How exactly does an "electronic first-curtain shutter" work?
Zoron: I am getting D900...not this incremental upgrade....who's with me?
"why not skip ahead to the D3000 line?"
Oh, I see, D3000 was the future already :-)*excited now*
richard4566: I'm concerned about it being manufactured in Thailand. My D800E and lenses made in Japan are perfection. Not a squeak! Other Nikon DSLR and lenses I've used made in Thailand, many quality, fit and clunky issues with not as high a level of "perfection".
What kind of lenses are you comparing?
Waiting for D1000 ... :-)
Martin Datzinger: For those interested in sRAW: Reconsider.
Or check original source:http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/nikon-small-raw-internals
Martin Datzinger: They adressed all of my concerns I had about the D800 and that kept me from buying it (I went for the D600 instead, where those things were better). So for me, this is highly exciting.
+1I somehow resited to upgrade from the D700, but resisting got more difficult now :-)
Joseph S Wisniewski: The picture showing the eye is either deliberately deceptive or totally misinformed. The radius of the eye is many times tighter than the Petzval surface of the eye's lens. That is why much of the retina forms a flat tension surface in front of the curved eyeball. The optical system, as drawn, would be substantially worse than a flat retina.
Eyeballs are round because eyes tilt and pan. That's all there is to it.
Thanks. "It appears that Sony's own PR people, ..."Now, that's funny somehow and in another way not. But not really an unknown phenomenon (tech/engs vs. marketing/PR).
May I ask if Sony's approach makes sense in your opinion?
Roland Karlsson: 2560x1080 ...
I have two good 4:3 screens and a hight of 1024 now. Thats more or less the same pixel area. So ... this is not an investment that feel necessary. I am waiting for half the pixel pitch. 2000x5000 or so would be nice :-)
4608 x 1440 px is what I'd suggest (2 x 1440 px coming with16:10 resp. 32:10 ratio, 1440 px due to manufacturing)
CameraCarl: After buying six different backpacks, I bought the GuraGear Kiboko and it is the best camera bag I own. It holds everything I need on a major trip: 2 pro bodies, 500 f4, four other zoom lenses, hoods, two teleconverters, memory cards, rain covers, batteries, ball head, etc. It fits in US aircraft overhead storage bins including regional planes. The backpack is good enough for short hikes of less than a couple of miles. I've retired my LowePro Pro Trekker and sold several other bags. It is just as waterproof as all my other bags, which albeit don't have the special waterproof (and hard to operate) zippers a very few bags have. Two fellow photogs who have seen me use mine are now shopping for a Kiboko themselves. I do admit it is expensive, but considering that I carry well over $10,000 of gear in it and travel with it on some trips that cost many thousands of dollars, a few hundred dollars is a small investment.
Thanks guys, I just was wondering if the OP would have had a better idea than me, since "every one carries theirs in their hands" applies for me as well :-)
Ok, and how do you carry a pro tripod i.e. when hiking a couple of miles?
Thanks for your review, Carsten. But what's your approach for carrying a real tripod now? Can't believe you're doing it the way the image above implies (at least not for long travels :-)http://2.s.img-dpreview.com/files/articles/1895767893/09052008163459_GuraGear019.jpg?v=1512
ayt: regarding this bit on page 3:"Adding just the grip section results in pushing the tripod mount ever further off center."
isn't the tripod mount on the vertical grip about in line with the lens mount? why is it ever further off center?
It somehow reminds of one of those 'Oly odds', that is, offering a really nice camera but including some kind of disgusting 'bug(s)' that will cause predictable dissapointment -- at least, that's my point of view.
HeezDeadJim: Oh sweet!
Now I can "accidentally" instantly share photos of me shaving my beard while in a spaghetti strap halter top and jean mini skirt, and black leather stilettos onto my Facebook!....
Disregard that... I was kidding about having a Facebook account...
Maybe they were thinking 'if only 1% of Facebook users will buy one of our cams we'll be saved for ever' ...
I like your review and appreciated the reading. Anyway, I'd be interested in your answer on two questions:
1. What does the S100 lack in your opinion so you didn't provide the cam with dpr's Gold Award? What is missing i.e. compared to the XZ-1? (lens?)
2. Like the S95 the S100 got a score of 72%. But in the review you gave several hints which features have been improved. So I'm not sure ... did I missed something crucial and why didn't your score raise a bit?
PS: Sorry for having cross-posted this at Canon Talk but I only now realized the "Comments" are a better place for such questions.
PaulRivers: Ok, I do have a complaint for better or worse.
Dpreview has sometimes taken some really, really useful pictures. I refer to their xz-1 vs s95 comparison picture that shows how much thicker the xz-1 is than the s95 - *all the time*. Seriously - great picture! :-)
But pictures like this - are useless -http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonS100/images/s100-vs-s95-top-001.jpg
They're unhelpful eye candy. Nobody cares how thick the camera is with the lens extended. I know it looks "artistic" and everything, but it's completely not useful at all. I am hoping that you will read this and consider doing these size comparisons in the useful way, with the lens retracted, like was done with the xz-1 vs s95 comparison shots.
I disagree with that. This comparison might not look that useful since both the cams don't differ much but that's an information as well.
Thanks for providing the links.This is a beautiful example of someone finding a pearl in the sea of scenes as well as in the sea of images taken from those scenes. Standing in front of such impressive panoramo (the Alps), facing a nice lightning and then to 'see' and take this photograph - great. Congratulations, Alex! --regards, eric