Actually, for camera reviewers, unboxing is usually just a pain. Since you are supposed to return the camera, typically after two weeks, you have to pay attention to how it was packed and where every little item fits in the box.For the regular buyer it might be a moment of joy, and thats of course the feeling "unboxing videos" tries to convey.
D 503: Under specified and overpriced. The 7100 is better value.
@JoshEvery lens will perform better on the D610 than on the 1.5 crop of the D7100.
Lucas_: IMHO it's outrageous to give a Gold Award and an 87% note to this camera and Silver with 80% to the fantastically innovative Sony A7 ( not to mention the A7R, which is clearly at another level and got Gold / 82%! ). It's about time DPR realizes that their reviews "conclusions" have actually become a joke! I can appreciate the level of camera features/controls details and specs they cover ( which IMO is the good value of the review ), but I've learned to just don't care at all about their final conclusions ( sometimes hilarious ) and rating!
@LucasBut most people wants AF-capable lenses. And if you look at MF lenses, there are millions of superb Nikkor AI/AIS lenses that works without the hassle of adapters on a D610 (and all other high end Nikon DSLRs).
I think it is nice with a very compact FF and the IQ should be impressive. However, I can't see how it gets a higher rating than the Nikon Df, a much more allround capable camera with 10x the lens system. (I would equal the high res of the Sony with the low light performance of the Df)
topstuff: There is one potential huge factor here - this camera could make taking stills from video a viable option.
Imagine this - you can shoot at 30 fps in 4k. That is enough resolution to grab a still image and be able to print it quite large and get pretty good detail.
Seeking the "Decisive Moment"? Just shoot 4k video at 30fps and pick your still image at your leisure. What would HCB have made of that? :)
Well, judging from earlier experiments with HD video and frame grabs, the video stills are highly compressed with lower quality.The shutter speeds used for smooth video are to long for freezing objects and you get a lot of motion blur. And finally, "catching the moment" as in getting an a good shot of sports etc. is not so much about recording, but choosing the right angle, framing etc. Take for instance the very few number of interesting shots that have resulted from Casios line of super high speed cameras.
Joe Ogiba: DPR, the #1 place where everyone gets their cookies trashing other peoples images.
@ mcshanHave you counted the number of pros vs cons comments? The high number of cons is probably unique on DPreview vs all other sites were these photos are discussed. This is often a nasty place.
eyefuse: Interesting photoshop paintings! I like the colors and feel - even if many are composed afterwards in photoshop, rather than real shots.
#12 for example is nice, albeit obvious that the road scene has been added to the foreground with the boy and dog. Lot's of cloning and smoothing going on.
How is it obvious that the road has been added?
Great photos, and of course some "sour grapes" comments.
PerL: So this almost prototype with a native lens line up of about 3 lenses, with 2 sec upstart, AF and frame rate suboptimal for "catching the moment" receives about the same score as the Nikon Df (81 vs 80), a much more refined, capable and mature product (and BTW is the smallest, lightest DSLR - not the D600 or 6D as the review said). And the A7 receives a "Silver Award" which the Df apparently did not deserve.
@G1HoustonWell, that was apparently the problem, if you make a better product but don't break new ground, only being a refined, mature, capable product, you don't get any reward.
@Joe OgibaThe Df suports about 70 native AF lenses, and 85 million Nikon F-mount lenses without any hassle with adapters.
@unravelI said "2 sec upstart, AF and frame rate" suboptimal, I might add "Finally, the biggest problem with this camera, the delay between hitting the button and the shutter firing, AF is good IMO, but this lag has missed me many shots!" from Jonaths comment above. And the phrase not so good "for catching a moment" was a quote from the review.
So this almost prototype with a native lens line up of about 3 lenses, with 2 sec upstart, AF and frame rate suboptimal for "catching the moment" receives about the same score as the Nikon Df (81 vs 80), a much more refined, capable and mature product (and BTW is the smallest, lightest DSLR - not the D600 or 6D as the review said). And the A7 receives a "Silver Award" which the Df apparently did not deserve.
What will break or make this is the response of the EVF. The one in XE-1 has far to much jello effect, haven't tried the XE-2 though.
SeeRoy: Since probably less than 5% of these lenses go to professional users - in any sense of the word "professional" - they are primarily a luxury purchase to make the buyer feel special. It happens in all sectors of the consumer durables market. Yer pays yer money (or not) and yer takes yer choice. Personally I feel that knowing how to use the camera and what it's pointed at are about 95% of what's required to get decent results. But we all fall for this marketing nonsense to some degree.
Real pros earns the price for this lens with a couple of days work. If they do weddings, portraits etc a 50-58 with creamy smooth bakground may be their most used lens. If they get a competitive advantage it is well spent money. Canon has one in the 50 1.2, now Nikon has one to, similary priced.
peevee1: Looking at the lens and its weight, there is no nearly as much glass in it as its body to justify the size (look how deep the front element is, and how small compared to the filter thread). Looks like the size was made artificially large to try and justify the price tag. Oversizing together with overpricing?
"the size was made artficially large to justify the price tag"...Right, lets go from ignorance to conspiracy theory... Or is comedy? Wonder what comes next.
thx1138: Sorry for this sort of money for the lens to be poor wide open is just not acceptable, especially in the easiest lens of all to design, a 50-60mm prime. When one can buy a Sigma 50 f/1.4 that is sharp wide open, has beautiful bokeh, low vignetting and only costs $500 and I'll bet the Art series version is going to be even better, then why waste money on the Nikon? The world is awash with excellent 50-55mm primes and ev en if in every other regard the Nikon is excellent, it still doesn't grab me as a sensible buy.
Is it poor wide open? Have you seen any of the many real world samples floating around the net. Looks extremly attractive IMO.Sigma makes some very good lenses, but resale value is lower and because of reverse engineering you may run into issues with AF or other stuff. Quality control is another issue. I had to exchange a 150 2.8 right in the shop because the AF jammed.All in all, considering the high resale price, ownership of a N or C lens is less costly than one might think.
Some get it, some dont. For those there are still the usual 50 1.4 and 1.8 to choose from.
PerL: This is the Nikon eqv of Canons 85 1.2 IMO. Not in DOF of course, but the special rendering that stands out.
XeroJayHave you checked the samples from Sam Hurd for instance?Btw I have used Canon 85 1.2 and I understand that are more things to a lens than what you cant read from lab tests.
This is the Nikon eqv of Canons 85 1.2 IMO. Not in DOF of course, but the special rendering that stands out.
beholder3: The Sigma 50/1.4 is sharper and has at least the same quality of bokeh if not better.--- for a 1/3 of the price. Did it get a "platinum award" and a 250% score?
Well, Sam Hurd wrote in his review, if you are on a budget, get the Sigma 50 1.4, if you have the cash, get the Nikon 58 1.4.