Say goodbye to lost balls with this handy device.
larryr: This review makes me want to push the buy button!
The review is very good shows how to use the camera, and being creative with aspect ratio which I have only changed infrequently.
Softness apparently isn't the issue that some claim, except for defective camera. It is there but not a real life problem and more users are showing sharp images. One can decrease the aperture in most situations too.
Still wondering if the camera is still shaking out build problems with things like Doppler adj., focus problems. Still no rush as raw isn't in PS yet.
So many options these days, like those he mentioned at the end of his review.
A very nice camera but it seems pretty obvious that a higher megapixel version with a slightly longer zoom range can't be far off. Even non-innovating Canon managed to extend the range of the G1X zoom.
ecube: Will this gold plated edition improve the performance and picture quality over the standard edition? I doubt very much it will. If you could afford to buy this edition, how ofter will you use it? I am guessing the owner of this toy will have it boxed in an air sealed glass for viewing. I assume half of the buyers of this toy might consider this an investment, which would make sense if the gold content is at least 18karat and substantial, however, a mere 5 grams at the current open market price of $1,195 / ounce of 24karat would amount to $210, assuming the gold plating is 24k. This is not for me for any purpose. I am highly satisfied with my D800 and D5100 with my collection of Prime Nikkors.
Good luck to those "collectors"
Because it won't sell for the same price and because the gold will wear off the strap lugs the first time the camera is used.
The amount of feedback here is enough to justify the effort put into this. Nikon is still a powerful brand and there are actually people with good things to say about this rare exotic version. The gold name part looks more like tobacco stained to me, but I've had to deal with trying to sell gold and lizard skin cameras so I'm jaded. Maybe a jade camera....
AshMills: Pentax 645 days are numbered obviously. ;-)
Unless they add a keypad, annoying ringtone and make the Pentax vibrate.
mpgxsvcd: I can’t think of two fundamentally different devices than a phone and a camera. Yet we still find a way to make them one and the same.
The ultimate goal should be for Sony to make a phone that is so good, they can't sell any cameras.
MJJSevilla: I had a Hasselblad X-pan. A great camera which I sold with great reluctance. Obviously, it wasn´t a real Hasselblad either but they didn´t mark it up to a ridculous price that insulted the customer and it was a good, functional product that I loved using.
Friends of mine who were into photography were always impressed by it. Those who weren´t, couldn´t have cared less and some even assumed it was some cheap Chinese knock off brand because it wasn´t a Nikon or a Canon or something they´d heard of....This was H´s problem I think. It´s a brand that appeals to photographers, not to the general public (let´s include the mega rich here for once, if only in the sense that they aren´t usually photographers). It has a certain cache but among people who know what they´re doing and people who know about photography aren´t going to be an obscenely expensive Sony. A leica maybe, if they´ve got the cash, but not that.
Loved my Xpan and sold it at a profit. But you're right; whatever else Nikon does, they understand product placement as well as Apple does. There may be other products but the public doesn't know about them so there is no prestige attached.
The more things change...as usual, bigger is better. But better is bigger and costs a lot more. Did anyone expect this camera would perform worse than a Nikon? Gold award.
I wonder if the name was inspired by Inspire, the monthly magazine from the folks at Al Qaeda. Seems like a good fit for a drone.
Too much space devoted to this but I'll just point out that selling a "cheap" camera with an expensive name need not be a fiasco or limited to people who don't know any better. Hasselblad did pretty well with the Xpan which was made by Fuji. But the camera was quite nice and the premium charged for the Hasselblad name wasn't totally unreasonable even though Hasselblad didn't manufacture the camera.
Marty4650: The concept was deeply flawed, and the end result is total failure.
Since so many people want to compare Hassleblad with Leica, then lets make that comparison to demonstrate how much execution matters.
Leica creates a really great camera, then charges a fortune for it. Because it is a truly great camera, they can get that very high price from those with the means and the inclination for quality.
Then, they take that wonderful camera, and create a "designer edition" or a "safari edition" or a "titanium edition" and DOUBLE the price again! And they can successfully sell them because they are wonderful cameras that have been further enhanced.
Hassleblad hasn't done anything like that.
They took a few "pretty good cameras" made by someone else, pimped them out in a tasteless way, then asked for ridiculous prices for them.
This concept was destined for failure. Everyone, except apparently Hassleblad, saw it coming.
Not exactly. I was at Leitz for the first Safari camera--an R3 SLR that was a slightly reworked Minolta body. The camera was fine, with or without the green paint but when we asked dealers how the Safaris were selling they said "like they were nailed to the shelf." Many of those Safaris were returned on a 1-for-3 basis (you had to buy 3 times as much to exchange for something else) and I recall one customer buying a new Safari that had a sticker inside saying "Shop at Phil's Camera for all your needs." That's what can happen when unsold inventory goes round and round.
There were other limited editions that bombed as well. Of course when the "underlying" camera was desirable, in other words an M camera, then the collectors went for the limited edition stuff.
cgarrard: Makes Ricoh's GR look like an even more incredible value. The sensor and especially the lens from Ricoh seem to blow this camera away at a fraction of the cost.
Yet, the Ricoh doesn't have the bomb proof build quality (although its still very excellent), Leica styling, or the Red Dot. And to people who buy Leica, that makes all the difference. Its not about value, its about vanity- at least in this case.
Oh wait, I'll give two more points to Leica. Packaging, and service, both to which handily go in their favor.
Ricoh has been making top notch cameras for some time but they don't charge enough, their cameras don't say Nikon and (at least recently) they don't have any limited editions. They need to address this if they want a bigger market share. Oh, and they need to give some stuff away in exchange for endorsements. That will take them from a photocopier company to a boutique camera manufacturer.
Sir Nick of High Point: Corner sharpness high iso dynamic range megapixles raw jpeg sensor.. Yeah, but does it take good pictures?
It says "Leica" and that is enough for many people.
narwayo: People do not bother when paying 600 euro for 10 euro plastic-made dsrl but stress the design industry because someone tried to make partially-wooden cameras. Having said that these cameras cost too much for what they offer and no wise person or pro photographer with a lot of money in his pockets would pay such amount of money just for the design. If these cameras would have been upgraded models with more performant sensor, lens and technologies and if they were costing less things would have been different. They managed all the operation with the typical hubris of northern european mentality and Hasselblad would prefer to go bankrupt rather than lower the prices of their product even if, as in this case, they do not worth the price they are sold.
If this was 1980 and this was a top of the line film camera, things might be different. But to pay good money for something that will be obsolete or replaced by something much better in a year or two is silly, even if it looks ok.
Gesture: At least, when Leica rebadges a Panasonic model, it does so tastefully and adds value with its warranty service. I still wish Leica would say "co-developed with Panasonic," instead of pretending these are Leica cameras, as I have seen on videos with Leica marketing people.
The moment they mention the P word, the perceived value goes down. But Panasonic should have no trouble implying it's really a Leica in disguise.
darngooddesign: The glee shown over people losing their jobs is pretty sad.
No one is happy about people losing their jobs (although I'd agree, there is ample proof most people don't care.) The glee comes from people saying "I told you so" and even that may be misplaced given the free publicity this announcement has garnered.
mgatov: I think what happened was Hasselblad looked at Leica and said: we can do better. Leica creates special limited editions by changing a bit of paint, or adding a different type of leather or adding an engraving and then charging more for the product. Hasselblad said: well, let's let the customer decide which fopperies they want their camera built with. You want carbon fiber? you got it. Walrus tusk? no problem. Jewels? here you go.
People are willing to pay a premium for the red dot on a panasonic. What Hasselblad didn't realize that charging 3x to 5x the price over the Sony was too much of an insult to swallow.
That's partly it, but until recently Leica meant 35mm camera (or digital camera made to look like a 35mm camera.) This lends itself to dressing up, trend setting and other essential photographic activities.
A Hasselblad, despite being beautifully crafted, has always meant a big box for a genuine progressional or very serious amateur. There have been gold Hasselblads and gold Rolleis but these cameras didn't have the large number of camera collectors Leica does.
They probably thought what the hell, we don't have to make the thing so if nobody buys, nothing lost and if they laugh it's free publicity.
Reading this review, I have to wonder if somebody at Canon--an engineer, not sales--thought let's hold off until we can do better. My real disappointment is that I didn't think the Sonys were that great, but for now I guess that's as good as it gets in this camera/sensor size.
W5JCK: Wow, a Cons list that is considerably longer than the Pros list, and questionable IQ, but good ol' DPReview gives it a 77 point Silver Award! Do their reviewers even know much about photography or camera gear? What a joke!
Hey, they still want you to buy the camera. DPR is not a charity. Besides, it's not terrible (excellent image quality is fairly significant to some people.) Even if it was awful, I doubt a major manufacturer could get a really low score.
Not sure I see the need if the filters are in brass mounts. Aluminum does jam but that's because it's not brass. Still, this seems like a good idea, and if it catches on all filters will soon have knurled rings.