 |
EmmanuelStarchild
Joined on
Jun 19, 2012
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
Evildogofdoom: This is most likely an issue with the lubrication used on the shutter assembly. If to much grease or a changed lubricant specification was used,during the manufacture of the camera, there is a risk of excess grease in the mirror box, landing on the sensor. This would require wet cleaning to remove and would likely become less of an issue with an increased number of shutter actuations.
That 'speculation' sounds logical to me.
my username was already taken: Wow, my old D700 smokes this toy!
Clearly, if you're moving up to full frame and have a limited investment in glass or if you're just starting out, buying a D600 over the 6D is the only smart thing to do.
Nikon is better for sports? Guess that explains all the white lenses at the games...
sebastian huvenaars: The petition is useless since anyone can sign it.
A user survey would be a better idea. A place to upload rawfiles with intact exif information.
Don't know if this is even doable, but it could be usefull for both Nikon in identifying the problem aswell as customers by giving them a honoust voice.
Appart from that, it's good to read that DPR and Nikon are working together in finding a solution.
I gotta disagree with you. The petition is not "useless" if anyone can sign it. There are those like me who are considering this camera who might be turned off by the oily sensor issue and want to be informed when the issue has been resolved.
EmmanuelStarchild: Considering its price, I'm hoping this lens' IQ is on par with the 24-70 2.8 II, just with less focal length and smaller aperture.
I think the price is proportionate to the features you receive. It has something the 2.8 doesn't: IS, and a better macro feature.
blue hour: I´d like to get rid of my Canon gear for good.
If you send it to me I'll pay for the shipping.
Kinda reminds me of a Canon 600D with a better sensor.
Aside from the jump in megapixels, I don't see a good reason to buy this camera. My internet pictures won't look any better.
Considering its price, I'm hoping this lens' IQ is on par with the 24-70 2.8 II, just with less focal length and smaller aperture.
Gunnlaugur Gudmundsson: in your review DPreviw, - conclusion - why do you say
"..probably the most capable compact camera... " and yet you only give it silver.. so what is gold? A compact camera that does not exist?
and in the negatives you talk about low light compared to... much more expensive cameras... why?
What do you say again, Barney?
I like Sony products, but they're overpriced. Yes, their technology can compete with Canon and Nikon, but I don't want to pay out the wazoo for it.
EmmanuelStarchild: Kinda ironic that Apple is suing Samsung, it's most important parts supplier. Why doesn't Samsung just cut them off at the knees?
Samsung makes the screen, as well. The chip and the screen, arguably the most important parts.
Kinda ironic that Apple is suing Samsung, it's most important parts supplier. Why doesn't Samsung just cut them off at the knees?
Great review, but I'm a Canon owner. What else do you have? :-)
Canon should make a smarthphone, or at least make a camera for smartphones. I'd buy one.
EmmanuelStarchild: Still waiting for those lens reviews you promised on Oct. 2
Cool, thanks. :-)
Waterengineer: Nikon showing the lens with the optional collar/foot is sort of false advertising, IMHO.
It clearly states it can be yours for "just" $224. Wow, what a bargain.
Still waiting for those lens reviews you promised on Oct. 2
EmmanuelStarchild: Not a good value, IMO. The Canon lens w/collar is $400 cheaper and has comparable optics.
No, the price is $1149 for the Canon lens, and I'll take the lens with the proven track record. Nikon is reaching here.
munro harrap: No dust or weatherproofing on a D800 or D4 is not sensible when you KNOW it rains on Planet Earth.
But it does not rain on Planet Nikon anymore, there are no sandstorms, there is no pollution and there are no tripods there anymore.
Equipment fails within a 10 year period because they use lead-free solder, and even then it ain't cheap. £1200 is a LOT more than the Canon, and the build quality of the canon is so much better, and if you buy it off the web, the chances of twenty perfectly aligned lenses arriving in perfect alignment on an IS moduled optic is as remote as the images a telephoto gives you through the wrong end!
I am keeping my AF-S, period
Actually, the current price for the Canon lens is $1149 on Amazon, eBay, etc...
EmmanuelStarchild: Not a good value, IMO. The Canon lens w/collar is $400 cheaper and has comparable optics.
There are new export rules to Canada. I doubt you will get it at that price.