Zigadiboom: You see the Mazda 6 is a very good quality car in its own right. However if you try and price it the same as a BMW 5 series or Mercedes E class then it doesn't seem like such a good deal anymore.
good way to compare. If you buy a Mazda 6, you get all the accessories included, except, maybe, leather seats, nothing more to buy. If you buy a German car, any of them, you get a spartan equiped, tasteless box, and all you want in there to make it warm and liveable, cost you the a.s.s. out of the pants. So is camera market too. No need to say that the sole Greman one remaining, costs you the same a.s.s. out of your pants, for nothing, or almost, more, maybe even some less.
D1N0: Breaking: Rumors hit dpreview! How about the om-d e-m1 rumor? Not enough leaks yet?
Hope we will not see now suddenly DPR-Rumors rising. DPR is the chamion of "click around to find you way" site. We know the game, every page has publicity and the more pages you click, the more they get money for this. That's why you have to click eternally around on this site to find what you look for. On the end we will need a site map to find back our children in that jungle. DPR is informative, good reports, like it, but the whole site is a crap and a real mess, in other words, a waste of time. I more step over to other sites lately, Imaging Resource, Photographyblog, Techradar, and similar are simple, easy to overview, and in one click you are where you want to be, and not around seven corners. DPR sucks.
pavi1: No viewfinder, think I will stick to my iPhone and D300S for now. When will they learn?
An I phone is a Phone that makes pictures, a camera is a machine that takes pictures and makes video only, so, a camera has to have a viewfinder. Without that it is a yuppie tool for ladies and tourists. You can make pictures without a VF, but for the optimal comfort in all situations, a VF is must. Me, as a very old photographer, would never play with a camera without VF. I never take shots with a lcd display, unless a subject is at ground level.
iAPX: I think that it's not necessarily the best move for Fuji, to have a lower-quality sensor, and lower price-point for it's mirorless camera system, at least for the non-fixed lens models.
I'd rather preferred a low-cost variant of the X100s, meaning no hybride EVF (or no EVF at all), the impressive 16MP X-Trans sensor, the incredible X100s fixed-lens, with less expensive body (meaning plastic instead meatl), and simpler controls for beginners.
A camera for the beginners of our days, that will be able to deliver incredible results and still be accessible to anybody, with nearly perfect DR 400% JPEG quality out of the box!
Let's wait and see. First of all, we do not know what sensor Fuji will use, and if it does same good color and sharpness, combined with less artifacts and ghosting, it could in some way "do better". We are always open for surprises. Specially the algorythm will probably be a common sense one and here PS and other soft will make a good job with it, in opposite to X-trans and it's secret algorythms that Fuji does not wants to open to them. Do not forget that X100 is considered one of Fuji's best gear and that one has no x-trans sensor, but just an ordinary one. That sensor is somewhat old, so I suspect Fuji to take that Sony 20 mpix this time, but this is only "I suspect" stuff.
yabokkie: it says "fast and wide" in the title.
I'd say moderately fast and moderately wide for a 35/2.1 equiv. that's the work it can do, no more, no less.
Stop your mathematical bullsh. here. If you use a FF lens, the center is sharp and the edges are generally more blurry. An apsc lens concentrates more light to the center part, just like you do with a magnifying glass in sunlight. Here you get more center sharpness on broader scale and less DOF on edges. Now, the sensor does a big difference too, since the diffraction angle is steeper in a smaller sensor, and flatter in a larger sensor, all that makes bigger sensor produce more DOF and smaller sensor better in depth sharpness. None of the both does a better shot at same small picture size. If you reduce a D800 shot to a 6 mpix size, the result will not be seen by anyone compared to the same shot taken by a 1 1/7 sensor. Yes, an adverted photographer will see it when he magnifies the picture, but is that the goal of shooting photos. Many, comparabely "bad" quality shots have made history, and today, there is no such "bad" camera on the market anymore.
Hetty: It is such a shame that DPreview is becoming like this. It is full of anti-DSLR comments and users. I often think those who say that DSLR is terrible are just jealous that they cannot buy a 5D or something, its quite pathetic and sad. Sorry but a DSLR will not be getting replaced any-time soon in most pros bags, wake up you dreamers. I still shoot with a 40D!
The not affordable story is crap here. Some mirrorless like RX1, Leicas, are much more expensive than the ordinary Dslr. I have a Fuji S5, a couple of Nikon boxes, and since I have the Sony NEX-7, the dslr's take dust. Same, even better pictures, no weight, fast to use and with a pancake, perfect in a pocket.
Go to the site of Steve Huff, and you will see what he says about dslr's. Nothing against them, they are what they are, and in many situations, indispensable tools. But, today, at computer screen view size, and normal album print sizes, a Nikon V1 makes the same good shot as a D800. All is about what your goals are. Deeper DOF, photos in poster size, than you are good for a dslr. For the normal all day use, an excellent pocketable, RX100, NEX with a pancake, Fuji x series, Sony RX1, Samsung NX, GX7, are the better option. You put a collapbsible lens and a pancake in you pocket and you walk, no weight, no stress, and same good shots, and in many cases, even better ones.
I find it so funny to see those small "wanna be a big one" cameras, loaded with buttons and wheels, and a nitty bitty sensor in them. Just ask myself why they are so big. In that body, Nikon could with easy have installed a 1 sensor. It would, at least, have become an interesting camera.
mr_landscape: Absolutely useless camera. Who needs all these millions of options on a camera with such tiny sensor. Nikon lives in a stone age. This model line is a 100% dead end.
And, slightly bigger than an NEX 7, thus not that pocket friendly.
yaduck9: It is an attempt to "guide" consumers down the path toward mirrorless cameras. Its about lowering production costs by getting rid of the mechanical mirror assy. The new consumers are being mesmerized by corporate marketing into thinking that whatever crap that giant corporations produce is "better". Granted, technology marches on, and I am sure at some point mirrorless will surpass DSLR technology, but it is a bit nauseating to go through this "transition".
Someone once claimed that as human history moves forward, the amount of technological change will progressively be larger, and hence change will occur quicker. Hang ON!
you all write here with a wisdom, people, and you all act as if the VF was the picture you are supposed to shoot. I use the Sony EVF since bits of time and I do not step back. His disadvantage is his advantage, you see the noise of the sensor and by that you know what you will get. In few years, you will have OVF as exclusive yuppie accessory only, and probably only in nostalgic 10000$ bodies with some colored dots on it.
xlotus: Since NEX 3N has been on sale for $329 and NEX 5R is currently on sale for $439, would anybody still prefer to buy the A3000? and why?
This camera has not more and no less features than the ancient Nikon D40. And, let's not forget, it was Nikon's bestseller. I still have one, I will not sell it since it makes excellent shots and still serves me. If I had to replace it, I would go for this A3000. This camera is a see and click toy, just like some children of all ages need them when on holidays. And, it has an amazing sensor. I wait a few more models to pass by, maybe the A3100, A3200, A5000, A5100, A7000, A7100. Do I write jokes here? or do we miss something?
ezradja: NEX 3 sensor with built in evf and comfortable hand grip without the extra money? Nice play Sony!
NEX3 sensor? Read the specs first, Dude.
When do they start with FF dslr cameras where you just slide a smartphone in a slot on the back.
That hub is useless, having 4 x 64 gigs of pictures at once or only 64 gigs at once, you will never rework that much shots in one day. If you plug 4 usb adapters in a simple hub, you get the same. Then, for the USB adapter, I ask myself why cameras can not have a usb slot to simply put such adpaters in. You pull them out, plug into your PC and the thing is done. Easy and fast to change, you cary a few in different colors for the type of work you do. But, camera makers have not even yet found that USB3 is reality. In opposite they waste their time with more microwave pollution by wi-fi.
Dazed and Confused: These comments have made me realise that lots of people don't understand what the 'standard' in standard zoom means....
This is crap. Who can define a standard zoom? For that, we need first to fix that standard. If you look at other manufactureres, a fast Zoom with such an aperture is always short in range, the Nikon 17-35/2.8 for example, the Tokina 11-16/2.8 is another one. The faster a zoom gets, the shorter the range. Doing a zoom of a displacement of more than 20 mm with such an aperture is a challenge, and imagine the size you need to do this.
So, if Sigma brings us a 18-35 with 1.8, one can only say, "hats off" it's a performance. Now, if they did a 18-55/1.8, it would be the size of 300/2.8 barrel, and I doubt that anyone would buy it. My only concern is that it is somewhat expensive, but, i will not buy it anyway, I prefer to invest that money in a huge prime with 1.8 or 1.4 aperture.
and a few squeezed, don't forget the change, and the tip. For that price there are a lot of other ideas going through my head. It's the price of a Fuji x-pro1 with a correct lens.
husada16: It is a pity that it has no full hd (449 ppi)super amoled to portrayed the good captured pictured. The lcd screen looks dull n pale like the one in galaxy camera. Just wait for the s amoled ones.2nd should have been DSLR type android camera. Mirrorless camera does not performs as good as dslr type. 3rd it has no stylus n front camera. 4rd the screen is too small for video editting like the one one galaxy camera. It should be at least 5.5 inch at least like the one on note 2.
Go bck to the moon, dude. There's place there for dreamers and spinners.
Shamael: Wow, this will bring Nikon to leadership position, hahaha. How about lower prices on the better stuff. At Nikon, every buton or hinge added, doubles the price.
The manufacturers follow all a protective policy on cameras, prices are kept wide spread to justify 3 or 4 models with the same sensor, thus giving a camera to every budget, what is crappy system. Better produce one with all features and sell it at honnest prices. Look how Nikon keeps mirrorless high to advantage DSLR's, look their prices on FF to protect APS-C sales, while non of those cameras cost more in production than any other one. Sony comes slowly down to better pricing, what makes it affordable, Nikon sticks to high prices and is surprised of bad sales rates, so is Canon. We are worldwide in a crisis, money gets rare and people are not willed to pay those astonishing prices anymore, and here, even those who can easely afford it, don't want to pay that. So, is it not time to put the feet back on the ground. Now, tell me what difference you find in a shot made by a D3200 and D7100? There is none, it is the same sensor. The difference is 800$, that's all, if you consider IQ
Canon is nothing better here, so is Sony. They save in features to sell it cheaper. No motor drive on low end nikons, no tilting lcd screen on low end Sony's, and so on. If I compare all Nikon's, from 3200 to 7100, I find the same basic camera with different fetures and bodies. The sensor and on the end, the IQ are the same, but as I said, every button, every added feature, you pay for it in massive amount of money. Check the differences of D7100 compared to D3200, and then see if it is worth what you pay for them. A more sophisticated 51 point AF, a lens drive motor, a different less evolved body, weather sealed, but for that no tilting screen. Now, is it worth to pay 1200$ for the body while 3200 body is 400$. So, with what do you want to justify the 800$ difference. Producing the chips and that few added things is for me a difference of a 100$ and here I calculate high. And here, no matter what manufacturere it is. Sony's better than A3200 will sell at least 250$ more too.
CFynn: So now we know. DPR editors read Nikon Rumors too
Does it matters where an information comes from? DPR has to get them somewhere, and here it proves that our friend Butler is surfing around and fetches information, instead of playing computer games. Butler .... 10 points.