Jogger: This would be a great soccer-mom camera, or a fun disposable camera for a pro with a lot of Nikon lenses.
My wife is a typical NY suburban soccer mom, and having traffic accident every 2 years. LOL.
peevee1: a3000, same thing but with EVF, sells for $280 with lens now. This thing should be $199.Seems to me they are switching to Canon's naming scheme, where bigger numbers indicate LOWER level cameras? Or just totally lost their minds and mess with their buyers.BTW, NEX-5t and 3N were the biggest Sony ILC sellers of 2013, it is their core.
No. Since CANIKON is trying to brainwash us into believing larger is better, Sony intentionally does the opposite, smaller is better, therefore more expensive.
Although to be fair, Canon is usually a super conservative company with it's products, so I'm a bit surprised they made this.
I imagine there will be a phone app made by someone shortly that does this (if there isn't one already).
I'm looking forward to seeing a Facebook friendly Canon printer with a camera that can capture our everyday life!
LOL. This is a typical ultra strange product from a big company based on the marketing research results. A few months ago, I remember Canon was using rainbow color to promote their first N concept camera without even knowing the rainbow is the iconic color for the minority against the big power like CANON. So cynical. I love to see N concept Powerpoint presentation materials, which should be full of jokes and myths!
RichRMA: Why buy a Fuji if it doesn't have the X-trans sensor? I thought that was the whole idea behind owning that system?
IQ is as good as low pixel full size.
Good micro contrast. Is this Sony Sensor?
plasnu: I mostly agree with the review. This is not a photographer's camera, anyway. Instead, this is for CAMERA enthusiasts after all. Or for someone really wants that D4 sensor.
Yes. I wrote a brief impression already and you had replied my post a few days ago!
I mostly agree with the review. This is not a photographer's camera, anyway. Instead, this is for CAMERA enthusiasts after all. Or for someone really wants that D4 sensor.
chooflaki: Nikon on their japanese website have put up an apolgy to customers because they cannot keep up with the unexpected demand. Looks like a winner.
Naive. This simply intend to inflame thirstiness, which is very common marketing method in Japan. Even ice cream maker utilize the same method. The cameras that Nikon makes are very straight forward and less gimmicky than the other companies, but the marketing method they do these days are somewhat ethically questionable, teaser, stealth, then this...
molnarcs: The level of cluelessness reached another low on dpreview - reading the comment section is quite disheartening (thank you SONY trolls for polluting all Nikon news with your senseless drivel).
Then we have the couch photographers who think that low-light performance is all about noise (and numbers representing that noise) It isn't. In terms of noise levels, all new Nikon FX bodies are within 1/3 stop of each other.
What matters more is dynamic range and colour depth at high ISO levels. Why? Because reduced dynamic range and colour depth will result in blown highlights, and more often, blown colour channels. That is where the DF sensor shines. Above ISO 1600, it maintains 2/3 stop advantage compared to the d800 (or the SONY A7r, A7). You can fix noise in post-production, you can't fix blown channels easily. And that advantage also translates into more white balance leeway (another problem in low, mixed light conditions).
Agreed. Under certain circumstances, D800/A7R may give us higher quality images, but it is more like gamble. Df gives us constantly good images. I can't say which is better.
plasnu: As a hybrid shooter (film + digital), I'm not impressed with this camera at all. I have tried this camera for a day with a high expectation (maybe too high expectation), I thought the overall design is not only ugly, but also somewhat unpractical for a digital camera, although I love real film camera's interface.
In terms of IQ, I can say Df's strength would be clean mid-high ISO and slightly better color at the high cost of the resolution. although the color is nothing special compared to film or CCD. To be honest, my Df's images are somewhat dated to my eyes that are accustomed to today's high MP digital images, and they are nothing comparable to real film images. What I'm impressed is the images from Df are very predictable and consistent, which would be very important for some professional photographers who always have to produce consistent images. So my conclusion is this camera would be a very good camera for wedding photographers or such, but not for me.
Due to NDA, I can't give you the detail of the RAW converter. The lens is Planar 50 1.4 only. Nice lens, however, I guess it would match better with high MP cameras. I have no experience with any digital Leica, but seeing the images posted on the net, I felt M240 is nothing different from the other cheaper CMOS cameras. The color of M8 is very different,, for sure. M9?, it's okay. After all, I should understand that I should not expect good color from digital cameras, anyway.
As a hybrid shooter (film + digital), I'm not impressed with this camera at all. I have tried this camera for a day with a high expectation (maybe too high expectation), I thought the overall design is not only ugly, but also somewhat unpractical for a digital camera, although I love real film camera's interface.
CarVac: I did some measurements of photos: these speedboosters get to within about 9mm of the sensor. M43 cameras have rather large filter packs and thick shutters, so I doubt these would even fit in most cameras.
I wonder if there's the possibility for a 0.66x version for Fuji X, which lets lens elements get within 10.7mm of the focal plane. That would provide complete full-frame equality for that system.
I love Roger Cicala.
robogobo: Well, as a moderately happy owner of the original M, I'm used to this camera's being overlooked for not keeping up with the specs wars, but allow me to explain why I love my M despite its many flaws.
1) Canon glass. Not only is the 22mm tack sharp, but with the ef adapter I can use all my L glass, which do this APS-C sensor justice.
2) Image quality. The M definitely has one of the best IQ of all the mirrorless. If that's important to you, it's reason enough to get one.
3) AF problems were overblown. It had a rough start, but the firmware update finally fixed the AF problems. It's still not the fastest, but I don't find it a problem anymore.
4) I have to repeat: Image Quality.
IQ? A Canon user that actually has compared their camera's IQ with the other is rare. They tend to blindly believe their camera IQ is better than the other. (or good enough.)
marike6: So this is where mirrorless fans come with their unrealistic views of the camera market to laugh at the EOS M.
In the meantime, Canon will continue to dominate the camera industry and they will continue to laugh all the way to the bank. :-)
Ordinary people who walks in BestBuy to buy a new camera doesn't understand the difference between this junk and the other mirrorless cameras. They just choose CANON brand, so it's completely waisting for Canon to make a competitive camera.
:cast pearls before swine
A professional and unbiased review. I'm sick of Steve H or someone's unprofessional impressions on their commercial BLOG.
DSLR is already retro even without retro skin.
Craig from Nevada: Retro is soooo 2012
This project delayed due to earthquake. It should have been done earlier, at least before a7 and EM1.