I also have a large Billingham bag. It oozes quality as mentioned. It is heavy, and stops me from using it more frequently.About the catalogue, the first photo shows a shallow depth of field of the Billingham brand. Not even the whole word is in focus. Is this "artistic"? I feel dizzy looking at it.
I do have a big problem that it cannot take standard Nikon SB flashes (e.g. SB-400 SB-800). Else, I would have bought it.
KennethKwok: Comparison of LX7 to Nikon P7700======================
I only take family photos.
I was thinking of buying Nikon P7700 to be used witha Nikon Flash. I have the large Nikon SB-800 flash.I like bounced flash very much.If it looks too stupid, I might buy a smaller SB-400.
And Panasonic has enjoyed an excellent (close to top)reputation of the LX series.I see that the LX7 has f1.4, and also a 1080/60pI am very attracted to it.I expect the LX7 to work well with Nikon SB800/ SB400.DO YOU AGREE?
What is your recommendation please?Panny LX7 OR Nikon P7700?
In that case, I might go for the Nikon P7700 then.
Comparison of LX7 to Nikon P7700======================
rockjano: This comparison is plain stupid I think.
They compare the iPhone to a Nikon D3 and they feel that the iPhone is better.
They want the same depth of filed from the large sensor as with the tiny sensor of the iPhone so the crank up the iso to the max with the D3, and they find it noisy :-) Why don't they try to get shallow DOF with the iPhone good luck for that.
Anybody how shots seriously knows how much more a DSLR is than any small sensor cam. But they really rivals the compact crowd that is true.
A lot of people like shallow depth of field.I, on the other hand, often appreciate a deep depth of field.If I take a photo of five persons standing together,some a step forward, some a step backwards... it is difficult to have everyone's face in focus. And sometimes, we cannot direct our subjects to move.I think the comparision is made for deep depth of field photos. I think that this is an amazing attribute for small sensor. Everything looks sharp.
The D3 was "twisted" to give a very deep depth of field. I have a D700, and I think it is hard to have deep depth of field, without tripod. Actually the same situation with the dynosaur photo here.In here, I want the head and tail to both be sharp. I think having a small aperture is one of the few ways to achieve it.
This explains something I did not understand.
In the illustrative example of rules of third, I would have thought the eyes are the focus, and should be at the intersection of the grid lines.
But the eyes aren't. They are a bit above the intersection.
Sort of..... depends on how you see it.
The rule of thirds, is ALREADY broken, in my opinion.
Good samaritan rule applies.Not ethical to NOT render help.
Sort of, if you are in the victim's shoes, do you want help from others? Do you (victim) prefer a true record of your suffering/death? Or Do you prefer help?
Good point.Actually, same for journalist and any passers-by.First, Ensure safety of self (journalist/ passers-by)Second, Inform police as requiredThird, Try to help if feasible.
If it's mob attack, I think it is ok not to sacrifice together.Unless the journalist can confidently control the mob!I think similar principles goes for firefighter, doctors...The rescuer is not expected to die together or suffer severe injuries.
Dear PicOne,I think your comments are so harsh for a free website,done by civilians, owned by commercial enterprise,and is not from the government.
Do DPReview then, need to go through a board of approval ,before they publish anything regarding products with possibilities of financial gain by profit-making companies?I think the grip would be useful for certain users.
If I had a Nikon 1,and if I were unhappy about the existing grip, it would begood news for me.
What do people think about the video?
I apologize that I don't have a video enabled DSLR.From reading comments, I get a feeling that compact cameras, or even iPhone, does better video than DSLR in consumer hands. I exclude professionals in this discussion.
Do you think that the video would be VERY good for this HUGE sensor, and hopefully, point and shoot like video handing?Much better than other consumer Video Camera?
KennethKwok: I tried to calculate the "crop factor" from the focal length.Is this larger sensor than the micro four third?
I tried to calculate the "crop factor" from the focal length.Is this larger sensor than the micro four third?
1. I use and love Nikon. So, I have no problems with DPReview defending a new Nikon product. But I don't see DPReview doing that in the past. It is interesting. I do wonder why though.2. The sensor is much larger than the 1/1.7". However, wouldn't a small aperture negate the gain from the larger CX sensor? Is it quite true that technically, a small zoom with large aperture would not be possible?3. I know that a lot of people like shallow depth of field. This is where DSLR can clearly beat the point and shoot. I, on the other hand, quite admire the "infinite" depth of field of small compact cameras. No more focus problem (of a Nikon D700), when almost everything in a small sensor camera is in focus.
Initially, I also despise on it when the sensor is so small.I suppose there are already enough large sensor (NEX, Micro FT) cameras.The problem is that the lens are too large.On the contrary, I think that a small sensor is a nice change.Sensor technology is better and better. Smaller sensor continues to improve.If the response is faster (less lag), the camera may win...If you want absolute IQ, go for DSLR.For those who want small camera, small lens, this may win.I suppose a mega zoom with 600mm+ would be easy.