This topic? You gotta be kidding. You're trying to compare a camera to a phone, for God's sake!! One is for taking pictures, the other is for wasting time.
Sam Carriere: Thank you for your coverage of an item that does not exist and that may be available ... when? ...2020?
Ohh, it is too much for me to want reviews of items I can actually look at or buy?
Thank you for your coverage of an item that does not exist and that may be available ... when? ...2020?
"If you can add a function, why not do so"?Come on. Video on a still camera is strictly a ploy to extract a couple more hundred bucks. If I want to toast bread, I'll use a toaster rather than a microwave and if I want to shoot video I will use a camera designed for that purpose.I applaud Nikon for resisting a ludicrous trend.
TrapperJohn: Looks nice, but it also looks like a standard large, fat DSLR with a retro body. I'd love to dig my old F3 out and use it with a digital back (now there's an idea) but this doesn't really advance the state of the art any.
Is Nikon missing the point? The Oly EM5 wasn't successful because it looked like an OM1. It was successful because it was smaller, quite a bit smaller, and so are the lenses. It may look old, but it's packed with new ideas. And it's the new, interesting approach that makes it appealing, especially the lack of bulk that makes using it less of a chore and more, well, fun.
Ya and it costs $10,000 without a lens.
The deal-breaker for me is that Sony is too cheap and disrespectful of consumers to even provide a manual anymore. They just provide a totally inadequate "get started" guide.Said it before and I'll say it again: Sony is a company that deserves to fail.
Why is the picture deleted from the gallery we are pointed to?
Amazing what some people will pay for a logo.
Apewithacamera: What Brand of UV protector filter wood be good for this lense?
Hasselblad made a wood-bodied Sony NEX 7.
Have you ever tried to use Fuji support?If ever the customer did not matter ...
Ever tried shooting with a camera?
Beckler8: The video samples are, as usual for this site, nearly useless. I've told dpreview before about how we need more useful videos that show AF/AE performance, etc. etc. But you're not interested in improving things I guess.
You could always get a video camera -- which this isn't.
This is all pretty irrelevant. Photographers use cameras, not phones. And to everyone who wants to show me a superb picture taken with a phone, all I can say is "Just think what that person might have done with a real camera."
Let's enjoy and appreciate the update. It is only a matter of time before Adobe wants to ding Lightroom users on a monthly basis. I am grateful, however, that we seem to be getting lots of time to shop around for an alternative to Lightroom -- and there are quite a few possibilities.
Wayyyy too much time on their hands ...
"Lacks water bottle holder" is a con?
The simple answer to the question asked in this title is "nothing". Real photographers do not do serious work with phones.
AngryCorgi: So they have good on-sensor AF married to the same poor DR sensor they've always had. This is starting to sound like a broken record. Please, Canon, do some serious upgrades to your designs and fab-shop. Even Samsung (NX300's sensor) is passing you now by a fairly wide margin. You don't appear to want to compete anymore.
People who are primarily interested in video should buy a video camera. Duhhhh...
If Sony says "early September" for availability, my guess is next spring or early summer ... maybe.
3dreal: My costs of dealing with digital data is higher than the instant output.
T3, a digital camera and media gets you what? Pictures you will show your grandchildren on the camera 15 years from now?Most people do indeed have "a computer". But if you are a serious digital photographer, you need much more than "a computer".
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review