Nice. Where's the D300 replacement?
Wow Nico that is fantastic! I do a lot of backcountry bike touring as well, with my cameras! I have dabbled with smaller format cameras (point and shoots and Nikon V1's) but the IQ just isn't up to snuff. I recently got a D610. I will bite the bullet and just lug larger gear with me. I have found that you can't change lenses on the fly so each lens has to have its own body. The weight can add up fast, but my compromise will have to be limited focal lengths, and maybe some smaller format cameras for the shots in good light. I also like wildlife photography ... so that ain't a small setup (D300 + 300 mm f/4 AFS). I'm wondering what you do for a computer?
I need to do something more with my photos, like you are doing. I'd point you and others in the direction of another bike photography blogger I follow, Cass Gilbert.http://www.whileoutriding.com/blog
Dyun27: As amazing as this camera sounds, the 28 megapixel crop sensor would worry me. It's already challenging not to introduce motion blur to the 16 megapixel D7000 sensor with longer lenses, it's definitely challenging with the 36 megapixel full frame sensor of the D800 and the D7100 24 megapixel sensor.
At 28 megapixels with a crop sensor it means having to use higher ISO settings, faster shutter speeds and using VR whenever possible. At that point I'd have to start taking a monopod or tripod wherever I go. Only the shorter lenses would be easy to use.
I'm surprised you're getting that much motion blur at 1/2000 and 420mm. My 300 f/4 which is 450mm thereabouts on Nikon DX doesn't have VR and I see no reason for it for wildlife shots -- VR won't stop subject motion. I am thinking you may just be imagining things or as someone above said maybe something is different with the D800 that is causing the changes (it is bigger than the D610 so maybe the weight distribution is different and you are compensating which is causing more vibrations?) To go from 24 MP to 36 MP will not cause a 50% increase in linear motion on a per-pixel basis because the extra pixels are in 2 dimensions, not 1. I'm not sure if the pixel size is the same though between the two cameras and they're just packed tighter with the D810, or if the pixels are actually smaller, or if that even matters.
Kawika Nui: I'm excited about the "other buying options" listed on this page! Great prices, unique spec!
Other buyings options:Sears.comSamsung NX58F5300SS/AA Stainless Steel 30" Gas Range $825.28Samsung NX58F5500SS/AA Stainless Steel 30" Gas Range $999.99.....US-Appliance.comSamsung NX58F5500SS/AA Stainless Steel 30" Gas Range $899.00
Has this page been hacked by Sears or Price Grabber?
Get Adblock, I never see any ads, even on Youtube at the start of the videos.
yawn. Total waste of effort. Where's the D300 replacement?
BBViet: You can put sharks in a positive light all you want but they are still dangerous and should be known as such. Bears are often put in a positive light, but if you don't teach your kids that they are dangerous, bad things will happen the next time they see one and think of the cuddly ones in cartoons and toy shops.
Don't let the shark fanatics lead you to believe sharks are safe to be around even when you're not a professional.
Huh? Domestic dogs are more dangerous than any of these animals. Of course, we supposedly spend more time with them which increases their chances of harming us. Sure, but your statement that we infrequently encounter sharks is just wrong. They are all over the place in the surf and oceans; they just don't bite us so we don't know they're there. Obviously being in the water with sharks is more dangerous than being in the water without sharks, but this villainous slander they have received for so long is a crime against nature. It justifies the slaughter of hundreds of millions of them every year and their soon to be near extinction. And furthermore, it diverts people's attention from truly dangerous things / animals / diseases. It's childish sensationalism taken advantage of by the media.
Cont'd Sure, sharks can (rarely) be dangerous but for some reason they capture so much unjustified fear and hatred from everyone and the media. Pretty much everything else is dangerous! What about mosquitos that kill millions of people a year? Intestinal worms? Hippos, which are the most dangerous animal in Africa? Giraffes? Nope, those aren't "scary". In reality, the animals that we should be most concerned about are our own politicians and business leaders / bankers who are literally destroying our future but for some reason we allow them to keep "leading" us. Not as big teeth as sharks.
Sharks are mostly safe to be around but of course you have to be careful. Worldwide, less than about 10 people a year die from shark attacks, and that is almost always because the victims bleed to death after the shark spits them out after he realizes he bit the wrong thing. Being killed by a shark is about the least likely way to die in the whole world.
I'm kind of bummed, my friends apparently invited me on that trip a couple years ago with the blond girl riding the great whites. I don't remember them asking me but I for sure would have gone! They were fine, no one got bit!
I used to dive in shark tanks with blacktips (pretty harmless). The only dangerous ones are tigers, whites, bulls, and some hammerheads. But even then if you aren't stupid you'll probably be ok. cont'd
Ivan Lietaert: I have been using the V1 for almost a year now. I bought it when the price came down after the V2 was announced.
It is my favourite walk around camera (I also own a 550D and a GH3), for family outings and even the more creative work.
The camera is very intuitive and I never regret the lack of buttons. It basically is a camera that allows to forget about any technicalities and completely focus on the subject, the environment and the action going on around me. And because it is so lightning fast and responsive, I seldom miss a shot.
But hey, some people care about pictures, while others care about specs. I respect both.
How do you find the unlockable mode dial?
Antonio Mario Magalhaes: Richard,
I believe you missed the point of the System 1 in general, and the Vx in particular. Your starting points are flawed:
- "(...) the 1 System appeared to be aimed at what would, in the US, be called the 'Soccer Mom' crowd."Nope. The simpler models (Jx...) perhaps; V1 was aimed at a household with a DSLR and where there would be people (the DSLR owner/spouse) who like to travel light but still take tougher shots as needed.
- "What didn't seem ... convincing was the more expensive 1 V1"Wrong. The V1 was instantly seen by wildlife/sports shooters as having a tremendous potential.
- "the V3 (is not) focused on enthusiast use."You're right!! Read Nikon's V3 announcement. It's aimed at the DSLR owner who doesn't want to lug equipment around AND could use the V3 power (20fps, 60fps w/o AF, etc, etc).
- "it rarely makes sense to (use the FT-1 adapter)"Wrong again! It was THE thing to make sense for wildlife shooters.
-"lenses don't yet exist"V3 + 70-300mm: amazing potential!
Yes, I know it's still cheaper than the 7100 with a FX lens, and it should be considering how much less glass and mirrors there are. But it should have been cheaper still, and they shouldn't have added irritating changes / deleted good ones. Technology is supposed to bring prices down, that's what happens with everything else in the electronics arena. For some reason Nikon seems to think it should get more expensive, and that's why their N sales are terrible... Seriously, all it will take is for another company like Fuji to bring out a nice long lens and fill a few other holes, then bring their prices down a little bit, and they will destroy Nikon, because they seem to know how to actually build a mirrorless camera.
joeyv: Nikon sells it's low end dslrs to "soccer moms." Statistics show that, in the US, this market segment actually prefers dslrs to mirrorless.The V3 is for professionals and enthusiasts who already own Nikon dslrs. It's a perfect compliment to dslrs,as: 1.) it takes existing lenses via Ft1 adaptor 2.) It adds capability to dslr users because of its speed and reach.Nice as the other mirrorless cameras are (A7, OM-D), it doesn't add anything except smaller size, to current dslr owners. In fact, they all fall short in one way or another. The Nikon 1 series will always be the speed king and will have the longest reach. In the near future, as sensors evolve, IQ will improve to a point where the diff. bet. 1" & micro 4/3 sensors will not be so meaningful anymore. Just like dx and ff now are both very capable low light tools.In effect, Nikon has produced a mirrorless camera that doesn't compete w/ its DSLR line while still attracting a specialized group of photographers.
Joey I agree. The question is, how many years will we have to wait? Why couldn't they do it right the first time? Why do they leave such a sour taste in my mouth from their continual efforts to milk me of as much money as they can by only offering sub-par systems that could easily be so much better, for inflated prices? If they are trying to not cannibalize DSLR sales, then where is the D400?
"[the FT-1] was THE thing to make sense for wildlife shooters."- well as a user I do not appreciate Nikon intentionally crippling the performance by only allowing center focus, in order to not caniabalize their DSLR sales. Yes, the 1 system works, but it could have been so much better.
The V3 + 70-300 is a great combo, with some limitations that could have been avoided. For $2200. Plus at least $100 for new cards, plus at least $60 for additional batteries, plus $20 for aftermarket Watson charger. Way too much money.
"The simpler models (Jx...) perhaps; V1 was aimed at a household with a DSLR"- but Nikon seemed to go out of its way to intentionally make it not handle like a mini DSLR and they still haven't really fixed that with the V3. They didn't want to hurt their DSLR so they brought forth this frankenstein that doesn't make much sense at all.
"The V1 was instantly seen by wildlife/sports shooters as having a tremendous potential"- yes, POTENTIAL. It's incredibly frustrating to see what the V;s COULD have been if they had actually designed with the photographer in mind.
"It's aimed at the DSLR owner who doesn't want to lug equipment around"- yes, it's a good step but misses the mark in many ways. But way to expensive, and introduces new battery and new card.
C-GREEN: I don't normally do this but after DPReview came out with this I felt the need to say something. What I don't understand is why all the complaining. I used to come to DPR for information and knowledge but recently all I here is griping and complaining!! If the new V3 is not the camera for you then don't buy it!! When i'm in the grocery store shopping and I see that one cereal cost more than the other I don't write a blog about it. I get the cereal I want and that's it. Get a grip guys "please"! If you think it's over priced or under valued then again don't buy it!!
C-GREEN, my issue is I have invested in a lot of Nikon glass, with the expectation that their cameras would evolve nicely. But they aren't really, their mirrorless basically stalled. Furthermore, Nikon intentionally cripples functions on the FT-1 adapter that make using my existing long lenses for wildlife more difficult. Then they come out with this ridiculously priced $1000 70-300. Sorry, but Nikon has terrible customer relations. They don't view their customers as business partners, they view us as wallets to be manipulated by some CEO sitting in an office tower in Japan. They want to tell their customers what they want, rather than give them what they want. This is actually what they have said. You are right, we will just move to another system. I see nothing that will ever justify me giving Nikon another cent. Maybe an amazing new D400 might but that is one camera they seem to be intentionally withholding from customers, for some bizarre unknown suicidal reason.
Wow that 70-300 isn't much lighter than the FX version. But it's smaller. Maybe it has more metal in it and is stronger?
I admit, I bought a V1, to use with my existing long Nikon lenses for wildlife etc. I actually bought 2, the second one came a year or two later. I use the other one with the 10-30 because it's small for out in the wilderness. I hate big cameras. Dynamic range isn't good, there's poor subject OOF isolation, changing exposure compensation is the most irritating thing I've ever seen on a camera. But it works.
I basically bought them because of my existing lens set, and because the EL-15 battery is also compatible with my D7000, so I can save some $$ and weight there.
Would I buy one if I wasn't already invested in Nikon? Very unlikely with the new offerings from other companies like Fuji. The only way I justified buying my two V1's was because I got the first one on that crazy firesale which was like half the original price. The second one I bought as a return, but it was basically brand new, for less than half the original price. I would never buy a V3 at the price they are asking.
cont'd Heck, they could hire me and I'd advise them on how to make an awesome ergonomic camera that would outsell all the others, simply because it's designed by someone whoa actually ... gasp! .... shoots with a camera! It's not rocket science but they generally refuse to listen, except the more progressive companies like Fuji that will soon be nipping at Nikon's heels. There is really no excuse for these poor ergonomics. They should have been sorted out 10-15 years ago when digital cameras became mainstream and there, bam, you have it. No need to change ergonomics, just improve sensor and AF performance, and video. To be fair, they are generally improving, but slowly. Look what Gopro did, simply because it was open to what the customer wanted. Of course it would be more difficult for a company to come in and sweep the interchangeable lens market like that because they'd also have to make all the lenses. But one of the existing companies like Fuji could do this.
How else would camera makers get the message if we didn't complain? They should be thanking us, we are helping them to avoid bankruptcy by making better cameras, as smart phones will kill their sales. Many will go bankrupt anyways. These are not cheap items, we deserve better in this day and age. And the ergonomic problems continue on year after year, they just don't seem to get it. It's not like every new sensor technology requires a different ergonomic. cont'd
stromaroma: The irony is that Americans actually believe they have freedom... "One World", yeah right, this building is a great way to stick it in the face of the rest of the world that the Wall Street bankers enslave the world via the One Bank.
The bankers took over in 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created. That's what the bankers want, "One World" to enslave.
America is not a democracy, that is a facade to present the appearance that you actually have some choice in how your country is managed. You have a 2 party dictatorship. You do have some local municipal democracy though.
I always get a kick out of people trying to defend their slavery and telling themselves that they live in democracy. It's kind of like the Stockholm Syndrome.
Sure but they could have chosen a better location for a building purportedly celebrating "freedom" than ground zero for the global debt slavery racketeering cartel, which is now much more powerful than it was in 2001.