Andrea McLaughlin: This is not exactly a new service! The San Francisco Bay Area has several photo labs like Photolab, Gamma and Lightwaves that still process black and white (and color) film on a daily basis. Not just for locals, these labs have been doing mail order and working with pros for years. I believe these labs all have traditional darkrooms too!
Maybe Ilford senses growth in the market for black and white film. If so, that's a really good thing for all these labs!
Photolab in Berkeley is an especially fine lab, in my experience.
Janoch: Why the heck didn't you ask them, if they are completely blind or deaf to the requests for a D300s update??
You don't get as big and successful as DPR by putting people, especially the Japanese, over the coals. Maybe, after failing to give the Df a gold medal, DPR decided to tread lightly.
For consumers, things are getting better, at least more interesting with loose canons like Fake Chuck but if you're a "mainstream" presence on the internet, you temper your remarks.
Jogger: I still shoot my D700 from late 2007.. the problem for Nikon is that i dont need to buy a new DSLR every year the way people do with mirrorless cameras. That is what is driving that market and why companies are trying to get in.
Consumers in the mirorrless segment of the market will buy lackluster cameras only to upgrade then annually (just read the m43 forum)... whereas a DSLR will last you a decade or more. Nothing glamourous here, nothing to show-off.. just a rock solid DSLR that does its job and lasts.
The problem is that nobody, mirrorless or SLR, needs a new camera every year. Innovation won't fix this because the reason they don't need a new camera is because their current camera is so good.
These handsome gents have just about worked themselves out of a job. The only hope is to get more people interested in video. It's like the "4-D" movie theaters in China or 19-speaker surround sound. Eventually you run the string.
daciangroza: The Sochi Project is amazing! Unfortunately it flies way above the heads of the vast majority of dpreview readers and forum members.
Not everyone can attain your level of superiority. But I do like these photos. They seem genuine. There may be bit of slyness going on but this looks about right for this part of the world.
Harry S: They got off incredibly lightly there considering the D600/D610 mess and the lack of significant developments for DX users in terms of bodies and lenses.
Massive contrast with the very open and honest interview with the Fuji management.
About the same level as our worthless politicians. Then again, Nikon makes a profit selling cameras which should count for something.
Where is Joe Ehrenreich when we need him? I'd better include a link.
AbrasiveReducer: Kowa is a wildly underrated brand. I would expect these to be very good. The last time they made camera lenses, they were great and very reasonably priced.
I didn't say Kowa made great (reliable) cameras. I said they made great lenses.
erichK: Innovation indeed, when they essentially copy not only the Olympus EM-1, but even the Olympus lens in a lensecap. But then I guess that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!
(It is true that Fuji has come up with some really interesting new technologies in very attractive cameras, but the provenance of the design parameters for their new flagship is painfully obvious!)
I'm sure Kyocera is really concerned about somebody copying the appearance of a camera they made when they were in the camera business.
a l b e r t: Nikon is getting caught in a catch-22 situation.
They know that if they develop a competent mirrorless line, it'd kill off their SLR business. But if they don't develop a competent mirrorless line, in 3-5 years, their SLR business will be finished.
At one time, they were really innovating, D3, D3s, D700, D300, D300s. They weren't afraid of cameras (such as D700) having high-end sensor/feature that would cannibalize their top end products. Look what happen now. All they can do is worry and not be able to act.
I'd not be surprised in 5 years' time, Fuji will come out on top with the biggest share of consumer and semi-pro cameras.
Marty is absolutely right. And anyone who thinks that Canon and Nikon are where they are because they always know what people want and never made a mistake, well, just read the interview.
Donnie G: Many of the comments here would suggest that the "Big 2" camera manufacturers are not listening to their customers. Ridiculous! Listening to their customers is how they got to be the "Big 2" in the first place, and over 97% of their customer base have taken the position that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Meanwhile, a very vocal, but unprofitable, 2-3% customer minority feel that Nikon and Canon aren't paying them enough attention, because the companies refuse to ditch their profitable businesses in order to chase the most recent "next new thing".
Sony, Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic are desperately trying to establish a profitable and loyal customer base of their own, so it makes sense for them to invest 100% of their effort into that "next new thing" in the hope that maybe one of them might turn a profit with their camera business someday. Will enough of the "Big 2's" unhappy 2-3% switch to these other guys? Maybe, but, it hasn't happened yet.
The problem is much worse than big cameras or small. The problem is that current cameras of all sizes are more than adequate for most people. Not DPR readers, who change cameras like ladies' shoes but for everybody else.
The very high quality of these cameras has hit professionals, too. Not long ago, the amateur had a Nikkormat or OM-2 while the pro had Hasselblads or 4x5. Now, if you go to a stockbroker's wedding, everybody has a D800.
Frank_BR: I noticed that all the four guys from Nikon wear glasses. In contrast, the executives at Fuji, Sigma and Sony who were interviewed at CP+ 2014 do not wear glasses. Does this mean that to be an executive at Nikon one needs to be nearsighted?
Nikon makes eyeglass frames so they probably got a deal.
Kowa is a wildly underrated brand. I would expect these to be very good. The last time they made camera lenses, they were great and very reasonably priced.
What I would really like to know (but don't expect to find out) is how Sigma moved from making inexpensive and poorly quality controlled lenses to some of the best lenses on the market.
Most DPR readers don't go back this far but Sigma always made unique lenses. The difference now is that they are not just unique but also good, and that's an amazing turnaround. Somebody within Sigma decided that sticky diaphragms, wobbly mounts, loose screws and decentering would no longer be acceptable. This is huge achievement but they did it. I suppose nobody wants to take credit for fixing something that most people don't remember.
People should not be so quick to judge. Just because it looks like an ink cartridge for an HP wide format printer, has a Foveon sensor with different pixel counts depending on the color, costs a lot and is made by Sigma doesn't mean it won't be outstanding.
PerL: I think it is nice with a very compact FF and the IQ should be impressive. However, I can't see how it gets a higher rating than the Nikon Df, a much more allround capable camera with 10x the lens system. (I would equal the high res of the Sony with the low light performance of the Df)
It's the Sony that accepts more lenses than the Nikon and has higher resolution. So innovation aside, the Sony offers more in the body and (arguably) more in the lenses as well. The low light performance of both cameras is fine. But the Sony looks like a box with a handle and it doesn't say Nikon.
venancio: Couldn't help but notice that the D4S is not triggering much internet hoopla as the Df did... something about crying wolf and it turns out the Df was not a beast... or those Sochi sample pics just didn't show what a D3S can easily do... I'm sure Nikon is noticing this apparent apathy from potential buyers, or non-buyers... are people ignoring Nikon just so the company could feel how it is to be ignored?
The best product introductions are when expectations are low and the product turns out to be spectacular. The product, not the marketing or endorsements, generates the interest.
Hey Nikon, you know what would be great? A 17mm PC-E lens for photographing your Yokohama diorama.
Lawrencew: Here in the UK it is interesting to note that the pre-order prices of the Sony A6000 (£729) and the Olympus OM-D E10 (£599) with kit lenses are both lower than the G1 X II (£749). And that is before you even add the price of the EVF to the G1 X II making it £949.You can argue they are in different segments, but for anyone just about to spend circa £700 on a new compact camera (i.e. none DSLR) the Sony and Olympus offer fantastic VMF for the feature set they offer in comparison.
Regarding the cameras with more megapixels than the G1X, those extra megapixels make all the difference, especially with these small cameras. What I do is divide the price by the number of megapixels...that gives me the price per megapixel, which is how I know which camera is the best.
Sounds like gold or platinum with Sony lenses. With non-Sony lenses, having to "focus bracket" most shots sounds more like brass or zinc. And why would Sony want it otherwise?
Macadesigner: Seriously? under CONs"High-res sensor requires dedicated approach to shooting""Tools for shooting with third party lenses need improvement""Lacks a built-in flash""No in-camera Raw conversion"....what kind of Cons is that....just enough to make the CONs list as long as the PROs list?
The camera for sure is not perfect, but...com'on thats lime...
So long as it's not a lemon, that's fine.