zakaria: OR getting the pentax ks2 which has weather sealed body and af motor!!plus IS!!
and 100% VF as pentaprism and two control wheels
I would have liked to see how this camera stacks up against the Pentax KS2.They cost approximately the same in Germany.
virtualkyr: From a stills perspective - the D7200 is an awesome camera, and a likely good upgrade from my D90.
However, I believe Nikon has really missed a great opportunity to attract video shooters by not incorporating some 4K into this one. They really would have done something Canon hasn't done yet and provide a larger sensor alternative with better low light performance and DR than the Panasonic GH4.
I agree with the assesment that the Nikon is most likely a good camera. I write that although I am not in the Nikon camp. OK it is not so much of a revolutionary leap, but that is partly due to the maturity of the camera designs. Once you have weathere sealing, you have weather sealing, much the same thing with the 100% view finder etc. It is primarily a stills camera and a fine one at that. It is not the same as the Canon 7D mk2 but a: how long did Canon wait until they brought out a new version and b: the Nikon is a different beast - focussing and burst rate are better on the Canon but I expect that the Nikon will run rings around the Canon in the IQ and DR areas. so: different beasts. So come on guys: don't be so negativ its a good update, perhaps not enough to make a D7100 owner want to replace their camera but a good competitor for those who a looking for a solid APS-C stills workhorse.
I an not a Canonisti but I have to give it to Canon - this is really some lens. Doesn't fit on any of my cameras and pricewise not in my budget, but it is really something to dool over. It is nice that some companies build these extravagant lenses.
Andreas Stuebs: So let's see ...
Weather sealed? - NoPentaprism? - No (just pentamirror)DR? - well sort of
Sorry, no option for me. At the given price you can get better.
"Pentax has a) IBIS, inappropriate for a DSLR, ... " Please explain. My K3 has IBIS and I think it helps me quite a bit. And also: We are talkin sub 1000$ cameras and hence you need to accept compromises. For some people - me for instance - weather sealing, DR and glass prism are important, for others there are other specs. Comparing cameras still make sense.
How do trhey do it?
Nikon releases a modified versin of the D810 and they get double editorial coverage including a photo spread which shows you …. nothing (or almost nothing) Canon issues a so so iteration of the M series and get a long article on how they should do things differently. Canon releases two reasonably specked midrange models – but nothing really ground breaking – and again get double exposure. How do they do it? How do they manage to get so much exposure for so little? Pentax the releases a midrange camera which to all intent and purpose is a strong competition to the Canon offereings – weather sealing, glas prism, the most compact zoom lens offered in the APS-C form factor, arguably better controls, most likely better DR – and what do they get – one item with just a couple of editorial content which also reeks of sarcasm. How do Nikon and Canon get away with so little and get so much more coverage?
In reply to my own post - I really would like to see how the Pentax KS-2 stacks up against the T6 and T6i. The cost is comparable. But - alas - I have little hope that anyone will compare the Pentax against the Canon, normally only Nikon is compared against Canon.
I really dig those gloves.
So let's see ...
Martin87: In other words: These cameras will cost you an arm and a leg :-)
Normally those guys, who can afford such cameras, make sure that is somebody else's arm and leg.
Marty4650: I think there is a popular myth that cell phone users all want an outstanding camera. The truth is, almost all of them are very happy with a "pretty good camera for snapshots, email attachments, and for web blog and facebook photos."
There is probably another myth that serious photo enthusiasts would pay any price to own a good camera that can make phone calls too.
There are probably a few people who will want one of these, but not very many who will be willing to pay the very high price for one. Most photo enthusiasts would rather spend that much money for a high grade lens or a photo trip than for a cell phone that can take better photos.
Bottom line... the cell phone fans won't need it, and the camera geeks won't want it, leaving very few customers left.
This makes it an interesting exercise, but an epic commercial failure.
What stops me using my smartphone for taking pictures is the lengthy procedure to get the camera app up and working. If I have my LX3 in my pocket pulling that out and getting it to take photographs is just so much quicker.
DStudio: This way only 77 idiots can buy it.
If you can afford it, you sure didn't get there by making poor financial decisions. Its intrinsic value is barely higher than the Nikon it's based on, so unless you can find some gimmicky way to make money off it ...
Or your parents, your family, your clan made that money and you came by it by winning the parental lottery. Just because some ancestor of yours had some business or other acumen does not necessarily mean that you have as well.
Photoman: It makes the LX100 better value, if your happy not to change lenses. What more could you want out of the LX100 ;)
Not me, I preferred the Panasonic cameras in my hand. Just subjective off course.
I think I'll miss this upgrade iteration. Doesn't offer me anything I really want.
lcf80: Almost every single camera provides RAW images using 12 or 14 bits per color, free tools like GIMP and RawTherapee support it. And Photoshop Elements still useless, in 2014? Open your eyes, Adobe.
Its not about "professional", its about rounding errors when altering tonal curves etc. Anyone who knows anything about scientific, engineering or other calculations knows, that while you are doing your calculations you will use as much accuracy as you can get, rounding to a sensible degree of accuracy as you finish. So ideally a graphics programme would allow 32bit floating point accuracy whilst adjusting the colours, saturation and brightness. You can go back to 8bit as you prepare your final display copy as normal displays and printouts realistically cannot display more than 8bits per channel. 32bits floating point is a bit much asked, but 16bit should be possible.
This is rather amusing, after seeing both at the Photokina I came to quite the oppasite conclusion, I may be getting the GN5 with a collapsible zoom lens instead of the RX100. This will have the benefit, that I can change the lens if I want to.
Petroglyph: You didn't see any Pentax 645Z there?
The desk with the 645Z was off to the side. If you want a large viewfinder, well that's the one.
See you tomorrow.
JackM: Shamless copy of a Leica III
I don't see it as copying. Every car manufacturer today takes apart products of the competitors to see how they have done it, to learn. Thats not copying. There are two things which the Japanese contributed to the photographic development and how they managed to beat the Germans: producing quality in quantity and that way reducing the cost to the consumer, and by creating a market of the enthusiast. The Leicas served the well to do and the likes of Kodak and Agfa served the happy snapper. The Japanese served the market inbetween.
electrophoto: What I fail to understand is that at the budget both chevrolet and the marketing / video company has... and obviously the whole rig is more expensive then about a dozen of the A7s... why go for that option instead of other available options that are more specifically geared towards cinematographic work?
don't get me wrong, I quite like the A7s and it is actually something I might buy... but I'd do so especially because at its price point it's hard to find rivals...but if I'd have the kind of funds to assemble the rig as shown, I don't think I'd really go for the a7S...
Sponsored by Sony?