I'm just wondering which 4 people have already owned, and presumably sold, this camera??
maxnimo: What I find funny is dishing out any money for a wide angle lens with soft and/or distorted corners. If your corners are soft and/or distorted then what's the point of even using wide angle? Now if you take a portrait of a single face then soft and/or distorted corners can be acceptable, but what idiot would use wide angle for a face shot? And for a group photo such a lens would only be acceptable if you hate the subjects on either side and want them to be soft and/or distorted on purpose. And for architecture and landscapes... don't even get me started.
which 35mm doesn't? Do you have a lens to suggest that's razor sharp corner to corner at this price?
I'm sorry DPR but what IS occurring?Camera reviews slow to a trickle (the D4 is just one example)...new product reviews take an age so now you subdivide the review into little 'bites' and publish them as they are done (first impressions/hands on with/not just a... etc etc). I used to respect this site and it's opinions. It was my first port of call, but enough is enough. Maybe someone from DPR can explain WHY, for example, the D4 and or D4s still have not had a FULL review published? Please.
Reilly Diefenbach: I guess I just don't get the point of an expensive, heavy, bulky 1.4 lens if the bokeh is as hideous as what I'm seeing on these DPR sample shots. The chap with the bridge behind him is a truly ugly, discombobulated looking shot, to single out one.
kudos for 'discombobulated'...top word.kick in the pants for your point however since, not everyone wants or needs pretty, de-focussed areas, and if you read the whole article, you can find Sigma hinting about future releases with different design motivations (the bit about the date imprint under the lens). Maybe the 15 or 16 will have the pretty blurs you need?
Nice finish, although black is perhaps more discreet?
Another Leica toy....ah well, at least they are upfront about giving up on real snappers and just making stuff for the Ferrari set. And why not...someone has to I guess.
Tord S Eriksson: Seems the K-3 is a giant step forward, especially compared to my K-5, long gone.
Even the reds in pictures look quite natural now, impressive!
But, as someone wrote, you get a K-3 for the same amount of money as you get a V3. Although I am a Nikon 1 lover, the Nikon seems extremely overpriced!
but that green colour cast! Bang the daylight image up to ISO 6400 and over and you can exagerate it to see...I guess you might set up PS6 to dial it out if you can, but GREEN everywhere!Needs a software tweak IMO.
Bet the Aussies are dancing in the streets then...thanks Sony, an especially worse model, just for us? Wow.
some of us have a sense of humourand some remember the wait for the D4reviewwhat was it? Previewed Jan 2012.....cough.
Still it's a VERY nice box.
David Rossberg: So sad. It simply just makes the world a tiny bit worse.
agreed, but somewhere in hollywood, there will soon be a rash of them, casually hung over the arm of a designer leather recliner for all to see. Luckily for photographers, there's still the PentaxK 3 / Nikon D800 / Fuji 100s etc etc.
pfzt: Wow, so many strong opinions but only three to five people here actually own or shoot with MF. Very interesting…
I agree with sebastian. I used MF in a semi pro situation using film in the 80's and one had to be aware of the big H and the engineering and image quality that H stood for. Adding bits of curly wood seemed totally irrelevant to me...just yet another nod to the wealthy amateur. VG to see something black, rugged and superbly made back on the factory's benches (I hope).
well done DP review. Nikon; Please read and think before bending any further toward the backside of fashion. Thanks.
I'm sure it's all been said, but my 2p worth is simply, too big and way too expensive. A stupid £2800 ish in the UK (thats $4500 to you american types) puts it $600 above the D800 with the same lens.I'm a photographer. I appreciate a nod to aesthetics, they are important, but Nikon, please?!No video? Fine. I'm even glad. A dedicated movie camera is a better bet anyway if your that serious, but what I wanted was something smaller and at a cost which even you Nikon know is right. The D600/610 is affordable. The D800 is aspirational. The D4 is a pro cam, so not a fair comparison. Which, out of 610/800 does this camera most resemble in build and features?So. £1000 dollars too expensive then.
Master Yoda: If Canon ever upgrades the G1X it will kill the G15/16 and that is why we probably won't see a G1X upgrade . . . ever. The G16 has no 24mm, no articulating screen, no large sensor and no chance of being taken as seriously as this series once was taken.
whats funny about a metal body containing a full frame sensor, a viewfinder, a focusing system that works, no gimmicks and a choice of the best glass in the world?Oh...apart from the cost.
jadmaister2: I do get how this stuff is of interest, but...I once got to borrow an OM2n. That was a fabulous camera.I think I'll be concentrating on the memories those pics bring.
I'll leave it thanks. The only effect you will have is on yourself, and that's what I'm choosing too.
A lovely lens if you use that focal range. However, the argument for it over a 35mm prime is unconvincing for me. You always have to compromise on focal range if you want a large aperture and quality results. This particular compromise may suit more people than they realise. Try doing a careful analysis of the focal lengths you used in you 'best' what? 50 shots? I did this and realised that for 85% of what I do I could use a 35mm, so for a little flexibility this zoom will be fine. Or I can save money, get sharper glass, 1 more stop and walk a few yards forwards or backwards (oh, and save a few grammes to boot).
I do get how this stuff is of interest, but...I once got to borrow an OM2n. That was a fabulous camera.I think I'll be concentrating on the memories those pics bring.
RichRMA: Nikon would have had better success if they'd not released the V system as an afterthought. They and Canon never had any intention of their mirrorless cameras being real successes because as others have said, it would have cannibalized DSLR sales in the low-end. The V system may seem decent to some (Nikon never really does a bad job on anything) but they never promoted the V system to any extent, and as people who had gone to camera shows have seen, the V was basically ignored by its parent.
sorry but that's nonsense. A long term Nikon DSLR owner and fan, even I look at the 1 system's competitors and shiver. They just simply got it wrong. Sorry Nikon. You voted for trend and convenience, but Nikon buyers want build and picture quality. The same reason why your compacts don't sell Nikon, because other makers have cameras whose images are (how can I put this nicely) better.
Time to wake up, forget the market research into mobile phone users needs and produce cameras that deserve your name and, more importantly, satisfy your customers, the PHOTOGRAPHERS.
oh and PS, making it look ugly, so we might be fooled into thinking it's a Leica, just isn't gonna be enough. Sorry.
jadmaister2: Well done Oliver. Is this a paper for your degree?You have identified the required constituent parts to get a 2:2Invent a MnemonicPick a subject that makes people worryWait for a recession and be concerned about spending less.Top man.
damn shirker....you just listed all my hobbies
Well done Oliver. Is this a paper for your degree?You have identified the required constituent parts to get a 2:2Invent a MnemonicPick a subject that makes people worryWait for a recession and be concerned about spending less.Top man.