Amazon has a D3100 for sale for $426.95.
For an extra $7.00, there's hardly a comparison.
I have to admit that I don't quite get it.
Joseph: Why does anyone who buy quality lenses use a piece of cheap glass filter in front? It just degraded the picture quality.
I have stopped using UV "protective" filter many years ago and I have yet damaged any of my lenses, pro grade or not, ultra wide angle or long. Not even a scratch.
When you live in a place like the Southwest, where the atmosphere is quite abrasive much of the time, a filter is a necessity, unless you like replacing the front elements of your lenses. Out here, you never know when you'll get a 50mph blast of sand in your face, unless it's Spring, in which case, you can bank on it pretty much every day. Enough of those blasts will pit glass, just like the windshield on the car I bought last February. We had a very windy Spring and already my windshield is heavily pitted. Another Spring like last Spring and the windshield will become hazardous under certain lighting conditions. Replacing a windshield is typically cheaper than replacing lens elements.
It sounds like a hoax coming as it does on the heels of the Sony, but being a watch guy, I can tell you that even brands like Rolex put up pictures of their watches that have been cobbled together in Photoshop.
Your average consumer would never be able to tell, but we who collect watches and discuss these matters daily can with very little trouble spot the occasional mixing of features, such as fonts or wording and even mismatched dials and the like.
So, for a group of photo enthusiasts to see the discrepancies in this camera is not really proof that no such model is in the pipeline.
Personally, I don't know enough about Hasselblad to know, but in the world of advertising Photoshop and CGI are a reality and it's not always done that well.
It seems to me that the only people who really have a complaint are those who bought a D600 and if those folks have only to send a faulty D600 in to a service center and get back what is basically a D610 without the badge, then I don't see that anyone has much to complain about.
There are no products that cannot have certain issues at the time of roll out, and beyond, and that is why there are warranties. That's why there are recalls.
I have to admit that since I got into photography I have been both appalled and amused at how ridiculous photo hobbyists can be with the "my camera brand is better than your camera brand" and what not.
I'm not going to defend the Nikon brand because I don't think that Nikon needs a defense.
There are names for those who refuse to live in the real world and have to whine about every little thing the corporate world does. Pick your favorite.
As for those who are completely bummed out, just move on to another camera brand. There's no shortage.
An organization I belong to that restores former military aircraft has trademarked each one so that no one can take pictures and sell those photographs for a profit or use them in any other way without permission.
I don't know where the manufacturers come in, if in fact any of them are still in business.
A snapshot is a snapshot regardless of the medium. As noted the snapshot is an informal photograph in which the subject is more important than the composition or the lighting or the myriad other things we futz over in photography.
Most snapshots aren't printed anymore, but any of them could be, if so desired.
Given the transient nature of magnetic and digital media it is a shame that so much photography goes unprinted, because some new Vivian Maier could be found in a box of CDs or hard drives, or floppy disks someday, but there won't be any of the machines needed to view them and so a genius might thereby be lost to posterity
guyfawkes: Mostly mumbo jumbo and philosophical twaddle. Being English, I can understand, just, how the verb "to maximise" can be turned into the noun "maximiser" but "satisficer" from "to satisfy" beggars belief.
Outwith of this article and being asked what "satisficer" meant, who would know?
The term satisficer has quite long history in the behavioral sciences.
The term was introduced in 1956 by Herbert A. Simon. It is a portmanteau of the words satisfy and suffice, according to Wikipedia.
I think the author is trying to find some scientific basis for the old adage, the best camera is the camera you have with you.
People don't need to be so critical. It's one man's point of view and you can read it or not read it, as one is so inclined.
I can't figure out why there are so many negative people on this site. Does it really take that much brain-power to understand what this video is all about?
Sure, there's nothing earth-shattering about the technique, but it is what is and I would think that photographers could just take it at face value, without all the obtuse, negative comments.
So much negativity over something no one knows anything about.
You can cut the cynicism here with a knife.
Like another here, I can put a password on my phone, but I only do so when I think there is a need.
It has no bearing on the operation of the device whatsoever, except as it provides a measure of security at my discretion.
There's not a lot of creative thought here.
gerry328: The purpose of this video is obviously to give a brief overview of the major steps in producing Nikkor lenses from raw material to finished product, not a detailed blow-by-blow account so I think many of the comments here are downright moronic and irrelevant.
HAHA! So true!
Samuel Gao: people still can make decent prints off of compact cameras. Phones still can't really compare just yet...
"'Most people don't make prints anymore'. [sic] 'They never did.'"--By DidiBaev
How old are you?
I voted for the D800.
I know that it was released with some problems, but Nikon will work those out, as they always do.
For a mere $3000, I think it offers more to the enthusiast who wants to get into full-frame than the less expensive D600.
You get great resolution in DX and even better in FX, so the transition would be easy for those with mostly Nikon DX glass and maybe a couple of FX lenses.
Plus, with all the things others mentioned, I think it's hard to beat.
I don't own one, yet.
I'm rather new to photography and I'm not very good, although there are a number of people who disagree with that assessment, which of course, pleases me.
When I first began to shoot with a dSLR and began to try to take the effort seriously, even before I started to take the camera out of its P mode, I focused on composition and not always to good effect.
However, it was the rule of thirds, diagonals and curvature that I tried to incorporate into my photography.
I shoot to document the activities of my club that restores old warbirds to flying condition. In some ways, it is a very challenging setting and in others, it's a very simple setting to shoot.
I try to shoot people more than things, but they are inextricably linked and it is in that juxtaposition that I look for the rules of composition and I exploit them.
The elements are there. The trick is to make them work for me.
It never seems to matter what new device is introduced, there is always a chorus of negative comments about it.
No one here has even tried the camera!
Certainly, this camera will not appeal to everyone, but even if it only appeals to teenage girls, that's a huge market.
I just don't understand the continuous negativity on these forums. Are photography hobbyists depressed as a class?
Does photography attract the depressed or is it the quest for an unattainable perfection that depresses?
Of course, no offense is intended to any specific person by the statement of this observation.
BenZion: I really love it! I'm going to buy this thing as soon as it is available!
You can use DX lenses on Nikon FX cameras:
"On an FX-format camera with a DX lens mounted, the camera will automatically engage its built-in DX crop mode, thus recording an image only from the center section of the sensor."
ScottnLaguna: I agree! WTF? the DX lens is 18-300 in DX! If it were a full frame lens, then this would be true. So in FX the lens would be like 10-210mm or something.
"If is is a DX lens, then using it on a DX-format camera will give 18-300mm, ie no magnification."
Not true. The range is given in 35mm terms and the crop factor must be calculated to gain the proper figures.
It seems crazy, but that's the way it is.
I'm sure someone can explain it more clearly, but that's the fact.
Northgrove: $1000 for a lens aimed at travel photography? How about a Fujifilm X-S1 at $600 for more compact and lighter travel photography with a 24-624 mm equivalent zoom? After all, users of this will be looking for range, not optics.
My point is that all the corners Nikon will have to cut to get to such an extreme focal range means the focal range will be more important than the optical quality to them. And then a $1000 price tag for that aim. Just buy a long range compact camera? Optical quality will be priority in: neither of the cases. So you can just as well focus on travelling light and both your neck and credit card will be happier.
I already use an 18-200mm VRII for documenting the activities of my club which restores old aircraft and all the attendant duties to that end. I'm not out to create art, only to document, but I find that I get excellent results in that setting with a super-zoom.
I will definitely be getting the 18-300mm, unless it turns out to be a real lemon, which I doubt.
The 18-200mm works well in our facility when I need to get close up shots without being in the way of the work, but there are times when some extra reach would really come in handy and a lens change is out of the question. I don't have the luxury of lens changes, when I'm capturing work in progress.
Weight is not such a problem, but the length of the lens might be in some situations, but then that's why I have a variety of lenses that I can use when I anticipate that I may be working in cramped quarters or doing some other type of shooting.
For those who think it's a stupid lens, I have a suggestion: Don't buy one!