cc_chang1

<blockquote>

<p>CC,<br /><a href="http://www.nikon.com/news/2014/0313_dslr_01.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.nikon.com/news/2014/0313_dslr_01.htm</a><br>

Under point 4.....web-links seem to be scooting around the Nikon website at the moment..<br>

Why it's under the DSLR prenom ...........that's a mystery??</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know what it is but I am almost certain that it is not mechanical VR. It seems that the Olympus EM-10 is using something similar. Unlike the old software-based stabilization, these newer ones may work much better.</p>

<p>As the price of D7100 coming down, I am considering replacing my D90. I own more Sigma than Nikon lens now and wonder about compatibility in terms of AF in both normal and live view and OS. In particular, I have a Sigma 17-50/2.8 which I bought just a few months ago. I wrote to B&H and Sigma asking this, but no one tell me for sure whether they are 100% compatible. I may also buy the older version of the Sigma 30/1.4. I usually keep my camera for a long time so I am not too concerned if these Sigma lenses are not compatible with D7200 and up. Thanks. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm wondering what e-VR is aswell?...imageshift VR?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Where did you see this? I read the Spec 2-3 times but could not find it. If Nikon put a mechanical IBVR into V3, it will be one of its headline features. The new 70-300 lens has VR so it is almost certain that V3 does not have IB mechanical VR. </p>

<p>IMO, the Vx series cameras should be designed and marketed as tools for birders and sports photographers, while the Jx lines are for those who need a carry around camera that is great for "capturing the moment." The former needs good a grip, built-in EVF, articulated screen, weather sealing, and controls aimed at the pro. For the latter, it needs to be light, small, simple to use, and inexpensive. Nikon needs to decide what to do with the high end CoolPix P&S and CoolPix A since at one point they will begin to overlap. They should kill a product line that no longer makes sense instead of crippling new innovative design in order to protect the market of older products that are just hanging on. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>In the US, the V3 is only sold as a kit with the EVF, grip, and new lens. You can't just buy the body alone (although some dealer may be willing to break up the kit on their own and sell the components separately).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Does Nikon remember that the V2 with a built in VF did not sell well at the already high price of near $800? So to address this problem, they now sell the V3 at $1,200!? This is just brilliant … </p>

<p>In addition, I wonder what will happen to the rest of the 1 system. What will a new J series looks like? Will they introduce a V4 with a built-in VF as an even higher model? It is very confusing. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Having been able to "see" specific photos shot wide open with the 85F3.5 micro and 85F1.8, it was immediately obvious that the Nikon F3.5 macro would not do as a general purpose lens</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I have not done this by myself, but keep in mind that most candid/portrait are done at about 5-7 ft away from your subject, and you need enough DOF so that the facial features of the person can all be in focus. While you have a f1.8 lens, you would not want to normally shoot it at f1.8 and f3.5 is just about the widest I would go to keep the ears and nose in focus and to account for slight movement of the head. At that distance, I also doubt that there will be a substantial difference in the degree of blurriness at f1.8 vs f3.5. The F3.5 VR lens is more compact, lighter, and has VR. With the latter, you can shoot at lower shutter speed to allow for a lower ISO to reduce noise. In contrast, the f1.8 lens can be used as a 85 mm lens on FX and when the light levels are low, e.g. indoors.</p>

<p>My main issue with this is the price, $1,200 for the bundle (that includes the EVF) and body only for about $1,000. This kind of pricing does not make sense if the targeted consumers are those who are looking for a lighter carry-around camera for casual use. One can find cheaper and may be even better alternatives from existing APS-C and m4/3 systems. This camera does seem to make a good kit for sports photographers to greatly extend the reach. For using long lenses, you would almost have to get the grip and the EVF bundle, but at $1,200, it is priced too close to that of the D7100, which can be used in a crop mode to also extend range. </p>

<p>Nikon said in a recent interview that we discussed earlier that US customers think bigger is better, which they think is the main reason that the mirrorless cameras are not selling well. Could this be also caused by Nikon pricing its 1 system way too high? Do they need to do this to cover the R&D and/or to compensate for the high cost of low volume production? Do they do this to "protect" dSLR sale? Do they do this because they want to make a lot of money? It is not just the 1 system that is priced too high. The Df and Coolpix A are also priced higher than expected. What is going on? </p>

 

<p>If you happen to also need a macro lens, then it is a no brainer. Yes, a f1.8 or f1.4 lens would be even better but most of the time you want to make sure that all facial features of your subject are in focus so you don't shoot at these wide aperture. In fact f3.5 would be a good starting point. If you are taking formal portraits in a studio setting, how it renders the background is not an issue at all.</p>

<p>Personally I use the Sigma 50/1.4, known for its beautiful bokeh, for half body shots, and the AFS 85/1.8 for anything closer. The bokeh from 85/1.8 is not too bad, considering its size and price. </p>

<p>or does it have to be FF? If you must go with FF, another choice may be the SONY A7, which with the 35/2.8 lens will cost about the same and you can expand your lens collection in the future. </p>

<p>There were a couple Olympus EM1 vs SONY A7 comparisons in the m4/3 forum at Dpreview. I found this series quite informative since the author has some very nice real world pictures that are also pretty to look at. You may find them informative:<br /> http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52992579<br /> <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53007968">http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53007968</a><br /> http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53090322</p>

<p>Peter, the latter part of the (4) is not true. However I do agree that one of the greatest advantages in using dSLRs, FX dSLRs mounted with f2.8 zoom in particular, is to build strength and muscle.</p>

<p>Between Eric and Ilkka, I think the main difference is still how does the shortcoming of small sensors impact your final images. Some may care some do not. I must say that by reading, very few people complain about Fuji's real whorl IQ so I think for most users the Fuji is good enough. I will quote a few things that Dppreview said in there recent review on the X-E2, which supports Ilkka's findings. However they either find way to reduce these weakness or feel that in most cases these issues do not matter:</p>

<p>In terms of noise reduction:<br>

"The X-E2's low light performance is really impressive - producing very usable images all the way up to ISO 6400 (something that would have been unthinkable, just a few years ago). … The only real complaint we'd have is that the camera's processing can smooth-out pores to the point that, in low light, faces can be rendered as rather 'waxy' in appearance. It's not a problem in every photo, but it's something that occasionally took away from our otherwise positive impression of the camera's JPEG output.<br>

We shot many, many portrait images to attempt to pin-down what was causing the slightly waxy skin effect, experimenting with Film Simulation modes, DR modes, Face Detection and light sources. At the end of this, we think it's an unfortunate combination of a number of factors - shallow depth-of-field, heavy noise reduction and a tendency for Face Detection to missfocus. Fujifilm says it isn't applying any extra noise reduction or processing to skin tones. ...<br>

Overall, we found we got the best results by focusing using a specified focus point and shooting Raw. If you need a JPEG, we'd suggest backing the noise reduction off as far as you can (the images are still pretty clean at high ISO settings), but we can't get the JPEGs to match the performance of the X-Pro 1 in this respect."<br>

<br>

In terms of DR:<br>

"As such, particularly at low ISOs, the X-E2 offers considerable scope for pulling detail up out of shadow regions of its Raw files, before it begins to exhibit much noise.<br>

It's this low ISO dynamic range that makes the DR200% and DR400% settings work so well: the camera is very tolerant of the exposure being kept down, and a fairly extreme tone curve then used to pull information up from what the deep end of the Raw file.<br>

Here [see their sample images] the JPEG has been exposed for to protect the highlight detail, with DR200% engaged, to capture lots of highlight information. This means the dark tones of the image have been recorded at lower Raw values. Despite this, the file happily tolerates the shadow regions being 'pulled up' without exposing too much noise - meaning it's possible to create a well-balanced image with broad dynamic range."</p>

 

<p>I love how you can take iPhone (or Samsung :)) pictures and make them look really cool with all the filters. They are valuable in a different way. However my main subject these days are my two toddlers with whom the phone is just too slow to even know where they are. So a serious and good enough cameras for me is one that can keep up with them and returns dSLR-comparable IQ without the bulk and weight of the dSLRs. Many new parents just assume that a "bigger" dSLR will give them much better pictures.</p>

<p>Oh, let's not make this more complicated by looking at this from the perspectives of the 4/3 users, who are some what different from us. No one disputes the fact that the mirrorless cameras are not taking the US market by storm, but this is not because they are not "good enough" for most people who go out and buy a dSLR simply because those are the choices they know.</p>

<p>This forum has many pros who may not care so much about the size of the gear unless your primary duty is street, PJ, or even wedding where mobility is critical. For new parents buying their first "serious" camera, however, I think a lighter camera system that does video well will be much better than the current offerings from Nikon.</p>

<p>Nikon stated that in their marketing research, they found that people in the US think bigger cameras have better IQs, a misperception that Nikon helps to promote (which makes it tricky for them to market their own mirror less cameras). Thus if Olympus 4/3 users are equally uninformed as most Nikon users, then some of them will go to Nikon or Canon to buy another dSLR. The flip side is that Nikon and Canon are losing customers as well to m4/3, or to other mirrorless camera makers. A discussion like this, in which many chime in in favor of the mirrorless systems was unthinkable 2 or 3 years ago. I once started a thread here suggesting that Nikon should take note of the UI in Panasonic's mirror-less cameras and many got very angry at me. It is a very different time now, suggesting that more and more Nikon users have at least tried one of these cameras and many have decided to keep it.</p>

<p>Again, I would to point out that in the long run, people like to take their tools with them. The iPod has killed CD players, portable or not, and HiFi stereo gears because the sound coming from those tiny ear buds is "good enough," provided that you can use it every where you want. iPhone has killed low end P&S and camcorders (including Flip) for the same reason.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>My GF2 gets occasional use … it would have been nicer to carry around Bruges on Sunday than the D800 with 14-24 I was carrying (but I needed the D800 for some low-light shooting, and I may yet be pleased to have the dynamic range when I post-process)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Andrew, you really should give the 20/1.7 lens a try, which will turn your GF2 into a much more capable camera b/c it narrows the gap in ISO performance between GF2 and those using a larger sensor. It is also a very sharp lens with a very useful focal length. </p>

<p>The 14-42 is not that good a lens. GF2 and its kit lens were introduced at a time when the micro 4/3 system was going down-scale to attract P&S users with the smallest kit they could manage to produce, which came with many compromises. This has got them into trouble when SONY came out with the NEX which is just as small if not smaller. I think they now have a more mature line up in both camera bodies and lenses. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"But the camera fooled me because it still states an exposure time. Instead, it is not allowing me to stop down."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just keep in mind that with D90, you cannot change the aperture AFTER you enter live view. You need to meter, set the shutter speed according to the frame rate, f2.8 or 3.5, based on the DOF, and then let the camera picks the ISO before entering live view. If your lens has an aperture ring, then you could change the aperture manually in live view. The video compression in the D90 is rather cruel which is another factor that degrades the video quality. Is 50 mm the only lens you have? You can try a wider lens which has more DOF (so to speak) at a given aperture. </p>

Hi John, the m4/3 has undergone a

substantial update since the

introduction of OMD about 2 yrs ago.

Not only the sensor is much better,

EM1, GH3, and the upcoming GH4 are

all aimed at the pro. The latter two

have built in flash and a large battery.

The spec of the GH4 is particularly

intriguing. To discuss the m4/3 system,

we should look at the system as a

whole.

<p>Why is "mirrorless" APSC or m4/3 camera systems good enough for most:</p>

<p>Besides the point that Eric already made, I must also add that while FX/DX cameras have the advantage in high ISO performance, both Fuji and m4/3 have many fast primes to allow one to shoot at much lower ISO to partially compensate for the sensor performance. This is particularly true for those who use a kit slow zoom lens with a FX camera. If you use a fast FX lens, the cost and weight difference between, for example, a Nikon 24-70/2/8 and a Panasonic 12-35/2.8 with OIS are just ridiculous (and the latter has in lens stabilization, great for videos AND stills). Furthermore, while FX system makes it easier to achieve shallow DOF, this can become a problem when you need to get more stuff in focus, which forces you to stop down, causing the need to raise ISO and negating the advantage of FX at higher ISO. If you do want subject isolation, again, there are many m4/3 fast primes f1.8, f1.4, f1.2, or even f0.95, to compensate for the crop factors. With all of these considerations, it is hard to justify to carry around a FX camera plus the lens for traveling and casual shooting. Indeed, when I look at all the pictures that I like, those that I love tend to be the ones that capture the moment, regardless of which camera I use.</p>

<p>I am another old time Nikon shooter that now mostly use m4/3, for which I have GH1 and E-PL5 camera, and a whole bunch lenses, 20/1.7, 45/1.8, 12-35/2.8, and 14-140/4.5-5.6. I still keep my D90 and a basic set of lenses (Sigma 17-50/2.8, Sigma 50/1.4, and Nikon 85/1.8) and a SB600 flash. I also keep the Sigma 50-150/2.8, not b/c I use it for photography but b/c it is very useful for videoing my kids performing on stage using my m4/3 cameras.</p>

<p>The sensor in the newer m4/3 cameras are slightly better than the one in D90 and may be close to the one in D7000. By measurement, it is about one stop inferior to the one in D7100, let alone those in the FX cameras, but it is more than <strong>good enough</strong> for me, and for apparently many photographers, including many pro photographers. I also like the fact that its sensor is 16 MP, as opposed to 24MP, which is just too big for me (and my computers and storage) without offering any critical benefits. With the 20/1.7 lens, and the spectacular face detection, my m4/3 kit can easily photograph my kids in the house, day and night, in the museum and restaurants. Both of my m4/3 cameras have a tillable screen which allows me to photograph my kids (5 and 3) at their eye levels. With most of these casual family events, the dSLR kit is just too cumbersome and "flashy" and does not work as well (no articulated screen). When we travel, the size advantage of the m4/3 kit becomes even more dramatic. The total weight of E-PL5, 20/1.7, and 12-35/2.8 would weigh about the same as the D7000 body alone.</p>

<p>I still keep the Nikon kit in case the next generation of Dx cameras are "revolutionarily" in some way so I can still use all my lenses. I can use all Nikon lenses on the m4/3 with an adapter, and the 85/1.8 is very useful for low light videos. I also use the Nikon when I need the flash. My m4/3 cameras are small now so I worry that they may not balance well with a big flash. However if I ever get a dSLR-like m4/3 camera, I will sell the SB600 and learn how to use those from the m4/3.</p>

<p>To reduce the size of your gear, you can also go with the mirrorless APSC systems, such as those from SONY and Fuji. I did not go with the APSC system in general because while they can make small camera bodies, their lens will always be much bigger than those from the m4/3. SONY's lens collection is still mediocre and with the addition of the EF mount, I worry that they are stretched too thin. My problem with the Fuji is cost and the videos, the quality of which is not adequate as compared to those of the m4/3.</p>

<p>What should you do? Keep in mind that we live in a world that you do not have to swear royalty to a particular brand so why not try out the m4/3 in a small step. Get a camera and a walk around prime lens, such as 20/1.6, 17/1.8, or 25/1.8, and see if you like it. If you do, at that point, you will be more familiar with the system to make better decision.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think Nikon is likely to address the issue on future cameras quite soon.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can Nikon really address this issue? How? Can they automate the fine-tuning process? I am very curious as I do not want to get one of these high MP cameras only have to spend a lot of time to check each one of my lens, especially the zoom.</p>

<p>I suggest that you also read the interviews with Sigma and Fuji. In my view, I found the views from those two much forward thinking and candid, and they seem to better understand our needs. They also left me with the impression that they really know photography/cameras. By contrast, Nikon's comments focus way too much on marketing, and there is not much talk about innovation. I am particularly intrigued by the notion that they conducted marketing research to find out that the people in the US think "bigger is better." So what? So Nikon will continue to make their cameras and lens bigger and bigger? Who is responsible for this misconception? I would say Nikon itself plays a big role in this as they try to sell as many dSLRs as possible (and not making a good effort to market their own 1 system). The flip side is the ineffective marketing from other players. While I understand there is no great need for Nikon to change, given their marketing position, the lack of motion to do better is discouraging.</p>

<p>Ralph, for AF performance, you really should give the m4/3 a try! Since your subjects are mostly people, the face detection on these cameras, and those from Olympus in particular, is outstanding. It works outdoors and indoors. When people's faces are turned away, it remains mostly locks on the head of the person. The new sensor in m4/3 should be close to the performance of the the D7000 and their cameras plus a lens is very small indeed.</p>

<p>Dpreview posted an interview with the guy from Fuji who indicated that the performance of these two models are very close despite the fact that only X-M1 uses the X-trans sensor. However X-A1 is cheaper mostly b/c of the cost of the sensor. They are not sure what they should eventually offer as their entry level camera which is why we now both. Either way, this is a good way to begin to collect Fuji lens to build a system. For the difference of $100, I would rather go with the X-M1 to get on the X-trans bandwagon. </p>

<p>The Panasonic GH4 will shoot 4k videos, as well as acting as a very good still camera. The price is estimated to be around $1,500. See below:<br>

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/02/07/panasonic-announces-lumix-dmc-gh4-with-4k-video-support?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&utm_medium=text&ref=title_0_10</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Gentlemen, my opinion of mirrorless cams has not changed. For action sports, get a DSLR. There is no MILC that's even on the same planet as a Canon 1Dx or Nikon D4.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would totally agree with this statement for professional sports shooters shooting NFL or NBA. In fact, I would add that another important limitation for the pro sports shooter is the lack of long lenses in most mirrorless systems. For m4/3 it has just one lens that can reach 600 mm (FF eq), but it is a 100-300 slow zoom lens. However for regular people or Mom and Dad photographing kids playing sports, these cameras are more than enough. Keep in mind that a D4 costs $6000 and weighs 1350 g. The E-M1 and E-T1 are about $1200 and <500g.</p>