I sold my D7100 to buy the D5300 and I'm very happy with the performance and feature set. I wanted a swivel live view display, GPS and Wi-Fi and am enjoying the really nice improvements over my D7000 (which I still have) in resolution and out-of-camera jpg quality. It would be convenient to have autofocus fine tuning but not a deal killer without it. So far (two years) I haven't needed it on my D7000 so hopefully I'll be able to use some of the nice new Sigma lenses with the docking station and lens based autofocus control with my D5300. The carbon fiber body on the D5300 is excellent. It's strong, light and quite sufficient in my opinion.
ecube: After almost I year away from DPReview, it seems that I just return in time to catch the "news" on Nikon D610 and now D5300. Two day ago, I passed on a D800 for $2,100 with just 125 shutter activation ... for 3 reasons: 1_ Wi-Fi connectivity, 2_GPS & 3_the CF card. Back track to December 2012 when I return the D600 because of the sensor contamination now indirectly admitted by Nikon with the release of the D610. While the D800 is technically a superior camera, it is an over kill for me. The features and capabilities of the D600 is just what I need. I am gung-ho on buying the improved D610, despite the lack of built-in GPS and Wi-Fi connectivity because I have the Wua. NOW, the D5300 has me thinking ... Since the D610 is a stop-gap solution to the D600 issues, it is possible that D620 is somewhere in the horizon with: 1_32+ mpix sensor, 2_built-in W-Fi and 3_ GPS. Am I nuts ???
Your name says it all I guess... Because you have no use for GPS or WiFi doesn't mean that the majority who will purchase this camera will not benefit. Who really cares whether "plastic bodies" rock YOUR world? Why even respond to an introduction of a very nice consumer camera announcement if you are not in the market for one?
DaSigmaGuy: This is a total miscarriage of justice in my book because the Copyright of a work belongs solely to the Photographer, in this case John Alli, and no one else. A photographer can licence his work out for a fee but as the creator of the work he will always retain his original Copyright rights. If he dies the Copyright dies with him and subsequently anyone will have right to use his work for whatever use. If anyone should be paid for the infringement then it is John Alli, unless of course he is dead, in which case Gaylord should get nothing at all.
Hi Kim,But what defines "work of art?" That in itself is a serious question. In such situation, one could make the case that any building or man-made structure could be so defined. For example, take the Eiffel Tower and the photographic restrictions. Yet, we find a copy of this in Las Vegas, Nevada. Do you think they paid a license fee to France or to the family of the designer? I honestly don't know, but this type thing can get quite convoluted.
Optimal Prime: Desperate move to save the lackluster 1 System. Now what?
Huh? The 1 System works quite well for me... Excellent little combination with which I get great hand-held results at over 800 mm equivalency with a system which doesn't cause me any strain at all to carry and use. Lots of great features. I use many different cameras including the Nikon 1V - find it quite satisfactory myself...
As mentioned elsewhere - sort of a good weatherproof design which would be of little use for serious underwater purposes. I think people tend to forget that even a camera with a waterproof rating of 15 meters is only good for 15 meters "if" it isn't bumped hard against coral or equipment, etc. The reason waterproof watches are rated at depths which no diver would ever reach is that the shock of a good thump against a hard object at depth exponentially increases the depth requirement instantly. I use a little old Olympus with an underwater housing at depths to 100 feet and am quite secure knowing that it will withstand fairly hard bumps and not leak. I would not use this new Nikon as a camera for diving - perhaps for snorkeling at 20 feet or so it would be perfectly satisfactory.
Interesting results - perhaps most telling for me was DX0's comment here: "Achieving an excellent DxOMark score of 24 points overall and 19P-Mpix for sharpness mounted on the EOS 5D Mk III, the lens performs very well, edge-to-edge, but the image quality drops noticeably when the 1.4X extender is engaged. Then it’s just slightly the ahead of the $999 Sigma 120-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG APO OS HSM, in terms of sharpness at least. In all other respects; Distortion, Vignetting and Chromatic Aberration are all very low indeed. Slightly more than one stop (1.2EV) is lost in Transmission when the extender is used."
The Sigma 120-400 is not even Sigma's best stabilized and low cost zoom which is perhaps the 50-500. Think I might be more inclined to buy a 50-500 for "all" my dSLR's including Canon, Sigma, Nikon and Olympus and take the $6000 left over and pay for some round-the-world opportunities to shoot... hmmmm
nzmacro: Going on shooting for nearly 45 years and when you think you have seen most things ............. naaa you haven't, LOL.
I would say get a grip, but it doesn't need any more, my goodness.
You got that right Danny boy!Hey, being a fantastic wood-worker, you might get into a new business retrofitting something better looking to this? LOL
It's not like digiscoping hasn't been around for over a decade... The issue is that if you purchase a smartphone with sufficient camera resolving power to actually get quality images, you probably could do as well or better either with a good bridge camera such as Canon's SX 50 HS or using your own digiscoping setup. Of course if you already have a super high resolution phone camera such as the Nokia 808 then it might be a handy way to use your stabilized binoculars to catch some closeup snaps on vacation, etc.
Lin Evans: Does it have an EVF or one available? If the LCD must be used for fine focus adjustments and framing in bright sunlight this will never fly. I've yet to see an LCD which can be used with the sun at one's back for fine focus adjustments regardless of the type of anti-reflection materials used.
But that defeats the purpose according to their own advertising (having a monitor hooked to it). Even with focus peaking you have to be able to "see" the display. I think an EVF of some type is almost a no-brainer for this type device. Without it, it's not going to be terribly useful for many daytime applications.
Does it have an EVF or one available? If the LCD must be used for fine focus adjustments and framing in bright sunlight this will never fly. I've yet to see an LCD which can be used with the sun at one's back for fine focus adjustments regardless of the type of anti-reflection materials used.
Dave C 150: The best way forward for birders who want extra long focal lengths may be to use the new breed of compact system cameras like the Nikon J1 or even better the Pentax Q with it's 5.7x crop factor. With an adapter fo rmost makes of lens it givessurprising quality in conjunction with a decent prime lens. With a small system and 300mm you get 1720mm at F4 and amazing quality out performing a cropped 500mm lens. Plus if you already have a prime you just need a Q body costing around £100.http://www.pentaxuser.co.uk/forum/topic/long-range-birding-setup-39322/p-1
I agree. One can now purchase the Q in the US at Bestbuy for $239, the Pentax Q to K adapter with mechanical shutter for $250 and a decent used DA 55-300 mm F/4-F/5.8 for around $200 or less. So for less than the price of this lens alone it's possible to have another dedicated and "smaller" and "lighter" combination which can actually be used effectively handheld at 1680mm at F/5.8. Then it also has the versatility of being used with almost "any" lens of any brand with available adapters. Seems to make more sense to me and I use 4/3 as well...
Not a new concept - my old 360 One VR from Kaidan parabolic mirror lets me do that with a number of my cameras, but the resolution is low. Having a small device like this might gain some traction in the real estate market for low-cost walk-through photos but I can't see it replacing serious pano work with panoramic heads and high resolution photos.
Lin Evans: How about the camera with the best IQ at low ISO of all? The Sigma DP2 Merrill???After all, the final result is the printed image and I've not seen anything better from any of the cameras you have listed....
Really? How many prints from the camera have you seen?
How about the camera with the best IQ at low ISO of all? The Sigma DP2 Merrill???After all, the final result is the printed image and I've not seen anything better from any of the cameras you have listed....
Lin Evans: It's nice that NHK is producing a sensor to go with their new high resolution display, but it would be really great if they and the camera manufacturers would be realistic about "resolution" and stop the foolish and misleading use of equating resolution to pixel count. Doing so tends, as the discussion here shows, to confuse people who have only a "marketing" understanding of the term "resolution." Resolution is not defined by pixel count, it is only roughly correlated to pixel count and then only somewhat useful as a metric when comparing like sensors (CFA or Foveon). Increasing pixel count by 16x absolutely does not increase "resolution" by 16x; it increases resolution by 4x and then only in theory because in practice there are intervening variables which serve to reduce the actual optical resolution to below the theoretical limit. "Resolution" is measured by photographing resolution charts then counting the line pairs per millimeter visible viz a viz the printed numeric value.
Apparently we "don't" all know what it means to have a "4 MP sensor" - otherwise there would not be the discussion. It's time for the term "resolution" to be used properly. "Resolution" is not defined as the "number of pixels" produced by a sensor's output, nor by the number of photosites on the sensor. It's clearly defined by the amount of detail possible to "resolve." Read the reviews of cameras here on dPReview. Go to the Resolution tests. Why do we bother "testing" resolution at all if we simply use the number of pixels on the sensor as a metric?
It's nice that NHK is producing a sensor to go with their new high resolution display, but it would be really great if they and the camera manufacturers would be realistic about "resolution" and stop the foolish and misleading use of equating resolution to pixel count. Doing so tends, as the discussion here shows, to confuse people who have only a "marketing" understanding of the term "resolution." Resolution is not defined by pixel count, it is only roughly correlated to pixel count and then only somewhat useful as a metric when comparing like sensors (CFA or Foveon). Increasing pixel count by 16x absolutely does not increase "resolution" by 16x; it increases resolution by 4x and then only in theory because in practice there are intervening variables which serve to reduce the actual optical resolution to below the theoretical limit. "Resolution" is measured by photographing resolution charts then counting the line pairs per millimeter visible viz a viz the printed numeric value.
Henry M. Hertz: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_resolutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_resolution
the resolution is 4x times that of HDTV... who ever made that 16x should get some basic math education or stop lying.
Absolutely - this is very misleading. The "actual" optical resolution is less than 4x that of HDTV. 4X would represent a "perfect" linear relationship between pixel count and "optical resolution" increase which, of course, never exists in the real world because of CFA and AA filtering losses. I suppose they are simply trying to maximize the shock effect on the public - but like big screen display manufacturers, tend to push the envelope with misleading advertising.
Gene Hack: the problem is not only the steep price of the cam.If it were a superior camera to all existing DSLRs, people would at last accept it.The fundamental issue is, that they have issues with the sensor. 7F stops dynamical range is something NO PROFESSIONAL photographer, let alone ambitioned amateurs accept.Weak greens, smeared color transitions and lifeless color balance worsen this.No listening at all to the customer, and having a pitbull defending shilled user base over at the Sigma forum with passive support for this behaviour by the company kill this product.PR at worst.
Unfortunately, Gene, you are wrong on multiple levels - your response indicates you have no experience with Foveon sensors.