JackM: 201 questions?? You are out of your mind! For that kind of time I expect to be paid a consulting fee.
15 minutes? Did you actually fill that out? 14 minutes, and I was only 1/4 of the way through. Unless, of course, you aren't actually thinking about your answers
201 questions? I started on it, got to question 20, then thought "how long is this thing"
Agree with Narnia -- life is too short. If I fill it out completely, you would OWE me an iPad, not just a chance to enter to win one, lol.
Let me know when you cut it down by about 75%.
Ooh, ooh! LR now supports the Lunar! Yeah!
I don't understand all the negativity. Nikon has put out a tech advisory, and seems willing to repair. I think that's a good thing. Much like the mirror fix on the Canon 5D classic.
aarif: I agree with the conclusions mostly but I don't see this as a con. At all
"Slightly lower resolution than all of its full frame peers"
I do just fine with my 5Dc at 12MP. I could use maybe up to 16. But over that, I don't need it at all, and it just slows down my workflow, which is mainly done on a 3 year old macbook pro.
sjredo: Updated SEL 50. It ain't noticeably faster... :( Couldn't even tell the difference at first.
GodSpeaks: How long has the NEX-6 been on sale now? And all we get from dpREVIEW is an 'updated PREVIEW'.
Barney, I think put more politely -- in the past, DPR had been quite quick with cutting-edge reviews. Now, for cameras that seem important to your readership, there seems a long lag. I'm guessing your editorial staff is a fraction of what it used to be, likely driven by corporate cost reduction. I've no doubt the staff is doing their best, but the the perceived speed to market with the reviews seems worse than before the Amazon acquisition. That's the perception, at least.
Yes Canon. Please expand your offering and price points (and body sizes) in full frame.
Without a clear workflow or output quality winner, I'll go with the application and company that I think will still be around and independent 10 years from now, and who is most likely to give my library and adjustments an upgrade path - Adobe.
Jefftan: biggest problem is no OSSno use at high ISO at night
marike6: that's also why they make m43. More DOF, IBIS and no tripod needed.
X20 is intriguing, but I think I'll wait for a Sony RX200, but it is intriguing. I'll be looking at the samples for sure.
I like it, but it would need to be cheap.
Very nicely done. Bravo!
Samsung camera ... YAWN
3D ... Double YAWN
Mssimo: Panasonic has had a 3D lens for a while now, and no one ever talks about it. Shows the demand for such lens.
I agree with the above two, that it's a v. different lens, but I also think the interest in 3D is clearly quite low.
I used quite a number of them. For me, it's a toss up between the OMD and the RX100 for really different reasons. I'd consider the D600, except the oil issues dampen that for me. The OMD, bar none, had the most surprising set of features, sensor quality bump, and all around speed. It's lacking a little in the QC side, though, but I still voted that #1.
Anyone run a similar test on other FF DSLRs, just to compare?
SunnyFlorida: The Nikkor 35mm F/1.8 sells for $180, the 35mm F/2.0d sells for $270 and can be used in 2 formats, Oly is asking $500 for this???
That game is still being played?
When was the 35/2 released? I would also suggest you check resolution capabilities of the Canon 35/2 vs. this lens. The Oly is likely to compare quite well, even vs. FF (could even beat that old 35, at least wide open). Also, how about silent AF? No more angry bees. I am not as familiar with the Nikon, but I'll bet the Oly's focus ring doesn't turn while focusing :)
And though those two 35mm lenses are small, the D600 is the smallest body that AOV will work on (at least in digital terms). http://camerasize.com/compare/#378,382
I am thinking this is a very poor set of low-light test shots, and DPR is at fault here.
I have complete ZERO interest in this camera, but look at those low light shots. Almost all have negative EV dialed in. The guitarist shot has -2.33!!! What camera is going to do well in low light with a -2.33 EV? Also, these could be dialed in for high NR.
Again, I have no interest in this camera, but it seems to me the low light sample shots are like HUH???
WT21: Too friggen expensive. Period. Canon - why do you think you're losing money?
joejack951: The 24-70 is too expensive compared to the Nikon new kit.
But actually, I should have noted I was talking about the 35. I personally have no interest in "kit" type lenses. I should have been more detailed in my comment.