JackM: Sigh. I had this camera on pre-order. But then I had to buy a 300/2.8 for baseball season. The 300/2.8 will pay for itself, but the wife cannot quite wrap her head around that. If I brought home yet another new toy I'd be in the dog house deep. Enjoy folks, guess I'll get one next year.
The dough is fluffy.
wlachan: Not bad, but where are the actual wedding photos? And don't tell me those aren't professional models.
Didn't you know, that almost all modern brides are about 20 year old and look like models ? Additionally they are also in possession of georgeous & expensive gowns and know how to pose like a pro.Even better, they all have a lot of time for their wedding shooting and can easily afford a pro photog and a crew of assistants.
In terms of features and image quality the GH3 seems to be on par with APS-C class cameras at least. Even high-iso RAW is quite good. There is no reason to prefer a APS-C over 4/3 except ... well, body size. I personally wouldn't want to hold a body so small for a longer period of time. Guess, would make my hands cramp. Maybe the battery grip adds some area to make holding the body more comfy.Unfortunately a small body requires small buttons spread over a small area making it hard to securely push a button.
When it comes to low-light photography HTC One wipes the floor with all other contestants.
Hard to imagine that any serious pro photog would ever use an iPad for assessing critical sharpness. I mean ... even the process of uploading a full 36mp image to the iPad takes an eternity. Not to mention you wanna download 200 images to pick the best one.The iPad is a nice toy but definitely not more, when it comes to photography.
Quite interesting to see that the "everything is free on the net" attitude is not only taken by miscreants and teens but also by credible organizations.Seems there is an irreversible mindshift going on.
Another ingenious and funny way of making really really bad images. Well done and thank you.
mike kobal: the images sure look impressive and we expect nothing less from the DX portion of the D800E sensor. However, let's be fair, especially in this case, because it is so obvious, we should give the photographer credit, he did a great job on his part, doesn't happen too often these days that camera companies put their products in competent hands.
The concept of the camera is definitely intriguing. Unfortunately Nikon messed it up with an odd lens and omitted VF.
RudivanS: D4 like image quality at this body size seems real nice for street photography.Let's see how it performs once it's out and fully tested. I's gotta be quick and highly responsive.
Sonys $3000 RX1 is kinda letdown with respect to low-light AF performance.
Remember the V1 fiasco ? Only a whopping discount of nearly 70% made it an attractive gadget.Having your lesson learned would you buy the Coolpix A in the near future ?
Odd focal length.Nikon has already 2 very good 70-200 lenses. The 80-400 has some massive overlap to both of them. Additionally there is the quite good 70-300 consumer lens which is inexpensive and delivers a lot for the money.I'm not confident if this is really the lens photogs are after except "birders".
Ingenious Nikon. Giving an advanced camera a similar name as their P&S series. Confusing ? Probably. Detrimental effects on sales figures ? Definitely.+Nikon on its suicide path. Last year the devastating price crunch on the V1 = renders V2 unsalable.This year a DX fixed focal length camera with an odd focal length and slow aperture. Topping of the cake is the omitted viewfinder. Even more odd since the V2 just got one because of user complains.+Nikon obviously is not capable of learning from its own mistakes or the mistakes of its competitors.
Oh Dear Fuji. Goofing with a RAW file is never such an ingenious idea. The noise level is incredibly low compared to the elite DSLRs (Nikon D4, Canon 1Dx) but none of the higher ISO images is sharp but soft and smeared. Sorry that sucks and belongs to a entry level body at best.
Peiasdf: Marketing talk again. If they really care about IQ, they would have put in a sensor bigger than 1/3. The one in One is barely larger than the SONY 1/3.2 on most smartphone and depending on who fab the sensor, there is a chance it would have more noise than the SONY 1/3.2
I want the next iPhone to have 1/2.5 or 1/1.7 sensor and f/1.8 lens. That would be an adequate compact camera replacement.
@ElakaLook what's protruding out of the phone. That looks weird to me and I wouldn't want to put that into my trousers pockets.Nokia N8http://cdn2.gsmarena.com/vv/pics/nokia/nokia-n8-bronze.jpg
Bigger sensor = bigger lens = bulging body = weird look.
MSTR Photography: It appears to me that all of these images are very well done. However, none of them show the benefit of not having a low pass filter. When images are shot of lines or patterns which tend to produce moire, then we will know the true purpose of this camera. I cannot imagine that a camera without a low pass filter would be of use to a wedding or an architectural photographer who does not wish waste time removing the moire in photoshop to the detriment of image quality. However, in landscape or action shots of sports or wildlife this would appear to be a boon!
The moire topic is totally overrated. It occurs even on the D800E quite rarely if at all. On high density DX sensors chances are negligible that this effect will ever occur. Even the infamous wedding dress doesn't debunk filter-less cameras. On high end $30k cameras the low pass filter has long been abandoned deliberately.The D7100 delivers staggering IQ for a low price. It's a no-brainer if one doesn't need certain body features.
75mm (equiv.) @f2.8 !!!! That's a good one. That "thing" is nearly unusable for anything else than portraits. What a crap. One really has to be a die hard Sigma fan to spend $1k for such a toy. Epic fail, sorry.
Gully Foyle: 4 images of airplanes! How challenging! Carefully selected images to avoid introduction of moire. The same for the other two, with a bit more "interesting" subject. But I cannot see the crispness or pixel sharpness usually associated with lack of OLPF and RAW. Either there's something going on in the firmware to avoid moire that has an impact on sharpness (kind of software OLPF? guessing..) or a complete failure of Nikon to deliver on their statement.
I guess you have not the faintest idea of what you are talking about. That's why Nikon also has some nice $199 P&S in its portfolio. Each to their own. *LOL*
The IQ of this camera is absolutely impressive. At base ISO it can easily stand up against the D800E !!! Not bad for a prosumer model at 1/3 the price.
Look at the details in this shot.http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d7100/img/sample/img_01_l.jpg
Amazing !! I'm blown. What a pity that Nikon puts such a marvelous sensor in a consumer body. Makes me cry.
Leonard Shepherd: Rather than ask questions why not also check out http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d7100/It seems to have the D600 autofocus but covering much more of the screen area than the D7000. The body shell and grip are improved. Overall it looks like a very much upgraded D7000 but not quite the equal of the pro grade D4. It may well out resolve the D600 at lower ISO's.With a UK launch price of £1300 (including 20% tax) it is likely to fall after about 6 months to £999 - about 40% less than the current UK street price of the D600.
Comparing FX to DX bodies makes no sense. There is a good reason for each breed. Especially when it comes to fast glass and high ISO.