I had a Surface for two days. Everything went fine till I installed Nikon Viewnx 2 from Nikons USA site. Immediately the Surface lost contact with both front and back cameras. I also found working with the detachable keyboard was clumsy while sitting in a chair. My impression is that if you want to use it for on-the-go editing, you’d be better off with a laptop.
I believe the inks in these printers are dye based rather than pigment based. If so, these printers would be a step backwards for photographic purposes. Dye inks differently fade quickly whilst changing picture colors. Their advantage is that they don’t have solid pigments that settle out over relatively short periods of time.
Dan DeLion: You've got in your pocket a camera capable of turning out 20x30 inch, professional grade, photos. - What's there to complain about? Nitpicking cameras may be easier than taking great pictures, but every mechanical devise has it's quirks and limitations. My experience with the RX100 family is that nothing on the camera gets in the way of great output. That's what counts.
Prints are not the only use of images. However, they are a metric for comparing across disparate sensor sizes and multiple body styles. For example, I feel comfortable making a 20x30 print from my D610 up to ISO 3200. For my D800e I can shoot up to ISO 6400. And, from my RX100 M2 up to ISO 1250. In this example I've compared three different bodies and sensor sizes while flexing ISO.
Likewise one could compare a Canon M3 with a D610. Or, I can compare various stops relative to maximum print size, for a specific lens on a specific body. For me, the results are what counts. - Not the extensive nit picking. In a review I would first say what I thought of the results. Then for those who care, analyze why I got those results.
Being a professional photographer my definition of professional grade photos is: A salable pic of high quality, appropriate for a magazine cover or a double page spread. Or one that produces a 20x30 photo for framing. For those not looking for that level of quality there are cell phones and less expensive pocket cameras. The results are what count, at least for me.
I'm referring to nitpicking in general. Get out and take a couple of thousand pics and print a half dozen of them. Then tell me what you think of the results. Most of the rest of any camera review is just talk.
You've got in your pocket a camera capable of turning out 20x30 inch, professional grade, photos. - What's there to complain about? Nitpicking cameras may be easier than taking great pictures, but every mechanical devise has it's quirks and limitations. My experience with the RX100 family is that nothing on the camera gets in the way of great output. That's what counts.
Dimit: Sony does it properly:E mount Full frame-small form factor for both body and lens BUT less bright zooms & primes..one can't have it all,right?lA7 -general purpose.A7R -high resolution,fine for cropping.landscape stills.A7S -Low light capability (hence low resolution),FF 4k video for the non pros.Next step:2nd gen. of the above will be fine in respect of shutter behavior,burst rates,af,4k internal ( there will be with the new gen. cards),etc,etc..For the time being: A6000,A7R and RX10 fulfills the 99% of the requirements.LET'S FACE IT,WE WILL ALWAYS NEED TO UPGRADE,THAT'S HOW IT WORKS!
I agree with your inclusion of the RX10. A truely great camera.
Sounds like a really great and useful camera! Slip one in your bag for low light or high contrast situations. Sony still needs to address the lack of lenses in its FE line.
Very nice details for a cell phone. Not really very impressive when compared to todays cameras. I would expect this kind of resolution from a $200, 16MP pocket camera.
My photography customers aren't looking for the lowest price. They want an excellent product delivered on time, by a photographer who understands what they are trying to accomplish, who understands their product and produces photos their customers respond to. They want someone who is easy to work with, who is friendly, and someone who will help them in the inevitable emergency. They don't want any surprises except getting more and better than they expected.
If every once and a while they disregard my copyrights – I look the other way. Why? Because, I make my money on upfront. Provide that kind of service and you don't have to cut your prices.
For a new customer I'll often offer 25% off on their first shoot. After that first shoot it's full boat. Otherwise, it wouldn't be fair to my other customers.
Scared Canon fan boys. Much lower price. Much better performance. Five years for Canon to catch up, if they ever do. So, put an old dusty lens on a D600 and disable the sensor cleaning, then rant.
If there really is someone out there with a factory caused dust problem, send the camera in or return it. Problem solved! So, stop the whining.
My D600 has 4000+ exposures and hundreds of lens changes. No dust!
D600 Explodes – Several Canon Fan Boys Hurt.
I. M. Adummy recent demonstrated the structural flaws of Nikon's under priced D600. He said: “after placing only one fire cracker in the mirror chamber and remounting a 15 year old lens I was surprised at how the cheaply made D600 blew the lens across the room instead of containing the explosion.” He was interviewed in hospital while visiting a fellow fan boy injured in his conclusive demonstration. I. M. warns that all potential purchasers of the D600 should wait at least 5 years for Nikon to address the problem and for Canon to introduce a competitive body.
rondhamalam: It can happen on any camera with 1000 shots like that.You need to turn on and turn off camera to make sensor-cleaner to work.
You actually might be clueless. My D600 (3007970) has well over 4000 exposures and hundreds of lens changes. The sensor is spotless and dustless. There might be some early bodies that exhibit the fault, but it is not endemic. You must face the fact that Nikon has produced a camera that easily outperforms the 5D3 while costing 40% less.
Canon fan boys will believe even the most ludicrous of tests to ease their camera inferiority fears. Canon makes fine cameras but, put an old dirty lens on a 5D3. Effectively disable the dust removal function. Then take 1000 exposures. Result: a dusty sensor. You fan boys are going to have to learn to live with a Nikon that costs 40% less and scores significantly higher. You can either face the truth or go delusional. Looks like many of you have chosen the latter.
Take any camera. Put an old dirty lens on it. Effectively disable the dust removal function. Then take 1000 exposures. Result: a dusty sensor. So what does that prove?
I own a D600 with thousands of exposures and hundreds of lens changes. Absolutely no dust! I wonder how much dust the author introduced into the system by using an old lens that had been used on a very old camera. That is, the source of the dust was probably the 50mm lens. Secondly, would the dust from the lens have been on the mirror if the the D600 had been used in a normal manner of on/off sequences, which would actuate the automatic dust removal function?
Great pic! It Doesn't it make sense to build, or rebuild, that close to the ocean.
I received my D600 two days after its release (ser. #3007970.) It now has over 4000 exposures and probably 200 to 300 lens changes. There's not one speck of dust on the sensor. I checked it yesterday with the mirror up, a high intensity lamp, and a magnifying glass. Remarkable handling and splendid images. - The camera has already paid for itself several times over! Did this fellow turn his camera on and off (for sensor cleaning) during his thousand exposures?
Wow! For 2800 clams I would expect thick gold plating and Ostrich skin. Otherwise it looks it looks to be just what it is, an over priced engineering tour de force that goes nowhere.
Who would have guessed that any company would make a $350 converter to change a 35mm lens to a 28mm lens? How about a $250 converter to change the neck strap length from 36 inches to 36.5 inches?
I'd like to see a comparison between the D7000 and the D3200 with a high quality lens at f8.