loitokitok: Lets face it, who, out of all of you that are complaining / sneering / laughing about this aspect of the D5's performance, would actually be in the market for a camera like this anyway?
The difference is though people were criticiszing Canon for their entire range of DSLR's having a weakness here, I remember very little criticism of the 1DX specifically because that was viewed as a camera not aimed at things like landscape shooting. With Nikon on the other hand you have lots of options for very high DR at base ISO if you want it on cameras aimed more specifically at that market.
I would say the responses here clearly show though that people who are not "in it" really don't understand what they are talking about and are instead just out to snipe at a "rival brand".
Robemo: Nice theatrics again from DPReview with such a hysterical headline. It proves what a clever marketing tool of Amazon DPReview has become. Aimed at gear enthusiasts that run to the store to get a new model and/or switch brands just to get the 'best' new model approved by Rishi.
If you are a bit more serious about your photography and certainly when you have to make a living with your images, you'd better stay clear from these crazy headlines and the theatrical reviews. I stopped using DPreview as a serious source of information a long time ago. It's more for entertainment that I drop by every now and then. Very amusing ..
The big difference though is with Canon you were talking about every camera lacking top of the line base ISO DR and the vast majority of the focus was on bodies other than the flagship sports/jurno camera. With Nikon you have that DR performance with many other bodies for those that want it where as a camera like the D5 isn't really aimed at.
PhalaNik: Have a look at photonstophotos website, compare the D5 to the D4s, compare with the test images here on DPR, it all correlates nicely.
To cut to the chase, above ISO 6400 the D5 shows at best an improvement of 0.5 Stops of DR. between 3200 and 6400 the D5 is less than 0.5 Stop better than its predecessor, ISO 1600-3200 pretty much the same but below 1600 the D4 simply obliterates the D5.
Can any serious pro using this camera in ALL lighting situations which is really whats its for, honestly say that 0.5 Stops of DR above ISO 3200 is worth the considerably worse performance below this.
It's a bit of a joke really, Nikon should have stuck with a Sony sensor on this one. My guess is that the Canon 1Dx2 is going to be considerably better.
Well that depends on your use surely? if the 0.5 stops of extra DR fall within your needs but the more extreme DR at lower ISO fall outside of them then yes this is an improvement.
Considering who this camera is aimed at I'd say this is likely to be true of a lot of users, its not going to be bought by landscape photographers pushing shadows hard.
Hugo808: I think they've quit too soon. Sure, most of us are wedded to Canikon but new people take up the hobby all the time and there aint nothing wrong with Samsung stuff. They've just got to invest a bit more and hope for the best.
Perhaps but really I suspect that the NX1 was really designed more for the Asian market(especially theer home turf in S Korea) where they have a much more significant market share, In Europe there going directly up against higher end DSLR's in a way no other mirrorless manufacturer is.
samhain: Sigma is making the Canon & Nikon lens dept. look like they're stuck in mud. I mean... Just making them look BAD. Hopefully Sigma is lighting a fire under them & they'll get up off their laurels and start building exciting lenses.
In this case there making them look like they knew what they were doing sticking to 24-70mm, this zoom range is way too small and as a result few people will buy this lens.
RichRMA: Note the price didn't nearly triple, like with Nikon's replacement of the 80-400mm.
To be fair the old Nikon 80-40mm wasn't a very good lens, this Canon seems to be an improvement but likely not as big an improvement as the new Nikon compaired to the old one which was awful above 300mm.
Bamboojled: This lens really rounds out the 1.8G line!!!
Whilst we may see F/1.8 updayes of one or both those lenses(could just be the 135mm) I don't think it'll be part of the same lineup as the cheap F/1.8's, metal build, faster AF and higher price.
Frank Dernie: I think I'm going to buy one, if only to annoy the jealous-sounding inverted snobs banging on in this forum...
Ultimately I think these kinds of products have become a cheap way of people to "score points" on the net knowing that they'll be unlikely to be challenged much.
It just seems pointless to me, at least with cheaper brands people can claim why they chose one product over another in a way that could be helpful to others but we all know that very few people bashing Leica have the money to own one.
Personally I think Leica should be applauded by coming out with something that's more than just a style statement. Will it be a success? no idea but it brings more to the market than most new releases.
I'd say the reverse personally, Nikon seems to be getting more focus when it comes to the higher end market for the 1 series.
Previously you had lenses like the UWA zoom, 50mm and 85mm equivalents which whilst they might be worthwhile for a system as a whole seemed unlikely to get many people to buy into the system given that the smaller sensor offered inferior output to many rival mirrorless systems.
More recently we've had the AW1 which(if it actually performs) uses the smaller sensor/glass sizes to keep a waterproofed body compact. Now we've got the 70-300mm which looks to really exploit the extra range the smaller sensor gives whilst offering performance than adapted FX and DX lenses lack.
The V3/V2 + 70-300mm does seem the most obvious combination for a holiday wildlife camera. It won't have the low light performance of a DSLR but for safe daytime safari or bird shooting it'll offer vastly superior reach to the competision.
You missed out the most obvious one "a real camera".
arhmatic: I have a dumb question -Why are sensor sizes always measured in inches?
Most if the world is in metric. Including manufacturers. But even for people using inches in everyday life is hard to calculate fractions and compare sizes... I am a US architect, using inches daily, ALWAYS preferring to see millimeters...
The main reason is I'd say that its an effective way to disguise just how tiny the sensors in compacts/phones are.
I'm not sure why quoting declining entry level DSLR sales is a sign of a shift to mirrorless systems when the article also points out a similar decline in such systems.
Rather it seems that the higher end(by that I mean higher than compacts/phones) camera market as a whole has taken a hit.
Eric Hensel: Why are so many here offended by the idea of having a great camera attached to a device you tend to have with you as you go through the day? Note this is a rhetorical statement --not a question.
I'd say there more offended by very average photography being talked up in order to sell the latest hipster lifestyle accessory.
pavinder: Could somebody please explain, as the article seems to completely skip over this point: why should anybody care if people put a #nofilter tag on a filtered photo?
If it were evidence in a court of law and had deliberately been manipulated/photoshopped/filtered etc. to deceive a jury then yes, it's important.
But this is just people's snapshots on a photo-sharing site - not a place where complete accountability is necessary. What does it matter if they mislabel it? Who cares?
A badly misplaced sense of the skill that proper post processing takes?
The more interesting point should surely be that most of these photo's are aweful.