stevez: A collapsible 24-70 f3.5 would be nice. f3.5 to keep it compact.
The main things Fuji should be fixing are AF speed, sensor size/res, and video capabilities.The lens on the X100 would be far down in my list of things to change/improve, but let's see what they come up with
Doesn't the 6D center AF point not focus at -3EV too? It might have been a more adequate comparison.
oselimg: Ban almost half of this forum contributors because they talk about bias and disagree with you Rishi.
It happened to you too?
BeaverTerror: There's a YouTube video of someone uploading the same file 1000 (!) times. Not only did that take much more effort than this particular example, the result is also much more interesting.
That's what I find interesting. In this case it takes barely a dozen times for the degradation to be quite significant.
marc petzold: Dear Nikon, you really do some very fine DSLR Gear, but please spent more time for Quality Assurance the next time before you'd release a DSLR body...
Oh boy, HowAbout is still at it. How about that?
Defending Nikon at every critical comment someone else makes, and spreading misinformation like other non Nikon bodies have the same problem.
Yes, your heard it the same problem. That's why no one noticedIt before in the several years since those bodies were released.
Looks good on paper, but the only kind of non-OIS lenses I have time for are sub-f2 primes or ultra- to wide-angle zooms.
bigdaddave: Well as long as Canons do it too it's not a fault. The Nikon bias here stinks.
The other images are less affected, so not ruined.
What a mess up.
mrmiguel: I'm loving the virtual Air Quotes from DPR on the headline.
Oh, great catch. I'd missed that.
So the manufacturer themselves acknowledge an issue, and DPR somehow think it deserves to be called an 'issue'?
munro harrap: Wait months after all reviews and tests appear for problems to appear in posts online you can find - like " Nikon D810 problems issues".
Go through every machine you fancy buying in the same way, and wait until one comes out that they have bothered to design for photography, rather than for money.
Lobby your governments to ensure that our equipment lasts, by reintroducing lead/tin solder that is what every old pre 2002 lens and camera has, AS, even if you get a camera without problems it WILL die on you about a decade after manufacture-or much earlier from vibration and shocks in the post and through couriers throwing around gear sellers having got your money couldn't care less about padding and packing properly.
The current image quality is good enough for the next 50 years so you now do not need to "upgrade" any more. Nobody should HAVE to.
Because it isn't always due to bad quality control in the manufacturing process- many a slip twixt cup and lip, don't you know.
locke_fc: Can't be.
A few posters here have been telling us repeatedly this was a non-issue, or something every other camera showed.
HowaboutRAW: you've been patrolling all D750 threads trying to counter any criticism and spreading false information as though you were on Nikon's payroll.
No other cameras released in previous years show this flare problem to the same extent. If they do, it has been minor enough to go UNNOTICED FOR YEARS.The difference with the D750 is that the problem is serious enough to have been noticed WITHIN WEEKS of the camera being released.
How about you stop spreading misinformation? No chance, I suppose.
jadmaister2: I don't feel that we, or Nikon, should stick our heads in the sand on the flare issue. I have looked at the 4 or 5 sites that carfully document this problem, and show some home made solutions, but the conclusion can ONLY be, IMO, that Nikon have a careless production line which is (maybe by now 'was') allowing through a number of 750's with badly mounted sensors. When such a camera is used with the light source just out of shot above the frame, the banding occurs.If your sample is better aligned, I'm glad, but it is exactly sites such as DpReview that should allow the buying public to alert Nikon to the issue and force a correction.It's a wonderful camera, but it is ludicrous to buy a product that contains a potential fault.As a Nikon owner of long standing, I may add that I'm ashamed by Nikon's poor response to the issue.
If I don't know about photography, at least I seem to be stronger than you at logical thought.
If a problem is more subtle in one camera and more pronounced in another (to the point it was never noted with the first, but has been with the second one within weeks of its release), then, yes, the problem is more serious in the latter camera.
Which part of that is hard to understand?
AbrasiveReducer: Sooner or later every manufacturer has a camera with a problem they didn't catch. Talking about lawsuits, airbag recalls and other nonsense is not relevant. What is important is how the manufacturer responds and some companies are much better than others. Nikon has the advantage, you could say, of knowing what happens when you don't respond.
Just my opinion but good customer service, no warranty hassles, support and fast turnaround are every bit as important as megapixel count, dynamic range and noise levels.
You keep saying that (probably more than a dozen times in these comments, if not more), but I haven't seen anything indicating that any of those cameras show the issue TO THE SAME EXTENT as the D750.Stop spreading false information.
ozturert: Don't brag about the flare issue please. For sure Nikon will correct that... In D760...Then I'll sell my D800 and buy a D900 :)
Don't be ridiculous.Even the fairest of commenters, and the more rabid Nikon fans (except maybe yourself) agreed that the D610 was an attempt to correct the deeply flawed design of the D600.
ttran88: Just thinking about these "flare gate" comments and thought to my self how I would rather have flare than a outdated sensor in my camera.
Plastek:"It's D600 excuses on BS-level all over again. Hardcore Nikonians using the same arguments on how similar problems exist in some other cameras (based on anegdotal proof) and how it's non-issue in DXXX.Then Nikon releases hardware fix (aka. new model) and suddenly all those people shut the ... up."
Yes, that's exactly what this looks like.Though, to be fair, that's how it usually goes, no matter which brand is affected. I still remember when the original Pentax K5 came out, and both Pentax and the most vocal Pentaxians insisted there was not an AF problem that very clearly I and many other users did have. It took Pentax something like six months to acknowledge the issue and release a fw that only partially solved it. And even after that, a bunch of Pentax fanboys (in that case the moniker was totally deserved) kept saying that there was no issue or it wasn't important.
HowaboutRAW: you're the one missing the point entirely. With D750 it is notable enough to have become a noticeable issue. It never was with the other cameras you wrongly insist to have the same issue.As with many things in life, it's a matter of degrees, with the caveat that not only the problem seems to be much more noticeable in the D750, it also seems qualitatively different, from the samples published.Still, many D750 owners claim to not have encountered the issue, so it may just be a percentage of the units is affected.
Lehik: Whether the flare problem is a real or not, Nikon USA seems to have addressed it:https://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/19336
Again the big words, Rishi. What hysteria?So it's ok for a reviewer to brand a camera a new gold standard, but not ok for potential, or existing customers to discuss what seems a serious issue for some kinds of shooters?I don't follow the logic here.
olypan: I think this may be a record advertising post. Brought back to the top again and again.
I guess Nikon pays well.
Yes. I thought the 24 hour repeat coverage of the Canon 7DII was impressive too.
@SmilerGrogan: As a person working in advertising, I can tell you you could not be more wrong; generally speaking, that is (not talking about Barney).
Of course advertisers cannot have a reputable writer/site sing the praises of an utterly crappy piece of equipment, nor influence editorial content as much as they'd like. But influence they do, and not in an insignificant way!