photo nuts: Too large, too heavy, too expensive. No video.
Not competitive to Sony A7/A7R. Not even close.
the adapter for Alpha lenses makes it just as clumpsy than this one, the distance to the sensor is exactly the same with a lens made for a dslr. A Sony A7 can take just any lens with Sony and third party adapters, on this camera here, you are stuck with F mount lenses only.
@ dimar, stop spreading dung here, I don't know where you get that with a Sony you can't use any lens whatsoever . I use NEX cameras with all my Nikon glass, with all my Minolta and Leica or Voigtlaender lenses. Where do you see a problem with that. Go to Steve Huff's site and see how A7 and A7R perform with Sony, Zeiss, and hybrid lenses, I doubt much that this camera will compete it, and, with an A7 for 1695$ for the body, with tilt screen, with video, with 1/8000th, with 25 AF points in CD and 103 AF points in PD. So, compare what is comparable and beyond it's look, there is absolutely nothing on this Nikon camera to compare with Sony's A7, starting by it's price and it's crappy AF system.
28: if NIK prepares a camera with this price tag we can be certain to get something for our money. if we can settle with less technology our options go down to a pinhole camera, or a mobile phone for that matter. sure there is competition out there which is a beautiful thing. and ALL these cameras are way cheap, even the D800E, for what they offer, think of the design/production cycle (from labor to marketing) and that everyone involved with their skills, hearts and energy deserve a fair wage.also +1 to Sony, they surely deserve a invention price for what they contribute to modern photography!
"if NIK prepares a camera with this price tag we can be certain to get something for our money"
are you involved in any religion?
tkbslc: I don't know. Changing the ISO and EC sure look like a pain in the posterior.
the posterior, ohooh, je vois, Monsieur is a gentleman with distinguished langauge. We call that a pain int he a... The whole camera is a pain in the posterieur.
Mike99999: It looks insanely bloated. There's a comparison pic on Steve Huff's blog: the Sony and the Leica have such clean lines, and then there's the Nikon bloatfest.
Worst of all, you are paying $3000 for a camera with broken autofocus intended for APS-C. I have the Nikon Multi-CAM 4800 autofocus module in my current Nikon DSLR, and I know first-hand that it doesn't work at all. What an insult. Why carry a DSLR if the autofocus isn't even competitive with an Olympus PEN.
And don't get me started about that dreaded 50mm f/1.8G. I own it. It doesn't get sharp until f/2.8. The bokeh and rendering is horrible. I very much prefer my Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4. One would expect the full frame lens to be 4x better but it isn't, it's inferior.
I think I'm done with Nikon. It's just insult after insult. Abandoning DX, then forcing us to the broken D600 which is absolutely terrible in every aspect, and then this bloated attempt to compete with Sony/Olympus and Fuji. It's a poorly skinned D600 :(
You miss one point, this is a camera for Nikon suckers, so, pass away. There is nothing at all to compare on this camera with any other gear at all, except Nikon D600-610, and that is not a reference anyway.
zodiacfml: I would be interested @ $2000.
Buy Sony A7, a lot much more for a lot much less, and, you can use just any lens with an adapter on it, try that with this one, you'll see. Compare what is comparable, here, all you can compare is the look, for all the rest, you can burry it right away.
CeleryBeats: It all boils down to the same question. Why would i buy this???
BECAUSE IT'S A NIKON! :D
Reminds me bodybuilding jokes. One says that if the day comes that someone spreads around the idea that cows.h.i.t. builds muscle, bodybuilders will take over all the cleaning of the cow stables free of charge.
Now, do not treat all Nikon users like those bodybuilders, some are smarter than you think they are, what makes them different from bodybuilders.
dannyboy5400: Let me fix the Nikon Press ReleaseToday Nikon is proud to present a tool for fools who have more money than sense and a vain ego to match.
Maybe they will put a rosewood grip and offer a LV carrying case with it, when the day comes they find out it doesn't sells. Nice try to get rid of the unsold D4 sensors, but they made a misstake once more as it seems. Looks like an old VW with a Bentley engine, unfortunately they remained with the VW commands and wiring. So, good luck with that then.
There are many plumbers in this world that are more clever and intelligent than CEO's that are not able to hit a nail into a wall. It is not the 2000$ suit and the tie that make something better out of any human. Often it is the opposed.
sebastian huvenaars: This retro crap is hijacking the advance in contemporary design, looking forward to the day people are done with this nostalgia phase...
Imagine this thing 5 years from now, buyers are left with an old older-looking camera.
Imagine that everyone was seeing the wole world in the same way, how boring that was. Now, I just wait to get a new build 1959 Buick, with a groovy V8 and 650hp. Come on, when the new ideas reach the end, we start at the beginning, all is in rotation in the universe, it is all that was, al that is, and all it will be. It's just peridocity, period. We wanted retro look, we got it, we wanted a cheap priced camera, we.........euuuuhhhh, sorrrry, i miss something. Forget it?
Mike Yorkshire: Plenty of critics on this camera but didn't they notice the "retro" design is the very reason for this camera's existence? It was never intended to be a camera for everyone, nor a showcase for technical innovation. It is a futile exercise comparing this with other current cameras because none of them have a resemblance to the FM. This one does. I love the fact that the camera doesn't do video - I don't do video. If I did video I wouldn't feel comfortable doing it with this form factor - it wouldn't feel right. I am definitely old-school.There IS a market for classic designs, and the FM cameras were much loved by many. How big that market is Nikon are about to find out.
If you don't get it, don't get it. Simple.
Nobody will compete with you on that, those who do not want video, and I am among them, are happy to see a camera made for photographers only. But, please, not at that price.
andy amos: Great preview for the very pretty Nikon DF, but does F really stand for “Folly”, and the D for “Doomed”? Color wise, and talking retro, definitely black as back in the day of manual focus film cameras silver was the cheap option.
Digital Flopp I would say
2750$ for the body only. I will see in my pocket if I find the screw that is missing in Nikon's marketing director's head. Nikon will never learn.
HetFotoAtelier: Compared to Leica and Sony, this will be a good buy! and good build quality camera! it will be my street body and my D800 the studio body :-)And don't forget: 50% of the reactions here are dumm shooters or canonists ;-)
Ahh, a good buy. A body with 1/4000 speed, Sony 1/8000th, then 16 mpix, Sony 24 mpix, stuck with F mount, Sony take them all with adapters, No video, Sony has one, No tilt screen, Sony has one, 39AF points foressen for APSC and not covering the whole sensor surface, 25 CD points on Sony and 103 PD points on sensor, 2750$ body pricing against 1690$ for Sony.So, what do you compare on your side to say that this is a good buy compared to Sony. There must be something I miss here.
Just a Photographer: I'll buy it - However I will wait for the price to come down.This camera is a bit overly priced and should have been set in between D800 and D610.
Its a no-brainer that you currently get more bang for the bucks with the D800 then with this retrostyle camera. Though it will fit perfectly as a backup to the D800.
If you want to challenge Sony's A7 today, you need to sell the kit for the same price as Sony A7 body only. And this camera has nothing, no video, low pixel sensor, no tilt screen, 1/4000th, a 39 point AF foreseen for an APSC system and that covers not all of the surface of the FF sensor. All that remains is the retro look, but on the end, that serves to nobody in photoshooting comfort. Compare what A7 offers for 1690$ for the body, and then compare what this body offers for 1050$ higher, and you will ask yourself if you should laugh or if you should cry.
2750$ for the body, for a camera that has nothing to realy offer else than the look. Nikon will never learn. So, good luck with that.
jon404: Gee, those lenses are EXPENSIVE!
That new Pentax K-3 looks like a much better deal.
You can compare such things only the day when Pentax brings a FF body. And even then, you can see it this way, Pentax, stuck with a bulky Pentax dslr body for 1900$ ?? and Pentax mount lenses to be used only, or, Sony, body at 1699$ and use any lens you want with adapter, all the lenses you owe, use them, do not throw any away. Now, again, SONY...WINNER.
Things could change if Penatx goes Sony's way, mirrorless with adpaters from third party manufactureres. Beyond what Sony does now, what do you expect from other companies? All there is is DSLR or Sony mirrorless style, all that remains is proper development of those ideas, make things better, interchangeable sensor module for example, Ibis, interchangeable mount pates, and here, if camera manufacturers where smart, they would adopt one single mount for all ILS systems. By that all camera brand customers became their lens customers as well. With one mirrorless mount and one dslr mount, life would be much easier to live for us.
dylanbarnhart: This puts an end to the body stabilization vs lens stabilization debate. Sony finally figured out it was a mistake to stabilize the sensor and now put OSS on the lens instead.
we have more than 100 years photography, from which more than 60 years have seen sophisticated material, all kind of good cameras, and none had Ibis, OSS, VR, and what ever you call it. And, hell of a J.C., look the photos people have shot with them. On the end all you need now, is a robotized camera that walks around and shoot the pictures for you. For me, photography came alive again when Sony brought the NEX-7, I was master aboard of the vessel again, not the machine. And A7 continues that tradition, AF abd MF with all the comfort you need, and, MF is often faster than AF, specially when you consider the fact that you focus where you want right away, not where the camera wants at first. I would not switch back to any dslr yetI use a Fuji S5 with a split/fresnel matte, and that works quiet good as well.
vFunct: Mirrorless cameras are junk. They're like cell-phone cameras, with their visual preview lag, but they're not as useful as cell phones because they aren't pocketable.
There are only two useful camera classes: dSLRs and cell phones. Everything else is a useless compromise that isn't as good as either.
There are absolutely NO professionals that use mirror less cameras at a press event. Every press photographer uses either a Nikon or Canon, while the writers use iPhones.
Mirrorless cameras aren't as good as an dSLR or a cell phone, and therefore nobody uses them.
They are junk toys.
Smartass. There is an old one say that states, "oh lord, help me to keep my big mouth shout until I lnow what I am talking about."Take that as a life modus, and do not write that kinda scrap.
What makes me smile is that eternal comment, "great camera" while all we know is 39 focus point and 1/4000 second, no video. Now, what is there so "great". With those 3 features alone, it is an entry level FF with retro look. All I wait for is the price.
NTNphoto: If this this isn't too expensive I look at it as a great opportunity to get the D4 sensor that is in a $6k body for half or less than that price. I don't need the insane ruggedness or 10fps of the D4, but I could certainly use the best low light performing sensor on the market today. Sure they're probably reusing tech, but it's not like they're throwing a D80 sensor into a $3k body or anything.
Not saying I'll be getting one for sure until I get more details, but I think people are quick to put this camera down for a number of ridiculous reasons without giving it a chance.
I just think there's room for it in their stable of FF camerasD4- Pro sport shooters, wedding photographers, concert photographers, news, documentaryD800- Studio, Fashion, landscape, super high res D610- Kind of a mix of everything...Jack of all trades master of none in a way(not saying it's a bad camera I have its maligned little brother D600 and like it a lot)
There is room for something else
What makes D4 expensive is not the sensor you find in it. It is Nikon's pricing policy only. D4 is simply 3500$ overpriced, same as D3X.
anthony mazzeri: Will the price be retro as well in 1982 dollars?
one more reason again not to buy one, and another reason for Nikon to remain sitting on it. This is an entry level camera, the 1/4000 confirms this, the 38 AF point autofocus from D600 as well. so, no video, reduced shutter speed, smaller body, manual dialing, reduced to F mount lenses only, 1400$ for the body alone. beyond that, close the catalog and put it in the waste bin. Look at Sony A7 features all over, and you will be aware why any pricing higher than 1400$ for the body and 1650$ with the lens will be deadly for it. Sony went back wth the feet on the ground, offering a trendbreaking technology for a fair price, so why could Nikon do this for one time too.