I'm not sure what could cause all this but one thing that comes to my mind that Nikon (probably) should slow down a little to pay more attention to the quality control. I don't know if Canon is any better in this regards , even if it's not , it would not make any excuses for Nikon dropping the ball in QC.It looks like Nikon is unable to make the camera right in the first place.Nikon 600 > Nikon 610, Nikon 800, Nikon 810, etc... Now it's Nikon d750 (flaring / banding issues) - factory recall or free fix either of which is kind of pain in a butt ....
Jonath: Why do so many insist on rolling out the same old boring sony bashing. There's even someone on here whose sole comment is about RAW compression!? Relevance to the article? Sony cannot break the laws of physics, so bright AF lenses for FF are always going to be fairly large. If any of those complaining owned the system you'd know that the size makes it more versatile. If you want very good small lenses (and hence a small pocketable FF camera) they're already available, if you want FF quality and bright glass and can compromise on size you have that too, thing about a DSLR is it can never be small, it's not an 'option'.
Good. Keep this way....
"In the meantime I am not going to criticize Sony with comments based on my lack of insider knowledge.."
@DFPanno,I'm glad you got it figured.
People can express their opinion whether they own the gear or not. Leica can make small FF lens because of unique method of developing sensor that can "respond" to those lenses. Sony can't (so far). So the critics is pretty fair here. Nobody can change the Law of physics BUT there's always some options to consider. Some companies just do not want be bothered with such "tweaking"...
DoctorPDA: I note you do a lot of RAW comparisons in the studio comparison. This is good for RAW photo shooters. However, wouldn't JPEG comparison be important for JPEG photos and for video? For example, isn't the JPEG and video noise at higher ISO's better for the 6D vs. D610 (fair comparison)?
Who shoots JPEGs with DSLR cameras? The only reason I see doing this is just to play around with mobile app to see how the small jpegs can be transferred to your smartphone. The only time I remember myself shooting Jpeg was when I bought Canon 10D and could not afford Adobe PS to process RAW's .
Frank C.: dumbed down piece of photographic equipment for 2k$+... I don't think so! 1/8000 and 1/250 x-sync was around decades ago, srry today it's fuel injectors, not webers! LOL
Yeah... good point. Let's see who makes a better crap for $2KIt's not a bid deal for a company like Nikon or Canon to make 1/250 sync and 1/8000 shutter. They deliberately cripple the cameras due to marketing strategy. Magic Lantern is a perfect example of what 5DIII is capable of. As soon as you pay more - they (Canon or Nikon) just turn the feature on with firmware update or by flipping the circuit switch...
They deliberately cripple cameras to "fit" them into the "right" price tag. It's funny to hear some guys saying "I don't need 1/8000" or "I will never use 1/250 sync", or "I not going to shoot against the sun". The camera is a TOOL and it should meet the today's standards. Sometime even 1/8000 is not fast enough to shoot wide open in sunny days. So should I expect some "wise" advices here - use ND filters?
I guess given 90% is kind of typo?
durrace: Glad to see the Nikon Df here ... D4+ quality at half the size, half the weight and accommodates more lenses!
right, plus crappy AF, Max Shutter 1/4000, small and slow buffer.but I like the look of DF
Sdaniella: 2014 FF Systems:Low End vs High End for good 'LOW' LIGHT
Canon EOS 6D vs Nikon D750 vs Nikon D4s vs Sony A7S
ISO 51200: (=Max ISO for D750)
DPR Comparison Widget Subject: Left-Side (dimly lit): JPEGS (RAW = Always worse)
For me: the IQ of D750 is very close to 5DMkIII, but behind 6DAnd I would never consider D810, nor A7/R/S, nor fixed prime RX1R (35mm too long)If Sony made a RX1R with a fast fixed 24mm prime (maybe: if it had a vari-angle swivel screen)
Least of all D610:it's the only new FF amongst those in the 12 that lacks the Exposure Simulation LV that the rest have.
D750 max shutter 1/4000 ? No , thank you
I'm not sure about this design. Since it does not have a flip cover , all "precipitation" will be accumulated on the top of this bag.
108: Geez, those A7 Sony bodies must be the ugliest cameras on the planet... even the soviet 1941 tank T34 looked better .
...and T34 looks much better then some modern cars too :)
I wonder what would be the optimal ISO for S-Log2. In A7S is 3200 but for A7II it can be too high....
is image stabilization for stills only or it's also available in video mode?
Good move, Nikon! Why bother making something new when it's so much easier to just repaint the old one. What's the next? Silver? Titan?
good job, leica! Very nice and inexpensive camera! :)
solomon barket: Saw the NX1 at photo plus, yesterday NYC. Camera seems nice and the test shoots look good from what I could take, around the booth of the display case. 16 to 50-2.0-2.8.The one thing I was thinking about was the add on flash for the hot shoe. Asked the tech about the guide number and he thought it was 54. The guide number on the Nikon SB 800 is 184. Quite a difference in power. Some times I shoot the SB800 full out on manual. Concerning the flash, the tech told me that their is no TTL on the flash setting. Did not see the add on flash, so could not verify that. Maybe Samsung will add another more powerful flash unit to their line. Also saw on display a Large White 300mm lens that will be added to the system, no price set as yet. Also Samsung booth ran out of catalogs for the NX1, with all the specs.I got into a discussion with one of the head techs, and he claims that Samsung pours there own glass, which surprised me. I thought there were only a few suppliers of glass.
I agree, the camera is new and will be full of "surprises". Will rent it first to see what this beast is capable of
LucidStrike: To put this price in perspective, for the folks who insist it's disproportionately priced: I was about to spend $1700 on a GH4 and $900 on a 12-35mm (24-70mm) f/2.8 lens with NO intention of ever changing lenses. To get a similar sensor, similar lens, and more discreet body -- not to mention keeping the 4K -- for the cost of JUST the 12-35mm lens is a hell of a value. It's like a premium lens that comes with a free 4K-capable body to match.
LX100 4K footage quality is not even close to the one taken by GH4. I've gotten thru many samples having them downloaded and analyzed. The GH4 is much superior camera for video shooters. For stills the LX100 is pretty decent though. Just my 2 cents
I can't care less about the TTL and stuff, I'm more interested about H.265 video codec and 4K feature. You can find a hundreds of other cameras with perfect TTL implementation (Canon, Nikon, etc) I don't think the NX1 is best for this purpose