- Messages
- 23,671
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
Shame, size wise it looks good.Already debunked as a fake.
Although I think Trump says it is real.
Shame, size wise it looks good.Already debunked as a fake.
Although I think Trump says it is real.
After all this hype and drama the camera had better be good. Not that it'll matter to some who'll just buy it regardless, ditto whatever Canon announce
It'll be interesting to see how it compares to Sony offerings spec and price wise, but like you say some people will buy it regardless.
Going to be interesting to see what Canon bring out also and then see how Sony reacts. I bet they have something waiting in the wings to reveal once Nikon and Canon show there hands.
Do manufacturers really do this, or do they just bring out the best they have at the time (obviously still developing other tech in the meantime)?It'll be interesting to see how it compares to Sony offerings spec and price wise, but like you say some people will buy it regardless.
Going to be interesting to see what Canon bring out also and then see how Sony reacts. I bet they have something waiting in the wings to reveal once Nikon and Canon show there hands.
And some who will slate it regardless.After all this hype and drama the camera had better be good. Not that it'll matter to some who'll just buy it regardless, ditto whatever Canon announce
Do manufacturers really do this, or do they just bring out the best they have at the time (obviously still developing other tech in the meantime)?
i think sony will have decent idea of what nikon and canon may be up to. They predicted both would have a mirrorless offering by next year and still brought out the A7III.
I seriously doubt either will do anything revolutionary that'll be massively better than what Sony can do. And Sony probably released the A7III to aggressively capture as many users from other brands as possible before they got their own mirrorless. Once someone has newly switched they are less likely to immediately switch back at least for financial reasons.
'I' think the Nikon mirrorless camera will be a similar size to the D7500, and you can see how that compares to the a7III here.Shame, size wise it looks good.
'I' think the Nikon mirrorless camera will be a similar size to the D7500, and you can see how that compares to the a7III here.
If those mock ups are real then Nikon have made one MAJOR faux pas, no rear control dial
If those mock ups are real then Nikon have made one MAJOR faux pas, no rear control dial
Exp comp dial according to previous mock ups but really needs to be a control dial imo.Is that not a dial, at the top right, on the back of the camera?
oh goody, we're going to be plagued by pictures with even more overdone thin DoF than we get now.
"it's my style" etc.
My thoughts precisely .... sure it can't be a good image unless nothing bar the 3rd eye lash on the left eye is in focus don't ya know!? I really am gettig sick of the bokeh whores.
Don't worry, fashions change - look forward to "anything not sharp from 0.25m to ∞ is not using Science and Physics to its full potential"
Sony have a great deal of history too having previously been Minolta and carried over the use of Minolta's A mount lenses. Minolta created the first mainstream SLR camera combining inbuilt autofocus and motorised film drive, among many other firsts in the history of photography. http://www.friedmanarchives.com/Writings/A_History_of_Minolta_Innovation/index.htmHopefully it's not too late.... I actually prefer Nikon as a brand over Sony, it has a lot more history.
I can't wait to see what Nikon bring out....... if its a Sony A9 beating body with their existing lens mount, it could be a winner.
Sony have a great deal of history too having previously been Minolta and carried over the use of Minolta's A mount lenses. Minolta created the first mainstream SLR camera combining inbuilt autofocus and motorised film drive, among many other firsts in the history of photography. http://www.friedmanarchives.com/Writings/A_History_of_Minolta_Innovation/index.htm
And some who will slate it regardless.
Was that not the 60's? The old F8 and be there crew. They were well ahead of their time!
Even more liberating using auto,yes I know you don’t know howI sometimes just use f8 (or f4 with MFT) and it's a liberating experience not to have to worry about those eyelashes but today I took pictures at f18 and f22 with my f1.2 lens and actually f22 just wasn't enough.
Yes, but in buying Minolta they took over Minolta staff and equipment, and continued established Minolta traditions. They were not photographic novices before buying Minolta, however. Sony had already established a pioneering presence of its own in digital photography.Didn't Sony just buy the company once it was already well established?
Don't worry, fashions change - look forward to "anything not sharp from 0.25m to ∞ is not using Science and Physics to its full potential"
No, it was the 1930s and the Group f/64 (Ansel Adams etc). They didn't talk about Science and Physics specifically, but they did promote the idea of capturing images of natural subjects with everything in the frame precisely sharp and in focus.Was that not the 60's? [emoji38] The old F8 and be there crew. They were well ahead of their time!
No, it was the 1930s and the Group f/64 (Ansel Adams etc). They didn't talk about Science and Physics specifically, but they did promote the idea of capturing images of natural subjects with everything in the frame precisely sharp and in focus.
"f/8 and be there" is attributed to Arthur Fellig aka "Weegee", who was a photojournalist and street photographer in New York in the 30s and 40s. It's a philosophy that says camera settings don't really matter, f/8 will get you usable images (in his context/genre), but the most important thing is to be in the right place at the right time.
I read somewhere that Adams regretted shooting at small apertures for one picture at least although I forget which one. He later came to think that the picture would have been better if it looked as the eye would see it with the far distance less sharp than the foreground. Maybe someone will Google and find the quote.
I know we're getting off track here but I think there's a lot to be said against the current tendency towards minimum depth. I like thin depth too but I do think it's done to death and that (IMVHO) many picture we see on line would be better with more depth.
A favourite read of mine on this subject...
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/06/in-defense-of-depth.html
I do wonder if the current trend for zero depth street and portrait photography will come to be seen as a bit naff.
I know it wasn't you that brought it up but it's worth mentioning that fast lenses aren't just about shallow depth of field.
I know it wasn't you that brought it up but it's worth mentioning that fast lenses aren't just about shallow depth of field.
first new leak of the new nikon mirrorless camera!
New nikon mirrorless camera by Jon Richy, on Flickr
first new leak of the new nikon mirrorless camera!
New nikon mirrorless camera by Jon Richy, on Flickr
No, it was the 1930s and the Group f/64 (Ansel Adams etc). They didn't talk about Science and Physics specifically, but they did promote the idea of capturing images of natural subjects with everything in the frame precisely sharp and in focus.
"f/8 and be there" is attributed to Arthur Fellig aka "Weegee", who was a photojournalist and street photographer in New York in the 30s and 40s. It's a philosophy that says camera settings don't really matter, f/8 will get you usable images (in his context/genre), but the most important thing is to be in the right place at the right time.
No - I own lots of fast lenses and use them stopped down - they tend to be optically superior stopped down and have better edge to edge sharpness - which is vital for landscapes. A lot is talked about front to back sharpness in landscapes but rarely side to side sharpness is considered and fast expensive primes tend to do well in this regard.
One of the reasons I moved away from Nikon was the poor 16-35 and 17-35 performance. I have seen a few people moving to the 20mm 1.8 and selling their 16-35s.No - I own lots of fast lenses and use them stopped down - they tend to be optically superior stopped down and have better edge to edge sharpness - which is vital for landscapes. A lot is talked about front to back sharpness in landscapes but rarely side to side sharpness is considered and fast expensive primes tend to do well in this regard.
One of the reasons I moved away from Nikon was the poor 16-35 and 17-35 performance. I have seen a few people moving to the 20mm 1.8 and selling their 16-35s.