I would visit 'connect' more often if there was actual journalism, not this. Once again, a quickly thrown together page using a subject that hopefully getting a discussion/controversy going, trying to generate some traffic here.
One slight problem I see is that all of these elements are made from synthetic dies and materials. While they are colorful, they are no what nature offers in terms of color. Yet the majority of subjects we photograph are nature and of course people (natural skin). A printed photo of a person is a very reduced representation of what real human skin is like in terms of colors, shades, how light gets broken, absorbed and reflected to create it's unique look.
Of course I'm aware it's impossible to have a real person be part of a test scene that has to be 100% constant over years. OTOH I know from owning about 20 different digital cameras over the years that some cameras produce wonderful looking photos from artificial colored scenes, they do poorly when it comes to resolving very fine differences in colors and shades which is key for natural looking scenes, especially when it comes to portraits (and landscapes).
Again, I don't really have a solution, but something to think about.
so many experts here that all know better how to run a large company. LOL
GPW: The market is swamped with to many DSLR in a manufactures lineup. Nikon for example has the D3100,D5100, D7000,D7100, in DX lineup. If Nikon had ONE enthusiast DX and ONE pro DX that satisfied the two classes, that would save a crap load of money right there. The technology is there to make ONE excellent enthusiast camera to satisfy everyone from the beginner(auto settings) to the advanced user(manual settings), eliminating the unnecessary saturation of the market. Same goes for pro DX.
Expert right here! LOL I'm sure you know better how to do business than Nikon.
hea: I remenber my uncles back in the late 60s, 70s, most people who bougth SLR/Rangefinders, both pro's and amateurs, expected to stay with the camera and lenses for 10-15 years, have no need to be upgrading every year or two.I bougth my first DSLR a D40 6 or 7 years ago, still is functioning well, I made an upgrading only recently, a D7100, in the mean time I had no need to upgrade, and I think I will maintain my D7100 for years, If not is broken accidentally.
Yeah that was 50 years ago. The world has changed.
As you say, you are not a professional any more so getting exactly the shot needed or required is not the top priority any more. The much more convenient way of shooting with smaller and simpler cameras makes more sense to you now. That makes sense. I'm exactly the same way. I'm a full time professional. When I work, 'convenience' is not the point. It's all about getting the shot right so I use my SLR and a lot of different lenses and lighting gear. Once I'm done with work and shoot just for fun I use my phone or maybe my compact. I think the same is true for enthusiastic amateurs. They want to get the shot right, they don't mind the extra size or weight when doing that. They love photography and love using their gear.
SeeRoy: Yeah, carrying a wire is one of the biggest problems encountered in mobile photography...
@sagephotographyDo cables magically not work in third world countries? And tell me, how much of a 'backup' is 32 gb? I don't even use 32 gb cards any more, only 64 and up. Last but not least, how do you think the battery of these have to be charged? Wireless? LOL
Octane: Kind of funny trying to make it sound like editorial and Gear Shop are separate and independent when they are run by the same upper management. Neither editorial not GS make big decisions anyways, both report to the exact same management.
The CEO doesn't know about it? :) OK, totally believe that.
But honestly, one way or another I don't think it's bad. As a store it doesn't really matter what gets good or not so good review, people are going to buy something. If not one camera or lens, it;s going to be the other one. And brand loyal people (which I think are a pretty large percentage) buy their brand anyways.
Kind of funny trying to make it sound like editorial and Gear Shop are separate and independent when they are run by the same upper management. Neither editorial not GS make big decisions anyways, both report to the exact same management.
wetsleet: Is there not a risk of alienating adveritisers, and so finding that profits made through GearShop are offset by advertising revenue lost. After all GS will be seen to have 'privileged' status, and can only really take sales away from existing advertisers, so lowering the value of advertising on DPR.
@Simon, your smart one liner replies are never a surprise, though.
timoteotresgatos: Have you read the terms and conditions on the page?I'm not signing up for this!
"..., I (hereinafter "Participant”) hereby grant to Nikon Inc., its parents and affiliates, and the representatives, employees, directors, officers, agents, licensees, successors and assigns of each of the foregoing (collectively, "Nikon”) the absolute, non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, fully paid-up, perpetual right, license and permission to publish, copy, post, distribute, reproduce, display and/or otherwise use the images and/or photographs uploaded by Participant..."
FreedomLover: No wonder it's all sliding with all the oil being systematically sprinkled on their sensors ...
Ignoring their customers and a bad image does have an influence on sales, after all, even if they still prefer to deny any problem.
FreestuffLover " ... Kimura says he expects the company's DSLR sales to support the loss of compact sales for 'several more years' until it ... "
Any more questions?
Did you actually read the article? Compact camera sales are down, not SLR. SLR sales (which includes the D600) are doing very well for Nikon, so well that it's going to support the losses in the compact camera sector.
Ivan Lietaert: Very impressive, but not entirely new: the Nikon 1 cameras use a similar technology (with a limited number of AF pixels in the sensor).Still, if this works with some fast lenses (f1.4), it is going to be revolutionary.
Just curious, how does splitting up each pixel into two, which makes each half the size, higher quality?
I love the idea that the AF is on the actual image sensor as it once and for all eliminates any front/back focusing issues, no matter what causes them. It'll be interesting to see if this sensor design causes a compromise on image quality.
Octane: The smooth focus adjustments are great for the kind of video they show. But let's keep in mind every shot was carefully planned and executed to make this new AF shine. Normal people don't shoot video that way. They sit in the audience of their kids recital and shoot the stage, they are at the edge of the field shooting their kids play football or follow their kids around as they play or do random things. Most people don't plan the video they shoot. I think more 'relatable' shooting scenarios would be helpful to see. I also don't think holding an SLR + zoom lens with extended arms in front of you (so you can see the LCD) is a good way to shoot video.
Yes tons of people shoot this way using SLRs, but it has nothing to do with ergonomics. It's simply convenient and cost effective to have one camera to do both. It allows you to use high quality lenses and large sensors (=good image quality) for video. That advantage has nothing to do with the fact that it's not an ideal way to hold a camera in that way for a while.
Let me see how you hold an SLR with a 70-200/2.8 one foot in front of your face with one hand and, follow a kid running on the field, and try to use the other hand to tap the "freaking" screen. Or hold it like that for 30 min shooting a stage show.
The smooth focus adjustments are great for the kind of video they show. But let's keep in mind every shot was carefully planned and executed to make this new AF shine. Normal people don't shoot video that way. They sit in the audience of their kids recital and shoot the stage, they are at the edge of the field shooting their kids play football or follow their kids around as they play or do random things. Most people don't plan the video they shoot. I think more 'relatable' shooting scenarios would be helpful to see. I also don't think holding an SLR + zoom lens with extended arms in front of you (so you can see the LCD) is a good way to shoot video.