Cameras document what happened and by nature they are neutral. They don't have 'selective memory', they don't tell their version of a story, they just document. I think it will make people more accountable for their actions thus making them 'hopefully' more responsible. The acquisition and sharking of information has already been taken out of the hands of the media and put into everyone's hands with the internet, Youtube, twitter and in general through social media. Wearable cameras are just the visual extension of that. People already take photos pretty much everywhere with their phones.
Halstatt: Just what I'd been looking for when still putzing around with my underpowered Nikon flashes.
Take the plunge and purchase some monolights.
monolights don't support iTTL nor do they sync at fast shutter speeds. There are many reasons why people want to use system flashes.
The comments here are just as interesting as the review. People have different needs and it shows that what is great for one person is irrelevant for another. Some people use that as their only bad so they try to make everything fit, others use it just for camera gear and have other equipment and laptop separate anyways. Some do long hikes, others walk 5 min to their location. Some need rain protection, others don't need it. For some it's too much space, others need more. And so on.
Even my own requirements change from job to job. Best thing to do is to describe a product and how you use it, and people can decide if it works for them or not.
Octane: Let me get this straight, you take the idea that has been done many years ago, has been perfected in major movie productions, you wait a few years, take a few cheap cameras, do it over, just poorly and then people say, 'so cool', 'such a great idea'. Alright :)
@cacv12000 When I saw the headline I actually got excited and was looking forward to seeing it. I was just disappointed by the poor quality. The cameras were poorly synced and the overall quality wasn't impressive. The hands and feet wobbled when the actual idea was to freeze the moment and have the camera track in 'bullet time'. Overall the quality wasn't that good either. Just funny to see people say 'great imagination' when the neither the idea is original nor is the execution well done. Well done on GoPro's marketing, thought :)
Let me get this straight, you take the idea that has been done many years ago, has been perfected in major movie productions, you wait a few years, take a few cheap cameras, do it over, just poorly and then people say, 'so cool', 'such a great idea'. Alright :)
RodWright: I'd like comments on the following:
1) I'm an advanced amateur, not a pro, but that said do a lot of nature and aerospace photos using my D7000. Think air show when reading the following.
2) What is meant by the 1.2 or 1.5 crop? Is that new to the D7100?
3) I shoot at airshows in shutter priority set at 1/300th which slightly blurs the props of piston engine aircraft showing the sensation of speed. 1/300th neither stops the props nor displays them as a nearly invisible shiny disk. A faster speed would be needed for turbo prop aircraft, but i have not worked that out yet.
4) Even shooting at 3fps, I overrun the D7000 buffer& have to wait while it writes to the SD card. I'm using SanDisk Extreme SD cards at 45MB/sec. Do faster cards exist and supported? I hate it when I miss a photo due to buffer full conditions.
I read here that the buffer for the D7100 has NOT been expanded, so larger files mean fewer photos before the buffer is full and photos stop. Is that correct?
How much different does an airplane flying in the sky look from one shot to the next one 1/6 of a second later? I guess my question is, why do you need 6 fps and then shoot for seconds for air planes?
For sports or wildlife I see how the change of the athlete or animal is so quick (running, jumping, kicking, ...) that it's really helpful to use a fast frame rate and deep buffer. But of airplanes that don't change shape whatsoever and also fly in a rather predictable way. I don't see why people shoot it at high fps and then keep the shutter pressed for a long time.
But even if you think you need that, the 100 frames buffer size means you can shoot for one full minute! In that minute, the camera has probably written most of these frames to the card already so in real life you can shoot for much longer before you actually fill the buffer.
The comment section turns out to be very useful this time! Thanks guys for saving me the time!
Chaitanya S: Finally, they replaced the worst lens in their telephoto line-up. I am getting this one no matter what.
@thx1138 What difference does it make whether Canon or Sony has a similar lens. If you with Nikon those won't fit and I doubt people are going to swap cameras system for a small difference between one lens.
slappomatt: Nikon has been pricing the amateurs out of photography for years now. Glad to see that is still the case. :(
It's like gas prices, it's pointless to look back 10 or 15 years and think the prices should be the same.
Guidenet: If the optics are great. I'm a player. That's for sure. AFS and VR combined with Nano Coatings. It's another class act. I hope it performs well with the 1.4 converter. Still 560 f/8 is pretty darn slow. Can't have everything for that cheap of a price, I suppose.
Well, $2700 isn't exactly cheap :)
I'm really puzzled what Nikon thinks. Who would possibly spend that much money on a reduced coolpix camera. Let alone that viewfinder for $450.
Abraxx: Buffer is already full with a few Raws in only second? Good for hunting snails... ;)Looking forward to test one, but thats unfortunately already one major design flaw.
It's not a design flaw, it's just not the camera that you want. So tired of people saying the camera is flawed just because it doesn't fit their need. Nikon has other cameras with deeper buffers, higher frame rates, better options, higher resolution, more accessories, larger sensors, smaller sizes, less expensive. You have the choice. Pick the right tool.
Nikon007: My advice has always been "stay away from wide Gamut unless you know what your doing". For me it's not worth the hassle to see colors no one else can. You don't see it in print, your clients don't see it, on the web they can't be seen. So what good is it? It's great for a dedicated graphics station but for general use it causes many folks a lot of head aches. So if WG is your cup of tea go for it. If your not sure do your research first, there are lot of threads on this subject going back for years and nothing has really changed.
So I assume you are also shooting JPG in small size instead of RAW?
LOL are you kidding me?! Learn how to draw a graph correctly. The difference between 8.57 and 8.23 is 4%. That's not twice as much as the visuals of this graph make you believe. 4% also seems like too small of a difference that would be within the margin of error on such polls.
Time and time again 'connect' is trying to stir up a controversy to gain some traffic on their site.
Remind me again how much this camera is? $12,000 ? Ah OK, never mind.
This useless test serves no purpose other than creating some traffic to the connect web site. The more controversial it is, the more people come and comment and create traffic.
It's great photography, end of story. Since when is art defined by the device that was used. Hello, it's 2013! Today's smart phones have amazing cameras. It's funny how people still try to make it sound like it was something really groundbreaking that great quality photos can be taken with today's phones.
ImageAcquisitions: I'm curious why Dpreview hasn't done a full blown out review on this issue. Especially after seeing this clear example of an issue.I wonder if:1. dpreview is handling Nikon with kit gloves to avoid any conflict with them so they can keep getting free equipment to do reviews. Sure, they can talk about the feature differences, but exploring this potentially defective product issue may be what they are contractually not able to do? What did the article say above "Expressed concerns" Asked nikon for a comment? Nice soft approach.He, do a full blown out review of this particular issue - don't wait for Kyle Clemens to explore it. Use your professional staff, paid no doubt, to do a full blown out investigation of the gear.
2. Nikon isn't ready for a multimillion dollar product recall. All the elements are there for a class action lawsuit against Nikon to a) Stop continually selling the defective product (maximize profits); preying on customers unaware of the situation who buy it anyway.
I consider the fact that DPReview posted this video in their news feed proof of exactly the opposite of what you claim.
Go ahead and do your "full blown investigation" on any camera and see how many dust spots you will find shooting white surfaces at f/22 and cranking up the contrast to 800%. You will be surprised what you will see.
FreedomLover: The worldwide corporate culture of secrecy, coverup, arrogance and contempt for their customers is astounding. No wonder they swamp these boards with bullying shills if they don't even talk with us about such defects. It's obvious they prefer selling defective cameras and destroying their brand's image over serving happy customers.
Why would anyone write about "dust", seeing the spraying, liquid nature of the dots, if not to minimise the PR damage?
"they totally ignored my letter that asked them to clean the excess oil from the mirror box. I even called them 3 times while the camera was in the shop and instructed them to clean the excess oil out of the mirror box. It obviously fell on deaf ears. I will have to keep wet cleaning my sensor."Nikon D7000 oil on sensor 2011 http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/38678387
The only reason they get away with such repeated gross negligence over years is because customers are still too nice and not all sending their defective products back.
They get away with it, because the majority of people doesn't shoot a plane white surface at f/22 and then increases the contrast to 600% on each photo.
I'm getting incredibly bored with the constant excuse of camera manufacturers say' This is only a preproduction sample, don't judge the image quality'. If it's not the final image quality, then why send the camera to the worlds LARGEST photography web site to have them post sample photos? Because the whole 'this is preproduction' is just a backdoor excuse.