That is almost as stupid as the gilded toilet (yes they actually one through their website!) that I saw advertised on Lowes.com today.
Canon EOS 60D: This sensor was developed for "Automotive use" and not photography. Camera geeks/nerds stop complaining. You're barking at the wrong tree. LOL
It might be now but I'd imagine what they learn from this will trickle down to cameras.
lacikuss: Amazing how much faster and longer this Canon lens than Sony's RX100M3.
I thought Sony was bragging about their advanced glued lens design. Well they are just an electronics company.
Lenses are very hard things to judge based on specs. Wait to see actual results.
vladimir314: Im sorry and disappointed, but a camera without external flash possibility is no enthusiatic level camera for me and I would never buy it. May G8 X? :-)
Why would you want to put an external flash on a compact? It seems to me if you want to haul around the bulk of a flash you might as well bring a better but larger camera too.
Mariano Pacifico: Cellcams are light years ahead in features. iPhone, Samsung and HTC trounces Sony and Canon.
What is more important than features on a checklist is image quality and no phone can touch it when it comes to that.
george2013: Finally an articulating viewfinder. A touchscreen. But no hotshoe. That is a no no. Or in other words. My money stays in my wallet.
Why would you need a hotshoe on a pocketable camera that is designed for portability? Flashes are large and cumbersome. If you are going to be hauling one around you might as well bring a DSLR with a much larger sensor since you won't be traveling light anymore.
Pete peterson: I'm only interested in cameras with dials as I hate getting into menus for every change, but even if this camera's IQ is as good as the Sony RX100III, I wouldn't buy it cos it has no EVF. To me no EVF means putting on my reading glasses every time I take a picture then take my reading glass off so that I can see the rest of the world in focus, then put the on again to take or inspect the next picture - totally inconvenient. I bet most of the geeks developing this camera wear glasses, did they not think of us long sighted people?
The EVF in the RX100 III is awesome. It really does make a huge difference in the user expierence.
SaltLakeGuy: It's just sad Nikon didn't have the balls to come out with something a bit more groundbreaking than this. The real knife in the back for a camera that even pretends to be considered a professional tool, they neutered it with a 1/4000th sec shutter speed? Truly now what were they drinking...er I mean thinking. other than the flippy screen it brings virtually NOTHING new to the table. Not sure why they bothered. If they had half a brain they would have not crippled the shutter speed AND they would have allowed it to shoot at least 8fps. Oh well just wait another 2 years an just maybe they'll get it right. But probably not.
I think its rather silly to focus so much on one line from the spec sheet on a camera with a high level of specification in virtually all categories and a world class sensor. 1/4000th could be limiting in some circumstances but for the overwhelming majority of uses and photographers it will not make a real difference. There are a dozen lines on a spec sheet that make far more difference for most people in the real world so its really silly and myopic to use a word like "nuetered" to describe what for most people is a really minor thing that will make little or no difference on their results.
munro harrap: I have basic objections, general ones applicable to other manufacturers too.The screen cannot turn to face the body for protection against damage.I was angry enough when I found my D7100 lacked a screen cover.Yet another very expensive vertical grip. It is years since you could move a grip onto a new model body. This is a backward step as it still has low-pass filtration. After the D7100 and D810 dropped it (10 years later than everyone should've!) Nikon goes back in time to force us to use more noise reduction as we again have to sharpen the image- but never get it as good as a straight filterless dody.Which would have Sigma-like image quality.So at base ISO, my D7100 will give better results than a D600, D610 or D750-sorry but it's true.As to the focussing, the ability to move groups of focus points around the screen using the rear dial (which was designed for this in the first place), is lacking, so you cannot focus that way yourself, even manually.so why the D750
"So at base ISO, my D7100 will give better results than a D600, D610 or D750-sorry but it's true.:
That isn't remotely true and no tester who has compared both would say that the D7100 sensor beats the other cameras in any setting when it comes to image quality.
yesman12: WITH THE SIGMA 18-35 PROVIDING GREAT IMAGE QUALITY AND CONSTANT 1.8, AT A SIMILAR PRICE, WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THIS LENS OTHER THAN SIZE
I'd agree with you on APS-C but the Sigma will not work on a full frame camera. I'd imagine that very few APS-C shooters will pick this over the Sigma but this looks very promising for full frame shooters.
I've been really impressed by Nikon's 1.8 G primes. The 85 is especially excellent. I am glad they are adding this to their lineup.
CMurdock: The Sigma Merrill cameras have the best image quality of any pocketable camera, but DPR won't review them. I wouldn't dream of buying a camera (like this one) that has aggressive sharpening of JPGs that can't be turned off.
I used to be a RAW shooter but I've switched mostly to JPEGs now and I'm happy for that. What draws me to photography is the process of going out and taking photos. I enjoy the framing, the composition, the finding angles, the finding subjects, the engaging with subjects, etc. Thats what draws me in. Good modern cameras configured properly can produce fantastic JPEGS that are worthy of the gallery of any art museum or the cover of any magazine and I'd rather not spend time inside sitting at a computer processing raw files.
R Thornton: I cannot for the life of me understand why it is possible to build in GPS and WiFi in cameras, and not RF flash trigger. For GPS and WiFi - or even a hotshue - I do not care, but if the camera had an RF wireless flash trigger built in Sony could, rather sooner than later, also sell me an appropriate speedlight or two... to fully make use of this function.
brownie314: you gotta be kidding right? 2.5 fps - on the FAST model. 1.5 fps on the high MP model. I get it - these were not built for speed - but still - this is 2014! I would expect no less than 5 fps w/autofocus on the A7r and at least 8 fps on the A7 w/ autofocus. For me - this camera is a non-started just based on this. I can't justify $2k for a camera that is by far slower than my D7000. I have been looking at going FF - and was considering this camera - but no way - not at those speeds. D610 will have to do.
I'm a Nikon user but I really understand the appeal of this. To me the weight is a number that matters far more than the FPS. I almost never do anything but single shot.
Timmbits: Does it really cost hundred$ of dollar$ to add a tilting screen and to unblock bracketing in it's internal software? Meet the D5300. This is why I no longer buy Nikon. You KNOW the D5300 could sell for the price of a D3300, because they have identical production costs, but you can't have it for that price. Pay a couple hundred extra if you want the $1 in extra hardware and the unlocking of the software.
How is that different than what you see from any number of companies? Everyone does that sort of thing from computer to camera to car companies.
FrankS009: Speaking of late reviews, what about the Panasonic G6? It was introduced a year ago, and has not had a full review yet. Perhaps DPR is waiting for its replacement.
The G6 weights half of the D610, has an articulated screen, and its lenses are half the size and weight too. There is a purpose for every camera, but the difference between full frame and micro-4/3rds IQ is getting small enough that for practical purposes most people don't need to spend the extra money or lug the extra weight. The revolution has truly taken place.
"There is a purpose for every camera, but the difference between full frame and micro-4/3rds IQ is getting small enough that for practical purposes most people don't need to spend the extra money or lug the extra weight. The revolution has truly taken place."
That is true for some uses but do not doubt just how useful the thinner depth of field can be for a lot of photographers. And do not underestimate the major advantages that you'll see at high isos in a good FF camera.
Lucas_: IMHO it's outrageous to give a Gold Award and an 87% note to this camera and Silver with 80% to the fantastically innovative Sony A7 ( not to mention the A7R, which is clearly at another level and got Gold / 82%! ). It's about time DPR realizes that their reviews "conclusions" have actually become a joke! I can appreciate the level of camera features/controls details and specs they cover ( which IMO is the good value of the review ), but I've learned to just don't care at all about their final conclusions ( sometimes hilarious ) and rating!
I'd imagine that you are basing your opinions on extensive use of both cameras and not spec sheets.
D 503: Under specified and overpriced. The 7100 is better value.
You do realize that full frame and APS-C cameras are very different animals, right? The D610 is one of the cheapest FF cameras ever brought to market and offers better image quality than any APS-C camera ever made and image quality that could not be matched at any price just a few years ago. It isn't cheap in absolute terms but it is as good a value as you can find anywhere in FF cameras.
Timmbits: Pardon my ignorance... but what do we gain, with an ISO of 400K?
it seems to me, that at 800+ pictures are grainy and crappy enough! (IMO)
what am I missing here?
"it seems to me, that at 800+ pictures are grainy and crappy enough! (IMO)"
Depends on the camera. Most modern good full frame cameras can give you at least a usable ISO 3200.
ChapelThrill23: One of the biggest issues that the Sony systems have right now is how expensive the native lenses tend to be. I don't doubt that they are very high quality but other mounts offer some optional but still quality lenses at more modest prices too.
$1000 is a lot of money for most people. Particularly when you are buying multiple lenses. I like the Nikon approach. They have some very well reviewed primes that deliver 90-95% of what their top level primes do (for instance the 85 1.8G gets fantastic reviews) for much less. Canon does the same thing. I think its important to have that in a system.