Wow, an even larger, uglier, still-too-expensive small-sensor camera. Seriously, Nikon.
I'm currently ashamed of being Swedish. In fact, I think the embarrassment of this travesty is so great that it spills over to Sony, which makes me doubly embarrassed as a Swede AND a Sony shooter. Apologies to all, let's just forget this ever happened.
Wow, this is the most effective brand-destroyer ever.
ChronoBodi: Dunno if i can tell the difference on my A65, maybe i didn't use it enough. Alas, can't we have like, added features like tethering? would be cool. And maybe extra creative effects?
Eleson, that's a bit harsh. ;-) Truth is, tethering has been in all Minolta/Sony digital 7-class (or higher) SLR cameras and one has reason to suspect it could/would be added with a firmware update -- and that is how it was delivered to the Dynax 7D, which was also released without tethering support.
A stupid idea, ineptly executed.
BeanyPic: Sony hang your head in shame.... Ripping off the coloring of Canon L series lenses and believing you can play at this level. Go back and continue to make your half decent consumer products. Leave this to the companies that actually know whet they are doing...
Of course, Canon were not the first manufacturer to color their lenses white, and Minolta's pro G glass was white long before the EOS system existed. Nice attempt at trolling, though.
Conrad567: Years ago I looked at a Contax G2 and fell in love. The camera was quirky, but the sample photos I looked at were extraordinary. I wanted one bad but I was a student with a young wife and small child. There was no way that I could afford it without mortgaging my entire future. So I passed. Later as the digital world evolved I dreamed about a system like the G2 that was digital. Something that worked for quick street shots and had class. The Sony, Olympus, etc. offerings have lacked the style and grace of the G2 and the endless menu settings for something as simple as changing from Manual to Aperture priority drove me nuts. It was as if Sony was blind to how a camera should be built. Finally Fuji has thrown their hat into the ring, I for one applaud them for the effort and think that the price they are offering is a BARGAIN if the camera lives up to it's potential. I have purchased the system because now I am 15 years older and have the means. I feel for the rest of you who cant
You can easily use those Contax G lenses on NEX cameras. I do.
I believe this camera is the answer to the question "how small can we make a camera based on a current design if we remove the mirror and finder". They were caught out by the mirrorless wave and this is simply the best they could do in a small timeframe.
Then, the designer was tasked with improving the result.
By the way: almost all "designed" cameras (i.e. with "design" as a selling point), from every manufacturer, have historically been outrageously ugly.
Wow! This camera will sell by the dozens.
thinkfat: Seeing how a lot of responses here give "well-meaning" comments to actual wedding photographers confirming statements, how backing up data on dvd costs only that much and post processing a whole set of wedding footage can not last 25 hours.
In envy you all. Ignorance is bliss.
Fullframer, you fit the description of "low standards" like a glove.
Nikonworks: I am reminded about the home owner complaining about her plumber's invoice for $100 for replacing one bolt on her home's plumbing.
The plumber responded the invoice breakdown was as follows: $1 for the new bolt, $99 for his knowledge of which bolt needed replacing.
This bride to be equates the photographer life with hers in an ignorant way.
She passes judgement on the integrity of photographers.
The one good thing is photographers reading her listing are warned to stay away by her comments.
The kind of bride to be will never be satisfied with her wedding pictures.
And sometimes Uncle Bob IS actually better than several of the $3000 photographers, because, you know, there are actually a lot of absolute crap pro photographers out there.
Or Uncle Bob is just, you know, simply a good artist.
There is a snobism at work here. I know several bad, bad photographers with good equipment. I know several excellent photographers, pro and not, with mediocre equipment.
Bernd M: Nikki Wagner forgot to mention, that the statistic average liftime or a professional camera is 18 month!!!! People (even photographers) often take for granted, that a 2,500$ camera will live forever. This way they are cheating themseves. In Nikki's case she should count 160$ in for her two Canon 5DII, for every wedding, making it 3,200$ a year.
The problem here is also that photographers shoot away like morons because "it's free" (which it's not). The same photographers would hardly have used A HUNDRED ROLLS OF FILM on a single wedding. The thought is absurd.
So that's just sloppiness.
Le Photographe: Nikki posted a good response. But most of the people responding here are perfectly right: it is a free market. Ever wondered, why all professional photographers are about on the same price level?? I suppose no. So feel free to try a really cheap offer on the free market for a wedding. I bet 100% you would be heavily disappointed. Or better: try to do a wedding shooting yourself for a good friend. No?
Good and reliable quality = a lot of knowledge, experience, onstage work, a LOT of backstage work and expensive, reliable quality equipment. There is no way around it, it is not cheap.
I have done several weddings at one tenth of that price (and I have way more, and more expensive, equipment than this photographer). Of course it's impossible to live on that. But I'm not trying to.
Both bride and photographer is acting like someone is forcing them to do something; the bride "waaah I must pay $3000"! The photographer "waaaah I must lower my prices"! Neither is true. There is no such conflict.
The conflict, and the only thing that matters, is in price versus quality, and that is 100% subjective ("marginal utility"). In that conflict lies that someone eventually might not get what they want. To that I say: boo hoo!
Unfortunately, the argument of knowledge (or "quality") is not the argument the photographer makes. The argument she uses is, using your plumber analogy, "I have a really expensive wrench".
That's a spectacularly stupid argument.
JIMMYCHENG: Pretty good response. I like it from that point of view. I do have all these costs associated with every wedding and I charge £1300 per wedding. Don't forget that nowadays DSLR only last about 2 to 3 years depending on the number of weddings you have each year. Then you pretty much have to replace them. Each shutter has a life of around 150k to 200k actuations. Then each lens needs a service every year or two. Computer upgrades... I have to replace my computer every 4 years because of something wrong (completely broke down). Insurance, traveling (ever increasing petrol prices)... etc.
But most important is our experience and consistenncy to perform.
We are professionals, not amateurs. That's a big difference!
What in the world do you do with your lenses? Do you use Petri equipment?
Yeah. In fact, one of the reasons for me not happily doing weddings is the enormous mount of boring post-processing one must do. It's just not worth it and someone who hasn't done it (or one with low standards) cannot possibly imagine the dread.
Of course the bride is a douche, because there is no need to whine about the price. If she contacted Annie Leibovitz, what would the quote be? And would she post a whiny rant about that price at craigslist of all places?
If the bride had posted a simple want-ad without ranting she would easily have found exactly what she was looking for.
Because it's a free market.
But here's the kicker; the wedding photographer is ALSO a douche for posting that answer. It's basically "hey now I have really nice gear and it's expensive to make a living as a full-time photographer". Lady, both are 100% your own choices about your life and your work. It's no argument at all for or against the price for a wedding shoot.
The CORRECT answer would be "it's a free market and I'm good" (I do think she's pretty good, not the best, but good). I also think she's worth the $2500, in fact, probably more. And that's what matters.
But in this douche battle I'm strongly supporting neither side and so should you.
fmian: 1. The response does not mention the value of the photographers talent, so I will assume the photographer has none, or it has little/no value.
2. The photographer is hiring another photographer for only $200 a day, but expects the bride to pay 15x that.
3. 25 hours in post is just madness. Learn to be more efficient.
4. Editing on an iMac screen.
I get to hear wedding photographers bitch and moan about their clients queries all the time, trying to justify price based on the cost of their gear, the effort of having to carry such heavy gear, the effort of knowing how to blur away the background with their special f/2.8 lenses. The amount of time they spend in post fixing up their own mistakes. And then getting the client to wait several weeks while the images are sent to some other place to get printed by someone other than the photographer.
Perhaps brides and grooms should hire an expert to judge the value of a photographers talent, just like getting anything else important valued.
Now I'm no mac guy (in fact I loathe macs) but imacs feature H-IPS panels from LG, so they are of very high quality.
Generally I agree with you though. But it's a free market.
tominhk: I am a soccer dad, have a Canon 20D and LX5. Problems with the 20D is the size and therefore less likely to have with me, whilst the LX5 focusing in low light is not great.While the Nikon 1 system is reported as the best in continuous AF, but is not so good in low light, does this mean I need to wait for the next generation?
Yes, you should wait for other mirrorless cameras with large sensors to get faster AF.
powerbook duo: Anyone else wishing for this body with 5n's sensor with the price somewhere inbetween?
The quality at the same printing size is exactly the same.
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review