nerd2: So this camera is priced almost the same as Sony a7 with almost 8X larger sensor. Awesome.Oh and now we have phones that can shoot 4K video (which is actually 8MP 30fps continuous shooting plus audio)
Brilliantly pointed! :)
Higuel: 3 clicks to finally reach the article: the site is getting even more user-unfriendly then ever!!! -_-
Yep, and the price the old readers of dPREVIEW pay is not only to have mini texts as opposed to a REAL report as GOOD Writers&journalists do since the beginning of History! But also to wait many weeks to see a review presented first in small pars so they can get more clicks! Not to mention amaaaaazing videos of a colonoscopERGH sorry for spoiling next week big surprise article!!! I meant the past video of the inside of a washing machine!!!We can only hope that one day we will have as many crapy and UNrelated vídeos here as we could have found in you tube!
I guess before it happens eventually I will stop coming to dPREVIEW completely! For me it WAS the one site I went for Reviews, NOT Previews! But those good old days are gone :/
«...Considering the V3's price tag, someone upgrading from a point-and-shoot, or enthusiasts looking for an all-purpose tool should look at the alternatives since there are many other cheaper cameras with good handling, less low ISO noise (and larger sensor), and broader lens selection in a relatively portable size.» Enough said!
3 clicks to finally reach the article: the site is getting even more user-unfriendly then ever!!! -_-
ProfHankD: Nothing new here, but a nice, quick, all-in-one-place presentation.
A few details left out.... The bokeh-shaping needs the cutout to fit within the entry pupil of the lens (50mm f/2 would be 25mm diameter), which usually means it must be surprisingly smaller than the front element -- if the cutout is too big, it will vignette instead. The flash diffuser design is similarly touchy if you want even lighting.
Also, the welding glass ND filter requires welding glass, which not everybody's got. The old standard alternative version used processed, but unexposed, color slide film. It was easier to get and usually had less of a color cast.
Nice trick! :DThanks!!!
AngryCorgi: I don't hate this camera. I think it "looks" sexy with the grip on it. But the price remains stupid given its performance. It simply is outclassed in terms of IQ by just about everything.
Thanks for your sentences, but my post was directed @the one immediately before it(speaking about APS sensor size). I do agree 100% with you that it is indeed na absolutely ridiculous HUGE price to pay for a camera with a TINY TINY sensor and a TINY lens!!! But natural for canikon the fact that size of the sensor impacts on it's price is only valid for when they want to sell a FF one! ):(Just like Sony proves by selling the a camera with the SAME sensor for half the price nikon does! :LBut coming back to this camera: it is the WORST case anywhere of wrong price for sensor size...that at least until hasselblad decides to rebrand one, or leica to put it inside aluminium and say the lenses are non-software corrected and release them not fully working! I guess they would ask for some 1800$ minimum, nikon would try the same, the fanboys would be all in heaven wasting their Money, and we could quietly buy an APS for LESS or even (hopefully)the next generation of full frame! ;D
bluevellet: Out there, thousands of trolls are shaking in their boots, dreading that any future equivalence topic will ultimately refer back to this article and thus, limit their trolling.
chiane: Another slow 14-42 kit zoom. How many does that make?
Relax der Steppenwolf! :)BOTH of you have a good point! Let's not figth because of 1or2words presente(or not) :)
Marty4650: Let's see if I understand this....
Nikon "apologizes" for not making the V3 fast enough to meet demand... and this took all of three weeks. But it took Nikon two full years to apologize for dust and oil on the D600 sensor, after denying the problem existed, claiming the camera was "within spec" and blaming their customers for having unreasonable expectations from a $2,000 camera.
and my dad is bigger then yours!Come on TRAC63! -_-
peevee1: With similar E-PM2 kits at $250, Nikon thinks people are going to line up for V3's inferior image quality at 4 times the price. Riiight...
retro76, i was going to answer you, but if really you care to learn anything instead of trolling, what is written above is more then enough! :)Enjoy ur nikon and LET OTHERS enjoy their 4/3!!! :)
Dheorl: Why do people hate this camera so much? If I was to get more involved with my wildlife shooting, which often due to my other hobbies involves long hikes, I would definitely get one along with an FX adapter.
The alternative systems are FF, which would be way to big and heavy for my needs. APS-C, which isn't much better or m43 (which I currently have) which is lacking in decent long lenses.
Just because it might not be worth it to you it doesn't mean it's not worth it to other people.
Dheorl, my only problema with it is the ridiculous high price! :)If it had a price proporcional to the sensor&lenses... it would be a winner!!! :D
you mean, APS and ALL OTHER bigger sensor sizes like 4/3, 35mm , 645 etc
Higuel: VERY, sorry: EXTREMELY interesting to see on page 3 comparison, that actually one of the most bashed formats for bokeh, the 4/3, is the one that actually produces the nicest one at "equivalent" apertures! That being said, the article also painfully shows how ridiculous is the price of the 32mm f1,2 and how amazing value (comparatively) is the Fuji 56mm f1.2.All that being said, the "normal" photographer would get the absolute most bang for buck with a 50mmm f1.8 on APS (or even better an 85mm f1.8!), at around 200$ it will cost less then 25% of the cheapest(and most ridiculous for the price!) lens of the test and give 2stops of bokeh advantage over it!For the sake of those who are not interested in sacrificing all of their Money on equipment, Dpreview should have threw one of those for the sake of "real world&PRACTICAL" info! :)Just my opinion, now let's us all just go out and enjoy whatever lens we have in this summer weather! ;D
5- 67gtonr: YES! precisely!, but if you choose ANY 50mm f1.8 you pay only some 40% of the price of the 1.4 and in fact usually get a better optical lens! :)
4- Absolutic: You are right. However, since most old lenses simply cannot hold good image quality in the corners unless they are REALLY EXPENSIVE, the saving stops right there! Just for a quick example: where do you find a actually good optical quality in ALL of the frame, stabilised, 28-90mm long and with Image Stabiliser(or OS or any other name!) for some 200$? There simply is none! I understand your point, but for some of us 2000$ or anything above is still a lot of Money! And that was my point of view from the start, so, as good deal as the canikon6/600 are they are still completely out of reach of MANY MANY people: actually ALL those who buy the medium range APS cameras that are actually still the biggest group of all sensor sizes!
PS: If the Fuji 1.2 turn to be the same size as an FF1.8 is something completely expected even if only in pure geometric ways: just like an OM 14-35f2.0 is the same size as an 28-70f2.8 FF!
CONT) ...Coming back from the stratospheric prices again to the 85mm f1.8 on APS: It is still less then 35% of the price of the cheapest lens here! for 35% you simply cannot beat that! :D
2- mosc: My point exactly, the bokeh from the 4/3rds looks the best! :)
But even if i don't fully understand were did your numbers come from, yes indeed: my point: APS + cheap&simple f1.8 lens is still unbeatable! :)
3-Just another Canon shooter: I have no idea were you saw the swirly bokeh, in fact i have the canon(plastic!) 50mm f1.8 for more then 15years and it NEVER made any "swirly bokeh" in many thousands of images!
Also I was speaking about the best price/bokeh relation and really have no clue were in those lenses qualities you find image noise(sensor related!), except if you meant that the canon 50mm f1.8 is indeed canon's most noisy autofócus that i ever saw!
I am afraid that eventually i did not make my message clear, English is not my native language, so here it goes to make some light on my words:
1- BeaverTerror : No, i meant the 32mm from nikon! It is an incredible amount of Money for such an absolutely tiny piece of glass!(&possibly plastic?). I am sure the Fuji is an AMAZING lens since Every review i found said the same! and way better then any OLD 85mm lens (all of them are indeed VERY old in their designs!), however i meant that a "cheap" APS body plus the incredible price/quality combo of an 50mm f1.8(around 200$ is UNBEATABLE!!!) will completely smoke in a price/result combination ALL the combinations mentioned in the article!
If you invest a little more on a 85mm f1.8 (350$) in the same APS body you will get even more "bokeh" then ANY of the choices in the article Except fot the FF 85mmf1.2 which actually is about THE ABSOLUTE TOP you can get in a short lens and a world record at that!
Coming back from the stratospheric...
No true trolls will ever be stopped by any facts when they can just like ALWAYS count on their convictions!!!
VERY, sorry: EXTREMELY interesting to see on page 3 comparison, that actually one of the most bashed formats for bokeh, the 4/3, is the one that actually produces the nicest one at "equivalent" apertures! That being said, the article also painfully shows how ridiculous is the price of the 32mm f1,2 and how amazing value (comparatively) is the Fuji 56mm f1.2.All that being said, the "normal" photographer would get the absolute most bang for buck with a 50mmm f1.8 on APS (or even better an 85mm f1.8!), at around 200$ it will cost less then 25% of the cheapest(and most ridiculous for the price!) lens of the test and give 2stops of bokeh advantage over it!For the sake of those who are not interested in sacrificing all of their Money on equipment, Dpreview should have threw one of those for the sake of "real world&PRACTICAL" info! :)Just my opinion, now let's us all just go out and enjoy whatever lens we have in this summer weather! ;D
Like so many i had hopes for a good article to show me a bit of the world of Quads related to photography, unfortunately... it is again just another low quality article: there are ONLY TWO(2!!!) Photos made with them, and if you are thinking that the vídeo exemples would save the article, think again, the second one is just as good(VERY BAD!) as the inside of let's say a washing machine! -_-
Another wast of time, it starts to be rotine that we find BETTER articles in the coments provided by informed readers. My thanks goes to those who share truely good info! :)
(like this one: http://pureviewclub.com/2014/23967)
So Nice that the Brave Sony has at least one company making it competition!!! :DLucky us!!! :D