Mike Sivcevic: Adobe is screwing Australian customers yet again. LR5 costs $149 on the US site and $186 on Australian site. Same product, same server, same credit card gateway, 25% difference.
They've constantly been screwing us up, most notably with the CS6 that is about twice the price here comparing to the US pricing. It is cheaper to board the plane, fly from Australia to USA, buy a boxed copy in store and fly back.
Greedy corporate morons!
Australians get ripped off because they are prepared to pay more (because wages and salaries are generally higher). It's all about demand, not the cost of shipping the product or exchange rates etc. The proof is when you purchase digital content online where there are no transportation fees yet the Australian price is much higher.
To me it's simple really. Once you come to terms with the fact that a camera interprets light, rather than accurately representing it perfectly, you'll be liberated from so many restraints.
vFunct: Far too many moronic non-professional photographers that think they are in the same league as professional photographers.
No, you're not as good as a professional photographer because you are using a consumer dSLR. Any editor can tell who is using high-end equipment and who isn't, in addition to be being able to spot artistic talent suitable for their media brand.
The editor defines who is pro. Not you.
I love reading utterly ridiculous comments like those from vFunct. Told with such conviction! Pretty myopic point of view though. A pro is anyone who makes money from doing what they do, not just your 1DX/D4 owners. Anyone who thinks otherwise obviously hasn't been inspired by what some creatives have been doing lately. Also, gear that is regarded as mid-level/semi-pro/whatever today is more 'professional' in terms of technical capabilities than the professional gear used years ago. What does that say about professionals back then? Maybe they weren't 'pro' all along...
Guessing the Coolpix A viewfinder costs more to manufacture than one of either the sensor or the lens. Interesting.
Winning shot looks like an oil painting. Not in a good way...
Valiant Thor: Proof that it's not about photographic excellence, it's about the message and the agenda.
Yep. And IMO the success of the shot can mainly be attributed to the drama that is already present in the scene.
(unknown member): I would buy this camera anyday over the D600! It is that good!
Thanks for your input.
Adrian Joseph Roy: Meanwhile, cameras like the OM-D and NEX-7 are sporting blazingly accurate and fast AF, superb high ISO, offering up a host of really attractive prime lenses, and all for somewhat reasonable price tags.
Canon, I've been with you since my first EOS-3 SLR. It's been an awesome ride so far. But you're breaking my f*%#ing heart over here.
They will probably still sell loads of them.
Tomas_X: Why the D300 owner does not want D7000. I can hold my D300 whole day in my hands, but 3 hours holding D7000 results in right hand pain. Bad grip and smaller discomfort body.I know the differences between AF MultiCAM 3500 DX (D300/D3/D4/D800) and 4800 DX (D7000/D600). The AF in D300(s) is bettter than the one in D7000. And the reason is not 51 points versus 39 points. I want the fastness, reaction, buffer, framerate of D300 successor, not the D7000 effort. I want 8-10 fps of the further D400. I want 3/5/7/9 steps exposure bracketing, I could not make this photo with D7000: http://www.tomx.eu/Foto/Vylety_Cechy_a_Morava/Vyhlidka_Maj_2011/slides/Vyhlidka_Maj_03.html . I want D300 strategy of exposure metering, not D7000 burned highlites. I want to connect big flash lights to D300 body connector which D7000 does not have. I want D300 material quality, not D7000 problems well known. I want AF-ON, D300/D4 features of AF, not reducted D7000 sets. I want lossless NEF compression.
Just quickly, the D7000 is a great camera although it does have a few quirks. Metering and AF the main ones IMO. I own one, enjoy using it but understand why people would go for the D300s over it for the aforementioned reasons.
Ok, good, now can we get a fully stripped down version? I'm talking like butt naked, bare bones, no $1000 red dot, basic finish, forget bundling with Lightroom, scrap the movie mode. There's gotta be some other stuff you can remove from the body, Leica... :)
David Rosser: Park CamerasD800 £2249D600 £1956If you can afford £1956 you can afford an extra £293. I can't see many people rushing to buy D600 now D800 price is dropping and it is available of the shelf.Nikon have not timed this at all well D600 street price will drop quickly to something under £1700.
Ridiculous. Who the hell would buy one at that price when for a few hundred more you could get a D800? Regardless, I don't even really see £1956 of innovation here. I think they're overestimating how much people really desire a FF body with an intention to shell out a lot of cash.
raztec: Great to see competitiion in this market. Sony and Fuji are really pushing the envelope to provide serious photographers what they've always wanted: An affordable full-frame rangefinder style camera.
Hopefully in the next few years we'll have the same but only with a good viewfinder, interchangeable lenses, and excellent MF capabilities.
Nikon and Canon should wake up and stop playing the marketing game and get their engineers to produce the cameras that serious photographers demand.
Not sure why people refer to these types of cameras as rangefinder style cameras. What is the resemblance to one?
Sweeeet! Now I can take FF shots of my cat without having to worry about lugging around a bag of lenses.
Nice, but I'd like an OVF, no need for flash or mic input, I.... well I guess I should just get an X-Pro 1. :)
xoio: ANOTHER 'wave it about in front of your face like a stupid iphone' camera.Sorry, but this recent 'trend' from numerous manufacturers' of omitting EVFs & OVFs is really S**t!
@h2k Fair enough. Not sure how you see clearly enough in bright sunlight but if it works for you then great.
I also find tucking a camera against my face more stable than holding it outstretched. I also rarely need to hold the thing above crowds or use it to peep around corners or whatever it is one needs an articulating screen for but hey, that's just me.
Yes, but most enthusiast level and upward models retain a viewfinder, as their users would appreciate and no doubt use frequently. These latest compacts, however, don't fit this category.
VivaLasVegas: 24 mp is soft and mushy beyond ISO 800, 1080i as in interlaced, lens noise can be heard during video, LV is slow and outdated, AF and metering not as sophisticated as Canons, only 4 fps, lacks an in-body autofocus motor.......Sony, Pentax and Canon is a better alternative.
@Tap0 Just curious, how is VivaLasVegas a Canon fanboy? He mentioned three genuine alternatives.
Let's hit 1000 wonderful comments.
Gully Foyle: Entry level DSLRs become redundant. From my perspective, none would miss the 650D or the D3200 if an APS-C mirrorless was the entry level camera.
Specifically for the 650D, it looks to me Canon is a generation behind. It barely bests the D3200 (all things considered) and we haven't even seen what D5200 will be like. Not to mention the truly innovative SLTs. More so if you take into account that Canon has used the same mirror technology decades ago, I can't imagine why they weren't the first to reintroduce the technology. Plus, Sony could put their hybrid AF system from the RX-100 into the SLT line, be done with the mirror and step even more forward.I've said it countless times, I'm expecting Nikon to do this with one of their next releases, probably a D5200 without mirror and with an EVF. Or even without, a-la K-01. I, for one, wouldn't mind.
+1. I feel much more comfortable looking through an OVF.
Can we get an anti-name-alias filter for this thing? One model name is sufficient enough.