john_hinkey

<p>Well, Nikon's OVF/EVF viewfinder patent doesn't indicate anything about being interchangeable - in fact it doesn't need to since the patent itself relates to the placement of a LCD layer in the optical path that becomes active (opaque) when the mirror is up to block the light passing through the partially silvered mirror from lowering the contrast of the transparent electroluminescent display sandwiched in the light path.<br>

The patent shows the OVF and EVF nicely integrated, so one would wonder why you'd want to change it out. I guess you could change it to be a top view instead of rear or perhaps they will offer a "High Eye Point" version for a larger image.<br>

We'll find out in a few days.</p>

 

<p>Yes, it's definitely a chrome ring which means to me that there is an aperture ring of some sort. Also the external shape of the new 50/1.8G seems very different than the current version.</p>

<p>When you look at the tear down photos at IFIXIT of the D600 the circuit board is quite large, so the width is probably required for a similar-sized board.</p>

<p>

<p>I'm excited because there is the possibility to have a compact FX digital body that will work well with my compact primes (16/3.5 AI, 20/2.8D, 45/2.8P, 90/3.5CV, 180/4 CV) and provide an excellent way for manual focusing that does not work very well now with my D800 (poor focusing screen & insufficiently accurate focus confirmation dot).<br>

This may stop me from building my m43 system from more than I have now - just what Nikon wants to hear I suppose.<br>

It would help this camera out a ton if Nikon came out with some compact primes that were excellent for manual focusing. <br>

24MP would be better for me, but I can make due with 16MP for sure. I don't think I'll be selling my D800 though as it just works so well for other types of photography. </p>

<p>It could be that the guy in the video is using something other than the 50/1.8G . . . something with an aperture ring. I sure hope the new 50/1.8G has one - then, by definition it wouldn't be a "G" lens then would it?</p>

<p>And, I suspect if it has an EVF it will have some type of electronic shutter capability perhaps . . .</p>

<p>Rodeo Joe - I don't think it looks like it has a built-in flash at all based on my earlier observations. It looks like it has the triangular front face to the pentaprism bulge just like an FE, F2, FM3A, etc.<br>

The shutter noise sounds like it's from a FM3A or something - a big shutter in a small metal body.</p>

<p>From the blown-up image on NR I get:<br>

- The pentaprism bump has a triangular face to it, much different than current curved DSLR prism bumps and similar to FM2, FE2, F3 cameras<br />- Does not look like it has a built-in flash (due to previous observation)<br />- Has a flash hot shoe<br />- Does not have a super large grip (though it appears to have one)<br />- His finger on the shutter button seems to be on a flat surface, unlike a D700, D800, D4, etc. The surface seems to be flat hence the top surface of the camera may be more flat, like an FE2, FM2, F3, etc.<br />- The lens is not short and squat - seems like it's a cosmetically re-designed 50/1.8G to me<br />- Chrome ring at the base of the lens. A 50/1.8G with a chrome DOF marking band?<br />- The camera does not look D4-ish in size (assuming he does not have large hands)<br />- The eye piece seems to be very wide on his face - many EVFs are like this because they have a proximity sensor next to it to turn the EVF on and off automatically.</p>

<p>As an owner of a D800 I would find a way to get this camera if it has:<br>

- Smaller body like a FM3A or even the F3<br>

- Hybrid OVF/EVF: The EVFs of the m43 bodies is what has made me get m43 gear - not what Nikon wants for sure<br>

- Made for manual focusing (aperture ring, DOF preview, OVF screen/EVF resolution, etc.)<br>

- Great external controls<br>

- Decent price ($2K would be my personal limit)<br>

Make some pancake primes Nikon to go along with this bad boy!</p>

<p>Well, the landscape shot, certainly not shot through a window, was wide open at base ISO using a D800E, though it seems that an ND filter would have to be used to get to only 1/1,600 sec unless it was a particularly dim day.<br>

You can see the DOF effects, as the center and lower near parts of the image appear much sharper than the farther upper parts of the image. You can also see a bit of smearing in the corners (coma, field curvature?).<br>

The center looks reasonably sharp, though it certainly is not up to D800(E) standards. For wide open it appears that the image sharpness is consistent with the MTF curves - i.e., OK over the vast majority of the frame.<br>

Also, for the portrait shots, my personal standard for sharpness is the eyelashes - are they sharp - and the sample images are not very sharp at all. Some post-capture sharpening would probably go a long ways to making the images look better.<br>

Compared to my 50/1.2 AIS (that I just sold a few weeks back) the new 58/1.4G is perhaps not as perceptually sharp wide open, but it seems like it would have much better contrast and little residual sph. aberration that the 1.2 AIS certainly has (the fast MF Nikkor "glow").<br>

If the local pro shop here in Seattle ever gets one I'll give it a go, though I doubt I'd ever spring for such a lens as my 50/1.8G is more than good enough for my uses.</p>

<p>Full resolution night scene torture shot here:<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikonfrance/10324891033/sizes/o/in/photostream/<br>

<br />It is certainly not coma or CA free, but likely far better than the current 50/1.4 or 58/1.2. Not sure about the sharpness wide open.<br>

Looking forward to direct image comaprisons between the different 50's, the 58/1.2 and the new 58/1.4G.</p>

<p>These modern day lenses are complicated inside and labor is very expensive.<br>

So the cost seems reasonable to me - after all they likely will replace the optical unit as it would likely be very labor intensive to open it all up, figure out what's out of alignment, and try to adjust it. If something has shifted internally it's likely deformed and thus needs replacement.<br>

Thus a new optical assembly (or whatever assembly) and the labor to swap it out for this price seems quite reasonable.<br>

<br />Though on the face of it these lenses seem expensive, relatively speaking they are not compared to something even remotely equivalent 20 or 30 years ago (adjusted for inflation of course).<br>

<br />Also remember that your lens will get a full CLA in the process and might come back even sharper and working better than when it came off the production line.<br>

Drops/falls are very tricky things as sometimes they look really severe and really aren't while other times they seem innocuous, but are really damaging. All depends on the specifics of the fall.<br>

Good luck!</p>

<blockquote>

 

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=172915">Lex Jenkins</a> wrote:<br>

Personally I like small sensors for snapshot cameras because they're so forgiving of minor focus errors. Stopping down to f/2.8-f/5.6, depending on focal length, achieves enough DOF to cover a lot of territory in a typical candid scenario at parties or on the street.<br>

But there are already enough tiny sensor digicams to last the rest of the decade without ever making another. Unless it can see in the dark, brew a fine cup of coffee or organize my life, we don't need another. Leave the teensy sensors to handheld mobile devices.<br>

Mostly I'm disappointed Nikon hasn't incorporated the now-mature CX sensor tech from the 1 series into the Coolpix lineup. The 1 series have proven ultra-fast AF (which, so far, most affordable APS-C sensor compact/mirrorless digicams lack), and overall very quick responsiveness. A Coolpix P7800 with CX sensor would have been exciting. But it's hard to avoid shrugging at the hyperbolic use of the word "highlights" in reference to just another slightly better iteration of yet another teensy sensor digicam.<br>

Once again, Nikon's mulish reluctance to grasp what works and run with it makes it the most frustrating of all major camera manufacturers. By the time Nikon does take a chance on a CX sensor Coolpix with all the quickness of the 1 series, the other manufacturers will have already solved the riddle of making equally fast-focusing APS-C sensor compact cameras and Nikon will once again be the old fuddy duddy.<br>

Love ya, Nikon, but you need to get out and party more often.</p>

 

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>I'm with you. I'd buy it in a heartbeat if it had the 1" sensor from the Nikon 1 system. I'd buy it even faster if it had a 24-100 equiv. lens. It has the EVF, articulated LCD, built-in flash, external controls, etc.a that I'd love to have if only it had a 1" sensor and started at 24mm . . . .</p>

 

<p>I had the 80-200/2.8 AFS, bought a 70-20/2.8 AFS VR II, sold the 80-200/2.8 AFS, then for a light weight alternative I bought the 70-200/4 VR and could not be happier. It's excellent at 200mm for distant subjects (gets a little soft at 200mm and MFD), very very good at the shorter end of the focal length range (quite excellent at 70mm and MFD though).<br>

As others have said the VR is simply outstanding and I think a stop better than the 70-200/2.8 VR II.<br>

Does really really well with the TC14E too . . <br>

<br />Other than not being f/2.8 the lens is an excellent choice.<br>

<br />Oh, and I shoot with a D800 and it can certainly stand up to 36MP.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=3824787">nick baker</a> , Jul 26, 2013; 05:28 a.m.<br>

used Voigtlander 180mm f4 apo-lanthar - 485g</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, but they go for well North of $1K and the IQ at infinity is not quite up to D800 standards (though at shorter distances it is).</p>

<p>I will add that the 70-200/4 is a very viable option.</p>

<p>There are no really good choices in this range. I have for shooting with my D800:<br>

90/3.5 CV APO - Excellent compact lens and has replaced my 105/2.5 AIS<br>

<br />100/2.8 Series E - Great small size and low weight, BUT it really is not sharp on the D800 and has not so great contrast (it flares quite easily). Had one, sold it.<br>

135/3.5 AIS - Pretty good image quality, but not quite up to the D800 sensor. Better than the f/2.8, not as good as the f/2 AIS (but it's a whole lot heavier for sure).<br>

<br />200/4 AIS - A bit heavy and long, but has the built-in hood. IQ was OK on my D700, but not so great on my D800 (especially the CA). Not the greatest contrast either and flares quite easily.<br>

180/4 CV APO - Pretty good image quality, though not as good as my 70-200/4. Compact and relatively light weight. Very good contrast though. Does not seem to like filters in front of it. Somewhat expensive too ($1200)<br>

<br />I had a 180/2.8AF, but it really ran out of steam on my D800 and was too heavy and long to drag around the back country.<br>

180/3.4 Leica APO (converted to Nikon F-mount) - Considering buying this one as it is absolutely fantastic sharpness-wise, has a built in hood, and built to last. It's heavy and somewhat long though (and can be expensive). Slightly sharper than my 70-200/4.</p>

<p>So there are not really good light weight/compact options between 100mm and 200mm.<br>

You can, of course, go to the m43 format and get that fabulous Oly 75/1.8 (135mm equivalent FOV) as I intend to do some day soon . . .</p>

<p>Another vote for Glazers - yes they can have some attitude and the sales guys are doing their jobs trying to sell stuff, but you can't beat them for the stock they have on hand. They have just about anything you'd want.<br>

<br />The Mercer mess is much less so these days and it's not that difficult to get to.<br>

<br />Kenmore Camera is a nice place, but they have nowhere near the inventory as Glazers and getting to them up in Kenmore is quite out of the way unless you happen to be near there. If you are looking for something in particular I'd call first.</p>

<p>Today's DSLRs OVFs are not optimized for viewing depth of field - they seem to be optimized for brightness. My D800 OVF has an effective DOF of about f/2.8 - meaning anything faster than f/2.8 has the same DOF preview in the viewfinder. On DX (like a D300) it was more like f/4.</p>

<p>My lowly FE2 has about 1 more stop of DOF than my D800.</p>

<p>John</p>

<p>So far I'm not sure it is able to focus all the way to infinity on my D800, but it is a beautiful lens. It seems to be slightly better than my 200/4 AIS (particularly in the area of CA) and slightly less sharp than my 70-200/4 in the center, but about equal in the edges. I have not checked out the corners yet.</p>

<p>Well, I bought one today and it should be here the end of the week. I'll report back my findings.</p>

<p>The 135/2 AIS is actually a bit better than the 135/2DC - slightly sharper and slightly less CA. The AIS also does not fool my AF system at all . . .<br>

I had nothing but troubles with the 135/2DC when trying to use AF - it was completely inconsistent even after AF fine tuning. Sometimes it would front focus, other time back focus and by quite a bit, thus ruining the shot. I still have the 135/2 AIS and the DC is long gone.<br>

<br />The 135/2.8 AIS (which I just sold) is a very nice lens, but the 135/3.5 AIS is even better - no problem wide open even on the D800 and is very very sharp up close wide open with minimal CA.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2403817">Rodeo Joe</a><a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, May 10, 2013; 01:35 p.m.</p>

 

<p>For $120 you really can't go far wrong. The 105mm f/2.5 can still hold its own among fancy modern aspherical designs, but it's probably not the absolute best portrait lens out there. It's younger cousin the f/1.8 105mm Ai-S Nikkor is marginally better IMHO. It's also twice the weight and size, and maybe twice the cost.</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>For what it's worth I agree - in the center the 105/1.8 is slightly better, but if corners matter the f/2.5 is much much better (though not perfect). The only major problem that I have with my 105/2.5 is sometimes the MFD is a bit too long when I want to do a partial head portrait, but then I just need to throw on a PK11A or something and it's good.<br>

<br />- John</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=853120">Joey Chavit</a>, May 10, 2013; 01:40 p.m.</p>

 

<p>The 105 2.5 Nikkor is a perfect lens for portraits and I'd venture to say you'll be borrowing the lens from your wife once you see the results. I use this lens with the 800E and LOVE the results. Sharpness to the corners is overrated in the context of portraits and I use the Zeiss Makro Planar 100mm F2 for everything else.</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>Joey has it correct. 105/2.5 for portraits and 100/2 Zeiss for everything else is exactly my experience.<br>

As I said, I also have the 90/3.5CV, but I don't use it for portraits so much as for landscapes (the CV is every bit as sharp as the 100/2 MP at f/3.5, but it doesn't go to f/2).<br>

<br />For the price you can't really go wrong with the 105/2.5 AI or AIS . . .</p>

 

<p>I have the 105/2.5 AIS and it was pretty sweet on my D700 as I used it for portraits and for landscapes. There is an AI version as well and it has the advantage of rounded/curved aperture blades resulting in nicer specular highlights when stopped down to f/4 or more. <br>

It has problems with backlighting (flare) if you use it like that and the minimum focusing distance can be a bit long at times when I want to really zoom in on someone or something.<br>

I don't use it as much anymore with my D800 as it really starts to show it's flaws - especially in the corners wide open. I still have mine, but I use the Voigtlander 90/3.5 for the most part due to it's smaller size and much closer MFD - it's also sharper at f/3.5 than the 105 is at f/5.6.<br>

Still the 90/3.5 CV costs about 4x more than my 105/2.5 did so the cost per performance is certainly in favor of the 105/2.5 . . .</p>

<p>John</p>