Scottelly: $650. That's $150 less than the D5300, and the D3300 comes with a lens. Nice work Nikon. Still . . . I wish you could make a camera that can compete on price against the Sony A65! The A65 is only $500 without a lens, and only $600 with a lens (cheaper than this slow camera). And the Sony A65 has built-in GPS and a fold-out screen, like the Nikon D5300. One more very important feature most of the Sony cameras have is built-in image stabilization (in the camera body), something that should be a serious consideration for people trying to choose what entry-level camera to buy. Frankly I'd say Sony wins for the entry level photographer who doesn't expect to spend a lot of money on lenses in the future. Sony offers a few good upgrade options too.
But if you want a Nikon, this is a really good starter camera that can be used to capture very sharp, high quality photos, I'm sure.
A65 was launched at US$900 body only. You really expect a new 2014 model to compete on price with a heavily discounted 2011 model?
From the judge's ruling: "[Mr. Fielder's] had the idea of making the red bus stand against a black and white background from the film Schindler's List".
So, he will be hearing from Mr. Spielberg's lawyers soon... Scary!
Mssimo: Can someone explain Stills (Focal plane shutter): 1/4000 - 180 sec VS• Stills (Electronic shutter): 1/9000 - 1 sec
There must be a downside to Electronic shutter, otherwise, they would not have the physical one.
It's true an hybrid electronic/focal plane shutter (like this and D70's) suffers blooming, but it would be much worse if it was a purely electronic shutter.
BTW, focal plane shutters also suffer from rolling shutter artifacts (Just look at famous Lartigue's photo: "Car Trip, Papa at 80 kilometers an hour"), so no advantage there.
rurikw: Sigh. Yet one more splendid camera ruined by a fixed screen! Why doesn't anyone understand that an articulated screen is the heart of a live view camera. This one is dead.
This is not a "live view camera" but a "viewfinder camera that happens to support live view" ;)
"it also allows for shallower depth of field than most DSLRs when used with their kit zooms, when each are set to their respective telephoto ends."
That's not what the math says. The X10 should have about double the DoF in those conditions (compared to a 1.5x crop DSLR with a 55mm lens at f/5.6).
MPA1: I would appreciate something more akin to a Leica M9 with AF please.
When I am travelling I hate lugging a bag full of D3s kit - it weighs a tonne, is conspicuous and generally a PITA.
Yet I am not prepared to do without high IQ and AF performance, both things that are missing from the vast majority of alternative small form options.
But... a Leica M9 with AF is like a Porsche with a chauffeur :)