Come on Google...how many times, and in how many different ways, do we have to tell you we don't want to use G+?
Daniel Bliss: I cannot get my hands around a three inch-wide phone. Not. Going. To. Happen.
Pity. Seems like a nice design otherwise. But the obsession with ever-bigger displays has to stop. Try scalable UI instead.
"To say that Jobs was a bigger inventor than Edison just shows how you lack knowledge of the history. Edison was a true innivator [sic]."
This is a great point. While Jobs was good at what he did, Edison pretty much wrote the book on Bogarting other people's hard work and inspiration for recognition.
Ian SS: Sigma has come a long way, years ago, they were considered inferior but with new lens line-up and razor sharp lenses, it has become one of the best lens manufacturers! This is the result of hard work and good management, well done!
I love examples like this, where effort, innovation, and commitment are rewarded with success.
Especially in the case of the major 3rd party lens makers, they seem to be in tune with the consumer, as well as identifying weak points in OEM lens lineups. When they give the consumers what they want at competitive prices, they deserve their success.
peevee1: Sounded nice until... No GPS - no sale.
Where is my TG-3?
I guess it's subjective then...for me, no GPS is a huge plus.
Holger Drallmeyer: If I hear another "IQ" comment one more time I throw up. Learn how to shoot and use your IQ for crying out loud. ..on a much brighter note..interesting looking Camera :)
...because image quality should *not* be a concern when evaluating a camera?
Jim in Hudson: I don't understand this recent fascination with top plate dials, unless it's mostly for looks. Back when dials were the way to control cameras, it was all there was. The major disadvantage was having to take your eye away from the VF to make a change (well, you had to change film to change ISO). There was no superimposed (or bottom strip) indicator of settings. Now, basic camera controls do the same and you can see exactly what you're changing with speed, aperture, and ISO without ever taking your eye off the subject. Of course you need a logical and easy layout to the button and wheel controls but it doesn't take much to learn.
>The major disadvantage was having to take your eye away from the VF to make a change
Not sure about that.
As you said, the ISO is effectively static, and the shutter & aperture are completely adjustable without taking my eye off the viewfinder of my FM2n...
tkbslc: People freaking out because Canon knows this isn't a photography tradeshow.
There's a stand report because it'd be a serious lapse of coverage for a site like this to say nothing about the Canon display at CES. It's news, whether it's interesting, exciting, entertaining, or none of the above.
grafli: Well this lens is obsolet with the existence of the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8
groucher, can you back that up with a link? I was under the impression it wasn't a mount issue but rather that the lens only projects an image circle capable of covering a DX sensor.
yabokkie, same to you. I'm not saying that it wouldn't be 35mm, I'm saying the image circle won't be big enough.
ybizzle: A page out of Fuji's design on the XF1. Sadly, it has none of the charm or sophistication of the XF1. Of course, the image quality is also lacking. The XF1 was and still is the pinnacle of compact camera design. Elegant, yet modern especially in brown/tan form. Truly an exceptional piece that harkens back to the Leica days and the M6 Titanium. Magnificent!
I was within a hair of picking up an XF1, but the wonky mechanics of the lens barrel turned me off.
I'm guessing you own one...how's it work for you?
But the Sigma won't give full coverage on an FX sensor, IIRC.
hydrospanner: One too many zeroes in the model number to interest me.
Now a D330...
Look at pictures of the back of a D7xxx and a D300. Totally different handling experience.
Jake, do you actually use the features of a D300 that sets it apart from a D7100? If so, I'm surprised you still say that.
Even the layout & handling alone is enough that I won't consider it. If my D300 dies before Nikon gives us a replacement, I'll chuck the system and go elsewhere.
One too many zeroes in the model number to interest me.
Marty4650: There is a real problem when you try to treat cell phones like cameras.
You can always replace a camera with a better one, but you can't upgrade your cell phone unless your contract is up or you are willing to pay a huge penalty.
At least, that's the way it works in the USA, We are pretty much locked into a phone for two years.
Dismissing the contract system with a comment like "You choose to be locked in." seems more like a head-in-the-sand view than a true response to a valid concern. In many areas coverage and performance dictate provider choices (in my area, Verizon is the only game in town that offers complete coverage over the entire area with acceptably consistent performance), and it's important to keep in mind that, regardless of this site's focus, people use their phones for far more than just photography.
It's often a matter of finding the phone that fits one's needs overall better than another model, and for the vast majority, a big part of that concern is when their contract expires, what sort of incentives they get in terms of upgrades through their provider, as well as what phones their provider offers.
Samuel Dilworth: The Nikon Df was a crushing disappointment. Remember when we hoped it would be a digital FM2? Ha!
Most of the other cameras on the shortlist are so dull and derivative I can’t name their main marketing features off the top of my head. Many of them are surely good cameras within their niche, but they’re not usefully better than what came before.
I voted for the Pentax K-3, but overall it’s been a bad year for SLRs. Here’s to some kind of revival in 2014!
Here's to another year of waiting on a D9000...
peevee1: How long before Nikon breaks compatibility again?
So how did the change of making 3rd party lenses incompatible "make its products work more efficiently"?
rfsIII: I find it very interesting that so many people now say they need to buy two camera systems, one for "serious" shooting and one for casual shooting as though you could split the two.
But my real question is whether this is a genuine need or something that we've been coaxed into believing by the camera industry. And why? Isn't one system enough? Presuming you're not a full-time professional, what is the unfulfilled psychological need we're addressing by owning two camera systems rather than one? I love new gear, and love that we have so many choices, but this seems excessive.
Simply put, if I'm making the theoretical leap to saying I "need" any camera at all, then yes, there is a "need", in my use, for a second camera.
My SLR system gives me every option imaginable, and is adaptable, customizable, and as a system, I can upgrade it to keep current with modern technological improvements. It's anything and everything I need it to be as far as photographic capabilities.
The one thing I can't do with it is put it in a pocket. Taking my system with me requires planning and certain necessities to accommodate it. This simple drawback of size is what splits my photography needs, not serious/casual. It's the difference between planning to make photography the main purpose, and having a capable camera available.
That's where an advanced compact or light system comes in for many people...it's filling a need just like a specialty lens.
You wouldn't say "Why get a macro lens? The camera industry is telling you you need it." Same goes for a small camera.
peevee1: That is one piece of information for those who think that Nikon and Canon has large lens systems when talking about their APS-C lines. No they do not, native systems are pretty poor. And 3rd party is not much help because camera firmwares do not support them, do not autocorrect vignetting, situation, CA, and might not even focus right and break compatibility at any time.Do they have good systems? Yes, for FF. Can you use the lenses on APS-C? Kind of - at the wrong angles (like superexpensive UWA zooms are not UWA anymore), at the wrong sharpness profile (most FF lenses are not sharp enough in the center for higher pixel density of APS-C), at the wrong size, weight and cost.Compare to m43, which is a standard - nobody has to reverse-engineer it, everything just works, and the system is much bigger than Nikon DX or Canon EF-S already, and all the lenses are of right size and weight, although not all have right price. ;)
APS is not a standard but m43 is?
Okay buddy...whatever you say...
Samuel Dilworth: Nikon should compete with Sigma by improving the choice, quality, and prices of its lenses, not by breaking compatibility with third-party lenses at every opportunity.
That should be perfectly doable, since a Nikon user will gravitate to Nikon lenses unless the third-party ones are much more attractive.
So I read this below-the-belt move by Nikon as admission that it isn’t too confident in beating back Sigma with good marketing and engineering. Disappointing.
First paragraph sums it up. Couldn't agree more with you on that.
Second paragraph, idk. I think many casual photographers (those the D5300 is aimed at) are driven by price first and performance second. They're willing to trade a bit of IQ for a bit of $. Sigma is claiming a market that Nikon barely satisfies (where's those wide angle DX primes?). I'd imagine Nikon doesn't like it, but there's no easy way to get Sigma out of the picture.
...or is there?
Certainly seems like a little of that thinking is going on here, with a firmware from Nikon that reduces functionality for third-party lenses with no discernible benefit or necessity driving the change.
I think this is an extremely unwise move on the part of Nikon if that was the only goal. Sure, they might succeed in getting further new buyers hooked into the OEM only lens buying model...but I think the vast majority will come into it, compare the products, and see that Canon offers third party support and Nikon doesn't.
Lab D: I can't believe how small the thing is! Imagine carring it in one pocket with a couple pancake lenses in another. With the 20mm F/1.7 it would be a great P&S camera to compliment a different micro four thirds camera.
Yes, because there were clearly no great cameras until the advent of digital and IS.