No viewfinder = no sale. Pity, because apart from that and the lack of weatherproofing it looks like a pretty good bet.
BarnET: You guys are from dpreview. Come on dig up some info of that 4k gh3.That can be the only decent scoop of CES this year.
It's featured in photo #6 - along with about all that can be said about it at this stage. Exciting, nonetheless, and puzzling that DPR haven't made a headline item of it.
And this is on a photography news site because...?
bigdaddave: Nice & retro but it does show Nikon is stuck in the past and OH so expensive for what it does. A camera for Leica lovers
Nah - it's got far too many doodads for a Leica person. But that's really what it should have been - an FM/FE with a screen on the back and an aperture wheel for modern lenses. I'd (almost) have paid this price for that.
WTF? This is a huge ball of wrong. It should have been a digital FM/FE, with all the compactness and straightforward manual controls of those cameras - and maybe just an auto shutter and one control dial for the aperture on later lenses. *
Instead, we have a bloated, overpriced, overweight D7100, albeit with an FX sensor, and no video capability. A "fusion" of the worst of both worlds instead of the best. Ouch indeed.
I'm a huge fan of Nikon (I still own an FM2 and a bunch of AI lenses), but I struggle to work out who's going to buy this camera, I really do.
How crashingly disappointing.
* That, after all, is what a Leica is (and the FE used to be), and they sell as many of those as they can make, even at the price.
Shadow2: Here one stuff to think about...
If you are getting married and you check some photographers to record the day of your life will you Hire the photographer that use is brand new iPhone 5s or the one how has a DSLR...
And remember also that quotes: It's not because that you own a Nikon that you are a photographer...
Ask for their portfolio or reference for their work because if the product is bad you will not be able to share these precious moments...
GO Pro or GO Low
I'd take a decent photographer with an iPhone over an incompetent Saturday boy with a DSLR any day. In the end, it's about getting the pictures the bride wants, not complying with some kind of imaginary union regulations re megapixels, dpi, dynamic range etc.
Dccps: I agree that the DSLR's days are numbered. I don't know if it will be five years or ten or more, but we are surely seeing signs of their ultimate demise. Sony's new A7s are demonstrating mirrorless technology moving into larger sensor territory. Olympus' new E-M1 is redefining the limits of EVF technology as well as the potential of smaller sensors with respect to image quality. And Apple and other smart phone manufacturers are putting imaging technology into the hands of countless users out there, so pixel peepers beware, the best camera is and has always been the one you have when the image is there. There certainly are reasons for larger sensors and big heavy gear, but mirrorless is here, and here to stay because gear is so much less of a burden that more photographers will use it and the technology is getting scary good. Remember that high gloss high-res magazine spreads have already been created from small sensor cameras - not all but some, so technology marches on.
Agreed. We're hearing the same arguments today that were aired in the 1940s by the users of 5"x4" press cameras when 35mm and 6x6 came out.
Photography isn't just about ultimate image quality, it's about the usability of the kit and the ability to get the shot on the day. If a camera is small, light and fast, and gets the shot at an adequate image quality for the eventual output format, it will end up being used to the detriment of the older, heavier, more expensive, less agile technology, unless - and only unless - a particular characteristic of DSLRs such as image quality, speed and/or lens selection is the primary consideration.
So MILCs will become the format of choice for enthusiasts and photojournalists, and full-frame/medium format DSLRs will be the preserve of fashion photographers, landscapers and well-heeled willy-wavers (and videographers who can't bring themselves to use proper video cameras).
gil: I am not a pixel peeper and the pics looks ok in my office monitor. Details were there at the size of my monitor and while colors were not outstanding, not bland or muted either. Overall ok but I agree that these kind of pics could be taken as well from a cheaper NEX 3 series or from a mid-end P&S around $500-$600.
"Overall ok but I agree that these kind of pics could be taken as well from a cheaper NEX 3 series or from a mid-end P&S around $500-$600."Well, the RX10 has that Zeiss constant-aperture lens, and a bigger sensor than a P&S, plus it's weather sealed, which neither the NEX nor most P&Ss are. It's aimed at a different kind of shooter. And I'm sure if you did pixel-peep, you'd see the difference clearly, especially in the corners.
Nukunukoo: Nikon Rumors has rescinded all reported specifications, including pricing. The video above is in truth a new set of Nikon binoculars, great for the Scottish landscape. The images are so clear that it leaves a perfect picture in your mind...
No, it's a camera - there's a brief glimpse of it (or a substitute) in Episode 2.
Bjorn_L: What an incredibly well specified superzoom. Larger sensor, relatively fast lens, weather sealed, seems to at least give a nod to manual controls. I am not in the market for a such a device but if it is good at video I might get it regardless to compliment my DSLR.I think I'll wait for an indepth review with the dxo ratings and such before I get too excited. We've all seen well specified disappointments before.
It's in the spec, near the bottom - it says "environmentally sealed". It doesn't say what standard the sealing is, though...
AppleDuck: It's great seeing Joanna again. I think Phil and Joanna did an excellent job getting this site off the ground as it quickly became the cream of the crop during the early days of digital photography.
Seconded. What became of them - did they retire as multimillionaires when they sold DPReview, or are they still involved?
Very nice. If it wasn't called SmugMug, I'd use it.
Timmbits: I wasn't impressed with that "review" or "tear down". All he did was remove a few screws and the outer shell... something 8-year-olds do with stuff.
So you'd be OK with an 8-year-old taking your lenses apart and putting them back together, right?
peterwr: Please let it be a reboot of the Digilux 2. With a Micro Four Thirds sensor. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leicadigilux2
@historianx: Of course - please forgive my lax terminology. *slaps self* :-)
Whatever this is, it's not a Leica. Made by Leica it may be, but it's certainly not in the spirit of Leica. How disappointing.
Why couldn't they have made a scaled-up, speeded-up Digilux 2 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leicadigilux2)? I'd have taken out a bank loan for that. But this? Meh.
When will CSC makers get that serious photographers want built-in viewfinders? And an f2.8 lens wouldn't go amiss, either. This looks suspiciously like a re-boxed, re-badged Panasonic.
If it had had a built-in VF and an f2.8 lens, I'd have taken out a bank loan to get one. As it is, meh.
Please let it be a reboot of the Digilux 2. With a Micro Four Thirds sensor. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leicadigilux2
Slightly OT, has anyone tried using Creative Cloud on Google's new Chromebook Pixel? Just wondering...
"The optics offer magic cinematic feeling"
Is this a Far Eastern company, by any chance? :-)
But seriously, the + and - buttons on the controller seem to hint at a potential lack of useability for cinematography. When you're pulling stops on a movie, you don't want to be hobbled by a step-by-step aperture change, with its speed limited by how quickly you can pump the buttons - especially if, as seems to be the case, there's no aperture ring on the lens so you can't use a third-party controller.
Unless there's a responsive, continuously-variable control wheel upcoming, I'd stick with the established remoteable lenses - Arri, Canon, Cooke etc. Less sleek, but more versatile.
"Emerging photographers"? Judging by their client lists alone, this lot have well and truly emerged - never mind all the awards they've already got.
They're all competent photographers, to be sure, but given their educational level - I didn't notice anyone who hadn't been to a decent university - and their work histories, so they bloody well should be. There are only three photos out of the whole 90 that I can even remember off the top of my head, and two of those were memorable for their subjects rather than the creativity of the photographer.
I don't know if it's still running, but there used to be an awards scheme (London-based?) for assistants who aspired to be photographers; it was much more worthwhile from the viewpoint of promoting people who really did need the exposure, and I recall the photos were much more varied and creative than this lot, too.