RichRMA: Maybe Fuji can do something about that annoying blank area above the lens?
I drill a couple of holes in it.
Jes' kiddin'! ;)
TheAlexMoore: Oh, what a continuing disappointment...! Digital camera engineering deserves better.Mirrorless rangefinder cameras with manual focus should be a done deal by now. I suppose I'm as easily seduced by novelty features and shiny new digital gizmos as most, and to be fair to all the gadget-heads who are prepared to put up with costly digital gear that looks OK on the outside but still doesn't deliver then you have to admit that Fuji's corporate profit-taking is not as mean as the rest. I mean, it's nice to see Fuji is keeping some form of stabilising eye-level viewfinder. These are time-tested. They not only allow image composition in bright daylight but help steady a camera, something not possible using cut-rate contemporary mirroless, viewfinderless digital toy still and mobile/cell phone cameras at absurd arms-length fashion.
Right on target re the viewfinder!
T3: Now my only question is: black or silver?
This is going way over my head.
topstuff: Image Quality is not fantastic. Seems on a par with my RX100.
I do not think it really matters here.
I think I will buy one, if only because of G.A.S.
Shame about the 30p video though.
I really like that avatar.
Closest focusing distance = ?
In Auto mode, is ISO allowed to surpass 1600?
And how much will that excrescence of an EVF set me back?
I have the G1 X and I was in hopes that the first two points I raised might have been addressed, or redressed. Instead, it's off with his viewfinder!
Visit Trevor Morris at morris-photographics.com/photoshop/shortcuts/index.html for pdf cheatsheets containing a plethora of PS keyboard shortcuts.
howardroark: And you lose most of your body heat through your head, too....as long as you're wearing a rubber body suit and no head protection. This study has so many uncontrolled variables that it is essentially a pile of worthless garbage. Someone chose their conclusion and then proved it with a meaningless set of circumstances that is so unlike a real world scenario as to be laughable. Who the flip remembers anything they ever see in a museum anyway?
I remember seeing a "Giftball" (poison bullet) in a German museum. It was the size of a basketball.
May I offer the suggestion that a greater proportion of sample photos be taken in full daylight?
robmanueb: Please someone tell them we don't need a wideangle zoom, just a prime would do the trick. Make it half the price.
Maximum aperture varies from a rather dim f/3.7 at wide angle to f/4 at telephoto.
Per Mike Tomkins, http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2013/11/06/ricoh-launches-first-limited-series-zoom-q-mount-wide-zoom-lenses
Pat Cullinan Jr: "there will be some photographers who will see the Df purely in terms of a lower-cost shell for the D4's very capable sensor" (Barney Britton).
Hey Nikon, how about a LOW-cost shell for the D4's very capable sensor?
Thanks for taking the time to give me some good information.
Pat Cullinan Jr: PC: No flash?! That's TOO retro.
>> But where would they put the flash?
PC: You're asking me?
>> How about it pops up out of the hand-grip on a stalk?
PC: Pop it in good health.
>> How about a clip-on the size of a walnut?
PC: Knock yourself out.
"there will be some photographers who will see the Df purely in terms of a lower-cost shell for the D4's very capable sensor" (Barney Britton).
PC: No flash?! That's TOO retro.
mike kobal: let's not think about the price and marketing hype for a moment. I think the Df will appeal to photographers who actually take pictures and own lots of af and af D glass. The 16mp sensor is far more forgiving then a 36mp sensor when paired with older generation Nikkor lenses. Suddenly you can shoot just like back in the film days again and as a bonus you can crank up the ISO beyond 100K. If you don't own legacy Nikkor lenses there really is no point getting one and no point getting upset about it.
Well conceived and put, Brownie. (No aspersion on Mike K.)
Pros: I can use my old Nikkors -- 105/2.5, 85/1.4, 50/1.4, 35/1.4, 28/2, 24/2, 21/2.8 28/3.5 PC, 17mm Minolta adaptation.
Cons: Too dear. Archeological mirror. Probably too big. Megapixels do not abound.
Neither here nor there: Retro bauplan.
Will I buy one? Not at the price. But I hear the Sony RX10 calling my name.
Do I like it? Yes!
"The lie is sacred." --V. I. Lenin
Pat Cullinan Jr: It was staged. Even the New York Times revealed this. Read http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/arts/design/18capa.html?ref=arts, if you dare.
Looks like I struck a nerve.
It was staged. Even the New York Times revealed this. Read http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/arts/design/18capa.html?ref=arts, if you dare.
What a nonsensical, affected teaser.