I just bought the D5300 a few days ago along with the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G.
It's horrible with the Viewfinder!! I can't get a decent sharp shot.
Everything's sharp with Live-View, but it's so slow and cumbersome...not to mention the slow frame-rate when zooming-in to check focus.
Please Nikon, add AF Fine-Tuning via Firmware upgrade.It's really killing me to use the Viewfinder and get out-of-focus results.
Just to make things clear:- I have 20-20 perfect vision and do NOT wear glasses.- Diopter is in correct position where I can see the guide lines clearly.- I'm using AF-S and Single Center Point focus.- I've tested this combo in all apertures, alternating between Live-View and Viewfinder.
The Viewfinder shots are ALWAYS LESS SHARP.I'm just so disappointed & frustrated.
And Yes, I'm well aware the Viewfinder only uses PDAF, and Live-View uses the more accurate CDAF (yet much slower).
I couldn't Afford the D7100, which has AF Fine-Tuning, and now I'm starting to regret it.
Eric Glam: (continued)
I want a 1920x1080 120Hz LCD, with iPhone-like touch experience and 3-axis hinges.
I wanna see USB3.0 & HDMI 2.0.
I want fast cards, like CFast, or even an M.2 NGFF SSD.
I wanna see choice of stills formats. Let the user select which one he/she prefers:Uncompressed RAW - ARW & DNG.Compressed - JPEG, Microsoft JPEG-XR & Google WEBP.
I guess I expected too much.
Right on all points, Tord.
Eric Glam: The battery says it all.These A7/A7R cameras can not seriously be considered "Pro".My old Sony A100 has a much higher capacity battery and would last longer than this pathetic excuse (1Ah NEX battery).
I was expecting Sony to innovate and come up with "drool-worthy" cameras. I'm sorely disappointed, as I don't see any innovation here.
I want image quality in high-ISO & low-light situations that'd be better than the Nikon D4.
I was expecting high-grade video features, such as internal 10bit 4-2-2 sampling & 2.5K resolution which will down-sample to 1080p beautifully . They don't.At the very least - they should have included a 1.2Mbps standard for all FullHD FPS options, and 2.1Mbps for all 1440p options:
2560x1440p, 60fps @ 126Mbps2560x1440p, 23.976fps @ 50Mbps1920x1080p, 60fps @ 72Mbps1920x1080p, 23.976fps @28Mbps
Would also be nice to have other FPS options, such as 24.0fps, 25fps, 29.97fps, 30fps, 48fps & 50fps.
Would love to be involved in R&D.Cameras & lenses are a thing that's really dear to my heart. Seriously.And I expected Sony to be more serious. Perhaps they will come out with a A99 replacement that would feature some things on my list. Let's wait & see.
The battery says it all.These A7/A7R cameras can not seriously be considered "Pro".My old Sony A100 has a much higher capacity battery and would last longer than this pathetic excuse (1Ah NEX battery).
Comparing the RAW files very closely (ISO 3200, ISO 6400), it looks to me like the NEX-6 and GX7 have exactly the same IQ.
Love it! Has an erotic and tempting feel to it.
So the XZ-10 has a smaller sensor than the previous XZ-2?
Why are the RAW files not really RAW? They seem to contain Noise reduction.Is that normal?
1. 27x18mm Foveon sensor, no AA filter, 5400x3600 3:2 (19.4MP on each layer). 1.33 crop factor.2. CFast or half-mSATA storage media. 150MB/s minimum sequential write.3. 3Ah battery that can last for 1000 shots or 3Hr of video.4. Weather sealed body.5. One fixed lens (like Sony RX1, Fuji X100). X10 motorized zoom, f/1.8 throughout zoom range. 24-240mm range.6. WiFi A/B/G/N with 2.4GHz and 5GHz.7. USB3.0 port8. 120Hz 3.5" LCD with 800nits brightness. Fully articulated like the Sony A99. iPhone-grade multi-touch capability with touch focus and touch shutter.9. Video: 2560x1440p60 and 1920x1080p72, All-I, 72Mbps, 4:2:210. Stills: DNG RAW, 10fps with AF between shots.
Though the photos submitted here were OoC JPEGs, I think I can draw a few conclusions.
1. It doesn't match the Nikon D4 and Canon 1D-X at high ISOs.
2. The lens, though supposedly good, is a limiting factor. I always need zoom!! There are many situations where you simply can't get close, and a zoom must be used. I wish the lens was 35-70mm f/2.0, for x2 zoom. This is really the bare minimum to justify buying a camera with a non-removable lens.
3. I wish it had an articulating LCD, like in the A77 and A99.
4. USB3.0 would have been more adequate in this day and age.
5. The price is a problem. Well, the price is always a problem, but for the RX1, Sony should have aimed for a lower target price.
This is going to start a debate:Should I buy a good phone with a decent camera, or should I buy a good camera with a decent phone built-in? Decisions, decisions...
Nice catch.Shot through a hole in the fence?
- No articulating screen- Battery lasts for only 230 shots (0.825Ah x 7.2V = 5.94Wh)- Video framerate is still capped at 30fps- Price is way too high
4 things that really kill it.
Studio shot at ISO 1600 RAW seems a bit out-of-focus. DPReview, please re-shoot.
18-55mm F2.8-4.0 should become the standard for all mirrorless kit lenses, instead of the common 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6.
I wish ACDSee could bring updates to cameras and lenses just as fast as Adobe. They are always behind on updates by at least 4 months.
The ALL-I video sample (the original MOV file) is NOT ALL-I at all.The bitrate is 12.5Mbps, and file size is 26.9 MB.
DPReview, please add a link to the real ALL-I sample.
The F3 is an entry-level NEX, but its first-impression photos look quite good.
I'm more looking forward to a NEX with a fixed zoom lens (18-125, f2.0).No need to bother with carrying extra lenses, or worrying about dust on the sensor.Just one proper lens, factory-matched to the body for optimal results.Those who read the LensRentals.com articles will understand the importance of factory-matched copies of lenses and bodies.
amazing close-up.About the Nikkor 20mm lens: What do you mean by "inverted"?