Stephan Def: Looks like a really neat piece of Hardware, which has yet to prove its merit and quality in the long run.
The Lens prices however are quite high for a hobbyist. I checked on Amazon and they start at €500 and hang around 600-900 €. Its probably good glass but I would not expect much of a used market.
So by comparison it looks to me like Canon and Nikon are the more proven solutions with reasonable priced quality lenses available, and a huge used market.
Actually I understand that it targets the APS-C Market. Quote from the Review: "... given its pricing and feature set, we suspect Fujifilm also has the Canon EOS 70D and Nikon D7100 in its sights."
Looks like a really neat piece of Hardware, which has yet to prove its merit and quality in the long run.
Its obvious to see that these images were done with some high-end Hardware and advanced software processing. So the storyline about a "family farm in rural russia" looks pretty contructed to me.
Shes from Moscow, somehow achieving high income or she has some generous benefactor, which is not so unusual for aspiring hipp fotographers. So she could just as well be someone from the New York art scene who took shots on the "Family Farm" in upper Newyork/Vermont.
The Fotos are nice, imo, the storyline sucks.
The price has to to come down to about $800-$600 as I am pretty sure it will in time. I would like to see a model with a full size smartphone screen, or basically just a smartphone format with an interchangable aps-c size lens mount. I think that is the future. All the rest is pure processing power and software.
Stephan Def: Whats he talking about? Not just only the Sensor size matters but also the availability of reasonably priced Lenses.
If I would go Fullframe I would be looking at the category of 2000-4500€ and upwards for the full package with Lenses. With APSC I am comfortably below 1400€. That is a huge difference for the enthusiast hobbyist.
What does he mean with semi-pros go to FF in the future? He thinks all the enthusiast amateurs are going to Fullframe and pay prices like 2200-4500€ and more for their hobby?
I think he is making have baked statements that are not thought thru to the end. I could be wrong though and canon will reveal the lense-less camera.
Yacht 100.000 €. Porsche 200.000€. I don't know, maybe Camera salesmen can afford it. If he can afford it, then he will not have any time left for his hobby :-)
The bet that prices will come down for high-grade optical equipment is way off, those prices have never come down.
Unfortunately Cameras are not reliable collectors items, they can just be obsoleted very easily and then you are sitting on a heap of electronic junk.
OK you got me, I don't have your friends.
No lenses have not gotten cheaper.
Whats he talking about? Not just only the Sensor size matters but also the availability of reasonably priced Lenses.
rallyfan: I bet he goes home each night and cries into a suitcase full of money.
Last time I checked "money" was paper with some odd designs printed on it, and some bogus text about trust added on ...
rrr_hhh: I read Woodford's interview and what he says sounds wrong. He has sour grapes and plays the victim's role, but he just sounds like an angry looser, trying to harm Olympus as much as he cans. He sounds like a manipulator and insinuating things for which he has no proof (like the involvement of the Japanese mafia).He making a meditation retreat with Buddhists ? And giving his money to charity ? Let me laugh, it is not because you stay three days with Buddhists that what you did before was right and how much did he give to charity ? Many people are giving to charity ! And even if he gave half of what he received he still got way more money from Olympus than what most people earn in 20 years ! I will believe it when I see the list of beneficiaries and how much each actually received and testimonies of what they could achieve with his gifts. Poor soul ! He may have uncovered real problems, but he used the wrong way to solve them : he just tried to use them to his own advantage.
Olympus is a company Woodford helped to create. Just google it: the complete real history is there.
Why should he have helped to cover-up the corrupt elements?
CameraLabTester: "In the interview he rejects suggestions that he is 'cashing in' on the crisis, explaining that most of the money will be donated to charities..." ---excerpt form DR article above
Lets make it clear: The money to charities comes from the "cashing in" aspect. (Le Book!)
His severance paycheck is intack.
I think he had a 5 year contract, its legally and morally sound that he should have sued on the fullfillment of the obligations out of that contract. Thats normal and anybody would do that.
Furthermore the amount he received is actually minimal compared to what he could have earned as CEO in those 5 years; Just look at how much Olympus lost on those "creative" accounting practices in the previous years to get a clue.
I also have no doubts that he will find another position as he is a very able and astute salesman, with quite a track record. With that kind of a track record you will always find a job.
The original Article on amateurphotographer.co.uk is a very interesting and insightful read; its very revealing of a cultural phenomenon and it seriously connects the dots.
Tape5: Boredom extraordinaire.
The only way I could see it boring is if I was extraordinarily cynical, living and breathing that.
I think there is quite a huge cultural gap between Japanese Corporations and U.S. customers. As this case once again illustrates. Its fairly ubelievable that Nikon leadership is just shutting-up and thinking that they can silently ride this one out like all the other quality incidents they rode out before this one.
If APPLE had such a problem at the launch with one of their new products then some top brasses head would role, as did happen in the past, for example, with the Iphone 4 antenna problem, for which Mark Papermaster publically got fired. I am sure we would never see someting comparable happen in japan, apparently the clocks still count time very differently there.
My expectation is: at least some qualified statement and a stop-gap solution, like a free but effective cleaning-kit from Nikon. Such a simple measure would go a long ways to patching things up a litlle bit.
I checked the pictures, and looked at the Video. The technology is not very well explained, normally you would try to show some serious real world application and explain the benefit of it, I did not see any of that, thus it just looks like a cool gimmick at this point.
Stephan Def: My issues with the D600:
1. NO articulated Screen. I know the counter arguments, but for me its a fundamental issue. I can be far more creative with an articulated screen period. So someone is going to say: its too slow to focus on-screen, if that is the argument then I have to say: conceptual error, because I will be happy to even focus manually in that case (why no focus peaking?...)
If I get that DSLR then I will get the 24-70 2.8 Lens to go with it (no compromises), and its really overpriced for NOT having VR! If I am going to have to pay that kind of money then I want it all, no excuses please.
Whats the deal with the poor production quality? (Sensor-Dust, Oil)
Reconsider Sony A99? I am not a Sony-fan, but I get more for the money, especially in-body stabilization, articulated screen, focus peaking, higher frame rates, excellent EVF, etc
@y intensity studios
And additionally there is a ton of m42 lenses that will fit on the Sony Alpha Mount with a glassless adapter. There are many many m42 lenses available used.
My issues with the D600:
photo nuts: This camera will (i) seal Nikon's status as the bestselling DSLR manufacturer worldwide (ii) stem the loss of converts to mirrorless cameras (iii) help ensure FF DSLRs stay relevant for many more years.
While Canon had a massive head-start when digital DSLR cameras were first launched, it appears they are now losing steam rather quickly... Way to go, Nikon!
<< I never have been a fan of FF due to bulk and feeling a bit ridiculous carrying one. I feel like people expect me to be a pro when I am only a hobbyist. >>
@liquidsquid I totally agree with your comment & sentiment, I feel awkward and foolish, to say the least, when carrying a piece of in-your-face Hardware-Status Symbol like this one with me just to have a decent image quality. There has to be a better way...
What peeves me even more, is that I would have to shell out another small fortune to get the proper lens to go with it: 24-70 2.8 and that it does not even have VR!
It just all seems way over the top.
budi0251: hmmm, having red most of the comments;I'm supposing most people thinks more megapixels mostly is not a good thing, and yes indeed it may; and for some added thoughts, anything from Nikon which is not for "Pro" market DSLR body may (and would) have dodgy PDAF.
This dodgy PDAF will even be more evident with more megapixels, so....,yes, more MP will show more of a misfocus, diffractions, fringing, abberation, focus shifts, etc... almost all optical photography defects will be way more evident.
I suppose this will call to have an even better lenses (a good primes nonetheless), anything else will just under-resolved the sensor resolutions.and not to mention : "With great megapixels, comes great responsibilities!"
I am not sure if more Megapixels in general are a good thing or a bad thing, I haven't decided yet. They are likely to be a good thing when all the rest of the technology (including software) catches up.
For this particular line of Cameras (D5xxx) however I doubt if more megapixels is the answer to the question of what the targeted consumer really needed. There are other missng functions that are more important. For example some manual focussing assists (focus peaking) and support for Nikon legacy lenses,
Stephan Def: Overall I think there will have to be a convergence in Smartphones and Digital Cameras. So in the longer run of things this Camera is one of the last Dinosaurs.
Why am I saying that? Well, there is a whole Laundry list of reasons, too many to list here. The established Digital Camera Industry is just not getting it what the average consumer really needs. The average consumer wants many many really cool functions and features and a slim design, the established Industry is not going to give him that, there is not enough real creativity there. Much of it boils down to a software developement problem, and there needs to be a disrupting force, as it happened with smartphones.
<< It is a physical fact that bigger lenses and sensors will be better than smaller ones. >>
You are not factoring in the practical limitations. You have real cost, size and weight limitations in any practical application. So bigger is not always going to be better.
It may not be possible to change the rules of physics, but you don't actually have to. You only have to change the ground rules of exposure and how you process that data.
Take for example: multi-frame noise reduction. That concept is quite a serious innovation, it opens up all kinds of new doors and avenues in producing better exposures. This only became possible with microprocessors and better software and that takes you right back to good old moore's law. Think about it.
I am not a physics expert but I am sure there is enormous potential in just varying the exposure parameters while doing multiple exposures in rapid succession and the then computing that information into an optimal exposure.
Well for one thing there is the form factor and that is already changing a lot, mirrorboxes are not necessarily needed anymore. Have a look where mirrorless is going. Focus technology changing as well.
There are a lot of things that I can do with a smartphone that I can't do with todays digial cameras. Foremost they are programmable and open to third party Applications. Media & communication.
Ask your wife or your girlfriend what she would rather take with here to here next Art exhibition, a DSLR with a 16-85mm Zoom or if she would prefer something less bulky, something significantly more compact with a slim and elegant design, unobtrusive however without sacrificing any functionality or image quality.