Last year a friend of mine was interviewed and filmed on his motorcycle by our regional TV company after he broke a land speed record. They wanted some on-bike shots and for that they used a GoPro Hero, the first time I'd got a good look at one.
Anyway, I bought myself a Hero 2 to use on my own motorcycle at top-speed (LSR) events. It's a brilliant product and really cheap for what it does.
Since buying mine I've spotted them many times being used in TV programmes, such as Top Gear. The picture quality is good enough to edit in seamlessly with other clips taken on "normal" broadcast quality cameras. Most of the time you wouldn't know the shots were from a tiny GoPro.
I was going to watch the video but I'm sorry to say I found the woman with the voice of an eight year old child so irritating I stopped it.
Why should the D800E cost more, surely the lack of an AA filter would make it cheaper?
This camera is what people have been waiting for. I hope it lives up to its specification. Camera stability is goung to be crucial at such a high pixel count.
I can see the appeal of the digital-rangefinder design for people who like the retro look but in all honesty, if I was looking for this type of camera, I would rather have a Canon G1 X and £1300 in my pocket.
It makes me laugh when people come up with a list of things they want to see on the camera(s) under discussion. It would make more sense to say "I wouldn't buy this camera because I require these features..."
It's a tiny pocketable compact with a wide zoom, a bright lens and full manual control, yours for a very reasonable price. Not an alternative to high-end cameras.
Bob from Plymouth: I'm not sure why people are suggesting that to include RAW would neccessarily increase the price. It's just some additional software which is probably already written for the processors of their other cameras. It must be a marketing decision but I don't know why?
As well as DSLR kit I have a P300 and it's a great pocket camera which can produce some surprisingly good results. Forget about the sensor size and all the other points being debated, it's a small camera with a bright, wide-angle lens, just take it out and use it. I'm sure the P310 will do very well.
To answer my own question about RAW not being included, I wonder if the P310 would then be seen as in competition with other cameras of a higher specification in the Nikon range and compare unfavourably with them. Hence a marketing decision rather than a pricing one. It's a compact with the big plus of full manual control rather than a P7100 competitor with an inferior sensor. All a question of perception.
I'm not sure why people are suggesting that to include RAW would neccessarily increase the price. It's just some additional software which is probably already written for the processors of their other cameras. It must be a marketing decision but I don't know why?
I'm not reading all the comments to find out but I'm sure someone's already observed that Olympus is following Fuji's lead here by producing a retro-design. I hope they do as I have some Olympus glass that would acquire a new lease of life.
The rangefinder style and high quality build is very clever marketing by Fuji. They dipped their toe in the water with the X100 and X10, now this. It's like the camera many of us wanted in the past but could never afford.
The price is high but this is the premium end of the market and a beautifully built piece of kit like this will not only be attractive to people who appreciate fine things but also to many serious photographers. Particularly those who think twice about lugging heavy DSLR kit everywhere. One hopes the image quality will be acceptable. The Fujifilm X-Pro1 will be no worse to carry than my old Pentax K1000 was.
kwojdyna: And one more thing - I am personally not a Canon lover - always had problems with frequent underexposing regardless if used film (EOS 50E, EOS 3) or digital camera (EOS 40D, EOS 5D) and that is why I switched to Pentax K-5 and to Nikon D700 later. But:
1. I could use my old analogue-era Canon flash with new digital DSLR's,2. The same with ALL lenses3. Now, If I'd like, I could use the same lenses with motion picture cameras,4. Flash works with compacts and with the introduction this large sensor compact Canon PowerShot G1X gives me bigger sensor than Panasonic/Olympus m4/3 in compact body and still can probably use my old flash!
Now look at the other systems - Nikons do not autofocus in basic bodies, do not measure lights through non-AI lenses, only new flashes work. Sony NEX3/5 do not accept Sony Alpha flash. The same with Samsung - my expensive Samsung GX flash is useless with NX. Others ?Fuji? also cannot say the have ANY system compared to Canon. This is why they are leaders.
The rangefinder style and high quality build is very clever marketing by Fuji. It's like the camera many of us wanted in the past but could never afford.
The price is high but this is the premium end of the market and a beautifully built piece of kit like this will be attractive to many photographers. Particularly those who think twice about lugging heavy DSLR kit everywhere. The Fujifilm X-Pro1 will be no worse to carry than my old Pentax K1000 was.
Sorry Harold1968 I think your comments are premature. Shall we wait for some proper test results before we condemn the D4.
Nikon will have done their market research, the days of "this is what we've built for you" are long gone. These days they listen to customer feedback and they wouldn't be launching a product that nobody wanted or one with inferior performance.
I like the "Find My iPhone" App available with iCloud which can not only locate my phone, showing me where it is on a GPS map but can also deactivate it if I choose.
Something similar on a high end camera would be good.
I previously owned an Olympus E-20P, an E-1 and an E-3. I still have the brilliant E-1 even though I shoot Nikon these days.
What's been going on at Olympus appalls me. Reading about the goings on in Japan is more like crime fiction than real life. I just hope they throw the wrong-doers in jail and lose the key, or maybe they'll do the honourable thing and fall on their swords leaving a fine company to carry on and salvage it's reputation.
(If a certain Olympus director has been hiding his personal wealth under other names though, It seems likely that these are not honourable men).
Don't talk to me about Adobe upgrades. I'm still smarting from my experience a couple of years ago when I upgraded to OSX on my Mac and Photoshop stopped working. I then had to spend another sackful of money which I hadn't bargained for on CS4.
The BBC report says there's a call for Michael Woodford, the sacked chief exec' who questioned unusually the large sums paid out, to be reinstated. Looks like he has a good case for substantial damages but there would be no point if the company goes bust in the process.
I think it's all going to end up in court one way or another. Such a shame that a great company should end up in this mess, I do hope Olympus is not lost.
At this rate my lovely Olympus E-1 will acquire value. It looks like the firing of former chief exec' Michael Woodford has started something.My guess is that if they don't resolve this by the end of their financial year the company will be wound up or sold.
Not to cover camera phones on DP Review would be the journalistic equvalent of sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and going "la la la".
They are here, now and they are getting better. The 8MP camera on my iPhone 4S is a surprisingly good camera and always likely to be in my pocket, unlike my SLR.
http://www.dpreview.com/products/nikon/compacts/nikon_cpp300 claims that the P300 has Manual Focus. Well I've looked, read the CD manual and I can't find it. I think they're confusing it with manual shift of the autofocus point.
Not a bad pocket-sized camera though if you need something more creative than point-and -shoot. It's well featured and has a rugged build. IQ might not be the best but for the price it's quite acceptable. I bought one for when I'm not toting an SLR and I'm having fun with it.
In response to Mike Davis:
I saw the last Harry Potter film (Deathly Hallows Part 2) in 3D and I thought that director David Yates did a fair job of not making the 3D too obvious. it was toned down quite a lot compared to Cameron's Avatar.
The only over-the-top 3D at this screening was in the adverts shown before the movie, as you might expect.
It's like anything new, it gets overdone at first until people get used to it. A bit like colour TV back in the early days when most receivers were very oversaturated, or early stereo sound with an exaggerated width.
A few responses from folk with a dominant Left Hemisphere I think.
It's not a false premise at all and for the same reason composing a letter is easier first thing in the morning before your L-Mode wakes up and swamps your intuitive and more artistic R-Mode.