Jogger: Can they change the law of physics can make a 1/3.2 sensor capture as much light as an FF? If not, gtfo.
Yes, a larger sensor always have an advantage over a smaller one, but when the smaller sensor becomes good enough for the majority of people, other things become more important than improving image quality further. Like convenience, for instance.Arguably, APS-C, or even m43, is already good enough for most people, who have no specialized photographic needs, and in the near future 1" or even smaller sensors might be good enough.
beavertown: If Dpreview decides to review the V3, I hope they will also seriously consider the ridiculous price tag.
Because you should get what you pay for.
The value of a product is not an intrinsic property of the product itself. Rather, it's worth as much as people are willing to pay for it, so the market will decide if it's overpriced or not.
In other words, you do get what you pay for, because, presumably, if you choose to buy it, it's because you think it's worth the money.
twfsir: One point everyone seems to miss, is that Sony was smart enough to have Zeiss make the lenses for the camera. Next to Leica, Zeiss makes the best glass in my opinion. I agree the sony name in cameras is not near as great as many others, but I do think they did build a unique camera with the Zeisss lens.
Sony Zeiss lenses are not made by Zeiss, but by Sony, just as the Panasonic Leica lenses are made by Panasonic, not by Leica. I suppose that Zeiss has approved the designs and/or manufacturing methods, but they aren't involved in the makiing of the lenses.
RichRMA: I think Nikon missed something. They degraded the D300 by replacing it with the D7000 and degraded the D700 by replacing it with the D600. Shouldn't the D4s have a body something like the D800 (if the progression is right) or will that wait for the D5?
The D7000 replaced the D90 as the top consumer DX model. The D300s is the prosumer/pro DX model, and sits above the D7xxx models in the line-up. It hasn't been replaced yet.Likewise, the D600/610, are consumer FX models (essentially the same bodies as D7100), whereas the D700 was a prosumer/pro FX model, which was, arguably, replaced by the D800. Some people still wait for a 'true' D700 successor, though.
straylightrun: Super fast AF, complete silent shutter, unique modular concept; I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I will definitely get one
when they go on sale at the end of next year for $299.95.
I wouldn't call an external EVF and an add-on grip a unique concept. There are grips for E-M5, E-M10 and X-T1, for example.
Mark Alan Thomas: SONY MIRRORLESS FUJI MICRO FOUR THIRDS NIKON NO INNOVATION DIE DIE DIE HEAD EXPLODES
Joseph Mama: Um, waht about the sensor? The Nikon 1 sensor is 1 inch and ought to be as good as the RX100 but it really isn't. Aren't they gonna rework the sensor to improve image quality?This seems a lot smarter than wrapping it up with all these 'extras'.
The strength of the Nikon 1 is that is interchangable but SMALL, and provides a platform for really long range photography without a superzoom. The 70-300 is a good step in the right direction since with 2.7 crop factor it can hit some serious range (800ish).Its also CHEAP, making it a good entry level option for those that want the image quality of at least an RX100 but also want a bit more versatility without breaking the bank.
I am not seeing the V3 cater to ANY of their strengths. Instead adding a bunch of 'stuff' to jack up the price.
We don't yet know if the new 18 MP sensor have been improved compared to the two earlier Aptina sensors, or how it compares to Sony's sensor.
Andrew Butterfield: I'm surprised Nikon are sticking with the 1" sensor. It's fine for a compact like the Sony RX100, but you buy an interchangable lens camera so you can do things a compact can't. And the main thing you can do is buy a fast lens and get that bokeh all amateur photographers lust after. Or go ultra wide. Or ultra long. or ultra high quality, whatever that may be for you. With a 1" sensor, you can't do much of that. Ever.
You have a telephoto reach advantage compared to larger sensor systems. Basically, a Nikon 1 can be seen as an enthusiast compact and a superzoom bridge cam wrapped up in the same body.
shaocaholica: So for a few hundred more dollars you can have FF mirrorless. This is a joke.
FF mirrorless that shoots 20 fps with continuous AF, and 60 fps with locked focus? And that gives you the same telephoto reach for a similar amount of money, and in a similarly small package? Didn't think so. ;)Each system has its own strengths and weaknesses.
RichRMA: The camera has some impressive specs, but the same thing 4/3rds was criticized for, small sensors, is even more constrictive here. Nikon might be onto something; the whole idea of mirror-less was small-size and the 1 system achieves this. It'll be interesting to see if they can compete with the more mature Olympus and Panasonic systems.
The whole idea of mirrorless wasn't smaller size, rather it was to get rid of the mirror assembly, and the cost (for the manufacturer) and mechanical complexity that comes with that. As a side effect, this allows the cameras to be made smaller, but that is an option, not the main purpose of getting rid of the mirror.
As for the sensor size, the same size is considered to be 'large' in the RX100. So instead of comparing the Nikon 1 cameras with larger sensor system cameras, why not see them as advanced compacts with the added bonus of interchangeable lenses?
Nukunukoo: While not a Pentax user, I do agree how DPR is bordering to WTF as to why they take to spend (and waste) a lot of time on Canikon even on extremely insignificant model upgrades and ignores celebrated cameras like Pentax K3 whose combination of features are quite unique and leading in its class.
Shame really, DPR, was there a change in management as to why many feedbacks from your user base seem to be falling on deaf ears?
Ideally, every camera should be reviewed, no matter what brand. However, given the limited manpower, and the fact that DPR spends many weeks using a camera before writing their very exhaustive reviews, they have to prioritize. Because many more people shoot with Canon or Nikon DSLRs than any other brand, then there are likely many more people who are interested in reading reviews of those brands. Unfortunately, there's no way of prioritizing in a way that's fair to all brands, other than flipping coins.
It's just not true, that DPR is ignoring the K-3, though, since they have repeatedly said that they are working on the review.
Lucas_: IMHO it's outrageous to give a Gold Award and an 87% note to this camera and Silver with 80% to the fantastically innovative Sony A7 ( not to mention the A7R, which is clearly at another level and got Gold / 82%! ). It's about time DPR realizes that their reviews "conclusions" have actually become a joke! I can appreciate the level of camera features/controls details and specs they cover ( which IMO is the good value of the review ), but I've learned to just don't care at all about their final conclusions ( sometimes hilarious ) and rating!
What's so innovative about the A7/R? They're mirrorless FF cameras, with no new technologies that we haven't seen in other cameras.Anyway, innovation in itself is not cause for a great review. A camera should be assessed based on usability, performance, build quality, value etc. A camera with no innovations could still be a great photographic tool, and therefore deserve a high review score, while an innovative camera could be a flawed photographic tool, and therefore deserve a lower score.I'm not saying that the A7 has any major flaws, just that the fact that it's innovative (if that's the case) have nothing to do with whether it's a good camera or not.
Prognathous: Yawn... what a boring camera. It would have been sufficient to say that it has no standing quality issues and just direct readers to the D600 review. Not worth investing any efforts in actually doing a full review IMHO.
A camera is just a tool you use to create pictures. Who cares if it's 'boring' (whatever that means)? I'm more interested in exciting pictures, and I'm sure the D610, in the right hands, is capable of producing just that.
RichRMA: I'm fairly certain the only thing Nikon is making a profit off are their lenses so I understand why they'd be trying to eliminate some competition. The Sigma lenses must use specific methods that Nikon uses to make its VR system work. But I wonder then if this is a semi-standardized system, how Panasonic and Canon avoided copying Nikon, or did Canon's I.S. lenses come before Nikon's?
You don't own a general patent for optical stabilisation, autofocus or whatever. You own a patent for a specific implementation thereof, a specific technological solution. Just because Nikon, Canon and Panasonic all have OIS, it doesn't mean that they achieve this in exactly the same way. Sigma, on the other hand, apparently used Nikon's implementation, or at least came close enough to get Nikon's attention.
Jogger: Seems ok for budget video folks.. but, why would anyone buy this for stills when the A7 is cheaper, much smaller, better built, and with 4x the sensor size... at this size and price, you might as well go for the D610.
The A7 is better built? How do you know that? I'm not saying it isn't, because I haven't handled the GH4 or read any reports about its build quality. Just curious where you're getting it from.
lester11: Either "Giotto's launch of 'Air' range of lightweight tripods" or "Giotto launches 'Air' range of lightweight tripods" but not "Giotto's launches 'Air' range of lightweight tripods"...
The company name isn't Giotto; it's Giotto's Tripods, usually shortened to Giotto's. So you can indeed say that Giotto's launches something.
Backstage: I had the chance to use it for an evening. Next to all the pros and cons already written I have two comments: The four way control buttons are quite on the same level as the back plate and I could not identify them clearly while keeping my eyes on the viewfinder. The second is that the X-T1 with the grip and the 56mm 1.2 lens is a heavy beast.
The size of a mirrorless camera will never defeat its purpose. The purpose of any camera is to take pictures, and large size doesn't stand in the way of that.The main advantage of mirrorless isn't smaller size, it's that you get rid of the mirror box. This leads to less mechanical complexity, and gives more freedom in lens design.
The possibility of making a mirrorless camera smaller is an option, not its purpose. If you prefer a DSLR-sized camera for ergonomic reasons, then you probably want a mirrorless camera to be just as large. And if you have no problems with handling a smaller camera, then there are several alternatives to choose from.
Samuel Dilworth: Page 8: we finally hear the story about the different grips! That’s a weird one. As usual, I prefer the one I can’t get, i.e. the US model. I would love to hear why European customers prefer bulbous grips while Americans prefer style. These camera companies are utterly inscrutable.
You know you’re in Britain when your trade show has a prim little garden. Fantastic.
I agree that the information is a bit scarce, but my guess is that the grips are user-interchangeable. There are a couple of screws on the side of the camera. If you can find a US grip I'm sure it will fit a European camera, because I doubt that Canon would design and manufacture two different bodies.
As for the reasons, I found this quote on Techradar:
"A grip on the side of the camera will be found in European models only. Canon says that Japanese and American audiences preferred the flatter look of the camera without the grip."
It seems like Canon showed both alternatives to test audiences, and Europeans preferred the larger grip.
From the Canon UK product page:
"The PowerShot G1 X Mark II Enhanced Grip Edition (available in Europe, Middle East and Africa) features a large ergonomic grip for excellent handling."
And if you click on "What's in the box", it doesn't mention any extra grip, so I guess the European version comes with the larger grip only.
Horshack: From the Canikon interviews we learned that we need an American/European camera industry, who would take more competitive risks and innovate faster.
Yes, those camera industries are definitely gone. Today, in Europe we have only small niche players specializing in luxury products and medium format (Leica, Hasselblad, Phase One).And in North America there's companies like Sakar and JK Imaging, who make their living by selling cheap Asian-made cameras under well-known brand names like Kodak, Polaroid and Vivitar.
If a new camera industry will emerge outside of Japan, it will probably be in another Asian country, most likely China, but there are other rising economies like South Korea, Taiwan, India, Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia.