I really liked No. 13 - the horse shoe.
I like this camera a lot, but can't help thinking about some of the handicapping Sony did:
1. The NP-FW50 battery is just not good enough (300 shots and its empty).2. There's no Touch-screen, so no options of touch-focus & touch-snap.3. Minor quibble, but the flash sync speed could have been a bit faster than 1/250 sec.4. It's not weather-sealed, so no promises here in harsh conditions.5. Price is a bit high ($3199)...I was hoping they'd start at $2399.
Anadrol: The RX1 does enter a large jacket pocket, the RX2 should even be smaller...
The Leica Q is too big to enter a pocket, what's the advantage then to have a fixed lens ???
Actually, I wouldn't mind a fixed lens, as long as there was at least x3 optical zoom. You wouldn't carry the RX1 in your pocket either...it'd go in your bag, around your neck or on a belt holster.
Nice camera, but not for me, I'm afraid...
1. LCD doesn't tilt/swivel - very important for various situations
2. Being stuck on a single focal length is VERY limiting (I should know, I only have a 35mm f/1.8G Nikon lens).
3. Something is very wrong with the way the Q renders Reds - it's like the RED slider was pushed to the left in LightRoom, but here it happens in-camera.
4. In these modern times, I need good video as well. They should have offered at least 2560p @ 60fps. Hey, they don't even mention bitrates, so no go for video here.
5. No headphone jack and no Mic jack. Important stuff for video which sadly is missing here.
6. Compared the studio shot (in RAW, low light) to the D750. The D750 takes the cake.
7. Sony RX2 just around the corner!!
8. PRICE. 'Nuf said.
PureShot: This morning i will try this new firmware, i am very exiting about better AF In studio at 100 iso with Dynalite SH2000 head flash, the combo NX1 16-50mm F2-2.8 produce a better image quality vs my Canon 6D - 50mm Sigma Art and i don't understand why !After few weeks with the NX1 in my studio, i love this camera, now is time to order the 50-150mm.
It seems very unlikely, but let's see if I get this right:1. You setup a sturdy tripod on a set distance from your subject.2. You shoot the 6D at base ISO with the 50mm Sigma Art at 20MP RAW.3. You shoot the NX1 at base ISO with the 16-50mm at 35mm at 28MP RAW (35mm so that the tripod doesn't need to be moved).4. You then process the photos with a similar workflow.5. You down-res (Bicubic Sharper - Reduction) the NX1's 28MP photo to 20MP, so that it has equal dimensions as the 6D's photo.6. The photo from the NX1 looks better??
Hard to believe, but if so - the NX1 is a winner...
I own a D5300, and I can tell you with 100% confidence:Don't buy this D5500. It is now a dinosaur amongst the new crop of mirrorless cameras.The physical upgrades over the D5300 are just the touch-screen and newly-designed (single) control dial. You can basically create a flat picture profile on your own.So many things here that Nikon has done to handicap the 5-series:- missing front control dial- no real live-view- no aperture control during live-view- the Fn (ISO) button is still small and easy to miss- battery not as good as the 7-series- video is still capped at 1080p60 @ 36Mbps- no PGS time-code in video- 14bit RAW is lossy compressed (they don't even tell you that)- flash cannot act as trigger....and so on.
Much better options over at the Sony and Panasonic camps. I'm disappointed.
=VALOR=: I own a D800 and a catalogue of Nikon glass. Having played with the D750 briefly, i was shocked to learn that there is no real live-view implementation. Anyone considering purchasing this camera should know that just like the D600, there is NO real-time live view. I have not seen this fatal flaw mentioned anywhere. Nikon has crippled the D750 to yesteryears technology and yet it receives a GOLD award from dpreview? Giving the user live-view has been proven over and over to be beneficial for getting the exposure right before hitting the shutter. Entry level mirror-less cameras all have proper-real time live view but not Nikon. Not unless you buy the D800 and up.
With the announcement of the Sony A7II and now this glaring omission, it is one more nail in the coffin for Nikon.
Sandy B:No, they don't.I own a D5300, and there is NO real live-view.
Eric Glam: I support BPG. Let's go for it!!!
We need a way out of the 8bit world, and if this takes off, I'm all for it.We had JPEG-XR by Microsoft, JPEG2000, and we have WEBP by Google. All of which didn't get wide-spread acceptance. I hope this one will, as long as it's truly royalty-free. The decoding speed is crucial to its success, but the author didn't quite talk about it.
FYI, I only shoot 14bit RAW.But when I need to present my edited work, I encode to 8bit JPEG, because it's the widely accepted standard on the web. Not my choice, but this is our world today, and I have high hopes this will change in the coming years.
I support BPG. Let's go for it!!!
forpetessake: "a 3.2" unit with SVGA+ 1.62 million dot resolution, yielding a pixel density of 343ppi"
The numbers don't match. There are 3 dots per pixel. The 1.62 Mdots is a measly 540000 pixels.
SVGA+ = 900x600 pixels = 540K pixels.It's a slight step up from previous camera LCDs.
For me, the WLAN feature is useless. I just don't need it in my style of shooting, especially in the way Nikon have it configured.If Nikon allowed the WLAN to transfer full 14bit RAW files to a computer quickly enough so it doesn't interrupt workflow, so I could check out the photo on a large monitor - that would have been much more useful.
All in all, it's a very good camera. If you already had intentions to buy a FF Nikon, go for the D750.However, if you already have a good enough camera, wait for next year. The D750 feels like a camera that Nikon wants to sell us, as in the mean time they can work on something truly outstanding.
I don't like that the shutter is limited to 1/4000 sec (should be 1/8000 sec).I don't like that the flash sync is limited to only 1/200 sec (should be at least 1/250 sec).I don't like that there's no touch-screen. It's really helpful to spot-focus quickly, pull focus, and select various settings.I don't like that there's no 2560p in the video options. Nikon could easily add it in firmware...at least with 24/25/30p frame rates.I don't like that the screen can only tilt up-down in a limited angle.The mechanism should allow more flexibility in viewing angles. Plus, it's very important to be able to protect the screen so that it faces the body of the camera (like in the D5300). I always swivel the screen when I put the camera in my bag, protecting it from a potential scratch.
I like the beefy battery (EN-EL15).I like that it shoots at a fast enough rate of 6.5fps.I like that there's aperture control in LiveView.I like that it's weather-sealed and well built.I like that it sports a good AF system.I like that it has Auto ISO in Manual for video.I like that it "only" has a 24MPixel sensor, so that the file sizes stay manageable. For me, The D810's 36MP files are way too much in size, as I always shoot 14bit RAW.I like that it has a built-in flash (and can be used as trigger). I hate using flashes, but it's important to have it for those unavoidable situations.I like that there's a USB3.0 port. I usually just take out the SD card and put it in a card-reader, but I'm sure some people would find the faster USB3.0 helpful.
The video samples you've posted are 23.976fps, not 60fps (I've downloaded the original MOV files).Please correct the labels under the videos, and please upload a true 60fps video.Thanks.
James Booba: A cam at this price point, advertised as the ultimate movie machine with worst video quality then the cheapest inhouse model? 2014 with no 4K? Sorry doesn't work for me.
I own a D5300. I haven't tried a D600, D800, GH4 or this new D810.
My D5300 has a very clunky interface and behavior.
What Andrew says here is not to be taken lightly.
For best video - The GH4 probably wins, with Sony A7s breathing down its neck.
For best stills - I believe the D810 would take the honor, despite the (possible) usability quirks, which I hope are now more or less fixed. What's sure is that it handles much better than my D5300, but at a costly sum.
Considering the fact that I would probably never shoot higher than ISO6400, this brings me to the conclusion that any of these cameras is a good choice for high-quality stills. I would probably even go with a Canon 6D, as it has a pretty good balance between IQ, resolution (20MP), and file sizes.
They forget to mention the fps when shooting 14bit RAW.I heard that the burst can last up to 26 RAW shots, then slows down.
To me, that is the more important metric.And we'll just have to wait for good comparisons to judge IQ.
Also, they don't mention if only the first shot gets AF, or the entire burst of shots gets AF.
I see two major flaws here:
1. Small capacity battery, which can barely last a few hours.
2. No internal UHD recording, so with the added bulk (and cost) of an external recorder - it kinda beats the purpose of creating a small FF camera.
Obviously, Sony doesn't want the A7s to eat on sales of it's more "professional" line of video cameras, so they had to handicap it. Typical...
OK. I just tried it on Windows 7 x64 with 24GB RAM.It is so frustratingly slow, that I think they should just quit and give Adobe the information to the Focus point and other "secret" metadata.Then we can all use ACR / LR, and be happy with it.
Eric Glam: I've had the D5300 with Nikon 35mm f/1.8G lens for a few months now.I agree with every word in this review.
The still & video quality is very good.But the camera is so frustrating to use and handle, that it takes away the fun and joy of shooting photos. The lack of touch capability, the lack of real aperture control in LiveView, the sluggishness of the LCD when zooming to check focus, the complicated menu, the missing dial - all of these make the camera very hard to use.
One other thing that this review neglected to mention is the fact that the D5300 is almost useless with fast glass, when using the viewfinder. In this review they mainly used the kit lenses which go to f/3.5 max. My lens opens up to f/1.8, and let me tell you - the focus point is never where I intended it to be when I use the viewfinder, even stopped down to f/4.0.
Well, I can understand the selection of 9 points AF.But why AF-C? I don't want the camera to continuously focus.
Also, in AF-C mode, the AF illuminator cannot be enabled (menu a3), and I do want to use it, otherwise the camera cannot auto-focus in dark environments.