njkdo: Sorry, what are we talking about?
So? Retro sells and Nikon is a business. If you don't like it there's three other FF models to choose from which look reasonably ugly and have the ISO button in a really dumb place.
jon404: It looks sort of like an old Nikon, but works like a new one? So -- the only reason to buy is an external packaging change? Who cares?
Seems to work for car companies.
Is this why so many people on DPR want a tilt screen LCD?
57even: At last D700 users have a "true" replacement with the sensor of the pro model and top rate low light capability. Nice that they also made it a bit more interesting to look at than another amorphous black blob, and I also like the subversiveness of dropping the video mode (which I have never used except to check it worked).
Clear that Nikon are focusing more on demographics now, not just spec sheets. This will be very popular with more "mature" photographers I think, as well as some well heeled hipsters. If it sells well (a 16MP FF camera without video) it will say a lot about prevailing assumptions and may spring a raft of imitations.
Whatever anyone thinks, looks sell product. Any product. This seems to be something that has only recently occurred to Japanese camera companies. Retro chic is of course only one of many directions, but it's had a major impact on the car and motorcycle market, and the X100 proved it can work for cameras too.
The D700 didn't have the D3x sensor either, it had the lower resolution one. DxOMark is no the bible.
No-one needs a replacement unless their camera is broken. But the D4 sensor is a big improvement on the D3. If you don't need 36MP...
X100 is not "just" about retro chic. I said it's helps sell cameras. I had one and it had plenty of faults, but it sold well. Yes, the IQ was good, but the RF styling and VF helped make up for the performance issues.
At last D700 users have a "true" replacement with the sensor of the pro model and top rate low light capability. Nice that they also made it a bit more interesting to look at than another amorphous black blob, and I also like the subversiveness of dropping the video mode (which I have never used except to check it worked).
Sorry, I mean there is nothing in this camera in which I am remotely interested. Your mileage may differ.
Shame they can't use all that profit to make something interesting.
Because Canon seem to be relying entirely on existing customer loyalty to sell new cameras. This is not a good strategy IMO.
57even: Just comparing the photo of the Xe2 and the D5300 - not to mention the new Sony's - leaves me wondering why the hell everyone else finds camera styling so hard. KISS seems to work for Fuji, just as it worked for Leica for 60 years.
The new PEN and GX7 are finally in the ballpark after a run of ugly sisters. But most DSLRs simply look misshapen and ugly by comparison. Curves are out, edges are back in, get with the program.
Seemingly Pentax are the only people who know how to make a DSLR look smart.
Interesting comments some missing the point. There will always be people that don't care, and some people who have no aesthetic sense anyway, but in general, style sells. Apple proved it, not that it needed proving. It's even worth a premium if done well. Again, Apple proved it.
All cameras with a decent sized sensor take excellent pictures so style is a differentiator. As long as it's functional it can be retro (PEN EP5, Fuji) or modern minimalist (RX100). All stylish cameras.
Every up-market Canon SLR looks pretty much like the T90. A design approaching it's 27th birthday already. Not retro? Only because they never deviated.
Nikon and Canon survive on badge and product recognition. Other makers don't have that luxury. They are trying to attract mainstream buyers away from the big 2. They can only match them on IQ, so that means putting a bit of effort in on the style front.
Just good business.
Just comparing the photo of the Xe2 and the D5300 - not to mention the new Sony's - leaves me wondering why the hell everyone else finds camera styling so hard. KISS seems to work for Fuji, just as it worked for Leica for 60 years.
mcshan: I'd rather keep my X-E1 and get the 23mm if it ever comes out.
I agree. I think the IQ will be all but the same, so no point in upgrading for me. However the Xpro2 is more likely to raise the bar somewhat.
austin55: Fuji is a innovative company that also has the humility and customer appreciation to listen. Something Canon and Nikon quit doing long ago. I have my last Nikon DSLR shoot next Saturday, and then it goes on the block. This will be my next purchase without hesitation. It is what people like Zack Arias, David Hobby, and Trey Ratcliffe have already recognized. Bigger, heavier and more expensive, is not better (for many applications) any longer. Nikon and Canon are becoming dinosaurs and unless they change, are headed down the path toward extinction, (at least in market share.) Sony, Fuji, Panny and Oly are much more innovative these days.
@marike6All of which is quite irrelevant to the normal consumer, unless they want to bask in the reflected glory of the top end bodies. Most mid range and low end SLRs are far less functional and perform at a far lower level than the top end.
Comparing an X-e2 with a D4 is kind of pointless.
whtchocla7e: I don't know man -- after the Sony revolution, I have a hard time looking at anything with a "small" sensor now..
Larger sensor and slower lenses. Apart from the extra resolution (how big do you print anyway?) there is no real advantage and the Sonys are far more expensive and heavier.
Toccata47: The only point that matters is autofocus speed...I may have missed it, but I didn't see any commentary on this.
I care a lot more about accuracy than speed, and in this respect they are just about perfect. I can handle the difference between 0.5s and 0.2s. If I want to take street snaps in a hurry I can pre-focus. Extra speed is nice, but only if the accuracy remains as good as it is.
Having owned several SLR bodies which required exhaustive (and often frustrating) focus calibration to work at at least one aperture and focus distance in one type of light, it's a joy to have a camera that requires no calibration at all.
Tandua: very Pro Sony specs: Weather sealed
fuji x-pro1> nofuji x-e1 >nofuji x100s> no
fuji x-e2 ?...imho...no!
in a raining days...you are going to stop it
They make rain covers for cameras you know.
I think I need a GAS mask.
Only on DPReview forums do people complain both when there IS a problem AND when it's fixed. And about people who had it AND people who did not. Gotta love it. ;-)
EGARA61: I have owned different Nikon cameras for years: F801s, F80, F100, D70, D200, D600 and several compact. The D600 is a camera haughtiness but with an obvious manufacturing flaw: Abnormal dirt sensor. Nikon's way of responding to this problem is a shame. I'll never buy again a camera of this brand!
It's also a shame that cleaning it yourself voids the warranty.
KW Phua: Nikon should offer free replacement for D600 users with D610, to bring back their reputation.
Same issues with Canon. Rule of thumb is to wait six months with each new announcement before buying, and let the early adopters find all the issues. D600 was a mistake on my part. I broke my own rule.
Average User: I think it is unlikely that the new shutter mechanism has anything to do with the oil issue. The oil isn't used in the camera; it isn't manufactured by the camera, so it has to have dripped into a bunch of the cameras in the production process from an assembly machine. The fixes are: find and fix the drip: clean the cameras that can be cleaned, and replace the ones that can't be cleaned. Has nothing to do with the underlying quality of the camera, or with improving the shutter mechanism, or this upgrade.
Except that it wasn't oil.