larrytusaz: He could've taken a Sony NEX-3N with a Sigma 19mm f/2.8 & gotten far superior results, with image quality akin to a Nikon D7000, and it still would've been far less to tote around than a Nikon D-SLR.
But of course it wouldn't come from the Apple Kool-Aid jugs, so of course that makes it useless. Sigh.
Frankly, if you call yourself a professional and tote around a freaking PHONE camera for anything other than your mirror-posed selfies, you are a fraud and a cheat.
"Frankly, if you call yourself a professional and tote around a freaking PHONE camera for anything other than your mirror-posed selfies, you are a fraud and a cheat."
That's funny! Sorry, you just went and proved to all that you are not a pro.
sixtiesphotographer: I think this is clumsy and pretentious nonsense.
At least Dali was clever, creative, thought-provoking, and humorous.
ObPhotoContent: the "Dali Atomicus" photo by Phillipe Halsman, representing an extreme macro interpretation of atomic particles in suspension. No Photoshop or LR, just water, cats, string, and 28 attempts.
I agree, Dali offers room food for thought.. about the work and perhaps even more about what was going on in his mind. This stuff shown here lacks any depth whatsoever, at least in my eye.
Art?.. but these pics don't convey any feelings.. none, whatsoever.
There is a name for this kind of stuff: Vanity Art same as Vanity Publishing, google it.
Anyone has the right to call their work art, by all means. I simply don't like this particular representation of it. Cheap, gimmick, try harder.
My main concern is why dpreview chooses to highlight her work.
This is too funny. Nikon 1 is a dead end so how can we squeeze the last bit from it? Let's ruggedize it.. any try to compete on the established action cam market. Oh, by the way .. the other 1-lenses won't fit. LOL
What's good about all this? It givesw Nikon a way to retire the 1 series on land without loosing face, and finally give us a 1 inch product.
Where is t-h-e f-l-i-p-s-c-r-e-e-n !?
I like the form factor! Wish they would make a digital version
Provia_fan: Film was never this sharp because it was more faithful than digital is. It's almost like the old vynil vs CD debate. Are CDs really better because it cuts off unwanted frequencies?
I assume you are joking because it is all the opposite of what you just wrote :)
I've done stage and movie stills. Al i can say is it is A LOT harder than most people realize because you aren't just shooting the cast and freezing a couple of scene highlights... You have to capture and be able to transmit the essence of the show through your stills.
That, regardless of what gear or how big a assistant crew you have, is very difficult.
Weddings, high-end fashion, events, are all baby work compared to movie shoots done right.
Cudos to Frank Okenfels for getting it right!
Couscousdelight: "What he really needs, says Ockenfels, is better low-light capabilities - 'being able to shoot with a medium format camera at ISO 2000 would be really nice. You have to know you can’t have too many dark areas'."
If he wants to make hi-iso pics with a Medium format, he should leave PhaseOne for a Pentax 645D, which have a nice hi iso mode :
LOL! that's funny
wootpile: Same mistake as Nikon 1. A funny, fan, good looking style accessory without any photographic value (certainly no better than your smartphone.. so why have it?). Style fades fast...
"By ChristophBarthold (20 hours ago)It's not style but capability and this little gem of a camera opens up possibilities in the tele- and macro areas... (and be hard pressed to duplicate with your smartphone)."
I never said choose a smartphone. Anyway, why would I take tele and macro shots with a system that lacks in IQ? Carrying a system with extra lenses it better deliver as much as possible.
The Q is a toy, not profitable. What will everyone do with it when Pentax terminates the Q? give it to the kids.
I agree with howaboutraw.There are a lot of "old" compacts with excellent iq, certainly better than the "Q" (supposed to mimic a 007 gizmo.. you all get that right?)
Take A95 from 2004 better IQ at 5 mpix, fits in your shirt. http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/90659/sample-16?inalbum=canon-powershot-a95-review-samples
I can see why people like the "Q"ute little cam but marketing hype is just hype.. and it shows in sales figures. Nikon is just as bad.
Same mistake as Nikon 1. A funny, fan, good looking style accessory without any photographic value (certainly no better than your smartphone.. so why have it?). Style fades fast...
Hmm Nikon finally getting a clue. When will they learn to listen to what the market wants and come out of their tech-cave. The 1 system is a fan-thing.. which never makes nyone any money.
Give us a p7700 like thing with a 1 inch sensor and start from there..
I really really like Nikon, started out my career with them, but i really really hate their conservative we know best mentality. Just look at their pocket cams - virtually everyone kknows they suck, and have been sucky for decades. Such loss of face and money..
Mirror-less Nikon DX on its way :)
That's a good-looking camera with lot's of features.seems kind of heavy though compared to the APS-C offers on hand... ?
it is larger and heavier than the fuji xm1, heavier than fuji xe1, larger and heavier than pana nx300, and ALL sony nex
with all the above offering superior image quality (less crop factor, increased dof, and resolution).. unless pana have created a completely new sensortechnology - which they haven't
What happened to the m43 = small idea?
Thanks. One of the best articles so far by DPR staff!More stuff like this please!
SigmaChrome: If you really want a quiet DSLR, get a Sigma SD1M. The shutter sound and mirror slap noise is as soft as a baby sitting down. Nikon and Canon sound like the Crash of Doom by comparison.
Yeah, but it can't handle the low light on a movie set
wlad: spending $3000 on a camera and drowning it in a $80 DYI "water-proof" case.Makes perfect sense.
actually it makes perfect sense. it leaves 920 bucks to be spent on a nice lens. making one of these also means you know how to rig a makeshift solution if your "real stuff" breaks on a set.. "buy a new one.." um..right, so suppose you are shooting o a movie set in the desert
not everyone has unlimited funds these days - specially not if you are making a living as a photographer. I assume from your comment, that you are not ;)
This is a nice build! Anyone who has worked on big movie sets knows that without a silent blimp you simply won't get any work.
A V1 won't cut it either - not enough resolution and high iso capability. try that once and you won't get any more work from the film studios :)
Thanks to op for offering a alternative to commercial variants!
Who cares about the rights this and that... Just suck in that image.
Sooo much early 70´s in a single frame!Those that weren't there probably don't get it.
Where is the flipscreen? I hope they release a NX30 and keep the articulating screen on it, the one on NX20 rocks.