AshMills: a quote from young Kyle's blog:
Kyle Clements said at 12:13 am on November 21st, 2012:
"I kind of set this up to be as unfair to the D600 as possible – to make any speck as visible as I possibly could.In normal shooting conditions, these dust specks are more-or-less invisible. I don’t see a thing in my normal shots; it’s only when the lens is stopped down and I am shooting at a bright flat surface that the dust issue becomes apparent.Don’t give up on the D600 because of this, just wait for Nikon to correct this minor design flaw in future runs, then you’ll have a great full frame camera. (at this point, the camera will be older and likely cheaper, too…)"
But if they don't acknowledge the issue how can we know when it's been remedied?
Dan: I had to return my 1st D600 because of a reappearing spot on the sensor (suspected to be oil). I'm going to be watching the sensor of my 2nd D600 closely.
Still, the quality of the camera (the speed, AF precision & accuracy) is so nice that I'm willing to put up with an occasional wet sensor cleaning. I've invested in Eclipse Type 3 Sensor Swabs along with their cleaning solution.
This is my situation coming from a D300 and want to move to FF. Sadly I have had no luck with wet sensor cleaning ( I always leave residue somehow) ) so I have been holding off until this is addressed.
highwave: Raw files from Nikon D3200 and Sony NEX-7 look pretty much identical to my eyes. D3200 just slightly less exposed but same everything else. (IMHP)
What doesn't make sense is that the ISO 400/800 JPEG shots look sharper than ISO 200 JPEGs. Was something wrong with the test unit or lens?
George Veltchev: disappointing ...I would say at that sensitivity !Even the small thumbnail reveals plenty of noise! The 24 mp Nikon ...pardon ....Sony, sensor obviously struggles here ...lets rather go for the more modest G1 X for this kind of images ...
You are being sarcastic right? I really hope so.
Jon Lewis: Rip off I upgraded before the December 31 deadline now they want another £190 for the up grade to CS6 . You had to upgrade or Adobe said that you wouldn't be able to upgrade to 6 from 3 or 4 so I did ,now the want another £190 disgraceful .
Why did you upgrade to a version you knew was out for months? It's not like the upcoming CS6 release was a well kept secret.
Ecorone: I don't understand why some people feel the need to completely downplay the problem or others to blow things out of proportion.
It's a problem that exists. For me, in bright sunlight, some pictures do get slightly underexposed because of the light leak when the sun shines on the top lcd. In response, I can bump up the exposure compensation by 1/3 or correct it in post.
When doing dark long exposure shots, for now, you can make test shots and adjust using the histogram or use a light meter for more accuracy.
Yes, it is a problem that shouldn't have occurred but the workaraounds to let you keep on taking great pictures aren't difficult. Canon isn't denying the problem exists, and furthermore, they said that they'll fix it... so, why all the big fuss?
Because current owners don't want to feel bad about their purchase (so they defend it to the nth degree) while the Nikon shooters are relishing in their (supposed) misery. Human nature.
This looks as clean as my D300 around ISO 1600...
Jogger: Tokina is the only third party lens maker that i would consider. This one is a pass.
Funny my Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc has provided me with thousands of tack sharp images for years now. I guess I should sell it for a Tokina.
AndrewPG24: for me NIKON D800 is slightly better than Canon 5D mark III in terms of video quality...
I guess it comes down to (in terms of video) whether you want:1. 5DMIII - Softer image, controlled moire, sharpen in post2. D800 - Tack sharp image, very visible moire, fix moire in post.
As a Nikon shooter I'd say I'd much rather deal with the first issue than the second which is disappointing.
vicpug: Another APS-C lens - what a waste of time and energy! FF would be of interest.
Not everyone can afford a $3000 dollar body + $2400 70-200. This is a great deal for users like me.
T34: Well, so you think this lens will be the equal of a Nikon or Canon 24-70mm f2.8? Guess again! You get what you pay for in Life, Tamron lenses are Junk! For every Ten they make, maybe your lucky enough to get one that's actually sharp, the rest will be soft. Don't waste your money!
My Tamron 17-50 2.8 begs to differ. Sharpest zoom I've ever used and I got it for only $375 a couple years back.
Steve oliphant: oooops 82mm filter tilt no good waste of money the filter will kill you trust me i know i sell them ................
Sentences are your friend. While not ideal this + 82mm filter is still going to be way less than a Nikon 24-70.
JackM: Oh what could have been... CX sensor in the P310... guess that would have made too much sense for them.
A pocket 1.8 with a CX sensor would have actually snagged my attention.
jimkahnw: People who haven't used the Nikon 1 system shouldn't comment on the camera. Having just returned from a week in Istanbul, I found the camera a worthy substitute for my D300. IQ: I placed an image in a 2013 12" x 12" calender; so we see the future of camera technology that defies physics. I have used cameras with only three controls: aperture, shutter speed and focus. I carried a hand-held light meter. They used film, which I had to process if I wanted any kind of quality. The 1 series can be used without the fancy auto settings Nikon provides the point and shooters, and without custom settings, buried in endless menus. OK, for ISO adjustment, there's a trip to the menu. But if you leave the ISO the last function accessed, it's there up front for the next time. If the auto ISO selection is too slow, use manual. No big deal. Here's a link to my images, a quick edit of the 1750 I made. File names beginning with HG were made on a Nikon D60: http://www.jimkphotographics.com/istanbul2012/
Make it cheaper than an entry dslr and then I'll be interested. That's my main issue with m4/3 and the Nikon 1 system. (I'm cheap)
D200_4me: That's too bad about the relatively low score. Many pros have given this camera a big thumbs up for every day usage...and of course, I personally thing it's an outstanding camera, even though it lacks some external controls I'd love to have. My gallery full of outstanding photos from the V1 is evidence enough for me that it's a great camera.
I've yet to hear a photographer/pundit/blogger say anything overly positive about this system. All I hear is "disappointing for the price" and dpreview seems to agree. When you can get a full size dslr or one of many micro systems these make no sense.
Gothmoth: WOW.. the only ones who can speak negativ about this great samples are envy nikon fanboys or people who have no clue at all.
i take this image quality all day over nikons speed and tiny sensor in the 1 series.
i think this camera will replace my E-PL1.
and simon65.. you really have no clue at all.. right?
"So Digic 5 may be the culprit. "
yeah sure..... i can only shake my head over all the ignorance in the world..
This cameras ISO 800/1600 put my D300 to shame honestly. I know I can reduce it in LR but it's always better to have cleaner shots straight out of the camera.
Paul Farace: Best wishes to Nikon on their flagship camera. Now I look forward to how it will effect their prosumer models (D300 class)... Interesting that they've push back the megapixel count... Image counts, not pixels!
I just hope this means the D800/D400 will keep the MP at a reasonable count + add the amazing new sensor and metering.
whtchocla7e: Nothing new and exciting from a technological standpoint.Great for the pro and the 'advanced' amateur who thinks he needs it but completely bland for the rest of us..
Yeah who needs fast fps or clean ISO 6400+ capabilities?! Stupid camera.
Hauer: With such a long wait, I had expected far more from this very over-priced camera. Damn, who wants video???!!! If I wanted high-end video capabilities, I would buy a dedicated video camera!In terms of specifications, I consider the D4 a major disappointment.
People will find anything to complain about I suppose. And to answer your question, "...who wants video???!!!" would be those who switched over to Canon, or about to, because Nikon has been behind on implementing comparable video capabilities.