The silver one with the leather texture wrap looks simply gorgeous.Reassuring thumb grip on the back unlike the flat backed Pentax K-01.This should have been what they released instead of the E-P1 way back when.I can imagine a lot of M43 owners wetting their pants right about now.
luben solev: As a Canon user I'm excited by the introduction of the D800. I've been waiting for a while for Canon to release a decent follow-up to the 5DII which I own, but with no competition in the market place, they have not bothered.
The introduction of the D800 should force Canon's hand into releasing a 5DIII. Hopefully it will have much better focusing, as that my number one grumble when using my 5DII for weddings (and chasing after my 2 year old :-)
My 2 pence
Same can be said for the 60D. Have not seen stock since well before Xmas.
fmian: So they remove the AA filter, and decide to charge more for it?Nikon must think their users are chumps.Why even have a model with the AA filter if it's better without?Still no 60fps @ 1080p.And this has USB 3.0 but the D4 does not.Sounds like the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.
For what it's worth, not impressed by the recent Canon lens announcements either.
Oh crap. I didn't know they just modified it. My bad.I still think they should only have one model, and feel the D800E is just a last minute afterthought kneejerk reaction to the Fuji X Pro 1 not having a filter. Otherwise the D800 and D800E would be released at the same time no?
Nikon: Oh, if some company who still has 'film' in their name can do it and claim higher quality than larger sensor cameras, maybe we can too!! And don't bother changing the D800 release schedule, we'll just tack on another model a few months later. Watch how many people are forced to double dip!!
Sorry to sound cynical about all this. I just feel there are way too many camera models on the market already. Consumers need less models that are so similar, with wider gaps in specs between models.
Just my opinion.
Debankur Mukherjee: Excellent Specs but FF cameras seems to be more out of reach of amateurs.....instead of declining the prices are climbing high with every release ......
:)It's what you can't put in a $3000 full frame digital camera, but can put in a $50 second hand camera from 40 years ago that still works even without a battery. Camera manufactures from the future somehow traveled back in time and made sure that film did not exhibit moire, something that this unfortunate generation has to pay extra for.
lindner: dprview crew and management, lets drop the previews and focus on the reviews. Might cost you with the vendors but will ring well with visitors, at least if they're like me. You might have more clout than you think! My EUR.02 -Bert
[sarcasm]Barney, when you go out today shooting with the production D800E (we know you have a whole bunch), can you please take photos of unicorns and fairies, and compare them to images of the same thing taken with an iPhone 5. I want to buy one of these cameras but can't decide. I need to know how the sensors react to magic sparkle dust.Thank you.[/sarcasm]
From a retailers point of view, the 5DMkII was unofficially discontinued about 2-3 months ago. Stock levels went dry, no more orders were placed, and about a month ago the listing was deleted from our POS systems, so no one would accidentally try to order one.Be patient.I'd say the replacement is just around the corner.
LeeDo: Looks like Sony (is this a CMOS from Sony? Probably) is taking Canon to the cleaners. 1Dx 18.1 megapixel vs this beast, C'mon. NEX-7 with an APS-C sized sensor that rivals the FF 3DX. And now this! Whatever Sony & Nikon have up their sleeves is anybodys guess. But I have a gut feeling they want to RULE!! And at this rate they will.
You make no sense comparing cameras that are not in the same category.Wait till Canon announce the 5DMkII replacement and maybe then you might have something intelligent to say.
maxz: Canon's days is over. I own a boatload of canon L lenses but their struggling is too obvious. They are still relying on their aged stepper and fabs that cannot compete with Nikon+Sony alliance. In order to do so they need to shell out two billion, heck they need to sell a few more trucks of old cameras to achieve that. 18MP as the 'all-in-one flagship', i can hear crickets in my house laughing.
What are you talking about?The D4 is 16MP.Troll much?
Buy a film camera if you want 135 on the cheap.Perfect option if you're on a budget.
So they remove the AA filter, and decide to charge more for it?Nikon must think their users are chumps.Why even have a model with the AA filter if it's better without?Still no 60fps @ 1080p.And this has USB 3.0 but the D4 does not.Sounds like the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.
Someone please just make a 24-35mm F/2.0 and be done with it. With or without IS it would be awesome. Hell, I wouldn't mind even if it was manual focus/aperture only.
Will wait for someone to fit a transparent one over the top of a TTL optical viewfinder, kinda like what the X100 does, but on an SLR.Anyone who thinks this tech is even remotely close to an OVF has not used a bright screen 35mm SLR from the 70's.IMO there is a LONG way to go before EVF can give you the level of immersion that an OVF can.For the moment they are just a distracting filtered layer that shows you an 'interpretation' of the scene, and not the scene itself, creating a barrier between the photographer and the image that is to be taken.
Not too keen on the yellow, but it looks rather grippy and comfortable.The button layout and flat back seem a bit dubious though.Hope it's not a case of style taking precedence over handling.
Pentax seem to be the only company that values their existing customer base and lens mount. It remains to be seen what Canon will do.But... where is the full frame model to take correct advantage of all those legacy lenses?
To those who are surprised by the price, wasn't this price range already specified when the camera was announced? I seem to recall a $1700 body only price point being mentioned, and $500 or so prices mentioned on lenses.Should not come as a surprise to anyone who read up on this camera from the start. Also, Fuji seem to have been quite forward with their customers about the X100 being a 'test the waters' camera and a stepping stone to an interchangeable lens model quite early on from the X100 announcement.To those who think it's too much money, fair enough when you consider the price of an entry level DSLR or other mirrorless systems, but the X Pro 1 has been designed as a camera system to sit along entry level Full Frame cameras.The fact that is has a unique sensor design, without the filter that elite film users complain about, means that a lot of serious camera users will purchase this.Good on Fuji for paving a new path.Now to create a model with an optical focusing system.
D200_4me: Come on, micro 4/3 fanboys and girls. Get over it. The Nikon 1 (like many other manufacturers cameras out there) are a good solution for quite a few people. It may not be what YOU want, but if you can set your prejudices aside for a moment, you might realize the Nikon 1 has a lot to offer (even though it may not be what you decide to buy). Get over yourselves....geez. ;-) My V1 certainly seems to be making lots of great images. I don't find myself crying over the sale of my GH2. Not one bit. Some examples: http://www.openbloom.com/GEAR-Etc-1/Nikon-1-V1/19648888_Nn5D4F
Mal_In_OzIn my opinion the perfect compact system camera is my Minolta X700 with various prime lenses.
All the big camera players got it right 30-40 years ago.It's time for consumers to stop buying a new half measured attempt at a camera every year, and show the current marketing driven manufacturers that second hand is better than the rubbish they are trying to feed us.
Giving an arbitrary time frame for improvements in future models is not good enough when other manufacturers have products coming out in the next few months that will eat the Nikon1 camera sales.
All I get from this is:
- Those who have already purchased a N1 camera can look forward to brighter lenses in the 'future'.- Those who have not purchased a N1 camera should hold off because big improvements will be made in 'future' bodies.
shaocaholica: Err, putting the camera on a 'mat' is not 'contactless'
The title says it's inductive charging.By contactless, as others have pointed out, it means there are none of the usual metal contact points traditionally used for charging.They have been making toothbrushes like this for ages.The big break will come when this kind of technology is unified, and you can put any device on the mat to charge it.
the great fiction: The Bride needs to read up on basic economics. If high quality wedding photographers were charging $3,000 just because they could and not because that's the fair market price for the service provided, then other photographers with equal skills would have an incentive to come along and offer the same service at a lower cost. I'm pretty sure there's not a wedding photography monopoly or cartel that's preventing photographers from offering lower prices for the full wedding service with all of the bells and whistles (i.e. top cameras, top lenses, second photographers, all day long, etc.)
You also have to consider that you're paying for assurance of quality at higher prices. It's not to say that there aren't wedding photographers who produce bad photos at $3,000, but I'm sure there's a much higher probability of ending up with a bad photographer at $500. Given that a wedding only happens once, there's a premium to be paid for the assurance that the photographer hired won't screw it up.
Blowing highlights is technically incorrect in photography.When they say that you can break rules in photography, blowing highlights is not one of those rules. It should always be adhered to.For high key images one must still maintain correct exposure. You can come close to overexposure, and maybe have one small portion of the image over, as long as it's not distracting to the eye.On top of that, would a bride really like the idea of paying heaps of money on a wedding dress, only to have all that fine lacework and detail lost in her only memory of the event?Shame on photographers who do this and call themselves professionals.
fmian: 1. The response does not mention the value of the photographers talent, so I will assume the photographer has none, or it has little/no value.
2. The photographer is hiring another photographer for only $200 a day, but expects the bride to pay 15x that.
3. 25 hours in post is just madness. Learn to be more efficient.
4. Editing on an iMac screen.
I get to hear wedding photographers bitch and moan about their clients queries all the time, trying to justify price based on the cost of their gear, the effort of having to carry such heavy gear, the effort of knowing how to blur away the background with their special f/2.8 lenses. The amount of time they spend in post fixing up their own mistakes. And then getting the client to wait several weeks while the images are sent to some other place to get printed by someone other than the photographer.
Perhaps brides and grooms should hire an expert to judge the value of a photographers talent, just like getting anything else important valued.
Continued.I work casual in a mini lab/camera shop and run into so called 'pro' photographers all the time who don't know what 1/125 on the camera screen means, or don't know how to use an 18% grey card, or think sRGB is a colour temperature, or call light diffusers 'hoods'.Sometimes I have the displeasure of printing a brides $5k wedding images where I am faced with the conundrum of trying to fix blown highlights, and creating a more consistent colour balance, and attempting to fix green/blue zombie bride skin.So you can see why I am attacking $5k 'professionals' who cannot do their jobs correctly.I'll be working casual as a camera operator this year, and having it possibly be my main source of income.Will I call myself a 'Pro' photographer? Hell no. Not when the standards have dropped and most 'Pro' results are amateur at best. I'm kind of reluctant to even call myself a photographer, for fear of being pooled in a sea of mediocrity.
Poss, giving 800 final images to the client is absolutely insane. My mind is blown looking at your numbers.Your average wedding from 15+ years ago would rarely yield 150+ awesome photos. Have weddings become 8x more exciting since then? Or has 8fps cameras and 32gb cards made everyone think they are a better photographer?I have made absolutely zero dollars from taking photos, except for a $900 prize I won for a self portrait. I have shot one wedding for free for a friend, without too much prior photographic experience.Sure I made some rookie errors, but it took me 4-5 hours in post and they had low res images for web deployment the following afternoon. I initially took 1200 shots (not proud of that, but I was a first timer overcompensating) and gave them about 120. I did not show them any other shots. Why would I subject them to erroneous variations of the same shot? It was my selective eye that chose the images I wanted them to see, that I believe captured the event accurately.