You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Probably interminably boring to anyone but Nikon users, (and possibly to some of them too!), but I thought it was exciting news: Nikon have just released the new 105mm f1.4 lens! Interesting to me particularly, because of my recent ventures into portraiture, and early accounts suggest it's a very nice piece of kit. Bloody expensive at just over £2k, but price should come down eventually.
I'm particularly interested in it's ability to throw backgrounds completely out of focus, in a way that the 85s and f2 lenses just can't. 105mm is a very good lens for portraiture, as it fills the gap between 85 and 135mm, and doesn't flatten perspective as much as longer lenses. I've used a 105mm for photographing people on stage, and it's excellent for that.
This release may mean older s/h 105 DC lenses become a fair bit cheaper, and perhaps the 135s too. I think I'll hire one, to have a bit of a play.
'Bokeh' looks so clean and smooth:
[img] 
[/img]
Your technique is going to have to be spot on with that lens wide open, because the focal plane is going to be stupidly narrow. I'm sure plenty of people will get some great shots with it, but it's not for me
You need an focus bracket mode, so it just shoots 20 frames, each with the focal point moved 2mm back...
No, you just need to learn how to use the camera's autofocus system properly. I've been shooting with my new 85mm f1.8 recently, and even wide open, I'm getting perfect focus for my portraits. Large aperture primes are much easier to focus with than smaller aperture zooms. The key thing is to keep yourself and your subject as still as possible; the way you stand is important. Relax; if you're tense, you'll tend to sway about more. I used to achieve spot-on focussing with my old 200mm f4 manual focus lens, hand held. Obviously, fixing the camera on a tripod helps enormously. And using a fast enough shutter speed; the general rule is to use a speed higher than the number of the focal length of the lens in use. So for 85mm, go with 1/100". 135mm, 1/160". And so on. I try to at least double the focal length number when shooting.
The degree to which the background is out of focus is partly determined by the focal length (the longer the focal length, the narrower the DOF for a given aperture) but also by how close you are to the focal point and how far away the background is relative to that. Thus potentially, an 85mm lens will give you more background bluring than the 100mm because you'll be stood further back for the same shot with the 100mm as with the 85mm.
That new Nikon lens though does look very nice but man it's expensive even compared the 85mm G Master for the Sony.
but price should come down eventually.
You think? Lenses seem to be one aspect of technology that haven't come down in price; at least not to a reasonable, consumer level.
"You think?"
I can but dream. 😥
It is [i]frighteningly[/i] expensive. By comparison, my excellent 85mm lens cost just £200 s/h. I doubt the new 105mm is 10x 'better' than that. Doesn't matter; I still want it!
"Thus potentially, an 85mm lens will give you more background bluring than the 100mm because you'll be stood further back for the same shot with the 100mm as with the 85mm."
I see what you're saying, but it depends on how far away the background is, and other factors. But the 105mm will help isolate the subject more than an 85mm.
but price should come down eventually.
Sometimes Nikon move their more popular lenses from manufacture in Japan to Taiwan and the price drops a bit. This one won't have the volume though.
Admittedly, not SLR related but I am more interested in the DL premium compacts that are coming out soon (not that I'll be able to afford one of them).....
[img] 
[/img]
Perhaps I'll buy a scratchcard.....
Admittedly, not SLR related but I am more interested in the DL premium compacts that are coming out soon
I like the look of this but it's not something we don't already have in the Sony RX100 the Canon G/GX range or any of the many cameras from Lumix/Panasonic. I can't help but think that Nikon are massively late to this party.
geetee1972 - Member
...I can't help but think that Nikon are massively late to this party.
Aye, but it's a Nikon. 🙂
geetee1972 - MemberI like the look of this but it's not something we don't already have in the Sony RX100 the Canon G/GX range or any of the many cameras from Lumix/Panasonic. I can't help but think that Nikon are massively late to this party.
True, but I find the Sony menu systems horrible & the ergonomics of the RX100 don't seem great, either.
Panasonic options have always appealed to me (although I am not sure if they have 1" sensors - they didn't last time I looked in this price range).
The Nikon would allow me to use my speedlight with it (admittedly on rare occasions), if required (it's got a hotshoe). Not sure if it works as a master to support wireless flash though....
But, yeah - Nikon do seems bit slow with the premium compact side of things....and often the cameras seems to offer much, but the actual implementation is a bit lame - the P7000/7100 for example.
Actually the more I look at that Nikon the more I like it.
Nikon aren't the only ones behind the curve though. Canon has always done a good line in premium compacts but they've also massively missed the mirrorless boat.
Neither companies need to worry about mirrorless cameras. Both are now doing 'affordable' full-frame DSLRs, which offer far greater image quality than the 4/3rds cameras do, and noticeably better than APS-C. Both make a huge range of lenses that fit their DSLRs, so why would they want to cannibalise their own sales? Mirrorless compact system cameras appeal to a different market. Canon and Nikon are doing ok with their own.
I do like a little compact camera to just take around with me, but I'm increasingly just taking the DSLR out, as the picture quality is so much better. Always feel I'm compromising too much with the compact. That's not to say compacts are no good, but there's been many occasions where I wished I'd had the 'proper' camera. I've never been in a situation where I've wished I'd brought the compact; the superior image quality of the DSLR easily offsets the weight and bulk.
Speaking of weight and bulk:
[img] 
[/img]
300mm f4 PF VR. Half the weight and 30% smaller than the previous 300mm f4. And it has a phase fresnel lens, whatever that is!
Mirrorless compact system cameras appeal to a different market. Canon and Nikon are doing ok with their own.
Not really. They have the fast action sports niche still, and the luddites. The flappy mirror's days are numbered.
The new Sonys are ideal for a fast portrait lens. Just use eye-focus tracking and off you go.
"Not really. They have the fast action sports niche still, and the luddites. The flappy mirror's days are numbered."
People who want superior image quality are not 'luddites'. And until electronic displays can match the accuracy of an optical viewfinder, the 'flappy' mirrors are here to stay.
Some of the new Sonys look fantastic, but they aren't cheap, and don't have the system accessibility of either Nikon or Canon. And while Sony are making good money selling sensors to Nikon, they won't want to jeopardise that revenue stream by making directly competitive cameras.
300mm f4 PF VR. Half the weight and 30% smaller than the previous 300mm f4. And it has a phase fresnel lens, whatever that is!
That's on my shopping list, I still end up cropping loads using the F2.8 70-200mm shooting sport...
Currently selling their f2.8 14-24 as I've only used in 3 times!
People who want superior image quality are not 'luddites'. And until electronic displays can match the accuracy of an optical viewfinder, the 'flappy' mirrors are here to stay.
Mirrorless certainly don't lack image quality. Quite the opposite. Sony are now using the newest sensors in their own cameras and not making them available to Nikon.
I switch back and forth between a full frame flappy mirror camera and a full frame mirrorless. I miss the EVF when I use OVF and vis versa. The OVF has the edge in fast action. Everywhere else there are pros and cons but the EVF is better (for me and many, many others). Give it a couple of years and the pros will be overwhelming.
Some of the new Sonys look fantastic, but they aren't cheap, and don't have the system accessibility of either Nikon or Canon.
There is some truth in that. On a budget there's a lot to be said for old-tech. Which is why I still have my old flappy fossil.
And while Sony are making good money selling sensors to Nikon, they won't want to jeopardise that revenue stream by making directly competitive cameras.
We're past that point. Sony have stopped giving Nikon first go on their new sensors and make very directly competitive cameras. I expect the next generation to attack the fast action segment and that's mostly a case of producing appropriate lenses.
Sony have stopped giving Nikon first go on their new sensors
You sure Nikon use Sony's sensors or just buy space in their fab to make sensors to their own design?
I was thinking about buying a previous model 300 f4, as you can get good examples for about £500 s/h, but then the new ones came out with it's small size and VR. 😡
14-24mm isn't something I've really looked at. I've always found ultra-wide pics to feel a bit 'gimmicky', and never really thought about such lenses in relation to my own work. Interesting you didn't use it much. Any reasons?
Interesting you didn't use it much. Any reasons?
I don't do Landscape plus whenever I'm in the hills the only camera I have is my iPhone 6. I'm not humping a D4S and 14-24 lens up a fell....
"Sony have stopped giving Nikon first go on their new sensors and make very directly competitive cameras."
Sony make very different cameras to Nikon. They are nowhere near comparable in terms of AF capability; Nikon's system is vastly superior. Sony are using old Minolta designs for their cameras; a system which was never particularly popular, even less so with pros. If internet rumours are true, Sony will probably scale down DSLR manufacture, and concentrate on the smaller camera market, and be the sensor supplier for Nikon and other customers. To successfully compete with Canon and Nikon, they'd have to scale up their manufacturing enormously, and still suffer perceived brand inferiority. Makes more sense for them to work with other manufacturers, not against.
We're past that point. Sony have stopped giving Nikon first go on their new sensors and make very directly competitive cameras
exactly, you are right and he’s wrong. more money to be made from selling your own sensor/body package and then a revenue stream of lenses and body upgrades further down the line than selling bulk discounted sensors to a competitor. Sony will still sell sensors to others but i doubt there will be exclusivity on the ones that would fit their own products first.
the problem with nikon is their video implementation is poor yet they have nothing to cannibalise further up the product range, i.e no pro video like Canon or Sony. they could implement high data rate 4k without hitting their other products and taking customers from canon/sony/panasonic. they really are behind the curve on their product offerings. there is still a core market there for them but it’s not a growing market like mirrorless and video.
" I'm not humping a D4S and 14-24 lens up a fell...."
I see your point. 🙂
I don't really mind lugging a big camera around really; I'd rather suffer the pain of carrying it, and getting the best possible quality images, than compromising and regretting it. Mind you, I don't do much outdoorsy landscape stuff, if any, so mainly confined to urban areas. I find if I take the DSLR, I use it, whereas the compact just sits in a bag and doesn't get brought out. Something to be said for having a bloody great camera round your neck; if you have to carry it, you might as well use it!
You sure Nikon use Sony's sensors or just buy space in their fab to make sensors to their own design?
Everything suggests they buy versions of Sony sensors with their own customisations. Generally a weaker colour filter and different A/D converters. Nothing seems to suggest Nikon design the sensors.
It's all a bit complex with some Nikons using Toshiba sensors but Sony has leased Toshiba's sensor fab for years (and more recently bought it).
exactly, you are right and he’s wrong. more money to be made from selling your own sensor/body package and then a revenue stream of lenses and body upgrades further down the line than selling bulk discounted sensors to a competitor. Sony will still sell sensors to others but i doubt there will be exclusivity on the ones that would fit their own products first.
Yeah, I wasn't suggesting exclusivity. Just a change from Nikon being given preferential treatment compared to their own camera division. It's now a level playing field.
Everything suggests they buy versions of Sony sensors with their own customisations
I've never seen anything definitive.
It's far from unusual to use a rival's fab. E.g. most of the iPhone parts are (or were) made by Samsung: touch sensor screen, uP, Flash chips etc; yet they are arch rivals in the mobile phone business, endlessly suing each other etc.
The Fab business is so Capex intensive, there are only a handful of places in the world which can make chips at the highest specs now.
Sony make very different cameras to Nikon. They are nowhere near comparable in terms of AF capability; Nikon's system is vastly superior. Sony are using old Minolta designs for their cameras; a system which was never particularly popular, even less so with pros.
You're several years out of date. That's the old DSLR range. It's still around, just, but unrelated to the modern mirrorless range. You can safely assume it's dead.
If internet rumours are true, Sony will probably scale down DSLR manufacture, and concentrate on the smaller camera market, and be the sensor supplier for Nikon and other customers.
No. They're de-emphasing small sensors in their own range and focused on full frame. They obviously still make small sensors for small cameras, but not really related to the topic on hand.
To successfully compete with Canon and Nikon, they'd have to scale up their manufacturing enormously, and still suffer perceived brand inferiority. Makes more sense for them to work with other manufacturers, not against.
True. Sort of. They don't compete in the flappy camera arena. They dominate the full frame mirrorless one instead. Camera sales are plummeting, so the real problem isn't how Sony scales but how Canon and Nikon survive. It won't be from selling flappy cameras.
"exactly, you are right and he’s wrong. more money to be made from selling your own sensor/body package and then a revenue stream of lenses and body upgrades further down the line than selling bulk discounted sensors to a competitor."
Sony simply don't have the system range to be able to fully exploit their own sensors fully, and would have to risk spending billions to develop a competitive system to capture the pro market. Why do that, when others have been doing it for many decades? And consistently make products that out-perform your own, even using your own technology?
Sony have worked closely with Nikon for years. They're not about to lose one of their biggest customers on a risky venture that might fail spectacularly. Nikon and Canon can potentially match anything that Sony does, in terms of innovations, and Sony know this.
Sony simply don't have the system range to be able to fully exploit their own sensors fully, and would have to risk spending billions to develop a competitive system to capture the pro market. Why do that, when others have been doing it for many decades? And consistently make products that out-perform your own, even using your own technology?
Sony cameras already outperform the competition in many areas. You really need to keep in mind it's a shrinking market. Big cameras are less and less relevant and video is becoming as or more important than stills.
"Sony cameras already outperform the competition in many areas."
But not in AF performance, Flash control, system range or price etc. And real world use. Nikon and Canon win hands down. Which is why they will continue to dominate the DSLR market.
What I can see, is Nikon and Sony collaborating, and shutting out other competitors, particularly Canon, who are way ahead of Nikon in terms of video. I can't see Sony going up against the big two, and being successful. Sorry if I don't share your opinion.
Nikon are goings downhill slowly..
Nikon financial results for the year (ending on March 31, 2016)"The sales volume of digital SLR cameras decreased, resulting in 11% sales reduction and 19% operating income reduction from the previous year. Partly because of the negative exchange rate impact, both sales and operating income did not reach the forecasts."
Estimation for the next year (ending on March 31, 2017)"In addition to the digital camera market shrinkage, delayed launch of new products, and negative impact by exchange rates, it is expected that the 1st half operation will also be affected by The 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake. As a result, 15% sales reduction and 23% operating income reduction are forecasted."
Sony simply don't have the system range to be able to fully exploit their own sensors fully, and would have to risk spending billions to develop a competitive system to capture the pro market
well in my sector of the pro market (still life/location for advertising design and short promo/internet moving image) sony has made huge inroads, in the last few years all the pro rental houses/camera dealers (the kind that list ex vat and have a buzzer on the door and are closed at weekends) all now stock sony. this is because of the ability to use legacy lenses from canon/nikon and others plus the filming specs and large file sizes of 42mp.
myself i ditched medium format digital and use a cambo actus/A7R II and still use some canon lenses and some old nikon primes for filming. the accessory manufacturers are all making cages/ adaptors for the canon/sony bodies but many dont bother with Nikon as they are not penetrating that market.
i cant comment on the cat/sunset/wedding sector. i guess that is still dslr but when a sony can register peoples faces and give them priority focus (bride, groom, mother of the bride etc) and has on chip af then i can see that being very attractive to a wedding photographer.
But not in AF performance, Flash control, system range or price etc. And real world use. Nikon and Canon win hands down. Which is why they will continue to dominate the DSLR market.
The sony AF performance is more accurate, has eye recognition / focus and tracking. In real world use they better old systems in many areas which is why travel and landscape photographers are moving over. You seem to have not looked at the new technology for 5 years.
Which is why they will continue to dominate the DSLR market.
This reminds me of the last days of film. Same old arguments. Sure, they'll dominate until they don't sell enough to carry on with them. Which won't be long.
i guess that is still dslr but when a sony can register peoples faces and give them priority focus
You can certainly do that now. It may be a while until people are prepared to trust it (for good reason or not).
But it's happening to all manufacturers:
http://www.cityam.com/239792/canon-profit-drops-by-77-per-cent-as-sales-tumble
http://www.ft.com/fastft/2016/07/29/sony-profits-slump-74-following-earthquake-and-strong-yen/
"The sony AF performance is more accurate, has eye recognition / focus and tracking. In real world use they better old systems"
Is this fact, or a marketing claim? It's just that the Alpha 7R2 I had a play with recently, was nowhere near my Nikon DSLR in terms of AF performance. I've been keeping a keen eye on the Sony range, but so far, there's nothing that makes me feel compelled to switch. I imagine there's millions of other prhotgraphers out there who feel the same.
😆"You seem to have not looked at the new technology for 5 years."
You are aware that the Sony 'SLT' system is based on a pellicle mirror system, which has been around for many decades, and was first seen in an SLR in 1965. This system can, in theory, allow for a faster frame rate due to no time lost in mirror movement. There are downsides though, not least light lost through the mirror itself, and the very fragile nature of the mirror meaning it's not ideal for cameras where lenses are changed often, as dust and other foreign bodies will affect image quality significantly. Canon have dabbled with such systems, but they have never endured. Such systems just aren't practical for many photographers. Which is precisely why Sony have ditched it.
"This reminds me of the last days of film. Same old arguments. Sure, they'll dominate until they don't sell enough to carry on with them. Which won't be long."
Many predicted the death of Nikon some 10 years ago. They're still around, and are currently the 2nd largest manufacturer of DSLRs. So we shall see. I wouldn't put money on your doomsaying though.
You are aware that the Sony 'SLT' system is based on a pellicle mirror system
Stop it. That system is dead, or a staggering zombie at best. We're talking about the unrelated Sony mirrorless system not the ancient SLT stuff.
You were talking about new technology. Sony have still not quite killed off their 'staggering zombie'.
Sony's new FF cameras:
http://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sonys-full-frame-pro-mirrorless-fatal-mistake/
As for the new Sony E-mount:
[url= http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/zeiss-is-working-on-five-more-new-fe-lenses/ ] “The short flange distance between the sensor and the rear element is an engineering challenge for ultra wide-angle lenses.”[/url]
So; a flawed design that may eventually be sorted out. Or Sony will give up and just partner up with a company that's been doing it properly for decades. Who knows? You're obviously a Sony fan, and I'm sure you and other users get great results using their equipment. But I don't think we're going to agree on where the market is going, and neither of us can predict the future, so let's leave it there.
Now look at Nikon's mount specifications. And then look at the performance of the Sony lenses. It's all nonsense.
You're obviously a Sony fan, and I'm sure you and other users get great results using their equipment.
Not especially. I am a mirrorless convert (mostly), and Sony is pretty much the only game in town for FF mirrorless. If Nikon come out with a superior mirrorless system I'd move.
I'm mostly trying to provide a balance to your 'DSLR = better' view. I'll happily join you in arguing for DSLRs on a limited budget or specific use. There are pros and cons with both, and I'm happy to leave it there... 😉
So; a flawed design that may eventually be sorted out. Or Sony will give up and just partner up with a company that's been doing it properly for decades. Who knows?
well Zeiss don’t seem to have any issues designing lenses for sony. after all they have been doing it for decades*.... 🙄
this is turning into another internet amateur measurebator misinformation know it all thread that cameras, cars and bikes seem to attract. verbose but saying nothing.
i’m done here and off to make some images...
*designing lenses, obviously they have only partnered with sony for a few years.
"I'm mostly trying to provide a balance to your 'DSLR = better' view."
Perhaps I should clarify; what I meant was, DSLRs offer better image quality than do 'mirrorless' 4/3rds cameras or small sensor compacts. I concede I was unclear on this. I concede there are a couple of mirrorless cameras that offer comparable image quality to DSLRs. I would question that there is anything but the Sony range, and perhaps Leica, that is truly comparable to any full frame DSLR (they're FF anyway). And there is no question that Canon and Nikon offer superior equipment in terms of system accessibility, flash control and a number of other areas. As there is a very limited number of FF mirrorless cameras available, I'll stick with my original assertion that Nikon and Canon don't need to worry too much about that particular (tiny) sector of the market.
"well Zeiss don’t seem to have any issues designing lenses for sony."
Or a number of other manufacturers. I can put Zeiss lenses on my Nikon. 😉
"this is turning into another internet amateur measurebator misinformation know it all thread that cameras, cars and bikes seem to attract. verbose but saying nothing."
You weren't forced to contribute. You are free to not involve yourself in any future discussions. There'd be less 'misinformation' if you did. 😆
Back to lenses and actually taking photos; Had a couple of requests for portraits I've recently shot with the 85m. Very pleased with the results from a 20+ year old bit of kit. 😀
DSLR is dying, it's just a matter of when sales finally dip low enough for Canon and Nikon to throw the towel in.
I would question that there is anything but the Sony range, and perhaps Leica, that is truly comparable to any full frame DSLR (they're FF anyway).
You're very, very wrong. It would take minutes to check your facts but you're just making stuff up. So... I really am done.
I've just bought a Nikon 1 J5 CSC. It uses the same sensor as the Sony RX100 (possibly not the latest one though), has a wide range of lenses available and also compatible with Nikkor DSLR/SLR lenses with an adaptor.
The auto focus is crazy fast and the burst mode can do up to 60fps. Kit lens is ok but could be a bit faster (3.5) so I may go for a 1.8 prime for better low light action shots. Coming from an old Nikon D50 I'm pretty impressed for £300 and the image quality is fantastic.
The auto focus is crazy fast and the burst mode can do up to 60fps.
Not at the same time IIRC, when they can do 60 fps with full 3D tracking AF, that will be cool!
I was thinking about buying a previous model 300 f4, as you can get good examples for about £500 s/h, but then the new ones came out with it's small size and VR.
I recently picked up a mint one for £450. Fab quality with & without a TC-14E II.
The focus is fast (and close!) and I love the built in lens hood. The lack of VR does mean you need at least 1/500th sec (preferably 1/1000th sec) handheld for a sharp image or use a monopod. Decent technique is also required to keep the focus point on target. Group AF helps.
footflaps - MemberNot at the same time IIRC, when they can do 60 fps with full 3D tracking AF, that will be cool!
I reckon it's pretty cool, anyway.....
It'll do 20fps with continuous AF - dunno if that is '3d tracking' though.
The original Nikon 1 was a bit of an odd ball - pretty expensive when it first came out and with a small sensor that couldn't really compete with the competition.
But, it soon came down to a bargain price. I think a mate of mine paid about £25 for his with the kit lens.
We've got one of the originals at work & it's got a crazy high speed recording mode that helped us to solve a fundamental engineering issue we'd been working on for a long time. We got video evidence of what we had assumed was happening, but never been able to witness before thanks to the high speed capabilities of that camera. Pretty good when it was really just bought as something to keep in the R&D area for taking pics with.
Sexy new lens but surely for quite a small market. I am sure it it will take a better shot than an 80-200 f2.8 @ 105mm but i certianly am not going to pay all that money and carry it around. If it makes the old 135mm dc significantly cheaper i might get one of those though 8)
I reckon it's pretty cool, anyway.....
It'll do 20fps with continuous AF - dunno if that is '3d tracking' though.
About twice as fast as my D4S DSLR which IIRC is 11fps although the auto focus tracking isn't that great at that frame rate.
DSLRs offer better image quality than do 'mirrorless' 4/3rds cameras
Well that escalated quickly. Clodhopper I know you know better but the presence of a mirror or otherwise really has no bearing on the image quality. The mirror also plays no role in the AF ability of an SLR to focus other than to divert some of the light entering the lens into the phase detection focus module (and PDAF is the key reason why DSLRs AF used to, and in many casees still is, faster than a mirrorless camera but on chip PDAF is catching up).
There are many very good reasons why a more traditional DSLR design is still preferred by many professional photographers, but ultimate IQ is not one of them. The Sony A7rII might not perform like a pro camera in areas like fast AF tracking, ultimate AF speed, robustness of construction and weather sealing, dual card slots etc, but the image quality from that camera is the best there is outside of MF digital and by image quality I mean measured sensor performance (DR, ISO, colour depth etc).
The difference is pretty marginal though to say a 5Ds Mk111 whereas the other differences are still pretty big. It will be interesting to see what the A9 ends up being like.
As for other mirrorless cameras with high levels of performance, you only need to look at the new Hasselblad X1D to see where thingsare going.
Someone needs to change the thread title. Thought it was a thread about Nikon lens, not Sony mirrorless being the best thing since sliced bread.
Just bought a new flappy camera. So ner!
The Sony A7rII might not perform like a pro camera in areas like fast AF tracking,
I thought they A7/A9 were supposed to have faster AF than Nikon & Canon. Not tested one though. For me, AF is still the weakest point in Nikon DSLRs (although I've not tried a D5 yet, so maybe it's now half decent). D4 was terrible, D4s is better, but still easy to loose track when following a moving target.
The 'pics I took on my phone' thread was much better than this one....
I thought they A7/A9 were supposed to have faster AF than Nikon & Canon.
Well the A9 hasn't been released yet and reliable details of what it will be like are pretty scant. It's being talked about as 70MP pro level camera with unlimited burst rate but no one really knows.
To be honest, I couldn't tell you how well my A7rII performs on AF compared to anything else; I only ever use the single AF function, frequently with Eye AF (which is pretty good) but I don't ask very much of the camera when it comes to AF. Most of my subjects are standing still.
"You're very, very wrong."
😆
You're quite angry, aren't you?
" recently picked up a mint one for £450. Fab quality with & without a TC-14E II.
The focus is fast (and close!) and I love the built in lens hood. The lack of VR does mean you need at least 1/500th sec (preferably 1/1000th sec) handheld for a sharp image or use a monopod. Decent technique is also required to keep the focus point on target. Group AF helps."
VR is an absolute boon in low light situations, where faster shutter speeds just aren't possible. Had the new lens not been released, I'd probably have an older version by now. I'm on a strict 'decluttering' programme at the minute though, and not allowed to buy new toys until I've had a thorough clearout. 😳
"Sexy new lens but surely for quite a small market. I am sure it it will take a better shot than an 80-200 f2.8 @ 105mm but i certianly am not going to pay all that money and carry it around. If it makes the old 135mm dc significantly cheaper i might get one of those though"
I'm hoping this will be the case actually. I really like the look of the 135 DC lens. I'm going to continue playing around with my current kit, and see what I like using the most, before I commit to anything new.
"Well that escalated quickly"
Didn't it just. I would say that the Sony range is quite unique, but it's expensive and with a relatively limited system. I haven't claimed the Sony FF cameras are of inferior image quality, I was actually talking about the CSC/4/3rds types. DSLRs are clearly superior in IQ to those. The lines get more blurred between lower end DSLRs and high-end APS-C mirrorless though. Obviously, technology waits for no man, and it might seem that DSLRs days are numbered, but I can't see them disappearing for a good while yet; if it ain't broken...
"Someone needs to change the thread title. Thought it was a thread about Nikon lens, not Sony mirrorless being the best thing since sliced bread.Just bought a new flappy camera. So ner!"
😀
I haven't claimed the Sony FF cameras are of inferior image quality, I was actually talking about the CSC/4/3rds types. DSLRs are clearly superior in IQ to those.
OK but I'm very confused by what you mean as I think others are. The Sony A7 is a CSC as are the Fuji X-Pro 2, XT2, XE2, X100T etc and the IQ on the Fujis, even with an APS-C sensor is fabulous, easily as good as anything with an APS-C sensor and a mirror from Nikon or Canon.
What this thread needs is some wonderful photography to make it more interesting:
CSC Fuji X-Pro 1
[url= https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3930/15392143241_26b58d0ba1_k.jp g" target="_blank">https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3930/15392143241_26b58d0ba1_k.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/ps9KW2 ]De?veloppement durable[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/the-itch/ ]Dragan Dragoz[/url], on Flickr
Fuji XE-1
[url= https://c3.staticflickr.com/6/5615/15749349082_1603163ed8_k.jp g" target="_blank">https://c3.staticflickr.com/6/5615/15749349082_1603163ed8_k.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/pZHwMq ]La dernie?re des fe?es cherche sa baguette magique[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/the-itch/ ]Dragan Dragoz[/url], on Flickr
FFS can't the Mirrorless vs Mirrored debate find it's own thread 😆
Here is a shot taken with 85mm f1.8d. Now convince me that the 105mm f1.4 is £1850 better.
[img] 
[/img]
Very nice!
Nice.
"Now convince me that the 105mm f1.4 is £1850 better."
I'm really getting to love my 85mm. It's such a 'comfortable' lens to use. Done quite a few more pictures with it now, and I can really see the appeal of a short telephoto. I never enjoyed using my 135mm as much as this, and my 105mm is a macro, so smaller max aperture (which changes depending on focussing distance). I think I'll hire the 105 and 135DC lenses, along with the new 105 1.4 soon, and do a proper comparison.
I recently bought the 50mm 1.4 AF-S, astonishingly sharp but I have struggled to use it wide open due to the narrow depth of field, does not put me off the 105mm however as its clearing a technique issue on my part. Not sure I could justify the cost though.
That Nikon DL24-85 looks perfect to replace my massive Nikon DSLR which has hardly been used, but I can't find a release date for it.
jimwah - MemberThat Nikon DL24-85 looks perfect to replace my massive Nikon DSLR which has hardly been used, but I can't find a release date for it.
It has been delayed a few times. It was originally supposed to be June I think.
Some info here. If you scroll down to the grey box, it mentions something about problems with an image processing IC for these cameras.
https://www.dpreview.com/news/6159429716/nikon-announces-compact-camera-delays
"I recently bought the 50mm 1.4 AF-S, astonishingly sharp but I have struggled to use it wide open due to the narrow depth of field, does not put me off the 105mm however as its clearing a technique issue on my part. Not sure I could justify the cost though."
I've found that practising breathing techniques and stance, a bit like when target shooting, can help a lot with getting shots in sharp focus at large apertures. It's especially a problem with macro lenses, very close up. Of course, tripods and static subjects help enormously, as do fast shutter speeds, but it's not always possible to have optimum shooting conditions. I was photographing some insects outside earlier, and the DoF with the macro lens, at very close distances, is as little as 1 or 2 millimetres, even less. And even at f8 and smaller, it's still very challenging to get focussing spot on.
Insects, you say...
[url= https://c3.staticflickr.com/6/5347/8916587290_fab71cdea4_c.jp g" target="_blank">https://c3.staticflickr.com/6/5347/8916587290_fab71cdea4_c.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/ezVQKC ]13-05-05 DSC_5185[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/me96kka/ ]STW stumpy01[/url], on Flickr
f6.3 90mm macro and still a teeny tiny dof...
Nice. That's [i]very[/i] close. Got some shots of a greenbottle fly today; tried to focus on the eye, got one or two shots sharp!The DoF was less than a millimetre that close! Used focus tracking AF, which I'm still finding a bit hit and miss, as I haven't got my head round how it works yet. 😳
A trick a wildlife photographer friend gave me recently, is to capture live subjects, then put them in a container in the fridge for a little while (time depending on species). This enables her to get fantastic shots of moths etc, as they need time to warm up before they can move. Having experienced just how difficult it is to get good pictures of things like static plants, let alone insects/living creatures, I have maximum respect for those who do it well!
Just been looking at the fly pictures in Lightroom. There's a tiny bit of blur, that I put down to not using a fast enough shutter speed. 1/160" should be enough, but for such close-up detail, even the tiniest bit of movement has caused minute blurring of the very edges of the delicate 'hairs' on the fly's body. Only visible when zoomed right in, and a bit of sharpening works well, and the picture itself is ok, but not perfect. So, more work on technique. Didn't want to push the ISO up any further (was at 400), and thinking that a ring/macro flash system would be useful in such situations.
Also went through some pictures of friends and kids I've done recently with the 85mm. It really is a superb lens. Very little post work needed.
Now looking at a longer lens for various purposes. The 70-200 f2.8 zooms have great reputations, but the 80-400 VR caught my eye. The older one is available for less than £500, the newer (and supposedly much faster AF) version is more than double that. Having a bit of a dilemma; the 70-200 is obviously a good lens, but I've got the lower end pretty much covered, so I'd be waning it more for the longer reach. And then it only goes to 200. Something like a 100-300mm f4 zoom would be ideal, but doesn't exist. And then I spotted the 200-400 f4 zoom... 😯
The 70-200 f2.8 zooms have great reputations
It is excellent, my most used lens by far.
It's big and heavy, and doesn't have all that much serious reach. I did ponder the 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8 combo, but found that the 24-120 f4 suits 80% of my needs in a zoom. The Sigma 120-300 f2.8 is a massive beast, but interesting. I don't normally go for non-Nikon lenses, but this one does seem ok. S/H examples are very reasonably priced.
Picked up a Nikkor 50mm f1.8D yesterday, mint condition for a ridiculously low price. 😀 It's a very lightweight, almost flimsy feeling lens compared to my trusty old old AI version, Spotless, not even a speck of dust inside the lens, and I doubt it's actually been used. Possibly an ex display model. Bought it simply because manually focussing my AI 50 is tricky in low light, and my eyesight isn't what it once was. I'll try it out at an event on Saturday. I have been considering a 'posh' 50mm lens, and the Sigma 1.4 'Art' lens looks interesting, but I need to play around a bit more, really suss out what focal lengths I use the most, before investing heavily in equipment. I've not used my old 50mm with digital much, mainly because it's not AF, so we'll see if that feature makes it more viable.
Also bought a new spare battery for my camera. A 'consumable' item, cost more than the lens did. 😯
It's far more compact than the newer G model & has the advantage of the focus ring not moving during AF operation unlike the 1.4D lens. The front element is deeply recessed so a hood isn't needed either. It's a great little lens.
It was an impulse buy. I'd only meant to buy a new battery. 😳
The focus ring does move on the AF-D f1.8. It's only the AF-S versions where it doesn't.
The camera body without grip, and the 50mm, is a relatively 'compact' package, which could be good for street photography. Much lighter, and doesn't look nearly as 'pro' as with the grip and a big lens on.