jonpais

There are Many things you haven't heard of. That's why you aren't called the Oracle.
This is not a rumour. I Know people who have bought fake Nikon cameras. I haven't bought a Nikon or Canon in ages, so it didn't happen with me.
Do an online search before you attempt to call someone's information fake. You would look less misinformed and arrogant. 

Yeah you have made some bad decisions as of late. ?

Well that is pretty much the main reason you pay the big money. To have a fast as heck, deep DoF lens. If you want to close it down there are plenty of good cheap f2.8 lenses that look good wide open. Easier to make them good at that aperture wide open.

Although being Panasonic they may well come out with a FF camera with no 'af' or 'ibis'.
Wonder if there will be an adapter for their M43 lenses?!!

IMO this is a good, but not great lens - and only in certain situations. I've had two copies of the bayonet version that I used on the 5d3 and a7s, and both were pretty soft wide open and had lots of CA - to the point it made shots unusable for me since I'm always shooting in bright sun. The Nikon 28-70/2.8 is a better lens IMO. Lots of people say great things about the Ang/Tok, and they can be found cheap - I don't think it'll be all that great on a 4k camera and its a brick if you're only shooting at f/5.6 to get a sharp shot.
Just my opinion.
Chris

He's called the angry photographer for something lol.. he ripped the A7III a lot harder in his overzealous 3 part review.. it should be worth mentioning he was already dissing the Z cameras before they were even announced. it seems like indeed a lot of Nikon DSLR shooters have had a negative reaction towards the camera ever since the new mount was announced. The pro body shooters got even more worked up when the mode dial, single card slot info came out.. justifiably so i guess.
But it should be noted most of these reviewers are photographers. most of them know or care little about video.
 

BSI stacked quad pixel sensor?.. that does sound expensive..a bit of a stretch too tbh but if someone can make a jaw-dropping sensor it's Sony!
Getting close to global shutter would be absolutely amazing and worth the extra cash imo.

The lenses are the ones we had available when the photography was done. As @jonpais says, we try to be as agnostic as we can practically be and we often recommend Panasonic lenses and others to people at trade shows etc when they ask.

OMFG, that looks like hammered Dog Shit! You can Not be serious!

Absolutely they're not 100% ideal either and you make a very valid point but at least those images are approaching somewhere where you would be interested enough in them to then look closer for defects. 
There is a night and day difference between the overall aesthetic of those Sony images and those from the Z7 launch.
The vast majority of the output I've seen from the Z7 hasn't been worth the click and the zoom as far as I'm concerned.
Does it mean that I think the output from the camera is or will be shit in general terms?
After four decades of using Nikon cameras (which is a confession rather than a boast by the way  ) I'm inclined to believe it probably won't be shit.
If I came to this from never having used their gear or was looking to change though then I'd have looked at the stuff from the launch and had serious doubts about what the fuss was all about.
If you take DPReview as a yardstick of this then look at the reaction to the sample gallery of the Z7.
Even factoring in the usual hysteria on there, it is overwhelmingly scathing and in this case I have absolutely no issue with that because how else are people supposed to react to such underwhelming output from a £3.5K camera?
The blame for that I'm afraid and the potential consequences of it are Nikon's because they controlled the parameters of those launches and are responsible for what has ended up out there. 
Including the banding by the way that Polin's video exhibits. 
I'm conscious of the fact that I have not had too much positive to say about these new cameras but I want to stress again that I had/have as much if not more vested interest in Nikon getting things right and establishing themselves in mirrorless as most people, even if I knew ahead of time that these ones would likely not be the most appropriate for me.
So I want Nikon to do well with these cameras and any negativity that I have been raising is genuinely coming from a place of concern rather than one of hate. 
Basically, even from a purely selfish point of view, I want them to do well enough with them that they are still in the game when it comes round to them making versions of it that I would actually want to buy and that means they need to sell these ones to everyone else.
I haven't seen much to fill me with the confidence that they have made the best of the platform they had to impress, let alone slay, the wider world outside of a core "You had me at Nikon" audience.
Worse than that, there really hasn't been much in the way of an outpouring of love from some of the quarters that I would have expected either.
That doesn't mean they are absolutely slating it but I do get the feeling that there is a slight amount of this going on with them
 
I suppose my general point here is that there are undeniably some issues that have irked people about the system as a whole (price, lens lineup, single card slot, ergonomics etc) that are gaining even greater traction because they aren't being mitigated by anyone being able to convincingly say "Yeah but forget all that, just look at the images coming off this thing". 
I think that Nikon shot themselves in the foot by not offering an environment where that kind of counter point could be generated.
None of that means Nikon have created a bad camera system but I do think it amounts to them having created a bad impression.
That can change when they start delivering the cameras and people start doing real reviews of course so it will probably be a blessing that there is a short time between the launch event and actual delivery.

Well... it was only "backlight" if the photographer chose that particular angle to shoot from. I could be wrong, but I thought the way sony set it up that the photographers there could shoot from pretty much anywhere... and as Jim Kasson explains, it is really only in certain situations with it being more prominent with certain lenses.
But the people who have gone to both Sony and Nikon events claim that the Sony events are better set up than the Nikon ones.
Should that fact influence anyone's decision to buy one camera over another??? No, not at all.

Amongst all the debate about what Nikon has got right or wrong about this camera, I think one thing that everyone must surely agree on is just how badly wrong they got it with the demo setups at the launch events.
It wasn't just that it was bad in its own right - although it was - but it was also how much worse it was comparatively to what Sony gets up to at their versions of these events.
In Jared Polin's video above he illustrates this huge gulf and you just have to wonder how anyone from Nikon thought that what they laid on was even adequate let alone comparable.
Of course Sony has a much bigger budget for this stuff than Nikon but its not like we are talking about them launching a new speedlite or a consumer compact, this is about a crucial new line for them. 
I'm not sure how anyone is gleaning anything particularly useful about these cameras based on the output we've seen from these events as everyone who has posted their content is, quite understandably, couching everything they say in relation to how mediocre at best the shooting conditions were.
Sony makes it very easy for everyone who attends and reports on those events to get decent images whereas Nikon seemed to have approached it like some sort of challenge to them to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
Weird.

I'm eagerly waiting for this to show up in my inbox.

I saw this at B&Hphoto today and it pretty much sums up why Canon will dominate in mirrorless....

You see it lists the top 3 'best sellers' in FE lenses.
Never mind that the 28-75 2.8 is supposed to be plasticky, the 50 1.8 is supposed to be horrible and the 85 1.8 isnt supposed to have great bokeh. At the end of the day consumers 'buy value/cheap'. The same applies to APSC where Fuji offers the 'quality/expensive product' but where its market share is so low nobody actually knows what it is. While Canon with minimal efforts is making great inroads. Fuji is releasing an 'amazing' US$6,000 200mm F2' while Canon doesnt sell an EOS-M lens over US$500. Look there is always a market for high end, ground breaking, mtf chart lenses which are inevitably very expensive - but it just isnt a very big one.
All the mirrorless manufacturers are going relentlessly upmarket leaving a large gaping hole for Canon to walk through.
You see the great achievement of Nikon and Sony in FF mirrorless is to create fabulous high tech FF mirrorless at 'relatively affordable' price of under US$2,000. But it is a complete waste of time if even the most basic of your lenses are over US$500 a pop. Sure Sony has now 'eventually' got a few affordable lenses but there simply arent many (especially compared to Canon and Nikon DSLRs.) Both Sony and Nikon are absorbed with huge amounts of hubris - Nikon bringing out a US$6,000 58 0.95 with manual focus  (before a basic long zoom) and Sony is promoting its lightweight, 3kg, US$12,000 400 2.8.....
So in all likelihood Canon will enter the FF mirrorless market with a totally underwhelming camera, with lenses that are uninspiring (but you wont have to have to make the excuse they look good value against Leica.) And much to everyone's irritation but no surprise they will walk away with the market

There was some speculation about it due to what I believe was a misunderstanding about the Fresnel element in some newer Nikon lenses such as the 300 f4 PF and the 500 f5.6 PF making it into z mount lenses.
The Fresnel element enables a lens to be much smaller so the 300 f4 PF has a much smaller footprint than it's predecessor and is more the size you would expect of a 300 f5.6 for example.
This was wrongly interpreted in my view as people thinking it made a lens faster (ie an f5.6 is then equivalent to an f4) but it is related to physical size allowing faster lenses to be smaller.
I think the reason they all got so excited was that the presumption would be that the 24-70mm f4 Z mount launch lens would act like an f2.8 if it had a Fresnel element in it.
 

I cannot be bothered to look for any statistics, but I doubt Nikon or anyone else for that matter lost any sales, because they didn't sell f1.2 or f0.95 AF lenses. These are such niche products, it's ridicules. DOF is simply to shallow to be used often and f1.4 is very comparable.

I think it is more that they can HAVE faster lenses with the Z mount and why they have not had many 1.2 or faster lenses to date with the F mount.
Something about it being easier to design wider lenses as well.
That said, I still think it funny that people are now saying it is an advantage to Nikon over other mounts to have a wider mount at 55mm and yet nobody has ever listed the F mount (44mm) as being a disadvantage compared to the E mount (46.1mm) and especially the Canon EF mount which at 54mm is only one mm less than the new Z mount.

Patience grasshopper.

Apologies for off-topic, but the concept of this video is very reminiscent of this video, which is also much better in my opinion. 
 

THIS. Gimme ProRes RAW everywhere. This is the real deal. 
You should. 
 
 

@jonpais. 
And just before you start getting too upset, I never said anything about the A7III nor did I state Sony wasn't improving their color science, quite the opposite actually since I linked the FS5's new Venice color science which is a huge step in the right direction (Sony may not have Alexa color science but Venice is their closest thing), everyone is hoping A7SIII will also have this new color science.
 

I think you might want to have a listen to what a used X-T20 has to say about having most of that fun for a fraction of the price.

Yeah obviously I’m just teasing you and I get being excited about a camera you love. When I first got my 5D3 and installed ML, I didn’t understand why everybody wasn’t shooting with it.
And sure you don’t specifically say one camera is better than another but when you go into threads of cameras you’re never going to buy, and spout out specs that the camera you own has... well... you make your point. 
But this is just a camera forum, so I don’t care... no reason to get angry over. Love your camera... I respect that.

I wear dark sunglasses and I try not to smile...  does that count?? ???

Sorry I am just getting used to working off my phone since I was alleviated of my laptop
 
what thread is that?