gerard boulanger: Not even admitting the issue at the first place was a mistake. Adding the D610 as a "new body" with no new feature, another mistake.The D610 was a huge slap to the D600 owners who felt betrayed and left alone with their gear impossible to sell.
All of that to replace the shutter on all D600 bodies...
Pathetic attitude Nikon.
Sure no new features unless you count the better WB, Quiet continuous mode and faster FPS. Further you are assuming that the D610 was just released because of the dust issues. It is possible that Nikon had always planned on the D610 being released about a year after the D600. It seems shorter release cycles with small updates are going to be the norm now, at least for the entry level models which the D610 is for the FX line.
AlexBakerPhotoz: Well, good. I did have mine fixed once already a year ago and at that time they replaced the shutter and the CCD and it's clearly been much better. I also wonder if I sent it in again if I'd get the D610 shutter or another D600 one. I'm thinking D610. What would be the point of using the old ones if they even have any left in inventory.
How could Nikon replace something the Camera doesn't have in the first place?
R Thornton: There's no value proposition in what photo equipment industry offers. In 90% percent of the world cameras and lenses cost several months' to several years' wages. That is too dear an investment to play the what-a-new-camera cannot-do-this-time-around routine over and over again. The U.S., Europe and Japan are just a tiny portion of the world, for the rest there are cameraphones. So, start rethinking, you slow bastards!
Even in the U.S. with our record unemployment, record homelessness and rampant inflation more and more people are barely making it let alone have the money to be buying a new camera every 6 months. Add that to how good the current and last generation cameras are/were and it's no wonder new cameras aren't selling well anymore.
Just a Photographer: The digital camera market has matured. Who still owns an analogue camera for their daily use?
Mom & Pop don't want a new camera every two years and they won't buy a new camera anymore now they have got used to using their smartphone. Which is good enough for most people except for those people that demand more quality.
What I don't understand is why Nikon and Canon just released a dozen of small pocket camera's again while sales figures show that this market is hardest hit by the downturn in sales.
I think we are heading back to the 1980's and 1990's where you could buy a cameramodel and use it for 5 to 10 years. To then buy a new camera with just minor updates.
With 24MP to 36MP sensors available I just don't see the need for anything bigger in the near future. Who prints larger then 22", if they print at all. Most pictures end up on the internet anyway.
And as for ISO most people will never use anything beyond 12800 ISO. Which is already quite good for most modern digital DSLR's
How often do you think people look at stills on the internet full size, completely filling their monitor? The answer is almost never. Just go to 500PX or Flickr and search for any random thing and see the initial size the pops up when you click on a thumbnail. That is the size the image is being viewed at the vast majority of the time. As long as a camera can produce a file that looks decent at 1000-2000 pixels on the longest edge it will be more than enough for web use even if 4K becomes widely used. Pretty much all current cameras can do this already.
ChrisKramer1: I was looking at them all today - Olympus, Panasonic and Fuji - all new models well over a thousand Euros. In fact, Fuji's models with lenses were all above a thousand. That new teensy weensy little Lumix m/43 was over a thousand with the handgrip (what handgrip? LOL!) and the Olympus OMDs too. The OMD5 was priced well into the stratosphere and placed so high up on the display I could hardly see it anyway.
Just who is going to buy this stuff? The market is saturated! (And, of course, you can buy a full-frame cam for that price anyway.)
The point is the cameras are so expensive the market for them is very limited and pretty much every one who was going to get one has. Canon and Nikon have been so successful partly because they have very good models way under $1000 that also come with very good kit lenses. But even for DSLRs now the market is saturated and we will only see more and more declines.
QuarterToDoom: Well maybe the cameras are so good now its makes people skip a couple of generations until there's big improvement in the camera body.
I think this is part of it. I mean in the early days of digital the differences between the bodies was large. Now every new generation they get smaller and smaller. Just think of a Camera like the D800, other than megapixels or maybe a sightly better new version of the AF module what could Nikon possibly add to the camera at this point? How many people would even need anything better than a camera like D800 anyway? We are getting the to point where cameras like the D800,5DIII, D7100, D70 ect are so good and so capable that they are literally the last camera someone would need to buy for 5-10 years or maybe even ever.
GPW: Great interview. At least he didn't try to push some low end BS DSLR cameras like Nikon and Canon. I just wish their lens IQ was on par with the big two. I think a lot of people are fed up with Nikon and Canon forcing their customers to buy cameras with minimum upgrades. Great job Sigma
Only the small in number recent "Art" series lenses are. Generally speaking Sigma lenses are still behind Nikon and Canon lenses optically.
JDThomas: I picked up a D3300 a few days ago and the IQ is stellar. The new kit lens is very cool. Small and sharp.
The D7200 is going to have to be very special, because as it stands the D3300, D5300, and D7100 stand neck and neck in regards to IQ. As it is the only thing the 7100 has going for it is the sturdier build and more buttons.
For products shots in my studio I've been using a D5300. I don't need a weather-sealed body nor a camera with a million dedicated buttons. Set it and forget it.
If the they give the D7200 a bigger buffer and 7 fps it will be the only sports camera under $6000 in Nikon's, or canon's for that matter, line up that isn't several years old. That alone will be enough. It would be a nice upgrade, or maybe side grade, for all the people on D300s still waiting for a D400 that is almost certainly never coming.
This looks like the best compact camera currently on the market depending on how the AF preforms. My only problem with it is if you want an EVF it makes this camera a $1200 compact. The add on EVF is obviously nothing more than a crash grab. For the $800 price tag it really should have been included.
Dimit: Nice upgrade,nothing special indeed,,with the usual Canon overpricing!Should be 280 $ less..so boring in 2014 surrounding..
I agree about the pricing. For $500-$600 it would be a much better buy especially since the EVF is not built in.
Beat Traveller: This is a pretty awesome upgrade: you now get a camera with a bigger sensor than m4/3, with a longer zoom range than the standard kit zoom and a brighter lens than most, all in a body close to the size of the GM1. Really impressive.
Yeah if it had a built in EVF it would be the perfect compact camera IMO.
This nice and all but what I would love to see from Tamron is a wide angle f/2.8 zoom on the level of their 24-70 and 70-200 so Tamron has a full trinity to compete with the Nikon and Canon versions.
Ednaz: If you're known for making camera bags primarily, and you put your logo on the front of the bag, you've lost the right to use the word "discreet."
I was thing the exact same thing.
Mika Tuka: The viewfinder of E-M10 is a shame for 2014. While everybody is including ~2.5 million dots this one is 1.5 million. I compared E-M5 viewfinder and E-M1 – they are different like night and day. I’m very disappointed – this is the camera I was waiting for and it doesn’t include a modern viewfinder.
Any thoughts why?
Which is why I question the assumption many make that an EVF is cheaper than a mirror and OVF when OVFs are in cameras under $1000.
cheddargav: As a wedding photographer, I just want someone to give me 2 of these, the 23 1.4 and 56 1.2 for 2 weddings and I can compare it to my Canons. If the AF and overall performance is on a par with the 6D, I'm in
+1 How quickly people forget that the standard wedding, portrait event, ect camera used to be the 5D mark II which had AF that was worse than the 6D in every way.
zoranT: Who keeps buying this bulky, generic, plastic stuff?
If you really want a semi-disposable camera you should buy a used model a couple generations old. Those are really cheap.
lolopasstrail: Quite innovative of Nikon. A camera with far more megapixels than the vaunted Olympus EM-1, weighing less than the Olympus EM-1, complete with a new collapsible zoom, all for less than half the price of the EM-1 body alone.
Add the advantage of direct SLR viewing, a wide range of low cost used lenses (save wide primes), fast autofocus, and this is a shot across the bows of mirrorless.
Look at the evolution of the DSLRs- they are becoming smaller, lighter, and retain their overall competency at an affordable price. It's no wonder they are gaining market share over mirrorless.
For the last few years we've constantly heard bloggers and forum posters proclaiming the death of the DSLR. The DSLR begs to differ, and wonders which segment is really dying.
This may not have the features of the EM-1, but it has gone beyond the 16MP ceiling, and arguably gives up nothing in picture-taking ability or photo quality, at a more attractive price point.
"Innovation?" What would that add?
LOL Their are plenty of cheap used lenses with built in AF motors.
Carlos Loff: Is this the best Nikon has to show in Las Vegas ??? Trash, trash, trash - Maybe next year we have a D5375, lol - One week from now, if the D400 is not announced - I swear for the most sacred saints - I buy the Pentax K-3
The VF is stabilized because the lens is and there are many many advantages to buying what everyone else has. For example if you you want to have the best chance of finding a place to rent lenses, batteries, bodies, flashes, ect no mater what city you are in you buy a Canon or Nikon. If you want to be sure a third party lens will come out in your mount, you by a Canon or Nikon, if you want to be sure you can find help and training materials for your camera and accessories, you buy canon and Nikon. Get the point?
SunnyFlorida: This review proves 2 things #1 the Nikon 50mm F/1.4 is a weak lens, #2 the 58mm F/1.4 is a mediocre lens which looks great next to a weak lens
Exactly. It is the 50mm 1.4G that Nikon should have updated instead of making this thing.
You know considering the amount of focus adjust DPR needed and the AF issue plus how soft the lens was I would test another copy at some point if I was them.