before we signed, but so far I love it (and I hate cold weather). We still blow back to LA and Dallas and obviously still travel for work, but the food here is amazing.
In the first 10 days we've had Bombay, Italian, Mexican (twice), 1950's style restaurant fish and chips, some kind of upscale British at the Albrion (everybody has to try the Albion) that is crazy good, one place that at Spitifileds (sp?) that has just insane everything from Moroccan meatballs, to burgers and real Texas BBQ at Hoxton Square, Japanese, Vietnamese (twice) all within a short walking distance to our place.
Other than the first few days of driving and being totally lethal and totally lost, everybody has been great (except some banker in an Audi because I squeezed him into the bus lane), the services are professional and even the landlord is good (I've never seen the last one).
The services I've used have been 100% professional, though honestly I spend so much time working I can't say I know anything about the city, other than I dig Guy Fawkes. It's so cool to have a day of anarchy.
Of anyplace I've been this is the very best and varied food and I think I'm going to dig it, but I also get restless and love change, so maybe my euphoria will roll off. I hope not.
IMO
BC
PS. The more I look at the fm digital the more I like it. I have absolutely no reason to buy it (other than to use my older nikon glass and pretend like it's 1988) but I think it's very cool and it will be a temptation not to buy, though the price is high enough that I could pass and get an omd em-1 (I think I got that right) instead. Or I just might buy another em-5 to carry two lenses when I'm out.
-
And how does that invalidates the (otherwise correct) perception about British food? ;)
Because the vast, diverse array of cuisines available in England now is British food. At least in my experience. My cousins whip up currys & other tasty Asian-influenced sauces to go with their fish, chicken or pork. Or they grill hamburgers. Or they make burritos. Etc. The stereotypical dishes merely hang on as one style out of many.
-Dave-
-
Because the vast, diverse array of cuisines available in England now is British food...
Yeah, right. There is a profound difference between food in Britain and British food.
-
The profound difference is that London has become a world city like NYC.
-
The profound difference is that London has become a world city like NYC.
Yet nobody considers, say, Chinese or Ethiopian food to be American food.
-
Yet nobody considers, say, Chinese or Ethiopian food to be American food.
Come on Slobodan,
Everything can be traced back to someone else. Heck tomatoes and Chocolate go back before Christ from the Aztecs, but tell someone in Italy or Belgium that it's not native to them.
But the real question is how many of the new Nikons are you going to buy? I bet Dave doesn't he's having too much fun with the stuff he's got.
IMO
BC
-
Yet nobody considers, say, Chinese or Ethiopian food to be American food.
Chinese to go food is ubiquitous in the US and common in the UK; Ethiopian not.
Similarly ubiquitous -- "...10,000 restaurants (thus forming the mainstay of British curry industry (http://www.bhclondon.org.uk/BangladeshiDiaspora.html)) that are largely manned by people of Bangladeshi origin".
London's different.
-
The profound difference is that London has become a world city like NYC.
No city/country where beer is warmer than girls can be close to my heart ;D
-
Well, after some thinking, I will probably get this body, as a tool. I don't really care about the dials but I certainly need to improve IQ over my D700 in reportage. Since I don't have the incomes to go for a D4, I might go for this one because of the sensor. D700 will be rescue gear and for video ... I don't know yet.
Might really shine with zeiss glass.
And... About London, why not having a little go to Grays of Westminster ?
-
No city/country where beer is warmer than girls can be close to my heart ;D
Don't visit there then. It's already overcrowded with all sorts of people and things going on so don't trouble yourself.
There's plenty of places round the world with cold beer, some of it even tastes o.k.
-
Yet nobody considers, say, Chinese or Ethiopian food to be American food.
Aren't fortune cookies an American invention?
-
... cold beer, some of it even tastes o.k.
Does it? I've never had a beer that's flavour wasn't enhanced by being served at about room temperature. Then again, I only drink proper ales, no crappy Budweiser here, thanks. Actually, there's a good reason for serving beer cold - you can't taste how bad it is, which is probably why Bud is served chilled.
Edit: fat-fingered typo
-
I was just guessing.
Being spoiled for choice here in London for beer/real ales i rarely drink ice cold pasturised cooking lager brewed for idots :-)
-
No new Nikon for me, BC...I'm all geared up for the next couple years or so. ;)
I like my tequila neat & chilled or in a drink with ice. But I like my bourbon warm...that stuff is supposed to bite & burn! IMO good beer is best at room temp or slightly cooled. I'll never forget the first pint of Fuller's bitter I had in a proper English pub...I was converted to the warm side on the spot. Bud, Miller, etc. are best consumed in the form of popsicles. But I do like the seasonal Sam Adamses.
-Dave-
-
I was just guessing.
Being spoiled for choice here in London for beer/real ales i rarely drink ice cold pasturised cooking lager brewed for idots :-)
IDOT = Illinois Department of Transportation?
Oh, wait, that was a typo... 'idiots'... duh!
I guess you are right, London indeed seems to be "overcrowded with all sorts of people," bar classy.
-
Only when BC leaves then it's just the usual hoi polloi drinking their warm beer.
-
Yet nobody considers, say, Chinese or Ethiopian food to be American food.
But pizza and hamburgers are thoroughly naturalized American foods; that's the way it goes in nations of immigrants and/or invaders.
-
Only when BC leaves then it's just the usual hoi polloi drinking their warm beer.
I'm not too sure.
You know, I like it here and I've lived in every major market in the U.S. and still do have a place in most, but I find London great. The people I meet (and keep in mind lately I'm in the dark like a mushroom editing), are polite and professional.
Slobodan, in regards to the women and the beer, to each his own, but I don't think your speaking from experience.
IMO
BC
You know, most everything is attitude, mine not others. First time in Moscow I didn't like it, second time, loved it, been to London a lot, never thought I'd have an address here and so far it's one of the best things I've done, for my business and personal life.
In all the places I've lived and worked I've found the key is to not compare one place to the other. These cities and countries aren't going to change for me, so I have to adapt or like Mr. Smith says, go somewhere else. London won't miss me if I do.
-
Louisiana has an American cuisine. It's Caribbean French Spanish and Native American.
-
The irony of 'Indian' food in UK is that it is usually produced by Pakistanis or Bangladeshis and a lot of it was developed for British tastes or adapted to use local ingredients, so not exactly traditional food either.
Been here a long time too. Curries date back to the 1700s and I believe Chicken Tikka Masala is now the favourite dish in the UK.
-
One of the advantages of being in California is that the Indian restaurants cater to the variety of Indian tastes.
-
Queens in NYC has intense Indian food. Not for the tourists.
One of the advantages of being in California is that the Indian restaurants cater to the variety of Indian tastes.
-
Louisiana has an American cuisine. It's Caribbean French Spanish and Native American.
In New Mexico & Arizona you can find, off the beaten path, Native American diners & restaurants strongly influenced by Tex-Mex yet using traditional regional ingredients. Kind of a hybrid of a hybrid. Mighty tasty however you wanna classify it.
In England one of my nieces is fond of slathering her own curry blend all over her breakfast of scrambled eggs & toast. Can't forget the usual cuppa, but enhanced with cardamom & cinnamon. She's spent time in the Middle East too (like me) and makes a seriously good spicy version of falafel. Her friends are all into mixing & matching cuisines as well, to the point where a pure version of this or that dish no longer has any meaning.
Maybe the new Nikon isn't so bad after all. A little bit of this, a little bit of that. Et voilà! :D
-Dave-
-
One of the advantages of being in California is that the Indian restaurants cater to the variety of Indian tastes.
Do you think that doesn't happen elsewhere then?
-
Queens in NYC has kintense Indian food. Not for the tourists.
So do you somehow think people from out of Queens have more fragile palettes then? Boasting about how hot a certain food is like a daft willy waving competition.
And in the UK, that's what a lot of going to the Indian used to be about. The reason being that the Indian was where you went after having a skinful down the pub and the next day you could not only boast about how many beers you sank, but how hot a curry you had. Naturally this silly behaviour was catered to with hotter and hotter dishes appearing on the menus.
Personally I prefer more delicate flavouring myself as very spicy/hot dishes are too one note, just like food that is over salted.
-
Never said anything about heat. Just no tourists. But go ahead, misconstrue my post if it lets you argue. That's what the net is for.
So do you somehow think people from out of Queens have more fragile palettes then? Boasting about how hot a certain food is like a daft willy waving competition.
And in the UK, that's what a lot of going to the Indian used to be about. The reason being that the Indian was where you went after having a skinful down the pub and the next day you could not only boast about how many beers you sank, but how hot a curry you had. Naturally this silly behaviour was catered to with hotter and hotter dishes appearing on the menus.
Personally I prefer more delicate flavouring myself as very spicy/hot dishes are too one note, just like food that is over salted.
-
Is this Luminous Landscape or the Curry Club? I think we should be told.
-
So do you somehow think people from out of Queens have more fragile palettes then?
Yes they do. The best pallets in the world. (now let's fight.)
Kidding.
Anyway, does where something is made matters. This new Nikon makes a lot of points saying it's made in Japan with a stamp on the front cover.
Does that matter?
IMO
BC
-
Yes they do. The best pallets in the world. (now let's fight.)
Kidding.
Anyway, does where something is made matters. This new Nikon makes a lot of points saying it's made in Japan with a stamp on the front cover.
Does that matter?
IMO
BC
Toyotas are made in America and Japan. If you had to pick one, which would it be?
Peter
-
Toyotas are made in America and Japan. If you had to pick one, which would it be?
Here in Finland we have compulsory car inspections for 3 and 5 year old cars, then every year after that. In a recent list of most reliable makes and models 3 best ones were picked from 8 age groups. Out of those 24 22 were Japanese, 12 were Toyota.
One of the reasons I drive a Land Cruiser (#1 in 3 year olds, #2 in 5 years, #3 in 7 years)...
Among the worst: Chrysler, Jeep... (and French brands)
-
I pick the one where the VIN starts with a J.
Peter
-
I don't think it matters. Reliability is more about production process, design and quility OEM parts than the nationality of the guy who bolts in an alternator. Mexican and American made VWs are reliable and well screwed together, considering their price point.
Toyotas are made in America and Japan. If you had to pick one, which would it be?
Peter
-
Its all in design and price point. For years Jeeps had old bones, dated chassis, crappy accessories such as power steering pumps and water pumps, really old fuel injection systems. They were running out of cash for R&D and simply put new skins on old tech. Nothing to do with their being built in Detroit or Ohio.
Here in Finland we have compulsory car inspections for 3 and 5 year old cars, then every year after that. In a recent list of most reliable makes and models 3 best ones were picked from 8 age groups. Out of those 24 22 were Japanese, 12 were Toyota.
One of the reasons I drive a Land Cruiser (#1 in 3 year olds, #2 in 5 years, #3 in 7 years)...
Among the worst: Chrysler, Jeep... (and French brands)
-
LA is good for a big fast car with an auto box. Better than a convert as you end up roasting in the sun when stuck in traffic.
All of this depends. I have a bmw in London, my wife an Infiniti in Dallas, and a new buick GS (which is an opel). they are are screwed together well, the Infiniti is the best built by at least 30% though the strongest car I have is an older Impala I've hot rodded to 400 hp that I drive in LA. The Impala is made out of old beer cans and styrofoam cups and is as low tech as you can get, but I drive the living crap out of that car and it never, ever, ever breaks, though the impala isn't complicated. I dread to think what the would happen to our other cars if I drove them the same way I drive the Chevy.
Really, there aren't many bad anything anymore. Cameras, cars, TV's all last a long time, much longer than people want to keep them as long as you service them well.
I have another chevy that is small and rodded up to 300hp though it has issues. All involving the computer as it just hates it when you change anything.
The Phase backs I use and Contax are like my Impala. They aren't fancy, not too smart, but since they are simple, you can beat them on a rock and they still work.
IMO
BC
-
One of the advantages of being in California is that the Indian restaurants cater to the variety of Indian tastes.
Do you think that doesn't happen elsewhere then?
I think that isn't typical of the "...10,000 restaurants... the mainstay of British curry industry" being discussed (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=83306.msg678050#msg678050) as interest in the Digital Nikon FM2 evaporated.
-
I'm still interested. I will reserve judgment until I can handle one. It is less cluttered in black.
Do you think that doesn't happen elsewhere then?
I think that isn't typical of the "...10,000 restaurants... the mainstay of British curry industry" being discussed (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=83306.msg678050#msg678050) as interest in the Digital Nikon FM2 evaporated.
-
[/quote]
I'm still interested. I will reserve judgment until I can handle one. It is less cluttered in black.
Yes it's less cutsey in black and I sorta want this camera, but I don't think I want it for the same price as a d800 and don't know if I want it more than an OMD em1
IMO
BC
-
It's small and serious looking in black, with electrical tape over the NIKON logo, of course. Who knows?
Yes it's less cutsey in black and I sorta want this camera, but I don't think I want it for the same price as a d800 and don't know if I want it more than an OMD em1
IMO
BC
-
It's small and serious looking in black, with electrical tape over the NIKON logo, of course. Who knows?
These fat little cameras kind of grow on me, like an 6x7 pentax, just smaller.
I do like the look of the cameras that look like cameras, but I wonder if it will tether?
The upside is, everybody has a bunch of old nikon glass laying around.
BC
-
In some ways, I'm like, "of course I'll buy one. What's not to love?"
Then I look at the $2700 price tag, and wonder what the color is like, and what the VF is REALLY like, how big it feels and looks in the flesh, and how nice Fuji files look with minimal post, not to mention that I have an 800e that takes all my AI and AIs lenses sitting in a Peli case. I'll have to look and handle it, and check out some more D4 files.
I looked on Flickr at D4 images and it is now my opinion that the camera makers should pay people to keep their pictures off of flickr, or at least strip out exif and any reference to camera type. Hundreds of images of the same thing, really bad cat pics, the same boring landscape over and over, the "C" list Model Mayhem girls trying their best to look sexy but coming across as pathetic and sad, really bad post work.
These fat little cameras kind of grow on me, like an 6x7 pentax, just smaller.
I do like the look of the cameras that look like cameras, but I wonder if it will tether?
The upside is, everybody has a bunch of old nikon glass laying around.
BC
-
Having eaten Indian food in Queens I took intense to mean "spectacular" rather than "hot" per se. Lots of restaurants and markets reflecting a wide variety of regional cuisines and ingredients. Very little catering to non-Indian palettes. As close to the real deal as you're likely to find in the US.
If the new Nikon does allow accurate focus of all those AI & AIS lenses (I've got some, like lots of folks) at wide apertures then they might have something. But I'll believe it when I see it for myself.
-Dave-
-
Bugger!!
I just spilled a load of vindaloo over the lens of my Nikon Df while sitting in the back seat of my UK-built Range Rover (but built by an Indian owned company).
Not many folk outside Britain and the Empire know that Chicken Tikka Masala was developed in Birmingham (West Midlands, not Alabama).
-
There is no Indian food in Birmingham, Alabama. There is also no coffee. A pretty (in spots) place that is miserable.
Can Tata make the Lux Rovers, which are the only onse sold in the US, reliable? Can the Df allow manual focus of AI lenses? Time will tell on both counts.
Bugger!!
I just spilled a load of vindaloo over the lens of my Nikon Df while sitting in the back seat of my UK-built Range Rover (but built by an Indian owned company).
Not many folk outside Britain and the Empire know that Chicken Tikka Masala was developed in Birmingham (West Midlands, not Alabama).
-
I looked on Flickr at D4 images and it is now my opinion that the camera makers should .........
No the samples they should take off are on their own site and while all the camera companies are at it, stop sponsoring the orange skin tone portrait tour, or the guys in the LA alley doing a "professional" photo shoot with two c grade models and a flexible gold reflector.
Really.
IMO
BC
-
That is what I meant by intense!
Anybody know what the D4 raw files are like for skin tones?
Having eaten Indian food in Queens I took intense to mean "spectacular" rather than "hot" per se. Lots of restaurants and markets reflecting a wide variety of regional cuisines and ingredients. Very little catering to non-Indian palettes. As close to the real deal as you're likely to find in the US.
If the new Nikon does allow accurate focus of all those AI & AIS lenses (I've got some, like lots of folks) at wide apertures then they might have something. But I'll believe it when I see it for myself.
-Dave-
-
Anybody know what the D4 raw files are like for skin tones?
Orange, unless you make your own profile in iridient developer or suffer through that nick software.
Your looking for your leaf skin tones and that's not going to happen with Nikon, unless you roll your own.
BC
-
YES!!!
Yeah, the DTLA ally meme with the non-models and Calumet reflector is rough. You like a Dutch angles? We got a Dutch angle. You like bricks? We got a brick wall, with some graffiti. You like the sale rack at the TJ Max in Baldwin Hills? We got that wardrobe, AND an MUA with a shitty kit full of liquid base two tones darker than the models actual skin tone.
The Flickr pics are innocent and bad, which is better. I guess.
No the samples they should take off are on their own site and while all the camera companies are at it, stop sponsoring the orange skin tone portrait tour, or the guys in the LA alley doing a "professional" photo shoot with two c grade models and a flexible gold reflector.
Really.
IMO
BC
-
I can get that LEAF tone, but with an M9. I can get a tone I like with the D800, but it takes time. I can use Portra, but come on, I don't have anyone paying for a lab.
What makes me sick is the realization that, gulp, the S2 is the camera I need, but will not buy. At least new.
Orange, unless you make your own profile in iridient developer or suffer through that nick software.
Your looking for your leaf skin tones and that's not going to happen with Nikon, unless you roll your own.
BC
-
These fat little cameras kind of grow on me, like an 6x7 pentax, just smaller.
I recall seeing photos of those and thinking wow that's massive and now 35mm DSLRs are about that size!
The upside is, everybody has a bunch of old nikon glass laying around.
None here. Some lovely old OM lenses though.
-
BC, find me a light source these days that's Kelvin Clean (and I don't mean the designer of tight jeans), and we'll try to get you some skin tones. Seriously, the Exmor does a great job with skin tones. I might give the edge a bit to the D3x over the D800, believe it or not, but the D800 is pretty good smack.
-
D800 color is very accurate. It looks good in NX.
BC, find me a light source these days that's Kelvin Clean (and I don't mean the designer of tight jeans), and we'll try to get you some skin tones. Seriously, the Exmor does a great job with skin tones. I might give the edge a bit to the D3x over the D800, believe it or not, but the D800 is pretty good smack.