mas54: I think dpr and all other review sites should refuse to review any more cameras that don't have optical viewfinders. Just consider them non entities. Maybe the camera companies will get the hint.
@T3 Well, let's see:AF I don't really need it, and I would rather like better to chose where the focus point should be just by observation.Video I never used and would never need it in a PHOTO camera.Auto exposures are a mith for those who never thought about zone exposures or about its existence.I'd been working as a pro for many years with top gears at my disposal, and spent very many hours in a dark room doing all sort of works, from ir develops to color slides printing all in complete darkness hence I surely praise the digital revolution, but I'm not a sucker for anything these electronic engeneers would propose.And besides I'm using informatic technologies since the '70ties, spending tens of thousands for these computers and devices that are now useless junks.I hope this is not coming to photography too, but as we speak it has already happened, and from the start, thanks to the all spread ignorance of both customers and producers.Let's hurt ourselves some more.
babalu: so, a pic with a story ...:-)) ..another story it seems to show is that your sensor needs cleaning .
Really? I always thought the talented photographer was the one who needed imagination as a viewer first, and some technical skill to capture that image using a mechanical device called camera.
Much Ado About Nothing.So after all these years in digital photography even at nikon they're finally recalling whence they came from: photographic cameras, and not video cameras like the ones produced by their partners in crime at sony.
Nothing new really: Leitz is still producing a photo camera with dials and manual focus called Leica M, though admittedly you don‘t have to chocke the shutter mechanically.
Never the less I wish nikon will succeed to bring back the cameras to their proper design, with less marketing fuss and the proper functins for shoting photos, and not videos, recording audio, a million af points, making coffee... and for that only it would cost a normal price and won't get obsolete in six months.
I'd like to see a mechanical and manual focus camera that will use the battery just for the shutter, exposimeter and sensor: who cares about af, lcd screen, tens of menus and all the stuff you can get in asmart phone?
I'm completely with you: the evf is the product of those brands that jumped on the photo market coming from a video market (mainly Sony and Panasonic); they don‘t get any idea how a camera should be made, but want you believe a video device is a better choice, so they can profit more without having to spend more in producing a superior and 'real' optical view finder.For me it's also a philosophy: what you see on a screen is more believable then what you perceive through the lens... of your eyes.
Really? A story... I see a car going its way and some others parked in a lot. The light is just about flat on top. Maybe it was a red light transpasser cought by the semaphore's camera.Thrilling & romantic, and of course you can clearly see the personality here.
No offense intended here, but comeon! The banality of this casual shot is astounding.
thx1138: Hadn't realised the M1 had no EVF or option. I had just assumed that was the A1. Oh well another coulda shoulda woulda camera.
Not really sure what Fuji's thinking is here. One the one hand they think you are sophisticated enough to understands the benefits of a big sensor, and IL, and DoF and manual control, but think you are still so amateurish as to hold a camera at arms length to frame a scene, in bright sunlight where the VF can hardly be seen and the camera is far less stable and more prone to shake.
So is it still a P&S or a serious camera?
Evf sucks big time, and so is the lcd. The marketing fuss collides with the phylosophy the world is what you perceive through your senses (the mind included) and not what is passing on a tv screen.When I use a PHOTOcamera, I'd like it as it should be, and not a phone or a videocamera..
Kumara: Sheesh, all this fuss remainds me when the first polaroid came out and all these trendy & fashonable photographers went into a ramp to show unusual images, while the rest of us Pro used the technology just to check the exposure & light.
Sure it may be a fun toy to play with and may be able to capture significant images, but remember the more sensors' cells you add in a confined area the more noise you record: and that's valid for the many commeents here trying to sell us this latest techno hype as a God sent gift that we would be lucky to use.
The IQ of my MF films is stll unreachable for the digital world, not to speak of the 5x7 & 7x10 "
Ouch, after all these many years my memory fades... Nowadays I only use digital stuff for my works and it's stll a miracle I can reacall what is a circle of confusion! ;^)
Sheesh, all this fuss remainds me when the first polaroid came out and all these trendy & fashonable photographers went into a ramp to show unusual images, while the rest of us Pro used the technology just to check the exposure & light.
I agree with some of the previous comments: first you do need a very high sensor density to have the least decent picture resolution, else what you gain by later focusing the image details, you're losing it by poor definition.The other point is that actually as a photographer you should... ahem, FOCUS on your subjects in the shooting INSTANT: having said that, it may be a useful way to re-elaborate an image, but in this case the matter gets on a much wider and controversial scope,
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review