It doesn't look good. For it's price it' even bad."Pure photography" my *ss...
Since we are comparing phone versus camera, why don't compare start-up times, focus speed, times between shots and etc. Well.. here's the answer: if you are OK with annoyingly slow camera - 1020 is good for you.
100D in white would be a "genius" move from canon to keep their customers.. :D
Kurt_K: Do we even need silly awards and percentage scoring? I'd be happy with just the pros and cons list and the IQ test results. Pretty easy to make up my own mind from there. Oh, but I guess I'm forgetting that most of the folks here don't want to make up their own mind; they want the camera aficionados to make it up for them.
Pros and Cons list is personal (DPR's) point of view as well. You might find them different.
I'm totaly fine with:-Design,-No built-in flash,-Size of a DSLR,-Old sensor,-Max shutter speed,-Battery,-Buttons. Human can get used to anything.And other old or crap parts.
I'm not fine with:-No video (at least 720p for sake)-No split focusing screen.This camera is presented as retro, that takes old MF so it's a must be.-PRICE. Man oh man... Can't comment on that. No buy.
After the price tag brings you back on the ground, you start to see what Nikon did:Took same D600 body and made more angular (no attempts for innovations to make it more compact);Took written off parts from Nikons warehouse and placed inside the camera;Removed some features like Video from it, so it won't compete with D610 or D800;Called it "pure retro photography" and that's it.This appears very convincing reason to rip off buyers.
Digital Suicide: It's a shame. Nikon almost nailed it.Nikon was very close to everyone's dreamed the perfect camera...
It looks great to me. Size is ok. But, man, no video is too bad... I really do now enjoy doing some videos as much as taking pictures.I could live at least with 720p...Well, the price will be decision point to many of us, I guess.
It's a shame. Nikon almost nailed it.Nikon was very close to everyone's dreamed the perfect camera...
Judging from rumored specs (old sensor, no video), nikon already made this camera with intention not to interfere with and canibalise less as possible their DSLR line. And something tells me, that Nikon won't be shy about pricing either.
Everyone likes samples, because they are oversaturated. It's psychology. Marketing works the same way.
808 and 1020 are meant to shoot in 5MP, not at ridiculous 38MP. What's the point comparing them at this resolution?
I've recently sold my FM3A and digital version would be welcome. Because still got 3 great F-mount lenses, that are waiting to be used. I could even live with 1 AF point (for focus conformation), single aperture priority mode, 720p 30fps video and that's it. Don't need any other unnecessary toys on the camera. But for $3000? No way.
DPR has to have it in the office. They publish "hands on" of every camera along with announcement.
Smallness is good for many users, but when it's too small it's inconvenient to operate.
RX10 name obliges to set price in the midle between RX100 and RX1 :)
Only two ot those, maybe. Or none at all.
I don't undrstand complains about clickless ring. For me it is perfect, when I shoot videos, change setting, or defocus insensibly...I've bought mkI just after it appeared in the market, and I have to say, all those "Cons" in the review are just made up sundries. These "cons" are not of those, that could annoy you in everyday use.
Actually, looks good enough to me.
How was with 808 camera start up times? Was it faster?
Uninspiring, same level like panasonix FZ-whatever...