photogeek: I was hoping they'd make it smaller and lighter, too. After using mirrorless for a while, "regular" DSLRs are comically large.
autofocus is pretty pedestrian on the D610 and the camera feature set not as good. Check statistics, pro/semi pro will take a D800 over a D610 in general because of the better camera, resolution is secondary. Wedding photographers do not take that many photos to complain about processing speed.
A competitive wedding photographer needs a FF. The D610 is an enthusiast/amateur camera, just enough to get by, far cry from a Pro camera, D810 is as close as it gets to a D4 in terms of feature set thus the better camera. Is unfortunate that Nikon does not make a more all rounded camera like the Canon 5D MKIII (that would have been a D700 true update), yet the D810 would be the better choice for a professional wedding photographer on a budget (D4 true best choice obviously). 36MP not a big deal on Lightroom with a decent computer plus you get lots of cropping power. Less than that? Are for wanna be photographers improvising themselves for budget weddings. Sorry, I do not want to be offensive, but the comments I am hearing are almost irritatingly naive.
plevyadophy: Have all the Pentax fans actually considered the fact that this thing is NOT really medium format; it's not true medium format in sensor size nor is it digital medium format.
It's more like the medium format equivalent of a Leica M8 or Canon 1D with their APS-H sized sensors, and some have even gone as far as referring to this new Pentax's sensor size as Medium Format DX.
Really, in my view, things only matter when the diagonal of the sensor/film roughlydoubles/halves. So going from micro Four Thirds to 35mm,and then from 35mm to 645 or 6 x 6, and then up to 10 x 8 all make a significant difference. For those going from Pentax APS-C sensor cams to this Pentax 645Z there's gonna be a MASSIVE difference but I don't think it's worth bothering with if you already own say a Nikon D800e.
The camera body is superb though, the best on the market in my view. It's just a pity that they didn't provide a fully articulating rear LCD instead of the mere flip up and flip down variety.
I do not quite get the "reality check" point. But great review, thanks for sharing.
The D800/810 is probably the best Nikon camera for wedding after the D4 Line, as it is the most versatile camera by Nikon after the D4. So you like it or not, if you shoot Nikon and you do not want to spend the money for a D4 or for a second body you are likely landing on this camera for weddings. If the subject is moving fast then you compensate with the faster shutter speed and you are even less likely using a tripod. I feel I am making very basic observations here, reinforcing my idea that who looks for a smaller body like a mirrirless for a camera of this caliber is indeed needs to dig a bit deeper in their photography experience. Btw I was handling at times my 500/4 L today with my 1DX. Canon and Nikon are putting a lot of emphasis on weight shaving in the last super tele generation, obviously because "photographers" do handhold these babies. And people spending more than $10,000 on their lenses I believe they know what they are doing.
not so much, but excellent for wedding for instance. No tripod there either. Reality is that modern shooting trend does away from tripod for most situations, even studio. Landscape and few other conditions (i.e. multiple frames required) pretty much that's it. With current IS or VR technology you can shoot at surprisings slow speed and still get a sharp shot.
John _ Finn: I have the original Sony RX100 and I love it for its superb IQ and portability. I shot my successful Royal Photographic Society Associateship portfolio using it (print sizes 15 inches x 10 inches). Anyone considering buying this latest version should not hesitate - it's worth every cent.
@ white shadows:it is true the the photographer makes the pictures, it is also true that the tool represents the boundaries of the doability. At 1" sensor the boundary is greatly reduced (not to mention other limits imposed by design choices) and the price should reflect that. It is not just about how big your print gets.
really? you cannot handhold a 70-200/2.8? Have you heard of sport photography? I handhold lensed 2-3 times the weight and size all the time. You need a proper body to do that too. And believe me, you do not want these babies on a tripod for action shots, and finally yes, you can get a sharp shot at 1/1000 and faster. Maybe most here did not understand the point and if you do not.... well you might get great shots in you "real photography" however clearly as a photographer you have limited experience. Ever wondered why a D4 is that big? No wait! let's make that small too and mirrorless with a flip up screen too so we can take proper photographer selfies with it.
Kodachrome200: D800 is a great camera. but this makes me think that the concept was already so refined there wasnt much room for improvement. Not much reason to upgrade. I might get one just becuase i could use a second body but i would be just as happy with an d800e
intermediate models only add incremental changes. Rule of marketing, I am sure there is room for improvements left for the real update in 2 years.
I think on a camera like this balancing a 70-200/2.8 or a 300/2.8 is more relevant. After all real photographers use this camera
not a problem at all, actually I really like it, but everything has the right price. $800 for a compact camera with a 1" is too much.
Marty4650: This might be the perfect compact camera.
The only downside might be the price. I guess $800 just isn't as much money as it used to be.
this is still just a point and shoot with great IQ and autofocus with 1" sensor. I will wait that most brands realize this likely to be the sweet spot for compacts these days and buy for half the money. Meanwhile if I need something compact I keep on shooting with my $300 Alpha N3 with a APS-C sensor
1" sensor, not sure if it is worth every penny.
I'll buy for $500
gmke: I think my initial enthusiasm for this new one-inch camera was very high. I always feel great about fast lenses because they allow you to step away from ISO settings that require heavy noise reduction. The game is an old one. Several entries in the two-third inch category effectively ply this trade, the likes of Canon G10-G16, Olympus XZ-1,2 and Stylus 1, and so on. Out to 400 ISO, the two thirds sensor performs nicely. The best APS-C and FourThirds cameras, nail 1600 ISO and are not shabby at 3200 ISO, That is a 3-stop advantage over two-thirds. With one-inch in the middle (three thirds) you might reasonably expect an advantage of 1-1/2 stops, which seems to be the case, good performance out to 1200 ISO. With the fast lens, the recipe works. The $800 price begs the question of value, however. You get a lot of camera in a small package, and maybe that is the point.
It seems to me that my original comment has generated a thread that is drifting away from the original observation. I have absolutely NO NEGATIVE objections about the camera. For what I have seen I like it a lot. Nevertheless it is overpriced for what it is, as you can get better cameras for less. Portability is not an argument for shelling out close to $1,000. I can carry a Nex 3N in a tiny pouch on my belt for 1/3rd of the price.
$800 is a lot for a 1" sensor camera, with no hot shoe and no filter thread. As I commented down below I got a spanking new Nex-3N with the kit lens for $300 CAN which has a lot more to offer in a slightly larger package at 1/3 of the price. Nevertheless there are many people obsessed with the ultrasmall sizes and willing to pay blindly a premium.
armandino: I was in the market for a used RX100 MKI as $400-500 is what I would really pay for a compact with a 1" sensor. At some point I started think that my pricing idea was for some reasons off if Sony asks so much for a little compact and people are willing to pay for it...then last Friday I grabbed the last NEX 3 in a Costco nearby for $300 new with a 16-50mm on it. Less than half of an RX100 MKII!!!Sorry guys but this little gem needs to come down in price quite a bit before I will start considering it
@Menneisyys I am not sure what you are trying to argue here, we are comparing to the RX100 and you are pulling out the Pana? Besides the 16-50 is more than adequate for the purpose, we are talking $300 camera+lens here.
The lens is not bad at 16mm and lightroom has a good mapping for barrel distortion. Odds are that it is a lot easier to make a 24 mm equivalent on a 1.5" than on a 1". In addition I purchased a pancake 16/2.8 for under $200 and I still paid less than a RX100 MKI. So one body, 2 lenses, still less than a 3rd generation old compact camera. That says a lot to me. Cool little camera, but oh my if you are paying prime money for it! Yesterday I played with an alpha 6000 and that camera is quite impressive! Incredible focus and responsiveness, great built quality, and you still pay less than the RX100 MKIII and about the same as the MKII. You cannot even compare the two cameras. When I say fast I mean it. I mostly shoot with a Canon 1DX!
actually the Nex-3N is not that old (not the original Nex3) and yet a vastly superior camera. You can buy an Alpha 5000 for less than the RX100 MK I. Sorry but this camera and similar compacts are far to expensive for what they are. Just wait that there are more offerings out there and the market saturates a bit.
I was in the market for a used RX100 MKI as $400-500 is what I would really pay for a compact with a 1" sensor. At some point I started think that my pricing idea was for some reasons off if Sony asks so much for a little compact and people are willing to pay for it...then last Friday I grabbed the last NEX 3 in a Costco nearby for $300 new with a 16-50mm on it. Less than half of an RX100 MKII!!!Sorry guys but this little gem needs to come down in price quite a bit before I will start considering it
great little camera, but for my taste too expensive. Anything smaller than a 4/3 sensor should not cost more that $600