Ozwork: Where is the aperture ring? I do not want retro or retro sake. I want a camera that is as functional as the 1970's models. Manual dial for Shutter speed Aperture and ISO. Miss one and you miss the point.
yeah .. the included so called special edition lens is a G lens that says a lot. you could use manual lenses but it's going your own way not the so called special edition package deal they are promoting.
Wye Photography: Instead, you could go real retro and shoot in real RAW and buy a F2 or F3 for a tenth of the price and have enough change to buy 600 rolls of that wonderful Tri-X stuff.
if it was an important family friends portrait or wedding yeah i will shoot digital. if it is just a picnic or at the beach or garden i am still using my old D70, like to get a used Richoh GR though. but if family friends esp the older generation want some like long time haven't seen pple portraits done i might shoot film with that b/w or color neg maybe like a 6x6 format. if it was sports, events, fashion i would shoot digital but seldom do that stuff. time consuming landscapes i just choose to shoot velvia or b/w street photography to bring the grit out. after seeing the tokyo photography forum gallery - there quite a difference between their digital gallery and their film gallery quite a diff look between the two.
at the end of the day for me i am shooting more film now than digital for deliberate shots. tripod, fine grain film try to get every shot, more involved for this hobby than just take check take check and download and photoshop kinda thing and b/w film gets that grain that i like or that older look at least what i have been told by others. for my snapshots i use a digital, the Ricoh GR when used looks great also great for coffee chats and stuff when you just want snapshots and 99% gets put on social media anyway .. at the end a digital camera is going to cost $1,000 or $3,000 or whatever. those who shoot film probably aren't gonna shoot $3,000 worth of expense every so years ... but sure if you want the cheaper camera to shoot a lot, easier and quicker, more instant gratification it is digital. on average i shoot 10-20 rolls a year, not that expensive and digital is not the same as it. even if they had a affordable Df like a FM body etc etc .. still won't be the same as real film.
it's retro you can put aside the price, many people are willing to pay big money for these. 16MP good enough, slower AF fine it's fine too not a sport machine. i am not that old of a guy. but these special edition package is a G lens couldn't they try to give us a manual AIS lens at least packaged at least they are still selling some new manual lenses. manual focus for pre Ai even ... sweet but no focus screens. the thing has more buttons than my D70. it supports WiFi, GPS, 120m radio receiver, consumer remote cable as well as the traditional one. it even supports live view and HDR. what's pure about that? i will continue to shoot with my FM2N. this is a bulkier camera than a discreet FM for street photography too .... it's just a D4 sensor in a remodelled D610 body.
nathondetroit: The only thing that sucks about this generation of cameras is that we're paying more money for less features. There are benefits of usability, and some construction/durability benefits, but in general stripping cameras down to their basics should yield some cheaper bodies as well.
Why not replace a mode dial with a shutter speed dial on the D3200? Why not replace a high res screen with a low res one? (Think M9–If the screen isn't the primary finder, then its performance isn't a necessity). There could be a pretty "hip" plastic rendition of these cameras...
Once "simple" and "retro" break through the "premium" class of cameras, there will be a huge reaction; Throw some real dials on entry levels cameras and give purist consumers a chance to reap the benefits on technological advancement–not pay a premium to get a luxury replication of bricks of the past.
motor vehicles get cheaper over time despite features crammed in ... what's the next major camera technology going to cost us then .... and look at the cheap point and shoot cameras they're not $500.
Debankur Mukherjee: The body should be without grip and auto focus to call it a true retro design....
i woudl jsut shoot film myself, was shooting Fuji ProC 160 just a moment ago today. It's never gonna be a retro as a Leica digital, it's like a Fuji with a grip? And even Leica digital isn't that retro. A sensor output isn't gonna be like TriX or HP5+. Some places like Japan film is still quite popular than other countries. You can walk in and buy a brick of 20 rolls of film.
Marksphoto: Looks like the F2 is back and looking good, but where is the chrome?
I was waiting for a camera which would give me the option of using simple layout such as shutter speed dial, apperture dial and we need a WB dial with ISO dial so that we can create perfect jpegs on the fly without the hassle of going into the comlex menus to do the same thing 4 simple dials would do for manual mode shooters.
love a real manual focus only. just like the good old days. hope it doesn't have pop up flash too. aperture ring only, shutter dial on top only, no func button, DOF preview and a lens removal button and a bright viewfinder. a mechanical screw in cable release on the shutter button. if only ....
even in the film days when new they were cheaper. F100 body $1000US, $2000US was it for the F5 top of the line, much cheaper was the FM3A or FM2N. these days it's $3,000 or $6,000 is it and the non pro $2,000US D610/600 for a F80 full frame film camera in the day.
if they wanted reto they could have just made it manual focus ONLY. if one really go retro i mean look at APUG analogue forum you can place that $6,000US less the NIB condition film body of your choice then the $5,000+ into film and lab every 4 years.
Kodachrome200: Everyone is saying this is going to be 3000 bux and to me this is just nuts. no way it is. this is just like when every one said the d800 was going to be 4400 it made no sense in the market. this is an attempt to gain some of the cool factor mirrorless has and have a hit. its tech specs are great but there is nothing to make you think it will cost more than 1800-2300 range. And dont say the d4 sensor. the s4 sensor is not what makes the d4 expensive
more pro features than the D610. AF-ON button, round viewfinder, normally reserved for the pro cameras like the F100, F series, D series, D700, D800. I think it's more than the D610 but prob at least the same as a D800 (body). i doubt its gonna be the D700 replacement that some think .. it's a retro, not a fast dynamic AF machine, fast FPS ... it's not a semi sports / wedding camera.
would not a die hard fan just shoot film film and lab services are readily available in cities plus b/w processing is easy, got my first one done without issues just a few months back. it's like getting a mustang and put in a electric engine with builtin satnav and complaining that it doesn't have auto wipers or it may well have that too .. that may be $3,000 per product cycle into film and lab cost.
jon404: I have a Sony RX100. Now, I don't know if I'm comparing apples with oranges, but why on earth would someone buy this Leica?
to an extent isn't this with all cameras even with the SLRs too? when you look at what most people use their cameras for. don't get me wrong SLRs is very versatile, some are built for studio strobes, sports, wildlife. but what do most users use them for and what do many crave for. and every few years bodies upraded and every couple of years lenses are upgraded. doesn't it come a point in time when i have enough or do we keep on upgrading just because .. some do spend few hundreds on sunnies, but i've been told by some why do I spend thousands on photo gear .. i don't make any money out of it, it's just a hobby.
I just developed my first roll of b/w last week. My first camera in 1999 was a Canon Rebel (film) or the EOS 3000. It is not hard at all .... having owned a 2003 dSLR and now the Nikon D600 I find that over time this is the new look we have now and woudl probably change again. Without going into plugins or the advanced techniques, digital cannot get a look to the old style b/w film. On my spreadsheet a kit cost $25US some chems last 6 months and some last 3 or 5 yrs but provided you use the cheaper powder developer, each 6 months it does 6 rolls and you do this for the 5yrs so you don't waste any chems. Per roll of film $2US to develop. I'll use digital for colorful snaps ie high ISO night cityscape portraiture, weddings, wildlife, sports etc ... but streets, real timeliness family shots, landscape i prefer film color or b/w...... Looking at developing my E6 now with home kits. Since I import fresh film and export for development to the USA. Roll of Velvia cost $35US here.
For fast pace sure digital will be better suited but if one is doing it as a hobby or fine art as a job, film is still ok when you don't need a quick turnaround. But for those who compare digital to 150 rolls of film. Did you guys use that much film for a hobby in the film days and when film back then was much cheaper? But again, certainly for work or hobby like weddings, wildlife, sports I would never dream of shooting film but if it's just a special outing, like travel, landscapes, walk about at the campsite holiday, do you shoot that much ...
My first real camera was a 1999 year old Canon Rebel or an EOS 3000 and simply shot Fuji Superia and Kodak Gold. I just developed my first roll of b/w film last week. It is so easy I don't know why they don't do it themselves.
I got a few utensils off my camera club. No labs quality is better than DIY. As a home user, the developer can be used as a one-shot and throw away, the stop bath you might want to use it just 2x of just as a one-shot since it last up to 5yrs. The fixer I mix up a litre at a time and just do a guestimate and pour it in b/c it has a long shelf life even after it is mixed with water. Ilford says you can use a litre for 6 rolls of film, I only do it 2 b/c an old timer said that you can but he was told by someone after you know how to look for fog .. With the USA chem prices, provided you do 6 rolls every 6 months b/c powder is cheaper. You do 6 so you don't waste it. Per roll it's $2US all up. Or it's $25US for the entire set, some last 6months or 5yr ..
jhinkey: Let's hope this new version is way way better than the old version which was not very good. If it is, then the $150 premium over the current will be well worth it.Though I have the wonderful 17-35/2.8 AFS, rarely do I use it at f/2.8 and I'd love to save some weight if the IQ is very good and the ghosting/flare resistance is good as well.
Hopefully Nikon did a better update with this lens than it did with the 24-85AFS (which was not much of an improvement if any over the previous version).
Have Nikon been upping the prices. I got the older one for $350-400US (new). If one looks at the lenses that have been upgraded to AF-S like the 50mm's or the 85mm's it's gone up considerably. My 50mm 1.8 AF-D was under $100 for grey or US version for about $115. At least I am outside the USA and the USD has fallen. Even the pro zooms like the 70-200, before $1600US now almost $2500US. VR1 vs VRII. At least I am just a hobbyist with a bit of sense, getting pretty expensive out there.
people will just pay me thinks. but some may just use the old IR remote. remember when we had the D70 in 2004 and people complained about the price of the IR remote and how a few used their TV remote? and in the film days the cable release or even the extension cords ~$75 ..... there should be after market cheapies available as well as quality after markets too. maybe the 10pin controller is so much expensive b/c the 10 pin cameras are for the pro cameras only ... and they can cough it up. only the D300 and D3/4 have them for those current models. the 10pin design is pretty swell given its discrete size. try a pocket wizard combo .....
Dave Luttmann: A nice digital back for my Nikon F5 please!
Costs for an amateur isn't that great. Instead of buying new dSLRs. I shoot the most impt shots only, on travel. If I shot 10 rolls per year even at the prices today's that's just 10x $10 for the film and 10x $8 for the development. Which is $180US for the year, not expensive at all. Esp for someone who likes film. The reason I still shoot a 6MP is b/c I don't use high ISO and it can print at 13" wide. Stil leaps and bounds more than 35mm at least technically. If one looks at some shots by national geographic slow shutter is one technique some employ. So it's not always the sharpest or the least grain etc ..... just what works. I can understand for wedding, events, sports, wildlife thou but not in that camp myself.
Could be protection. In case others design it and get them instead of buying dSLR bodies! I would think that there is more money to be made getting pple to buy bodies every few yrs than a back. Larger market/demand. Backs have a niche, $, maybe $2-3k min?
I still shoot film, recently more than digital. I just like the workflow. More a challenge, anticipate the result etc .. all in camera if I am shooting slides. Output is held to some white clouds. But I don't shoot action or mass amounts and I don't do it for pay.
I though, if one can get a used dSLR 6yr used or even a new low end body that's so cheap anyway. And dSLR tech have come a long way. Larger, brighter viewfinders, long battery life, huge memory cards, one can then shoot so much more and not care about costs, easier than scanning and that many dedicated scanners now have ceased, I got my Coolscan used with a hacked driver for Win7.
Basically for me is that there are so many fSLR that they won't fail, just get anohter new/used one. They would have less mileage than a dSLR too. I'll just buy a fSLR and a dSLR and not care about these backs. No reason they cannot make a back thou in theory .....
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review