marc petzold: I think a DSLR expensive like the all new D4s should arrive into it's ownflightcase, not inside a ordinary carton box.
And I think those who’d want case already own one; one that also fits the lenses they use most.
davidbarbour: whenever I read these comments, it seems 99% of the people have never used the Df….I now own two, they are lighter, far quieter, smaller than the D700. I sold my zooms and the best feature is that with fast AIS lenses, I can easily focus on the ground glass…I never use Auto Focus, far faster to focus on the ground glass. I hardly look at my menu and the overall body construction is superb…I have shot for 42 years and this is an exceptional camera for travel, coverage of events, weddings…the high ISO quality is exceptional…use the camera and you will love it...
Thank you for making the point about the easy of manual focusing.
AndreSJ: So when are we getting a NIKON DFs?? then maybe a D4x and DFx??
Let me try again:
Look at the D800 for those last two.
And the Df is a new camera, so...
Michael Ma: Things that Samsung could do to move smartphone imaging forward.
RAW - This would improve, white balance correction at post, Highlight/Shadow recovery, better denoising options
Manual camera controlsSometimes we want motion blur. Sometimes we can keep the phone still while snapping a photo with 1 second shutter speed. Let the users decide what we can and can't do.
Lens profiles for Adobe Camera Raw, iPhones have it to correct distortion, vignetting,, etc.
Android 4.4 seems to be raw capable, so that's promising. I guess it doesn't mean that Samsung will take advantage of that feature.
Then there's the time to record a shot problem.
photofan1986: Well, I hope Apple won't sue them for that :D
Does Apple make photo sensors?
Look you the Nikon D800 for those last two.
Ad the Df is a new camera, so there wouldn't be an "S" version for some years, if at all.
GodSpeaks: Are you serious. DPR is now doing these idiotic unboxing videos.
I suppose they will start reporting on rumors next. How much further can DPR sink?
The headline seems funny to me.
Sort of like the Hollywood B movies, "It", "Them", "The Thing", etc.
Just Ed: Not that good at grammar, but shouldn't it be "Its Arrived" or "It Has Arrived"?
Am I wrong?
"Its" is a possessive, so that's out. Unless you mean "Its arrival."
"It's" here is likely short for "It has" and that's an accepted usage. So indeed you be incorrect.
HowaboutRAW: That’s what the used departments of B+H or Adorama, etc are for.
And I think more manufacturers should copy the idea of big sensors with fewer pixels in smaller, lighter, less expensive bodies the way that Nikon did with the Df and to a lesser extent Canon did with the 6D. (And no I’ve not forgotten the Sony A7.)
I admit that high ISOs are important to me. And the 6D sure is good.
But there are Canon sensor DR problems, here Zeiss can help, but then Zeiss helps Nikon too.
I kind of agree that the Df should have been something like a D800 but with fewer mega pixels. (But the knobs don't bother me.)
Also what was the price of the 6D when if first released? It's been out for more than a year, so predictably its price has gone down. Same will happen with the Df in 18 months.
Pritzl: DPR's tardiness with this review (esp. since it's practically the same camera) rivals Nikon's delay in admitting the sensor oil/dust issue on the D600! :)
The quiet shutter feature on the D610 sure is nice. Hope the D4s has it too.
armandino: I do not want to be a troller or such. Maybe I do not understand Nikon philosophy because I do not own one. However, as much as I admire Nikon effort in producing exceptional cameras, I do not find myself a single all rounded camera to fully satisfy me for all conditions. Nikon made a tonne of bodies lately but i do not see a single do it all camera, that I would be ready to grab for all occasions. I.e, the performance body is the D4, but I would not take it with me traveling or to a party, just too heavy and intrusive for some situations. Also the resolution is at its minimum these days (landscape?). D800 is too much resolution and a tad too slow for all condition gear. The D610 sounds promising, but the AF is not quite up there. Really the D700 was THE camera of choice (although a bit low in resolution). Really I would not know what to pick right now for an all condition camera from Nikon. If somebody is happy with a crop sensor I guess the D7100 is excellent, but a no go for me.
I think you're missing my point:
The 5D III is good at higher ISOs, but not great like the Df. (Here the Canon 6D is also better at high ISOs than the 5D III.)
Right, that kite surfing example would be a good place to use cropping, or an APSC sensored DSLR body. Then of course the D800 allows for more cropping than the 5D III, but for either the D800 or 5D III dynamic range limits come into play.
If you're shooting fashion, yes big prints come into play, but that's just not real common.
6D is nice, but not quite the high ISO performance of the Df.
Also of course, the neither the Df or 6D sell for less than $1000, and that's not going to happen for a while.
Then video in the Df would mean a bigger battery. And there are all sorts of problems with video on DSLRs, some will get fixed, but not this year.
The 5D III is a nice camera. But not great at high ISOs and as you say DR lacks a bit. So those are reasons for fewer megapixels in say the 6D or the Nikon D4.
If you know what you're doing, much cropping isn't really necessary. And most people simply don't print at 20 by 30 inches.
There's no such thing as the perfect all round camera, and Nikon wouldn't sell it anyhow even if they knew to make one. This was also true back in the film era.
Drop the idea that 16 MP is limited resolution--it's basically a delusion, and more mega pixels can easily degrade image quality.
The D7100 is fine camera body, and APSC sensors are excellent, this one included, but there's the buffering problem with that particular body.
Spectro: Improve IQ, maybe the raw engine is recoded. I always thought my D600 raw had tad better noise then the my A7 and I use the same lenses on both. Both are the same sony 24mp sensor, except the a7 maybe has turned some of the sensor area into phase detection af. The E mount or what I like to say alpha mount should have been bigger or just have been an a mount in the first place.
As for the light leak rumor technie photographer like to bring up:I have no light leak on the A7 and I did this with the 24-70 kit lens at 30 sec at 25600 iso (hypothetically a setting I never use).
Only when I put my nikon to nex adapter do I see light leak. Since it is not a sony official adapter it isn't a sony problem on mine.
The point you keep missing: even with uncompressed raws there are problems with Sony processors. This is well known. Like Nikon it's a reason that Leica M bodies do some much better than the DXO specs for the sensor say they should, because Leica uses better Fuji processors.
Why rely on one raw extraction program to (not) prove your point?
The A900 makes the case perfectly; it was never as good at raws as the Nikon D3x and used the same sensor. So that would be a failure of in camera processing of raws by the A900.
The A99 SLT actually seems to have better color than the A7, Zeiss lenses in both cases. True about noise.
rrccad: well if they fix the stupid compression sony may just have me as a customer for a pair of A7R's.
I don't care what's alleged. The A7/r's shutters are way too loud, I've tried the cameras.
(Note the loudness may add to vibration problems.)
Boiler_Jack: DPREVIEW make sure you don't "review" the Canon 1Dx Nor the Nikon D4, I mean it's not like review is in your web site name is it? Thanks again for NOT reviewing those cameras.
Haven't seen a review of the Leica M240 either.
Not really, there’s that compressed raw problem with A7r too.
(A lot of grain and not great colour in the A7r ISO 4000 raw I just checked. The 2500 ISO raw shot in similar circumstances with the D800 is a lot better.)
And the A7+A99 lag behind the Nikon bodies which use nearly the same sensor, yes the Sonys use a variation with PDAF.
Simply: That BIONZ engine Sony uses isn’t great. Now Sony could fix a bit of this with non-compressed raws.
The Nikon D600 uses a different processing engine--likely made for Nikon by Fuji. Sony's image processing chips+firmware don't have as good a reputation. And the Nikon's raws aren't compressed.