We need more people like this guy making photography cool and less of the old farts going "birding."
steelski: This is literally a waste of your front page. You can spend your time how you like. But I think this would have been beneath you a year or two ago. Sorry to be unkind.
I would be happy to see you and other humorless bores gone from this site.
Wye Photography: Personal view to which I am entitled - don't bite my head off.
I find it mildly amusing that thousands upon thousands of people abandoned film in their absolute droves and "made the switch to digital", spent $1000's (the $ is there for the benefit of my American brothers) on the new gear, computers, software only then to mimic film. If I could understand irony, I think that could be ironic.
I use digital, I also use film (B&W, just started to self process colour), I can tell you those "film packs" are just a waste of money esp BW. I can process Tri-X in D76, HC-110, Prescysol and Perceptol and have four different results.
With colour, I get a slightly different colour and rendition from my old Canon kit as I do from my RTS (and those sublime Carl Zeiss T* lenses) kit.
Personally, I think all these film sim profiles, albeit free from Adobe, are a gimmick. Quality film kit is cheap as chips thanks to digital. Buy some, have a go, do if for real. You'll enjoy it!
Your use of "genuine," "the real thing," and exhortation to "do it for real" suggests that while you may have adjusted your workflow to the digital age, you have not also adjusted your thinking.
This gives rise to your present attitudes towards digital, no matter how much you use it, as basically an inferior copy of "the real," which for you is film.
You were brought up in a world that equated reality with physical materials and chemical reactions. The arrangement of pixels to your mind is a pale imitation of these physical materials and chemical reactions.
End of the day, you are seeking to rationalize every passing generation's sense that the old ways were somehow better.
Digital vs. film is a discussion from the past, one we won't be hearing for much longer.
Glad to hear you take pleasure from shooting and processing film.
You should also, however, keep a more open mind about the quality, convenience, and creative options offered by skillful digital processing.
Are you kidding me?
Is this for Leica?
WesWilson: As a 20 year pro who shoots a variety of projects, I purchased the D7100 as an "upgrade" to my D300. I was wrong. The 7100 has more pixels. That's it. Otherwise the 300 is simply a better camera. It focuses faster, it handles better, and it is a better made camera than the d7100. I feel the 7100 is simply Nikons attempt to lure MWACs and amateurs into their camp with a high-megapixel camera. IMHO Nikon does not make a pro-quality dx sensor camera at this time. That's a shame, since for sports especially a dx format camera has some advantages over full-frame. Come on, Nikon...where's that D400 we all want?
Yeah, these D300 guys are deluded bores.
Zeisschen: If I have a well composed shot using a good lens and nailed focus I never needed photoshop. I bit of cropping and lighting up the shadows is usually all I have to do. I won't spend more money on a software than on printing pictures. iPhoto and Aperture ist enough for me.
Thanks for contributing to the discussion of techniques for Photoshop users.
If you think of Photoshop as an advanced dark room it might help you transition into the twenty-first century.
(unknown member): I think the person who wrote this review was either drunk or is just looking for reasons to write the camera down the drain.
The quality of this review isn't worth the disk space it is stored on.
It is a fine camera, period
Translation: The reviewer had the nerve to point out flaws in a camera I own. WAAAA!!!!
Where are all those bitter PC users to complain that the demo is on a Mac?
Combine them with the Adobe haters and we could achieve a perfect storm of internet outrage.
Daniel Lauring: The Macbook Air is a great little TOUGH lightweight machine. It was my goto travel machine, until a very hard fall took out half the screen. I had all intentions of replacing it with the latest Haswell version, but the specs just aren't competitive anymore. It's screen was good in 2009, but has never been updated to "Retina" not to mention it's not even IPS.
Instead I bought an i7 HP T13-3000 Spectre, that had a QHD (2560x1440) IPS touch screen and similar solid aluminum construction for about $250 less than the comparable i5 Macbook Air. It's only hardware shortcoming, compared to the Air is it's Intel HD4400 graphics vs. HD5000. Battery life is about 9 hours vs. Apple's 12, but that is still plenty.
By the way, when I spec the machine the author says (i7,8Gb,512Gb) costs $1549, on Apple's website it comes to $1849. The author's price is for the 256Gb version.
I didn't misunderstand you.
I take issue with your saying the MacBook Air screen is "FAR, FAR inferior" to the HP screen.
That's complete nonsense.
Those who REALLY need color critical work will be using Ezios and the like in controlled-light environments.
If you're out in the field under non-controlled lighting conditions, the MacBook Air screen is far more than up to the task.
And, no, Daniel, Windows 8.1 is not even close to a good OS. It is an awkward mash-up of the very differing needs of desktop/laptop and mobile devices. Windows 7 is much better. OS X Mavericks is much better.
Ability to use Aperture is also a huge plus for me.
I'm sure the HP is a good machine. But for me it would need to be MUCH cheaper for me to choose it over a Mac.
Three hours more battery time is significant.
Trackpad experience is significant.
Having to use a poorly implemented mash-up of desktop and touch OS is significant.
And let's face it...
Anyone to whom color accuracy is truly crucial will be working with a calibrated Ezio or similar in a light-controlled room, Daniel.
Or if you really need that when you're out and about, then a 13" MacBook Pro with retina display would be a good alternative to the Air.
But when you try to claim that the MacBook Air screen "FAR, FAR inferior" to your HP, then you're just being silly.
Glad you're happy with your purchase, since justifying it is clearly what your post is really about.
So, let's see now...
Inferior Intel graphics.
Inferior trackpad experience.
Inferior battery life.
Runs the poorly implemented Windows 8.1 (Yes, I use it).
And you big point is, ... IT'S CHEAPER. (though only by $134. Completely unfair to state special offers as the actual purchase price)
Well, no ship, sherlock.
jtan163: Thats not a D400!
Buy a D7100 or a D610.
Thing about old folks -- they don't like change. :)
FoveonPureView: A blessed, godly Jesus Christmas! Just incase you're affraid of the C/J/G-words...
Happy Festivus, pal.
mpgxsvcd: Is this the first camera that Dpreview didn’t even give a Silver or Gold award to?
marike6 officially called out as a troll.
Well done, Barney, for exposing that tiresome know-it-all.
nikonhudson: Rating this review, I give it a 62% with no bronze, silver or gold award. The quality of reviews on DPR has declined and this one hits bottom.
Or you could stop being a child and provide REASONS why you disagree with dpreview's assessment.
ornitho1: I am not a professional photographerThis tripod is sure eye-catching but you would have to give me solid reasons to convince me to pay that much money for a tripodConvince me!!
Steve oliphant: I used to own a FM2 best film camera ever,the nikon D4s best DSLR so far D300/300s nice cameras great build ,but this is not a $3000.00 dollar camera this is not a $2000.00 dollar camera it is really a peace of crap ,sorry i know this will really pee off lots of nikon fans but i think theres going to be quite a few nikon fans that will really really hate this camera, sorry for my early comment but man the build quality on this camera is so bad it's laughable .
Steve, meet the period. It allows you to organize your thoughts and not sound like a breathless teenager.
atamola: These "DP top picks" are really shameles and laughable.
The "How are these lens chosen" should read: based on what is most convenient for us.
The Samyang 35 f1.4 is an absolute optical marvel and the undisputed champion £ for £ and yet is missing from the list.
These "Top Picks" are nothing but shameless retail sale catalogs disguised as objective reviews.
Translation: A lens I own is not on the list. Wahhh!!
marike6: This kind of Fujifilm X100s infatuation has been finding its way into a few DPR articles of late, most notably the Nikon Df Preview and the whole "Retro Done Silly" fiasco.
I've enjoyed using both the X100 and X-E1 but I don't know too many photographers who would purposely choose an X100 over a proper FF DSLR, retro or not, for any other reason than convenience.
Well said, Ben.