People think this is just another camera. It is NOT. As a R/C hobbyist for many years, I know the danger of a rotating propeller. Many people have had their fingers cut off by propellers. Photographers on this site have NO IDEA how difficult it is to control an aircraft like this. R/C helicopter pilot takes years to be proficient at controlling a helicopter flying towards you. Is not easy. If you have a GPS failure, can you bring this thing back safely? This thing will get away from you very fast.
DPReview need to stop advertising this as another mirrorless camera because IS NOT. Is VERY IRRESPONSIBLE for any photographers to run out and buy one of there things without investing needed skills to operate an R/C aircraft. Took me half a year of hard work to learn the basics of helicopter flying. Are photographers going to do that?
Back to manual flying when the GPS goes out ? I am not so sure. Wouldn't its GPS be more for its ability to navigate to specfic locations ? There are other systems that make it easy to fly manually that have nothing to do with GPS.
So it's probably a waste to get 4K if you don't have a 4K television ? That's my question.
G1Houston: Is the lack of an external charger really a negative?
I have come to appreciate the fact that when I carry these cameras on a trip, I do not have to pack all the bulky chargers with them. I just have to bring a single USB cable that I already use to charge my phone and tablet. Is that really so difficult to charge a separate battery at night time in the camera? It is also possible to use those external batteries we have for the smartphone to quick charge the "camera" in the filed. I thus suggest Dpreview to reconsider calling the lack of external charger a "pro," to encourage companies to simply the accessary. It drives me mad that each one of my camera has a different battery with a different charger.
I may be wrong, but I wonder if USB doesn't really turn out enough electricity to quickly charge a camera battery. Maybe with telephone batteries there's enough to do it somewhat quick, via USB, but maybe camera batteries are bigger, etc.
But I'm not sure about this. It's just the question that I am asking myself.
Rage Joe: Kind of weird feeling. I don't know how to respond to this. The "classic" look seems like it was the most important aspect to this desing. Form before function?
The teaser commercials kind of made me interested. I was wondering yesterday, maybe the commercials were designed before the camera ? In any case, it looks like a camera designed by the marketing department.
1444 comments... well, people want to express opinions about this one.
dmartin92: The error Nikon has made is comical. One has the impression that they looked at the success of the Fuji X100 and said to themselves, "buyers want retro cameras", and then they went out and acted like robots designing a camera that would be very, very retro. Which it is.
But the camera is ugly. It's so retro it makes one chuckle. It's so retro, it looks fake.
The priority that the robots at Nikon didn't see is that it should be a modern, beautiful digital camera, first and foremost, and retro, secondly.
@Plastek ... I own an X100, and I'd say that I remember very well what was said when the X100 was introduced. And I think that you are either mistaken, or you are rewriting history. But happily it's an insignificant disagreement about nothing important. Think whatever you want.
The error Nikon has made is comical. One has the impression that they looked at the success of the Fuji X100 and said to themselves, "buyers want retro cameras", and then they went out and acted like robots designing a camera that would be very, very retro. Which it is.
The only problem is that it is ugly.
h2k: I find it interesting that you link to stories on Imaging Resource.
Look at the old black and white film "Miracle on 34th Street", from 1947. The Santa Claus from Macy's, on 34th Street, starts sending some of the customers to Gimbel's department store, and that turns out to be good for business at Macy's.
Time is the greatest artist. Even some of the mundane photos we take today will be fascinating in 125 years. Already some of the mundane digital photos I took with my Canon G2 in 2002 are starting to become interesting for me. With the years piled on top of the years, that will only increase...
For me, I am surprised how many people are still looking at how a camera does with high ISO as being the criteria to decide if a camera is good or not.
For me, this camera is small, has a 35mm lens on it, and is full frame. At f/2 there will be limited DOF, for reasonably close subjects.
This is my vote for the most interesting camera of 2012.
I'd look at it as being more of a test prototype that is being sold to consumers. The ones that really want it.
Instead of having a 23mm lens on it, it has a 35mm lens on it, which gives it the option of DOF control.
But it's just so amazing to see the thing in people's hands. It's "tiny", for a FF digital camera.
Sony will eventually sell the sensor to other companies. They'll make money that way too. This camera shows just how small the camera can be. Great marketing tool for the sensor.
What do I know: Wake me up the day EVF gets as good or Better than a good 100% OVF
The error is to think of EVF as being something that is going to replace OVF.
Many, many cameras already don't have an OVF. Those sort of cameras, that don't have an OVF, could start to have an EVF. And that would be a big improvement over framing the image via the camera's back display screen.
I am seeing photos in the newspaper, and I can see that they are obviously HDR. It's coming, more and more.
dmartin92: A great photo.
This won't be possible in a few years, right ?
Aren't they going to replace the Bay Bridge ? Or am I mistaken ?
On the other side of Treasure Island, to the east, they already have something new, but to the west (the direction this photo is taken), all that is going to change too ?
In some ways, the Bay Bridge is a bit beautiful.
I think of Dustin Hoffman driving across the Bay Bridge, in "The Graduate", and the idea that the Bay Bridge will be going away, and that seems sad, even if it is for the best that that it be replaced with something more "earthquake resistant".
I was quite sure that you were wrong ... but I just looked ... I see ... you're quite right ! :-)
A great photo.
I wonder if there is any correlation between how much a couple spends on the wedding photographer and how likely the couple is to divorce.
That is to say, the more they spend, the more likely they will divorce.
You know, they want so much that there be some serious "documentation" that they are living "a fairly tale of happiness"... and they've got the photos to prove it.
I look at it, there in the hands of someone, and just the size of it tells me it is not for me.
A camera that size, it is of my past, but not of my future.
OleThorsen: So basically Mr. Butler tells the family father who's a photography beginner: "We at dpreview firmly believe it's perfectly OK that your only solution to capture your playing children is to shout: Stand still children - father want to take a picture of you!", instead of learning to use Shutter Priority.
This sites IQ has gone downhill since Askey left the business.
One thing that hasn't changed is all the folks that complain and say, "this site has gone downhill". I remember quite clearly that it was like that when Phil was here too.
I may not be very smart, or maybe I am just too lazy, but my previous attempts at using one HDR software tool or another never went anywhere.
I never got anywhere with any of them. The free tools, etc.
But this afternoon I downloaded this software, and managed to figure out how to load my X100 RAW files into this tool (it's easy), and then just playing around with the "TM" slider bar, I got the thing to work.
I'm just amazed what can be done with my X100 RAW files.
After 2 hours, I was ready to buy. And I just did.
If you really push it, the images will look strange. But if you go easy, the images don't really have that "HDR look". Well, a bit, but they still look way better than what you'd have normally.