Four-third, APS-C, FX ,Médium Format, and others ?
The market is done by our needs, despite the efforts of marketing to make us need that don't even need.
There are photographic needs that require a lot of compactness, so compact, that compact cameras begin to be threatened by the best mobile phones.
There are photographic needs that require larger sensors (FX) which makes photografic machines larger and heavier, but this is well accepted. To say that, with this format no longer need the APS-C ?
False, there are to many situations benefits of APS-C on FX, I remind me of sports, social photography, reportage... Yes, APS-C as more versatility (advantages) then FX.
Smaller sensors tend to disappear, Yes and thank goodness.
But the FX is not the future, it's just part of it
I don't understand and never will understand how these gentlemen want to remain owners of something that I "forced" to buy if I want to make use of it. Bought a use license, it is mine. I will never work in the cloud, will never be owner of something even though I pay does not seem to me to belong. The rules of this game are not like this. The money is mine, the terms may be agreed, but never decided unilaterally in this way. And how spent my money to me belongs to decide. Digital photography existed before the CS and will exist without it. In these terms, nothing I want from this company. Their ridiculously high prices are not pleasent.
oeriies: I've been using the D7100 for 3 weeks with a 500mm f/4G and a 35mm f/1.8G. I've been a Pentax user for a while, currently owning a K-5. There is a lot of detail in the D7100 shots, which is important for birds and wildlife, and the continuous autofocus system is a dream compared to the K-5. The bummer is the buffer, as others have noted and as is clear in the DPReview appraisal. I spent an hour shooting seagulls in flight the second day I had the camera just to try to learn my new gear. I knew from the specs that I should get 6fps shooting raw. Fired off a burst to catch an on-coming bird -- 5 shoots and the camera stopped dead. I thought that for sure I had a defective unit. It was only when I went to the user forum here that I found that this is how the camera is designed. Nikon, you've got to be kidding. I hope there is at least a partial fix via software for the buffer problem that we'll see soon. It is a crippling flaw in an otherwise excellent camera.
My Pentax K5II makes photo continuously during 4.5 seconds, at 7 frames/s rate, in Jpg (31 images) until the buffer is full. Or during 3.5 seconds at 7 frames/s rate in Raw+Jpg (24 images). With the full buffer, continues to shoot continuously at 3.3 pictures per second up to exhaust the memory card. This is enough? For me Yes.Is a very balanced product in all aspects of its construction, since the overall quality, ergonomics, excellent image quality, everything very carefully and thought to eliminate the weaknesses, which very few have.Always wished a Nikon, I ended up buying this Pentax, but I can't regret that, on the contrary, these news are demonstrating that I made a good decision.This Nikon D7100 makes five or six images only? What, during a second or less, and has the buffer full !? in a rate lower than my Pentax !? What can I say?
Ginetto: I still have to decide if to get this or the 16MP Pentax MKII s Still prone to choose the Pentax due for the marvelous ergonomics and building; if I can read its review before the end of the year... :)
Corrections to my previous comment, I did new tests to my Pentax K5II: if the shutter speed is greater than or equal to a thousandth of a second, it makes the 7 images per second guaranteed; after the buffer becomes full, the machine ensures 3 to 3.3 frames per second (not in two seconds as I stated previously) continuously until the memory card becomes full.Movies, have very good image, excellent when played on a large HD TV.Weak point so far? In movies, does not focus after it has started. Is a very good product and very balanced, but not perfect. Solution? Put in manual focus mode before starting the video, and focus manually, it is easy to focus while shooting, very effective.For a non-professional product is just perfect. Better than some who claim to be.I do not understand Nikon with its D7100, how you can make a product with a good sensor, a high-quality autofocus and fail in terms of overall balance!!?Learn with this Pentax, this time you deserve to hear this.
I bought one K5II. I am delighted with it. Flawless ergonomics, impeccable build quality. Shames the latest Nikon products without doubt, by the sheer consistency which features in all the details of its construction and ergonomics design. The autofocus works fast and without hesitation on the inside, even when at f/2.8 the machine calculates a shutter time greater than 4 seconds, and only in a very dark the focus assist lamp lights up. I do not know whether it actually makes 7 frames per second, but I measured guaranteed 6.7 frames per second. The mirror is particularly silent, as well as the shutter. Even taking photos in Raw+Jpg, the buffer fills only around 24 to 25 pictures taken, and from there makes 3 photos in 2 seconds continuously, until there is no space on the memory card. If shooting in Jpg only, fills the memory between 32 and 35 photographs taken. This is done with a SDHC card 400x. At high ISO, the results are Extremely Good even at 1600ISO, and Very good at 3200ISO
Hello Pentax's Creators. Excellent product that is your Pentax K5II. I am your customer and believe that there is a market for a zoom APS-C,a 23-69mm with constant f/2.8 aperture (fulframe equivalent to a 35-105mm).It is not too much, just a 3x zoom. Would be perfect for family photos, often made in the interior.Your weak point is in the range of lenses, you need to think well and produce what the others did not. Going down your own path, the other brands that will behind you, never the other way around.It is too expensive to produce with aperture f/2.8? Ok, f/3.2 or f/3.5 at most.
Tomskyair: Specs look great, like the omission of the OLPF for better detail and the improved AF. Coming from a D300 I would have loved to see a true successor to it of course. But if that mythical "D400" doesn't come the D7100 may pretty well take its place in my camera bag and breathe new life in my 12-24 and 16-85 DX optics.
I don't really care about the "small buffer" as I usually don't employ the "spray 'n pray" shooting style. But I definitely like the shape of the D7100's body compared to the D7000 (and lesser extent also the D90): despite almost identical dimensions with the D7000 the D7100 looks much beefier and is more ergonomically shaped. This goes especially for the grip which is more rounded and wider almost as on a D300/D700. Actually that was my primary dislike with the D7000; although having rather small hands the D7000 always felt edgy and awkward to me and I could never befriend myself with its ergonomics. The D7100 looks much more promising in this regard.
I agree with you entirely. Ergonomically the D7000 is unpleasant to use, and this is his major defect.If this problem has been effectively gone, then the D7100 will be an excellent product for its price.It remains to be seen how behaves in higher ISO.
On the other hand, the D800 is a good bet, but not as good as it should. Has a very good overall quality level, but a sensor with so many pixels, it wasn't the best idea they could get from the customer's point of view. Lost slightly on higher ISO for cheaper machines, and lost by having to reduce the number of images per second, far below the ideal. Process images so heavy has its price.Imagine this same machine with an excellent sensor of 24 Mpixel. It would be wonderful. I would say almost perfect.Yeah, so It took sales to a D4 without doubt, and all its higher range. This was one of the reasons to bet on this sensor, the other was throwing the eye to medium format.Still, a very serious product. I'd buy, but its high price and the disadvantages of so many pixels, no thank you.But the D800 is at the high level of the best on Nikon. Honestly, today in a ratio quality/products, I would say that in 12 products DSLR, Nikon has only 2 or 3 choices. But all at a very high price.
The D600 is clearly a lost bet, Nikon never will recover the investment made in this model.Low quality plastic, assembly at the level of a $600 model, inaccuracy in the use of the machine, all very amateurish despite their high price. The use of this D600 is not anything better than with a D7000. Yes, it has better image, but this is far from enough for the price. A disaster, although the idea of being able to access an FX sensor at lowest price to be good. But not in this way. Give up this, make a product that sells, this doesn't matter anymore.
Pentax K-5II for me.Yes, it's just an APS-C, but it is a product made with care and quality. Exceeds the Nikon D7000 in everything, is better than the D600 in build quality, ergonomics and handling, autofocus, and only slightly lower in image quality, at a price that is nearly half.Best buy yes.
saiko: Why Nikon is not talking about the dust issue at all?! Should we buy D600 or wait?
I will wait no longer. Exclusively for errors of Nikon brand, this model is a technical and commercial failure.A bet that is going to blur and fade quietly from the market.I'll wait for a new machine, but Nikon, do not delay so much ...
Backstage: Years ago I choose Nikon because the handgrip was perfect for my hands. Now I choose not to buy the D600 as for me the grip was simply unpleasant. I could not imagine myself using it. Sorry Nikon.
The problem with the handgrip is the shape, texture, and size. Perfect match to you, all of them.
FranciscoJG: The positives of this machine are clear and true. And true are the negative aspects mentioned, many sweet and veiled form, for reasons that we all know but do not accept. The truth is that for this price point, "the least good" cannot be forgiven. And to get off the bar, and be forgiven at the level of the low-range segment, which represents a significant improvement over a D7000, the machine has a price value unforgivable. And when you start using, buying good objective becomes evident and more expensive is the initial investment.Thanks, but does not suit me. I can pay less for an APS-C faster and effective enough, or spend more to get the same on FX, and yes, with benefits in image quality. This middle ground, "hybrid", has no sense from an economic point of view. Is a bad investment. We spend a lot, but we have only one machine often slow and indecisive, with weak grip.
It is not a matter of having too much or too little money to buy, you can even take a match and burn your money. It is thinking about alternatives, to spend better what has to spend. Each decide for themselves what they do with what they have. A machine cannot be evaluated by the price only, or image that can produce under certain circumstances, has to be evaluated but by pictures that did not allow be lost, through their effectiveness and comfort in use. This is where this proposal misses, getting close to the machines of own brand at half the price, and very close to the price of other more expensive, but really best on almost everything.
I have no doubt that the future of DSLR will be the FX sensor, already know this for a few years. They say that the sensors are more expensive, so machines are. This is not entirely true. The evolution of sensors was this, to reach the largest, it was necessary to begin by small, it was necessary to develop technical and very much investment was made. This route is already done.Today we can abandon the DSLR APS-C and make a whole new range only on FX, with the same prices, with prices to suit all tastes. Let the APS-C sensors for compact cameras of all kinds, leaving the filth of 3, 4 or 5 mm sensor, stop producing it, or leave it to the phones. A D7000 with FX sensor (the D600) does not have to cost twice the price, this is a lie. Can this machine D600 be the beginning of a paradigm shift in the photographic industry? I hope so.
The positives of this machine are clear and true. And true are the negative aspects mentioned, many sweet and veiled form, for reasons that we all know but do not accept. The truth is that for this price point, "the least good" cannot be forgiven. And to get off the bar, and be forgiven at the level of the low-range segment, which represents a significant improvement over a D7000, the machine has a price value unforgivable. And when you start using, buying good objective becomes evident and more expensive is the initial investment.Thanks, but does not suit me. I can pay less for an APS-C faster and effective enough, or spend more to get the same on FX, and yes, with benefits in image quality. This middle ground, "hybrid", has no sense from an economic point of view. Is a bad investment. We spend a lot, but we have only one machine often slow and indecisive, with weak grip.
King Penguin: Am I correct in saying that if 35mm film was digital it would be 21mp......then this camera is an affordable digital version of film. As for high ISO, in film days to get 800 ISO you had specialist film and that was grainy........I very rarely shoot above 800 ISO and I'm sure most other people don't either. Most of the time I shoot on 100 ISO, occasionally increasing it if I need an extra stop or two.......I can't be alone in this, can I?
I've just converted to digital. But, I still shoot on film, as I listen to music on LP and CD. None of the technologies is bad, all have their advantages and disadvantages. Make our own photos in B&W controlling the whole process of revelation to the end product, is an emotion that digital never gives us. And say whatever they want, but B&W in digital, still haven't seen that has achieved the level of analog. Not in photos printed at least.
35 mm film had a number of pixels (crystals) highly variable, since these increase in size when it used ISO above 100. Lower in number, so increased the grain in the image. In the latest film would say of 2004/2006, in which the digital was "killing" the analog, it wasn't difficult at ISO100 if they could count up to 50 million crystals on a film 35 mm. So, Yes, it could have 20Mpixel only, and do not, could have more than double that. The limitations of the analog were not in number of pixels, but on the chemically image retrieval, low light sensitivity, distribution and size of pixels (crystals). Not to mention cost of revelation and other well-known drawbacks.
It is technically possible, in a few years, to an APS-C sensor to have 40 Mpixel, and a sensor FX to exceed 100 Mpixel. Just need to have a density near 14Mpixel per square, and this has already ben made in 2005 by Sony. I don't have is doubts that the customer don't need this. I have no doubt that today a 4.7 µm pixel makes a better picture than in 2008 a 8.4 µm pixel, due to improvements in the structural construction of the sensor. Nor do I doubt that the built-in image processing is today extremely better than they did in 2005/2008.I have no doubt that such high density sensors will bring great increase of diffraction and shading, not to mention many other problems. And for what? To show the images on any screen or Tv, 3 to 4 Mpixel is everything you need. To print on paper 12 x 16 inch picture, 12 Mpixel is enough. The 16 x 20 inch need 18 Mpixel; for 20x28 inch, 24 Mpixel is enough. Someone will print more than 0.00001% of is pictures in a larger format than this?
8 years ago, a camera with 6 to 8 Mpixel was the best in the world. In the following years, I smile, while appreciated technical efforts to reach where it was necessary. And as I said at that time, it was necessary to arrive at a value around 18 to 24 Mpixel. Why these values? Because we all have the right to print a photo, with the highest possible quality, in format that can go up to a 50 cm by 70 cm at least. For that, some 18 to 24 Mpixel is what we need. Above this value there are several technical and practical problems. Still predicted that for an APS-C sensor 16 to 18 Mpixel is as much to get. To reach 24Mpixel. a FX sensor is required. Everything that deviate from these values is no longer necessary, not even for most professionals. Stop the race for tons of pixels. Work to improve the sensors results in critical areas, and lower production costs. No more pixels, have already achieved what everyone needs in these two formats. Even more, it's not what most photographer needs.
Tomas_X: Why the D300 owner does not want D7000. I can hold my D300 whole day in my hands, but 3 hours holding D7000 results in right hand pain. Bad grip and smaller discomfort body.I know the differences between AF MultiCAM 3500 DX (D300/D3/D4/D800) and 4800 DX (D7000/D600). The AF in D300(s) is bettter than the one in D7000. And the reason is not 51 points versus 39 points. I want the fastness, reaction, buffer, framerate of D300 successor, not the D7000 effort. I want 8-10 fps of the further D400. I want 3/5/7/9 steps exposure bracketing, I could not make this photo with D7000: http://www.tomx.eu/Foto/Vylety_Cechy_a_Morava/Vyhlidka_Maj_2011/slides/Vyhlidka_Maj_03.html . I want D300 strategy of exposure metering, not D7000 burned highlites. I want to connect big flash lights to D300 body connector which D7000 does not have. I want D300 material quality, not D7000 problems well known. I want AF-ON, D300/D4 features of AF, not reducted D7000 sets. I want lossless NEF compression.
You can buy a cheap car with a reasonable engine, or an expensive car with the same engine. What you may not expect is to have the same comfort in everyday life, traveling in a car. Dx format or FX, is not the most important, is the whole package. Positioning of buttons, direct access to certain settings, menus, configuration possibilities, drawing of grip, etc. For those who work many hours every day with a machine in your hands, the pixel war nor is there. Comfort and efficiency are the key to the success or defeat of a model. D300s is outdated Yes, but needs to be renewed soon.