622x324x219mm is the same size of my ageing Epson R1800!
Yes, compact. A Master Zoom is twice the size.
white shadow: Sony is finally getting there.
Now, they will have to produce a few wide angle lenses, namely 21mm, 24mm and a 28mm and a portrait lens like an 85mm to complete the set.
A 100mm macro lens would be great.
Later, they can produce a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom lens for general use.
Will we see this in the next 2 years before we can seriously consider the Sony A series over Canon or Nikon?
Zeiss has done it for their ZE and ZF mounts. Will Sony go on the fast track to catch up?
Sadly that is true! I have been let down by sony and their twists too many times (not in photography products), so I'm very distrustful about their commitment to this product line. I might be wrong, but in the meantime I wait...
UnChatNoir: I hope the quality - surely at full open aperture, that's why we buy these primes- gets finalmy beyond the level of quite a few high-end mirrorless lenses nowadays. An important diifferentiator. It is so disappointing how most Nikon primes are still coping with artifacts, chromatic abberation, coma, distortion... Don't misunderstand me, I like my Nikon D800 a lot, but f.i. my Fujifilm X has far better lenses, sharper & almost no artifacts or distortion. Many Nikon lenses offer an optical quality that didn't evolve too much since the 80's.
So what?? You were the one complaining about the quality of the nikon lenses. I never said that there is a problem with software correction, I just said that there is software correction that you don't see on Fuji X cameras because it is performed either in-camera on JPGs or embedded in RAW files. I agree that there are many "weak" lenses in Nikon line-up, but Nikon lineup caters for so many different audiences that is unfair to make that comparison. And I don't see any problem in having to resort to third party lenses, I actually see it as an advantage. So in the end I disagree with you, I know of many lenses in for Nikon FF that are far better than Fuji equivalents for X-mount. Yes, they are more expensive.
It's well know that Fuji does software correction of its lens. With the notable exception of the 23 and 14, which are better optically corrected.
itsastickup: I don't understand this lens at all.
At that price it should be fully corrected with beautiful bokeh.
I get that with the Fuji 35/1.4. (Granted it isn''t FF, but it's 50mm equiv in APS-C).
The fuji 35 1.4 is not fully corrected! It's software corrected, if you doubt it just open one image on CS3 and compare it with the same image opened on Lightroom5. It has geometric distortion that is corrected behind the scenes by the camera's JPG engine. And it isn't an Apochromatic lens at all so definitely is not fully corrected.
CraigArnold: I quite like the Df. I mean it's ugly, and it's not really a MF camera, more 1985 retro than 1960 retro. But still it's kinda nice and probably takes good pics.
And yet, look at the street prices of FF cameras in the UK:Nikon D3x £5249Canon 1DX £4845Nikon D4 £4239Nikon Df £2749Nikon D800E £2349Canon 5D3 £2329Sony A99 £2149Nikon D800 £1802Nikon D610 £1799Sony A7R £1699Canon 6D £1475Sony A7 £1299
Is there any conceivable reason to prefer it to the list of less expensive cameras below it?
5D MK2 is the most popular not the 5DMK3 (according to Flickr)
I followed closely the video teasers and all the speculation building up, and owning a D700, FM2, FE2 and many manual lenses, I was kind of hoping for improvements in the manual focusing. The arrows and the dot is a bit stupid way of focusing a manual lens. I don't care for the lack of video, the 16mp sensor (instead of 24mp), the 39 focus points, I DO care for the lack of options of focusing screens. This camera offers no improvement on manual focusing comparing to a D700 or a D800. I think design wise the problem is worse by the fact that it is a lighter camera. So I'm totally baffled by the price of the camera. For the same money I can get a D800 with more features (remember features are just a measure of flexibility). So either I'm not the target buyer or they missed it.
Mirrorless Crusader: Pure photography? What a joke. This is a digital camera. Nikon should get over itself and start making cameras people will actually buy, not some overzealous hipster fashion accessory that doesn't even have a proper LCD.
where have you gathered the information that it doesn't have an LCD!?
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?
the videos are just meant to grab your attention, and they seem to have been successful at it...your commenting that video
Liviu Namolovan: Lack of video is a bonus. But 3000 price tag is outrageous. And this when a 24Mp FF A7 Sony (similar style camera) is only $1700! It's an insult from Nikon after the D600/D610 insult (not to mention the not acknowledged D800 left AF problem)! If it will prove to be true that insulting $3000 price, then I'll sell all my Nikon gear and I'll never look back. Similar cameras will be launched. Thanks to Fuji's brilliant initiative to launch their successful X100 we are now in position to choose because the other companies now realized that classic/retro style is selling. And Fuji just demonstrated once again by introducing the new firmware for their discontinued X100 that they are respecting their customers. Nikon learned nothing from this if 3000 $ price tag proves to be true. I'll wait for another offer from a more serious companiy and will go with a decent one.
How can a camera that hasn't been announced have a price tag? Unless DPreview knows better, Nikonrumors already acknowledged the 3000 "price tag" was a fake rumor.
brudy: This is exactly what I want. A pure FF, small camera with OVF and manual controls, including aperture rings on lenses. Literally a digital FE2.
The price is fake. It's a rumor remember? And Nikonrumors has already said its fake.
peterwr: Please let it be a reboot of the Digilux 2. With a Micro Four Thirds sensor. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leicadigilux2
It isn't probably that far away:http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/big-rumor-panasonic-revives-the-l1-and-makes-a-hell-of-a-mft-camera-out-of-it/
Considering its placement, between Micro M (X2) and the Leica M (Typ 240), it will likely cost over 3000€...too expensive!
filipe brandao: I really don't understand why dpreview is clinging on to a marketing catch word ("mirrorless") instead of promoting a more clear classification of cameras. Classifying these cameras as "mirrorless" is the same as saying a pencil is a inkless pen. Its confusing and forsakes a hole history of photography in which most of the cameras didn't have mirrors in their system. One should ask why isn't leica m9 included in this group. Cameras have always been classified by how they allow the photographer to view/focus on the subject and their format. Any effort in this direction would help to clear the marketing confusion in which we roam.
Mr Richard, I have also voted in the pool and independently of what I have voted there I think pools are interesting to have an idea of what a group believes. Anything other than that is forcing conclusions. I could better explain what I'm saying with an image: if biologists had based their classification of bats on the opinion of a vast majority then most likely they would be birds and not mammals. With this I'm not saying people are stupid, I'm just saying that people tend to make classifications on what is made obvious. But dpreview is not just anyone, I have followed your reviews for over 6 years and you have always been to my understanding pretty analytical in your opinions. This "mirror-less" thing differs. Basing you classification in what people think is following your followers.
There is no lack of finder, there is a screen to do that job (as in a view camera) or a electronic viewfinder (as in an SLR). If better suggestions is what it takes: Electronic Finder Cameras or Electronic View Cameras is better suited IMHO.
Yes there is. Like you said, it's a rangefinder camera, that is why it's called a digital rangefinder camera or DRF. It's classified according to the way the subject is previewed and focused. These cameras use ellectronic windows (be it screens or finders) to allow the user to view and focus the subject. The same happens with SLR's. It names the system used to allow the photographer to view and focus the subject through the lens.
I really don't understand why dpreview is clinging on to a marketing catch word ("mirrorless") instead of promoting a more clear classification of cameras. Classifying these cameras as "mirrorless" is the same as saying a pencil is a inkless pen. Its confusing and forsakes a hole history of photography in which most of the cameras didn't have mirrors in their system. One should ask why isn't leica m9 included in this group. Cameras have always been classified by how they allow the photographer to view/focus on the subject and their format. Any effort in this direction would help to clear the marketing confusion in which we roam.
Michael Uschold: Well done. I have been excited by the possibility of a small camera with DSLR quality images for a long time. I nearly wet myself recently when I saw someone on a hike with a NEX 5N. Small and light is important to me since I travel a lot and like to photograph while hiking and backpacking and kayaking etc. I read the reviews with excitement. I am ready to buy one -- except that I have a bunch of Canon lenses - so I will wait for their offering.
One very important thing missing in the article is eye level viewing. One thing I really love about an SLR is the ease and convenience and extreme clarity of thru the lens viewing from eye level. It makes a huge difference. I never feel like Im doing real photography with a compact camera looking at the viewer. I have not seen the eye-level option for the NEX-5N nor have I seen anyone say how good they are compared to a traditional DSLR -- I don't need to know how much better they are than the previous generations - which were crap!
Michael, you should consider reading luminous landscape articles and the excellent articles by Sean Reid on reidreviews.com (paid site unfortunately). They take an open-minded approach to the viewfinder subject and offer the analysis that you are looking for.