A pretty careful avoidance of Nikon (or Sony) comparisons, overall. Too bad. Head-to-head comparisons are really (!) helpful. Does this hold up next to a D750? Or even the D610? Or the similarly priced A7II? If so, when, where, under what shooting conditions?
rrr_hhh: I don't get it at all : may be because I'm not a native English speaker ? But really, I would be hard pressed to translate any of these sentence into my own language.
I mean : one can launch a teaser without telling anything about the subject/object coming, but why on earth making such un-understandable statements : which image of Canon do you think they to are offering to their customers ? What I get from it us just that Canon isn't able to communicate, not even at the symbolic level in order to create a positive image of the brand.
Plus, given the avalanche of negative comments targeting those who don't think Canon is able to see the impossible, well, I just feel aggressed/insulted.
Talk about a communication fiasco...
the other replies are right on...and now we know it was a dud! ha.
Macx: English isn't my first language so please bear with me, but is "We see impossible" proper English?
Regardless, it's still complete marketing bullship, akin to "We're giving it 110%", unless of course they're suggesting that they're delusional at Canon.
You can do whatever you want in English...partly why it's such a suggestive and invasive language. There is a "grammar" that most of us follow, but when we break the rules, it's potentially powerful. Of course, much of the time it sounds strained. Canon's ad agency took a chance and great for that (the camera company hasn't been)...but yeah, it's awkward. Supposed to make you think, right? But think what?
Still, it could have been another boring product ad. Impossible to have seen how awful the reception would be to it. I guess they saw that, since it was impossible.
It's true--it's a great example of English at its best, filled with ambiguous implications. Just what ads do well--making the reader go somewhere further. I love the ad. It's over the top, but why not? And it doesn't make "sense" in the way a translator or translation might expect at first. Way beyond facts and clear points. A good thing!! Who knows about the physical results, of course. Nikon might sneak something in using a Sony sensor and Canon, well...
GREAT interview--amazingly candid responses from Sony. Helps to love the brand and have hopes. Thanks all around. In my view Sony will never intrude on Canon and Nikon with DSLR, but mirrorless? The field is wide open. Good for us!
boring pictures...how do some people get included and not others? seems like an editorial slant (probably by accident?)...anyway, it makes the site seem a bit amateurish, frankly. and dpreview is the BEST...don't get me wrong.
I cry foul in principle. You're an Amazon company, no matter how you butter it. Recuse yourself.
rfsIII: In my opinion DPReveiw is leading readers down a dangerous dead-end path with all this "equivalent aperture range." The whole silly business started with a post on one photographer's website and has now grown into a weird cult of people who are angry all the time about f/stops and love to argue with anyone who doesn't profess unwavering faith in their precepts. And worse, it completely misses the point of the exposure triangle. To get more out of your camera you need to understand the relationship between f-stop, shutter speed, and ISO but this new religion you people have adopted throws that out and makes readers think that the surface area of the sensor is in some undefined way related. Converts go on and on about twice or four or 16 times as much light hitting a larger sensor than a smaller one as though that matters. Unless you are dealing with bellows or other real exposure-changing variables, from an exposure point of view it doesn't matter what size sensor you use.
You finish with the problem of your argument--it's NOT about exposure. The size of the sensor relates to the geometry relative to the lens and incoming light through the aperture...depth of field. Visual qualitites. That's why a "normal" 150mm lens on a 4x5 inch camera looks (!) amazingly different than a "normal" 35mm lens on a APS-C sensor camera when both are shot at the same aperture.
JohnEwing: Nikon's first step into the mirrorless world gained them firstly a twisted ankle and secondly a Bronx cheer, before a few people began to see that the Series 1 aren't such bad cameras after all, but that was like people taking to Heaven's Gate after United Artists had turned up their umbilici.
Personally, I'd like to see them bring out a mirrorless body based on the S or SP designs, with a full frame or even an APS-C sensor. FF might be better from a marketing standpoint, but an APS-C camera could be very acceptable indeed. They could probably finagle it to have an F mount, too. Large wow factor there: they immediately upstage virtually all the others, especially if they use the folding Ai tab of the Df and make it compatible with a godzillion lenses.
...well, it's nice to dream.
Price, size, convenience, features, on and on...the world turns.
Does anyone else get the vibe that these responses are out of touch? There seems to be a world view that seems 10 or even 20 years out of date. I know, I'm not giving specifics...but just throwing that out there with some despair, since the camera companies really need to set trends, not discover them later.
He's been saying that since the early 1970s. And I believe him. But I also know I was made to hate war more directly because of his work. That's something.
Brilliant and meaningful. Thanks.
Hmmm...read the comments and I want to pipe up and say "nice review!" You dance around the issues because they might in fact not be cut and dry, and I like that. The info is given, the comparisons great (though throwing in the Otus would have made a LOT of sense here). Much appreciated!
SeeRoy: These videos are puke-inducing. I've owned and used Nikon gear for decades (not exclusively) but this campaign and this me-too retro-cam are evidence of a company that's lost its bearings completely. Or are the consumers out there really that dumb?
Henry, do you hear what you are saying? :)
rumors suggest a price of 3K dollars...let's hope that's wrong. simple should also mean affordable, right?
presumed specs here:http://nikonrumors.com/2013/10/28/nikon-df-camera-rumors-recap.aspx/
ecm: Hm. I looked through the samples and thought, "The Fujifilm is getting it's butt handed to it by the likes of the Olympus E-M1 and Canon 100D" - and then I read the article's conclusion.... there's a disconnect between what I see in the comparometer and what their conclusions are.
I suppose it could be the lens - I've been fooled before by a fantastic lens on a so-so camera here at DPR - but it looks more like over-agressive noise reduction to me. The green feathers are a blur at any ISO.....
I also recognize that ultimate sharpness and detail is not everything; it's something that I crave, but others might prefer the warm almost "creamy" smoothness of the Fuji's output - with the right subject and at the right enlargement it would be quite nice.
I agree with ecm, and don't see the answer as reasonable. Yes, in some perfect universe, playing even keeps things even. But the eyes show this isn't happening. The Fuji images are simply soft. If some "adjustment" is being made between these results and the final glowing gold medal praises at the end, then those need to be visible here somehow--perhaps with some more optimally corrected (sharpened) examples side by side? As is it chips away at the overall credibility of the testing, which is part of dpreview's foundation.
ArcaSwiss: Who can call that garbage music ? Dreadful !
I couldn't hear it. How can you tell??
Schweikert: All points are highly valid for me except the last -Actually, I think it might work for me-. You should include the ubiquitous: "All of the above" as the last option instead.
I agree the poll was hastily conceived, because I would have voted for several, and we won't be quite clear if the subscription aspect is the key problem or not. Muddy. With good intentions, appreciate that!
I don't like any of it (like a lot of people) and I think the overarching issue is this feeling of being controlled by this big (and hence greedy?) corporation. Just give me the option of a good product and leave me be. Make the cloud an option, sure, whatever, but why does Adobe want to force us to participate and connect and pay continually?