Good balanced appraisal. GearShop recommended.
Billions of astounding photos have been taken without autofocus, auto aperture or auto exposure—and still can be. The over-reliance on autofocus is one of the detriments of modern digital photography, if anything.
1-Does the legacy lens focus accurately.2-Can I set a desired aperture.Then we are off to pictorial quality.Enjoy.
tbcass: Using image magnification for MF absolutely demands the use of a tripod.
I wouldn't presume that AF outperforms manual focus.
I don't believe any one has ever claimed that all full-frame 35mm film era lenses will cover a full frame digital sensor, or perform as well as a digital era lens. But that doesn't mean that a given vintage lens can't have valuable pictorial quality. This is one of the great problems of the digital era-expecting every sensor to be alike and every lens to be "sharp." We have lost the picitorial quality of lenses and the idiosyncrasy of lenses. Using vintage lenses on digital sensors can involve an exploration of different effects.
I have used many film era lenses on the Samsung NX and there is no way to predict how they will perform. Some have issues. Others perform beautifully.
Astrophotographer 10: A surprisnigly negative review. The reviewer clearly is biased against Sony. The excellent manual focusing ability of this camera - the best out there - is suddenly no good.Not my experience at all.Who tests an A7/r with junk legacy lense as well???How about the beautiful Zeiss, Contax g, Contax Yashica, Canon FD, Nikon AIS, Leica R lenses. The images posted from these are stunning.
Noone in their right mind is going to use a 17mm Vivitar which is a lens unsuited to this camera which the reviewer obviously does not know.A hatchet job of reviewing.
Great points. First, it doesn't matter what the results are. It's the fun of using different lenses for their idiosyncrasies. But, yes, the idea is really what can I do with my Lecia R, Contax SLR lenses, etc.
We're really going backward in camera design and ergonomics with these retro cameras. Just being made complicated in a different way, in fact duplication of controls.
BarnET: The 1/4000th is already an con versus it's competitors.I really hope the Flash sync is 1/320. The Sensor will probably be great as usual from Fujifilm. But since the rumours indicate an price off $18001/8000th shutter was not too much too ask here. especially with an base ISO of 200.
I can't believe where we have come. I think it is absurd to consider 1.4000th sec a limitation on a camera. Would 1/8000th solve everything? How about 1/16000th. I've been working with cameras for more than 50 years and can get by time with 1/1000th top shutter speed.
Mystery Gardener: I see that a lot of the whiners and complainers commenting on the new Adobe CC features are the same people who fervently stated that Adobe would not add any new features to the CC product (no incentive). Please stand up and be counted (yes, you too hiding in shadows at the back of the room).
I am still using CS6 but will be joining the cloud group in the future if they keep adding new functionality. My cable/internet/phone package is 200 dollars a month, 10 bucks a month seems relatively cheap (basically the same cost as 2 good cups of coffee).
Not everyone needs the latest and greatest or is interested in constantly having to upgrade computing power to handle such "all-everything" programs.
justin23: The issue with the rental model stills continues. If you stop paying for the rental model, your files are trapped without anyway of opening them. Worst case they should allow you to open and save any files even if your subscription is no longer valid.Luckily Lightroom is probably all most photographers really need.
Should be a Photoshop Reader program that will open and allow export of the files. Reader standalone programs were quite common in the olden days of software.
completelyrandomstuff: To Dpreview: How is the build quality of those lenses? Are they made of cheapo plastics or some decent ones?
What factories are Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Fuji, Panasonic point and shoots made in?
SeeRoy: A low-cost M4/3 camera - providing it's a decent performer - is a great idea if it reinforces the format. Let's hope it's successful.
I agree but actually many of the Kodak point and shoot cameras were quite good, especially the lens and sensor. They were made cheaper by less powerful processing engines, probably other older components.
I think these models prove not that JK is copying the established OEMs, but, rather, that the OEMs "order up" and then specify their cameras from a common pool of assemblies.
noflashplease: I think I would judge these products on the basis of their own merits, such as they are. I'm not a fan of Asian companies reusing bankrupt American brands, especially brands like Kodak that were tarnished by decades of All-American mismanagement. I'd have an easier time accepting a produce badged "JK Imaging" than "Kodak." I have no opinion on the parent company but I do remember Kodak and those memories aren't all positive or nostalgic.
As far as the similarities between the JK Imaging SL10 and the Sony QX10, I'm not in a position to judge. There are instances where third party manufacturers have the right to sell a design they produce for one brand to another brand. There are other instances where the issue is disputed, and there are instances of convergent evolution - companies having the same idea and developing it separately to the effect that two separate products end up being entirely similar.
I agree. What is the value of using Kodak, GE, Honeywell, Polaroid names.
Yes. The components on modern digital cameras are obviously shared and who knows who "owns" each aspect. This is why so many cameras look alike, right down to button placement, and why the new models can come out so quickly.
revio: DPR says: "The D3300 continues to be one of the smallest and lightest digital SLRs on the market"
How can a NEW camera "continue to be one of the smallest..."???
Since it´s not been existing until now, it can´t of course...
The D3300 seems, anyway, to be a nice and capable camera, and notably smaller than its predecessor was.
Would like to see it compared to the Canon SL1.
Gesture: Because we can.
I don't see one manufacturer breaking through with something more powerful, yet more elegant and simpler to operate. The entire modern digital camera interface needs to be re-thought, but that would take re-working all the existing sub-assemblies on the circuit boards, etc.
Thank you for correctly clarifying my remark.
iae aa eia: They should have taken the advantage of being able to make an even more compact 18-55 to make it any brighter with the same size and close to the same price. For instance, an ƒ/2.8-4.8. Or the same aperture but wider zoom range (but still the same size and close price). For instance, an 18-65 or an 16-55. Those alternatives would sound much more interesting. Better investing in such compactness for a mirroless system, because even with a pancake lens, an SLR will always be quite bulky.
That costs more-for us. Your suggestion would be of greater value and make the kit more appealing, so I agree. Nikon just doesn't think that way. The advances are dribbled out, much like Apple has done throughout its history.
How does this compare to the Canon SL1, which it may be answering.
Because we can.
Is the modern digital camera reaching its end-point.