rxbot: Though it is not wide enough for most I really like that 20-40, would be perfect walk about lens for me even though I can't afford it. Could make do with a Sigma 17-50. Don't know why all the fuss about waiting for this review as there are lots of other sites with completed reviews that have all the answers you need to make a decision to purchase or not. Still hoping to hear more on the shooting experience and remaining bits that are still forthcoming. If any camera could convince me to buy a 24mp APS-C instead of a 16mp one it is this one. I have no interest at all in video so I have a lot less to consider in different formats and camera lines.
On the other hand, Sigma is not weather sealed lens, and is much heavier too.20-40 seeks some historic roots in Pentax philosophy. For example, Pentax was the only company to design a zoom from 30-35mm, and allow users to find their own perfect normal wide-angle.Or the 43mm lens, a perfect normal lens for the 135 format. Then both 30mm and 31mm lenses. Etc. NO other manufacturer was so much concerned about perfecting angles of vision, and avoiding stereotypes.Thus DA20-40, being weather sealed and light, is just about perfect wide normal to tele normal, or 30-60mm in 135 photography terms. It can be someone's only lens ever used.I would not have Sigma over DA20-40 even in wildest dreams.
Meuh: "The camera does offer sensor shift-based shake reduction (Movie SR) during video capture"
The k3 loses the mechanical shake reduction in video found in the k5 in favor of electronic based (movie SR) which isn't as good and is prone to artifacts (one of the reason's I haven't yet update).
I wish they would update the firmware to enable the option of mechanical SR in video as I don't care about the noise it makes when doing video as sound is recorded externally anyway for the stuff I do.
Ayoh, I do not understand your point: Richard confirmed twice the movie SR is mechanical, talked to Ricoh Engineers during CP+, and you are still in denial?
The K-3 review saga continues. By now, there should be a music score commissioned that goes along with it.
Another meaningless venture readying tons of plastic for landfill. Why no one did pastry cameras and lenses? That would be more original and at least those could be served with a little of maple syrup.
One more mirrorless mount? Was NX and the APS-C mirrorless mount such a bad seller?
Why was Nikon supplying D600 continuously in the first place?
Nikon 1 is a nice product. I'm not sure why all this fuss about it?Pentax Q system is also a fun one, and even more portable and far less expensive than Nikon 1.
I think both systems make perfect sense, and Q is such a fun to use. But it seems many tech geeks in the West don't get them.
Instead, all of them smoke hi-tech fantasies and dream about pocketable mirrorless systems with at least APS-C sensors in them, and with zooms starting at f1.8 that can fit into a shirt pocket and cost $99.
PS> It is really a pity Nikon didn't make a powder blue or canary yellow variations on this Nikon V3 camera. It would not look as pretentious or too intimidating.
Polytropia: "FluCard" ... really? What's next, the "AIDScard" ...?
Someone in the Pentax marketing department needs to find another job.
Yes, tigreblueu, quite deliberately so it seems. The Pentax Q and all the Pentax cameras are more popular in France than in many western countries together. Perhaps the French have more brains to know what is all about and enjoy life more?
Richard Franiec: Comparing the interviews (thanks Mr. Barney Britton for a splendid work), it seems that the most authentic and revealing were the ones with Sigma and Fuji guys (BTW, it is Kazuto Yamaki, not Yamaka for Sigma).At least they were not shy of sending the clear message regarding the future of their vision to the followers and potential converts/adopters. Quite convincing and captivating on so many levels.
Yes, Sigma and Fuji are more open because in cameras both have legacy and heritage to defend or to protect. Their digital commitment is brand new so they aim to please and Fuji especially loudly advertise what is to come.Others, with more commitment and much more customers, must behave differently because they are loyal to old customers.
Some photographers that were involved in the CP+ 2014 presentation suggested the new 645D will sport 3fps and ISO 256,000 (aim was 4fps and ISO 400K). Possibly video too. But I agree with posters below, the new lens selection for the 645D is not as comprehensive. But not many new lenses are needed.
Love the camera. It has a knob for almost everything. But some knobs are missing. 1. I wonder if they can include the focus peaking dedicated knob? That one could be on the side of the camera, in the style of old radio receivers. 2. Also a knob for different film simulations?3. A dedicated knob for choosing between RAW, JPEG, RAW+JPEG, so on.4. A knob for choosing different resolutions too.5. A knob for bracketing options, and many more knobs are desperately missing.
What is most amazing in this preview is not the D4s itself.
As much as it is a nice piece of machinery, more amazing is the truth of the 80:20 principle that works almost like a clockwork in this camera market.
We can get many a camera today that have 80% or more of D4s capabilities at 20% of D4s' price. And yet for that extra 20% or less of lucrative incentives, we must pay 80% of its price.
wb2trf: When business is headed down for strategic reasons companies always underestimate how fast it will go down and how low it will go. In this case the strategic issues are that phone cams are hurting all segments, but particuarly P&S, and mirrorless is slowly hurting dslrs. The mirrorless status is similar to that with cell phones a few years back: the adverse impact of mirrorless on Canikon is just starting. I'd expect to see several marginal players per year exit the business over the next two years, companies like Olympus, Panasonic, Rikoh. Then Nikon is most vulnerable: they are most dependent on cameras, they source their chips from their competitor (Sony) and they are in denial about the impact of mirrorless, as shown by the Nikon 1 being a "try to confuse the market" strategy. Canon looks like they have already deemphasized camera development, about 2 years ago, and are pursuing a "milking market share" strategy. That's smart business. All in all, expect winnowing.
Pundits like yourself and mr Hogan speculated demise of Leica, Olympus, Pentax, Fuji, etc. long ago.
But all of you still do not realise that just because those companies are doing something different and at a small scale, and explore their niche and are not dependable on direct camera sales to sustain themselves, that most of them will continue to have their faithful audience and their products.
Fuji's camera division is some 2-3% of overall Fujifilm. Ricoh Imaging is about 1% or less of the entire Ricoh. Olympus has more share in other industries than in consumer photography, etc.
‘Analysts’ doing such analysis seem to force looking through one eye only. We are forced to see just one side of the coin so we can cry about our misfortunes and then allow leaders make stupid moves. For everyone is talking about cameras. But anyone wonders why Sigma invests big $ in its remarkable new lineups and reaps rewards?
Because some rare data (to those obsessed with cameras) show the *sales of lenses* have never been better, perhaps at the highest historic point ever, despite camera sales declining for a couple of years already.
But that camera market is shifting was inevitable. It will never hit the sales levels from the film years, and will always be higher. So camera manufacturers who existed before digital era have little to fear about, if they keep their expectations modest and think long term value.
What did not enable film cameras to sell more in film days were film developments services. Digital cameras are no longer tied to film processing labs.
57even: Read the Fuji interview, then the Nikon one. Interesting.
Clearly Nikon know that the consumer (APSC) future will have to be mirrorless. They have the technology well in hand, probably even have a number of production ready prototypes, but they wont do it before Canon does, and Canon wont do it before Nikon does. No-one is blinking right now, but when they press that button the whole market will turn upside down.
The risk to Nikon will be that they have no way to differentiate themselves from the pack any more. Nikon would have to cannibalise sales of its (bread winning) mid range SLR line, with no guarantee of matching sales in a parallel mirrorless line. Indeed, by blessing mirrorless, they may open the taps for Fuji, Sony etc. since having legacy lenses will no longer be an incentive to stay with Nikon.
Of course if Canon move, they will have no choice. Which one will move first?
What sells those mid-range DSLRs is not sensor, but price. Many people buying them have no idea what sensor those D5xxxxs have. If the crop sensor is replaced by an FF sensor, and price remains similar, Nikon has *evolved* the offer and does not need to bother with maintenance of two separate lines. And maintenance and further diversification of two separate lines is what some Nikon users want from Nikon, albeit it makes no sense for Nikon.
No, they don't know the APS-C future is mirrorless. No one knows what is future of us all.
But Nikon wants to DESIGN the future as far as they can, by pushing forward their FX FF DSLR line, and in time extinguishing their DX DSLR line.
Just wait another 12 months or so when a D5xxx something comes out with an FF sensor.
taktak91: Evolve the D300 to a D400, please.
Nikon cannot constantly and continuously upgrade both tracks as all their users would wish to. Nor it makes business sense to develop two so similar lines and duplicate lens lineup. Who is going to buy all those duplicated things in sufficient quantities in an overall shrinking camera market?
Ultimately one track needs less development, trains must be switched, and by voting for Nikon, users have voted the end of the professional DX line.
So what’s the problem?
Zvonimir Tosic: I read lots of inflammatory responses, and rude comments about the four gentlemen in particular. I ask, why?
In the end, it your — user’s — own doing. You, a user, have a choice, but you seldom exercise your freedom to think and choose. Nikon is a respectable business still, and perhaps it will be better in the interest of their users if they focus on less products to please just everyone (which is obviously impossible), but more customer service and satisfaction in a certain segment.
However, even their current situation is not an excuse for incivility — you might have tried a different manufacturer in your imaging endeavours in the first place, one with less products to market, but offering more user satisfaction.
Well, Nikon cannot constantly and continuously upgrade both tracks as all their users would wish to. Nor it makes business sense to develop two so similar lines. Ultimately one track needs less development, trains must be switched, and by voting for Nikon, users have voted the end of the professional DX line. So what’s the problem?
I read lots of inflammatory responses, and rude comments about the four gentlemen in particular. I ask, why?
What is missing in all this is the measure of things, or, a sense of perspective. In which terms Nikon sells not enough of N1 cameras? In their own terms?
I believe that both Fuji and Pentax will be more than happy with Nikon’s achieved numbers, but Nikon finds it insufficient (to keep its market position?, to secure its execs good bonuses?, or, to make its users really happy? — indeed, in what terms Nikon talks of a ‘failure’?).
There is another point: how we know Nikon’s numbers, (or Canon’s for the same matter) and expectations were not, and still are not, unrealistic?
It is the fact that traditional camera market is shrinking a lot, but that same market was over-blown for more than a decade, everyone entering it (even the GE and HP!). Digital camera market was hot, and now it is cooling down.
The 2nd largest operator in any market usually suffers the most in times of change. So without a proper perspective, all we hear and opinions we offer, is of little value.