lmtfa: Their are more "CONS" listed here than their are in Pelican Bay Prison. And it still gets an 81% + Gold Award. So it has been decided by those in charge, make a "Retro" looking camera and name it Fujifilm and bingo it's a world class winner. I wish I had my Brownie that I got from Kellogg's Corn Flakes box tops. It surely would garner a 83% and don't call me Shirley:-))
I've had a sony nex, nikon d600 and a canon 60d and I use this camera 5x more than I have any others. To me it's a Gold no doubt. I think there might be a lot of things people think can be better, but the good far outweighs them.
mpgxsvcd: You definitely won't ever need to use RAW with this camera. The RAW mode is already cooked just as much as the jpg mode. I don't see that as a plus though.
When I don't intend to edit the image at all I use jpg. When I want to edit the image I want all of the data to be there and that is not possible in RAW mode with this camera.
How in the world could you describe this as a serious professional camera. It basically doesn't have RAW? If Nikon or Canon did this everyone would be complaining majorly.
I shoot in Raw + Jpg constantly. Typically shoot b&w jpg or velvia and can easily just use the jpg ooc. However, sometimes I blow the highlights or do some other silly things and having the RAW allows me to recover it wonderfully. Not using raw seems odd to me - it's the best way for me to ensure I don't screw up a shot I really don't want to screw up.
I mean just look at the file sizes - one obviously has a lot more in it than the other...
BoJangles: I just bought the red version at my local shop, Pro Photo in Irvine, CA for $139.00 while using it this past weekend. It's very well constructed supporting my D800, weighs practically nothing saving costly luggage pounds, all with a very smooth fluid ball head and easy operation. One very impressive tripod for the price.
The 139$ appears to be the old version that cannot turn into a monopod. Can you confirm?
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Just been seeing some pictures taken with the D600 here: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d600/sample.htmThe resolution is simply breathtaking, with unbelievable levels of detail, but we must be prepared for some moiré and will need a top-end graphics card and a multi-core processor to deal with the heavy files - though it's not so extreme a camera as the D800E.I want one so bad it hurts!
It won't need any different pc/laptop equipment than any other camera out there right now. I didn't even know they still made single core processors for anything other than a phone...???
Mach Schnell: Holy cow! Are they serious? $1,700. That is 3 times what I paid for the extremely good Sigma 150mm f/2.8. I can't fathom why it would cost so much more. I don't think they'll get many takers at that price.
Well, since the 105 and 150 both say they have a MSRP of 1400-1600, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't actually pay that much... just like always...
Also, how did the OP only pay ~$550 for the 150 macro? You must mean the one with no OS. The new one goes for about $1100.
This is not out of the ordinary - stop flipping out. Show me another > 150mm macro that's stabilized and doesn't cost that much...
If you have to put the tripod on the side where it's unbalanced, then it's not a hiking pack. Is there only one water holder? Can you strap a tent or any other gear on there?
Stop saying these are hiking packs when they're really just nice summer strolling packs. You cant go hiking with just camera gear... or if u do, then you are either ill prepared or not really hiking anywhere even remotely tough.
Hmm ... upon rereading I guess it isn't advertised as a hiking pack... oops
chadley_chad: Well, better late than never on the review ... Shame every other gadget site on the web beat you sees ago!
What? Who else already reviewed the F3?
smileblog: Why is the ISO range not same as NEX-5N? - NEX-F3: 200-16000- NEX-5N: 100-25600
I think both cameras have same sensor.
Compare it to the NEX-C3, which is what it replaces, and I think you'll find it's the same. Just something they do to differentiate the cameras (5N is supposed to be more enthusiast than C3/F3).
Wow, this was the first challenge I entered. Didn't realize the voting was so poor. Seriously like 2 down votes and you're done. The results are a bit silly in my opinion.
If you enter the contest you should at least spend the time to vote on the photos. I think there were like 4-5 votes total for most photos. Poor show...
DaveMarx: Why does a camera strapped to a telescope, that's being pitched on the benefits of the camera's LCD display for viewing (hard to use an OVF when the mirror's locked up)... why does it need a mirror, OVF, and focal plane shutter (besides dust control)?
It's not sensor size any more. If I was Sony, and I was interested in making a splash in the scientific community, why not in astrophotography, with all its passionate amateurs? Save those budget-strapped folks a small bundle by ditching unnecessary mechanical systems, and it reduces weight-related stress on the telescope to boot. AND, it'll still do fine as a general-purpose camera.
Sure, for someone who owns a pile of Canon glass, and is using that camera for a whole lot more than astrophotography... it's another set of tools on the Swiss Army Knife. But this would have been a really cool way for Canon to introduce its mirrorless camera. It's not like they don't know how to make 'em. They're called pro video cameras.
The Sony Nex5n or 7 would probably be perfect (I'd imagine) as they are basically what you're asking for (no mirror or OVF and a really good live view). But no, they aren't `optimized` for astrophotography.
tkbslc: Now they just need some good E mount lenses to go with it. Only one right now is the CZ 24mm.
The sensor and resolution characteristics are different than those of the NEX APS-C system cameras. Quite possibly the lenses available right now will perform very well with this camera.
Karsten Dam: Fine. I just purchased Lightroom 3.6 a month ago in an Adobe shop and paid 150 euro. If I upgrade now I'll have paid double for v. 4.0 !!Phoned Adobe "customer service" a few minutes ago. No free upgrade for me. They were literally laughing at me.
I'll never buy any Adobe products more in my life.
Ouch Jen. I think the thing that bugs some people is that they knew 4.0 was coming, but had no idea it would cost only half as much as LR3. Obviously if they knew that they would have waited.
Personally I thought LR4 would be what LR3 has been for some time... 299. When it dropped down to 199 I figured I could pick it up and then do the upgrade for ~100 and pretty much just pay the normal price for LR4. I did not, however, know that I was paying 50 dollars more and would have to pay another 80 dollars to upgrade, in essence costing me 330 dollars for a product that now costs 150.
I'm not going to cause a ruckus over it, but it should be quite obvious why this bothers some people.
danaceb: umm good job Tamron, pick something we already have -sigh-
ummmm how about a fast 35mm(50mm) with AF already?
Yeah it doesn't make sense. Sony has an 18-200 that's pretty solid and the kit is 18-55 and one of the very limited amount of other e mounts is a 55-210. They jumped right in where nobody wants them to jump in. They could have made a lot of money (maybe they will anyway) if they brought something new to the table... disappointing.