antares103: For what reason would the camera be released only in Australia? This is a serious question.
Oh, it's the myth in Australia we don't need fast lenses as being 'lucky & sunny' country. This explains why would anybody think that f4-5.6 lens on APSC camera covering 28-80 (eq) would be 'good enough'. And, in abundance of light, the shutter speed would still remain high not really requiring any image stabilisation. Of course, Sony bigwigs from Japan only visited Australia during the day and local managers were too concerned about their jobs so they kept nodding in agreements.....
PandaSA: Don't get it. If you're looking through the display at your subject but your subject is shown on the display differently because of the zoom factor, how do you make sense of what you're seeing? And if the only purpose is to give a heads-up display of shooting info (shutter speed, aperture, ISO...) then composition would be impossible because you would have no idea what is being included (or not included) in the photo. Possibly the display would put an orange rectangle around your picture area, That might work. But still, you're left with no way to review the images you've taken. hmmm.
True. And beside that, the camera is offset from the 'real image' (parallax, happens with all cameras with OVF separate from the lens/non TTL). SO not only it would be a different magnification depending on the zoom factor but as well the different viewpoint. These 'patents' are getting ridiculous... Samsung here did not invent anything, just removed backlit form the LCD - in DIY world people used to take the backlit from the laptop screens and put in overhead projectors to project "large" images on the wall, aka 'digital projector for $20'. Was expecting something more revolutionary from Samsung, not patenting results of the Google search 'projectors on the cheap'. If they are patenting transparent OLED/'plasma' screen they should say so (this way you could review the image as it actually emits the light from 'invisible' sources.....)
OK, let them settle for good: it is obvious that Nikon knows the inner workings of Sigma OS (as much they know about their own as it appears to be 'similar') so they could create a lot of fuss to owners of new Nikon bodies that wouldn't work with Sigma OS lenses. This is FACT, and the 'war' happened over end users head. Now, is this 'settle of the records' going to change anything for end users? Is Nikon going to 'enable' Sigma lenses on newer Nikon bodies through FW update or is Sigma going to get the required 'knowledge' to upgrade their lenses so they can be used on Nikon bodies without side effects? Less likely! I think all those users who own OS lens and Nikon body and NEITHER works as meant to, should take massive class action against BOTH companies...because they are the real LOSERS in this patent infringement war.
Sadly, it appears to be still the same 18-200 OS HSM I had few years ago: very soft on long end, pronounced CA wide... Bokeh is nervous as it's always been. This lens (assuming it does the same as the previous model, based on samples here) is great for close-up shots zoomed in but in other aspects nothing to impress much. I couldn't see any shots done at 35-37mm focal length nor about 85-90mm (this is where the previous version had both stiffer zoom operation AND it could not have a correct focus regardless what you tried, including MF). I'm not convinced this lens would mate well with 24MP. Sigma has some other lenses done pretty well, some of primes are perhaps in top range - but looks like 18-200 zoom, regardless how many times they re-do its design, will not be an award winning piece of optics.
JDThomas: The market had downturn and it won't come back up. It will eventually plateau. After the digital boom of the 15 years companies are used to making money hand over fist. They're not "losing" money, they just aren't raking it in as fast. And it's unlikely that the business will ever boom like that again unless a radical new technology appears again.
It's always good to be in a business that makes products that are rapidly developing. It's an exciting time and technology is growing by leaps and bounds. People are thrilled by the fast pace of change and want to have the newest and best thing out there.
It's been 15 years since the digital photography revolution started and the technology has reached a point of maturity. They are running out of amazing new features to add.
As others pointed out, cameras are now good enough that most people don't need a new one every year. And contrary to popular belief the majority of consumers aren't on the forums geeking out over the newest junk.
+1. The same can be said for laptop computers and even the smartphones. Bringing 4K video clearly shows all other options being exhausted..
Trollshavethebestcandy: The right side strap lug looks like it will be a bother.
That came across my mind the first time I saw it: not the eyelet itself but visualization of the strap attached. It starts right in the middle of the "grip", hard call what to do with it. Perhaps just use the other one and let the gravity does the rest....
OK, correct me here: it is still using Sony (Minolta) mount? I mean the one even Sony is slowly phasing out....that is a good sign for KM mount users - it will live (pricey but alive).
ZorSy: In D7K teardown Cicala said: "I’m pretty comfortable saying there’s at least as much profit in the $700 mirrorless as in the $1200 SLR, probably more". Looking at this one (and having a7R pricing in mind), just tinkering how difficult it is to justify the price tag put on some new mirrorless cameras. Apart from the sensor and the shutter, not much more is left.... On the second thought, I may not be the only one expecting something substantial and 'more complicated' for the money, thus growing skepticism if this is supposed to last or will get discarded/abandoned by manufacturer like 2 years old smartphone...As a conclusion (apart from being nice shiny new thing that works nicely), if it is really that simpler to make (and maintain, adjust, calibrate etc) than the traditional DSLR, why does it bear the DSLR counterpart price? Oh, I think I know - because THEY can....
@sierranvin ...not anti-corporate zeal in general; I would like to embrace new technologies (almost inevitable) as fully aware the mount I've been 'loyal' is showing its age and imposes many restrictions to keep going 'as is'. But the same mount has outlasted many other mounts, not to mention brands... Starting from the scratch (no legacy) despite its advantages is expensive and does not build 'loyal base' - not anymore. At the moment we have at least 3 very capable and interesting cameras appealing to almost the same base: if I have to choose one, I'd go with Fuji. So far no sharp turns leaving customer base with bitter aftertaste. Perhaps Nikon should go with their X mount this time.... BTW I wouldn't like to see either Sony or Olympus (even Pentax/Ricoh) go out of camera business. Competition is good and moves things forward.But no adapters (or gaffer tape) as 'alternative' solution....
Of course software and R&D aren't free but I look at it as incremental R&D, not something done from the scratch. Moreover, with 'classic" DSLR the software can be even more complex, integrating more circuitry etc: the bottom line, every DSLR now-days can act as mirrorless if put in LV (let's not nibble how well this works compared to 'true' mirrorless). R&D costs are spread across 'planned' number of units, you are implying that Sony's plan to sell these isn't as ambitious compared to DSLR counterparts? If we take Sony out of equation (due to 'constant' change of direction they are heading to/ read mount/), we can apply the same logic to Olympus (OK, they did sharp turn as well) but pretty much stick to m4/3 now - we see just incremental changes to late models compared to earlier (based even on the more-or-less same sensor), still asking premium price tag. If they want to win over the market, they'd have to do something about it - be realistic and less greedy...
In D7K teardown Cicala said: "I’m pretty comfortable saying there’s at least as much profit in the $700 mirrorless as in the $1200 SLR, probably more". Looking at this one (and having a7R pricing in mind), just tinkering how difficult it is to justify the price tag put on some new mirrorless cameras. Apart from the sensor and the shutter, not much more is left.... On the second thought, I may not be the only one expecting something substantial and 'more complicated' for the money, thus growing skepticism if this is supposed to last or will get discarded/abandoned by manufacturer like 2 years old smartphone...As a conclusion (apart from being nice shiny new thing that works nicely), if it is really that simpler to make (and maintain, adjust, calibrate etc) than the traditional DSLR, why does it bear the DSLR counterpart price? Oh, I think I know - because THEY can....
brianj: Does a photo need to be about some sort of violence to draw people's attention?
Sadly - yes. The news are rarely about something nice: murder, bombing, terrorists, shootings and any kind of human tragedy makes the news. Always have, always will.
ray07: Sony A7 well done.......
Sony is really overdoing NR (and sharpening), which is pity. 7r is even more aggressive than 7....sometimes I don't get why Sony does this on this class of cameras. For bottom range it's sort of understandable - but if one needs 7/7r than my guess is he/she knows a tad more about photography. Yes, there is always raw, but...
Good work, DPR and I think it's fair as well, considering being hard to pick among all listed cameras - they are excellent cameras.Of course, there will never be a consensus about "the best of the best" as each of us has own preferences. Image quality wise, one cannot go wrong with either. Looking forward to see the rest of the round-ups in the pipeline.
(unknown member): I've always wondered: If any of the OEM manufacturers wanted to play hardball with the Tamrons and Sigmas, etc., why wouldn't they encode their cameras to just make it next to impossible to use anything except their own lenses on their cameras? I would think it would not be hard for Canon or Nikon to include code that would make life very difficult for aftermarket lenses (or flashes for that matter).
Perhaps this (from Wiki): United States antitrust law is a collection of federal and state government laws, which regulates the conduct and organization of business corporations, generally to promote fair competition for the benefit of consumers. The main statutes are the Sherman Act 1890, the Clayton Act 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act 1914. These Acts, first, restrict the formation of cartels and prohibit other collusive practices regarded as being in restraint of trade. Second, they restrict the mergers and acquisitions of organizations which could substantially lessen competition. Third, they prohibit the creation of a monopoly and the abuse of monopoly power"And other countries may have it the same way, so to feed the wolves and keep all the sheep... just throw the junior Sheppard in the story...
Are we supposed to be surprised about this? Some of us had been pointing "something going on" since D80, the first model that had issues with Sigma OS HSM lenses. Back then, the first lot of D80s had problem even with Nikon VR lenses - they update Firmware. D90 came, again FW update for power module. With D7K it was obvious that power module has been tweaked not to provide enough juice for Sigma OS HSM lenses in particular in LV, where the power consumption on camera itself gets higher. I own D7100 but no longer have any OS sigma, nor dare to get any. I would eventually consider 50-150 OS or perhaps 70-200 OS but I KNOW sooner or later there could be a problem. The way I see it that Sigma, with its improved quality and lens choice, poses as significant treat to Nikon own lens lineup. As long as Tamron keeps low profile, they are safe...but bet my last $5 Nikon would play them the same...For the sake of consumers I hope Sigma resolves this alone..
If course it's wrong when done by Nikon, that 'right' is reserved for smaller players like Olympus or Pentax. We knew it would be chunkier than original FM or whatever it is meant to represent. What attracts me is the obvious quality of workmanship put into digital SLR, something seen not so often today, It has a price tag to reflect that and may I just say (the black version) is perhaps the first collectors SLR camera since film era. I'm pleased Nikon did it and immediately made retro "un-cool". Would I buy it if money is not an issue? You bet I would, I'm sucker for 'old looking things' (and cable release). It represents in its own right what (digital) Leica represents in rangefinder world - so why questioning the price tag?
HBowman: Nikon ... on the late Hasselblad road !
You want pure photography in digital world ?
>> Tame a DPmerril and you will know it. This is THE day were SIGMA as a more valuable image than Nikon lol. Bushido spirit !
wrong mate, no wood involved
I reckon it doesn't have Hassy price tag as the grip is not the actual solid burl, just veneer (albeit whoever tried to handle bur(or burl) would know it's a hard wood to work with). As for colour, it reminds me of the "hammered" finish old Russian microscopes had. At least Ricoh created "collector's" item at reasonable price tag - though I don't quite understand the concept of something being disposable battery operated and being collector's item at the same time. IMO it was already "retro" enough...
Then Sakar should sue Sony for their QX clip-on camera... so Nikon settles with Sony...what a nonsense. It just looks as white as Nikon 1 series and that is where the similarity ends.