lovEU: My local dealer recently told me he is somewhat bewildered how easily customers are paying Sony prices - I'm already curious to get to know if this will apply to the RX1R II too.
No way it is 30% but anyway, he really is surprised that Sony folks seem to spend money a lot more liberrally than Canikon guys :) For sure, this will not harm his pockets :)
My local dealer recently told me he is somewhat bewildered how easily customers are paying Sony prices - I'm already curious to get to know if this will apply to the RX1R II too.
lovEU: Tripod mount not centered? What? Really? I only can shake my head in disbelief - trying to compete with DSLRs but then adding Cybershot-like features. Somehow funny :)
"The tripod mount is not centered and it prevents you from opening the battery compartment door when you're using a tripod."
I understand: Sony doesn't want me using this cam i.e. for photography at night. What a shame.
@ Rishi Sanyal: Absolutely, it is very likely that a compromise due to constraints has caused this decision. Anyway, as a potential buyer I'd like Sony to re-think and design this "feature (and, to provide a much better battery life).
"You've already suggested you would be taking a pile of camera batteries up the mountain ..."
Oh, where did I suggest, and, what "pile"? Funny .. did you sleep well? Anyway, 3 batteries vs. battery pack is a difference. But somehow you have a point - only providing a battery life (CIPA) of 280 images this cam seems to be limited for many jobs. Otoh, you can take those 280 pics in record time :-)
I close this case now with one last remark from my side: a non-centered tripod mount on such a capable camera is just a bad idea resp. IMO a design mistake, that btw has been criticed even for smaller compact cams. But no prob: Buy it, use it and be happy with it.
"Just wondering... did you sleep well?"
Nice cam + basic design mistakes > should cause poor sleep for some guys (not me :-)
"You should be able to plug in external battery packs ..."
Well, in principle yes. But do I want to carry battery packs always? Mountains can be high. Or maybe I just got the idea.
Edit:Another point: Why causing the neccesity of having to demount the cam just for changing the battery? At night not always welcome.
Tripod mount not centered? What? Really? I only can shake my head in disbelief - trying to compete with DSLRs but then adding Cybershot-like features. Somehow funny :)
lovEU: Btw, how does 8K translate into storage requirements?
Thank you, guys.
Sure, but I'd be interested to get to know a typical range ... and yes: it's not for me :-)
Btw, how does 8K translate into storage requirements?
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)