Rjansenbr2: I have the same issues with the D610.
If you're serious, were there issues with the d600? If not, and with the extremely minor changes between the two, it would look like Nikon was effectively sabotaging Sigma.
tkbslc: I think we know who the real "Assez" are here.
It works just fine for the 90+% here that don't speak french
Luego: The loud shutter sound is a real turn-off for me. Hopefully Sony will address this in their future version.Listen to this hollow sound of the shutter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmS2fUngz2o:
I dig a loud shutter. There. I said it. Couldn't give a sh!t less about flying under the radar. Haven't had a bride/groom so much as mention it, either.
justmeMN: If you use the big, bulky, depicted adaptor, that defeats the purpose of buying a compact camera.
So, if you use an adapter to use SLR-sized lenses for a package that's the size of an SLR when you need to, and put a smaller lens on when you don't, it makes no sense to have the smaller lens/camera when you don't necessarily need the SLR lenses?
Makes perfect sense. Thanks for talking some into me.
Lee Jay: For it to be useful, it has to be sharp wide open at the long end on high pixel density sensors. If it isn't you might be better off with a sharp 400/5.6 and upresing. If it is, it could be a game changer.
How's that 400/5.6 perform at 200mm?
Your opinion only stands with a teeny tiny narrow viewpoint that this 4x zoom is no more useful than a 600/6.3.
hiro_pro: this should be the kit lens for the Nikon DF. sorry i got caught up in the hype.
i have had great success with tamron and VC. i cant wait to see this in the local shop and give it a try. i wonder if the VC will be enough to hand hold this beast at 600?
anyone want to guess how long this lens will be when racked out to 600?
and how much is a 95 mm polarizer? rhetorical. please dont answer.
As someone who hand holds a 600/4... me. I want to hand hold a 5-6lb camera/lens setup.
Nuno Souto: $2700 for a retro camera that isn't, without an EVF?Thanks for helping me make up my mind, Nikon: Sony A7R, here I come - just the thing to complement my OlyEM5.Buh-bye, Nikon.
For those that have become accustomed to both, a "TV screen". If we were shooting film, our conclusions might be different. People can talk to no end about realism when looking through that window, but as scenes change that subtle turn of a dial and seeing it real time take effect in the end exposure puts those "window" people at a significant disadvantage.
beavertown: Everybody sees this silly overpriced rubbish will go get the M43 cameras.
Nikon is dying.
S, O will survive eventually.
Canon will always play catch up.
Have to agree with Gentleman Jim. Here I am years later and I've still not owned a camera that was better than the Sony a850. And it was lackluster in some areas at release. Color, though... christ. Beautiful.
"A camera with 36mp with no in-body I.S. is nutty"
That's a d800.
"A mirror is a feature, not a handicap"
So is using essentially every lens ever made on your camera. In that instance, the mirror is a handicap.
scrup: Perfect camera for event photography. Subjects will be guessing what camera it is. For all you haters out there, you must drive a Toyota.
You're exactly right. Toyota makes a good value-for-dollar product. This not so much.
SirSeth: Same price as the D800 = many FF cameras that are significantly less expensive, have high resolution, and boast more capabilities. No video will appeal to the elitist users who campaign for fewer features so they can feel good about their club. It looks good? Maybe to some. I think it's a hodgepodge. Lens compatability may be it's special skill. Frankly, I was expecting more than a marketing move. I agree with DPReview--I can't help but thinks this is a bit silly. However, if you have the money and love the look and tactile experience knock yourself out.
Every single full frame camera is an option for the person that doesn't give a s--- about video.
Many at a lower cost.
splendic: There is a market that this camera is perfectly crafted for, who will rightly appreciate and love all of it's features... and even non-features.
A very, very small market.
So, I don't know if this is a "Good for Nikon" for giving that small market a new tool, or "bad on Nikon" in the business sense for 'wasting' time producing something that so few people will buy.
Whether you like or dislike this particular camera, it never hurts anyone to have options.
I think it's a little overboard, myself, but can still appreciate that Nikon is putting it out there.
mpgxsvcd: Nikon just created a camera that none of their competitors will ever dare to compete against. Freaking Brilliant is what this is.
Extravagant price point and 80's styling? Sounds like a Leica to me.
Ed555: He should have been ask why no printed manual was included with the RX100 -- and for that matter any high-end Sony camera. And the answer to "it's green" should have been answered with "how much would it have cost."
1. It's green and usually goes unused
2. 99% of idiots can figure the rx100 out
3. Evidence shows that the other 1% know how to use a web browser
tjwaggoner: Why wasnt he asked if he had any info on when BSI sensors would migrate to the larger formats? This is a question that intrigues me, as I think it may be the next big leap in sensor performance over the very marginal increases you get from most modern sensors today. Just my opinion, maybe some of you are more informed on the issue?
BSI just gets the wiring out of the way of photon capture. This is helpful in small sensors with high MP because the pixels are so dense and the wiring takes up x amount of space regardless of pixel size. Proportionally more blockage on tightly packed pixels.
With large pixels, the amount wiring in the way is proportionally very small compared to that on smaller sensors. BSI would not offer the same benefit to larger sensors unless with very large MP counts.
jacketpotato: Monochrome sensor ?
Would perhaps be what Nikon sees as "Pure Photography"
Sets Df apart from D6xx D8xx not just cosmetically but also internally.
You are mistaking Nikon for a company that has interest in creating something original/unique.
CBuff: I thought that I was not part of the 2.9M affected users. Yesterday, I received an email from Adobe asking me to change my account information. Basically, I have been misled for a couple of weeks, believing that my information with Adobe was safe.
Oh man ...
It took them THAT long to find out how many user were impacted ? and it took that THAT long to inform us ?
Epic fail !
There was a day when the Adobe brand was cherished by photographers worldwide. It moved from positive to neutral to negative. Don't even mention the name Adobe to me
HarryLally: So what is it? Andy Westlake or Andrew Westlake?
@Andyrew: Everything is of the utmost importance. On the internet.
l_d_allan: Roger Cicala at LensRentals wrote an interesting article about:"There Is No Free Lunch, Episode 763: Lens Adapters"http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters
Overall, he notes that any adapter will detract from image quality. He was writing about non-optical adapters that are hollow.
In the subsequent comments, the question came up about Sony adapters for the A7 series. My reading is that you could count of some image quality degradation.
How much? The article wasn't encouraging, but it depends on your expectations. It certainly put a damper on this Canon owner's interest with a significant investment in EF lenses.
I couldn't tell if the Sony adapters were optical (with one or more lenses) or hollow, and functioning as a "pass-thru" for electrical signals.
Meh. All I read into that is that we as customers need to push to have higher quality adapters available. I'd gladly pay $40-50 for a simple dumb adapter + proper baffling.