I have been shooting with the same D300 since I got it as a wedding present half of a decade ago. I liked it so much I bought a used one in "like new condition" as a backup.
The AF in that camera is flawless. You have to TRY to take out of focus photos.
I received a D7k when it first came out and the camera was pure effing garbage. It. Would. Not. Focus.
I'm not an amateur, I know how to set up all the dozens of menus. I've probably logged 55k worry-free action, still portrait, telephoto wildlife shots with my D300 in all manner of conditions. The backup is the same at about 10k.
I could not get the D7k to work. Nikon couldn't either. It also had a dust/oil problem. I sold it.
I have no real alternative to the D300 anymore. I don't think the 7100 is the camera to replace it.
NikonScavenger: I had a D7000. The AF was terrible, despite two trips to Nikon. The D600's AF may be tweaked, but I keep getting flashbacks to hundreds of soft/blurred/out of focus photos that led me to get rid of that camera at a huge loss. I think I printed out ten different focusing patterns to try to convince myself that it was my technique and not the camera, but all I had to do is get out my D300 and realize that wasn't the case--you can't make that camera lose focus once it locks on.
The dust issue is also a concern, since the D7000 had 5-6 oil/dust spots in the upper left corner of every photo after my first lens swap. For comparison, my D300 has the same amount of dust spots after 45k shutter actuations.
I'm not all that thrilled about shelling out 2 grand for a camera, then wondering if every AF point will work.
While I agree with your statement, I don't know why Nikon wouldn't provide me with a new camera after the second time it came back with the same problems.
They kept demanding I send them photos demonstrating the problem, then told me to send the camera in for "re-calibrations." After the second time I told them I wanted a new or refurbished D7k--something with a fresh serial number which they refused and I sold it not long after that.
I've had a D200, 300 and a 5DmkI with zero problems. I've been somewhat reluctant to invest in anything with a D7000 AF module since.
It's garishly ugly... but that isn't really an issue. It has a built in EVF, hot shoe, and probably wouldn't look comical with an F-mount lens attached to it--that and you could probably still wield the camera semi-effectively with most reasonably sized lenses.
I have a GX1 with the LVF2, despite having invested in Nikon DSLRs.
Bigger sensor and more lenses. You can't convince me that the tiny little sensor of the entire V line is worth investing in. Or that there are no lenses for it, despite it being now a full year since the system was introduced.
Is anyone that brand conscious that they wouldn't buy a mirrorless camera just because of brand name? Because obviously Sony and Panasonic/Olympus have better offerings in the segment.
I had a D7000. The AF was terrible, despite two trips to Nikon. The D600's AF may be tweaked, but I keep getting flashbacks to hundreds of soft/blurred/out of focus photos that led me to get rid of that camera at a huge loss. I think I printed out ten different focusing patterns to try to convince myself that it was my technique and not the camera, but all I had to do is get out my D300 and realize that wasn't the case--you can't make that camera lose focus once it locks on.
I want Sigma to build a cheap FF body with a Canon mount... or Nikon. I don't care, really. But it's about time we started to see third party bodies.
Too expensive. I think 2100 would be a good price point with the kit lens.
Will have to wait until the prices go down.
We need third party manufacturers like Sigma to make generic Nikon and Canon BODIES with open source software running the firmware.
Every mirrorless camera seems to be a mess of compromises. You give up a big sensor, or a viewfinder, or external controls, a lens library, or a flash hotshoe. What is the point of having a camera system if there are 3-4 lenses for it? Canon is now going to spend time and money developing their mirrorless lenses, but most kit buyers will NEVER take off the 18-55 once they first install it. Once you put a flash on it and a walkaround lens, the mirrorless camera becomes big once again.
Do the majority of the people who buy these things have a huge lens library, do DSLR owners really want a scaled down SLR? I've gone on vacations, planes, trains and have just taken creative measures to cram my D300 into my luggage.
I had a m4/3 camera. It wasn't very portable. The pictures weren't as good as my Nikon, the AF wasn't as advanced, you could put a flash on it, but the flash was twice the size and weight of the camera. You could put it in a pocket, as long as you took the lens and hood off.
I've seen black and white photos taken with the old monochrome Kodak DSLR and Black and White modified Canon 30D's--both of which look superior to b&w photos taken with a traditional color sensor camera.
What puzzles me is that the Monochrome Leica's photos look like b&w photos taken with a color sensor DSLR...
Now can we have an affordable Canon or Nikon mount monochrome for about 1200 dollars?
It's not that hard to make one, but I applaud Leica for doing this--hopefully it sets off a wave of imitators.
Checking my batteries to see if they are the recalled batch, they are not they are much older, I discovered that the one that came with the camera says "SONY" and not Nikon next to the P,S,E logo.
What the hell does that mean?
It's amazing how people just willingly GIVE away their personal information on the internets.
Between google, FB, instagram, smartphone software spying on where you go, who you call... there is literally NO privacy out there anymore.
And we've willingly ceded all of this away. Hell, we've paid through our noses for the shiny tech gadgets that pry into our private lives on a daily basis for marketing reasons and god knows what else...
I briefly had the GF3 before returning it to amazon. It wasn't the lack of "pro" features in this tiny camera that turned me off as much as the fact that everything was controlled by the rear touch screen which was sluggish and unresponsive (at least compared to a modern smart phone). Every input had to be deliberate, as if the camera was wondering if I had accidentally touched the screen.
I haven't been too pleased with Canon's consumer service, either. They sold me a refurbished 40D with a broken flash module and greasy skidmarks all over the sensor from a bad cleaning attempt (I doubt the camera was even inspected when it was returned by the consumer), and when I wanted a refund, their techs demanded that I send them sample photos, emails which they never responded to BTW, before they would even entertain the flash wasn't working and there was sensor dirt.
Any time a company does something "for the consumer" like this means they're starving for cash.
It needs a canon mount so you can seamlessly use the much better L lenses with this excellent sensor. Sigma already uses a modified canon architecture for their firmware, I doubt that it'd be hard to get EF lenses to talk to it.
Glues on, like a real grip, and accomodates f-mount. more reason to save up cash for the V1.
First of all, the orbs are real. I have no doubt that the people posting real world photos taken in a variety of situations are not maliciously trying to ruin Fuji's reputation by doctoring the images or exacerbating the issue. I also have no doubt that dpreview is pursuing the issue out of sincere concern for consumers, and not trying to single out Fuji.
What I don't understand is people who adamantly think this isn't real, is an exaggeration/fabrication, then go on to discredit and attack any legitimate sources who disagree.
It'll be fine, the fact that the product you bought being flawed does not reflect negatively upon what kind of person you are. Searing/irrational denial does... or calls into your motives for defending a flawed product. The internet is full of shills, mostly because it's so hard to prove, yet you tend to find them screaming at the top of their lungs that nothing is wrong and discrediting people who have legitimate concerns...
I actually wanted to buy one of these cameras because I'm in search of a pocket DSLR alternative (looks like it may be the G1X after all this mess). And all I can tell is that for every photo of the white orbs on dpreview there is one on flickr, or another photo site, that claims it doesn't exist.
I guess it brings me back to the old rule that the uglier the camera is, the better it works... also I wish Fuji had developed their super CCD technology more, I loved the wide DR of the old S5.
high ISO peformance in RAW is amazing at 3200 and 6400. not too thrilled by the 5.8 minimum aperture at 112mm, that's more in the superzoom territory, but the near APS-C sensor is amazing.
it's an interesting response to the micro 4/3rds market by canon. i just might sell some old gear to buy this as a vacation camera.
NikonScavenger: I hope that this brings down good used D700 prices, since I can't drop 3 large on a camera, but let's pretend I win the lottery.
-I'm not thrilled about the huge photosensor, I'd have preferred a lower density FF sensor from the D4. Even if the photos aren't grainy, the massive file size will burn through CF and SD cards and expose any lens irregularities, making my Tamron and Sigma collection virtually worthless.-Four frames per second reminds me of my 5D, I'd have traded a few extra frames for MP-The 800E sounds really cool, and I've seen cameras with the AA filters taken out do some interesting things but does it reduce the overall daily usefulness of the camera.-what is the ISO performance in low light with a 1.4 lens. That's what I really care about in my shooting.
because some of us are too damn po' to afford high end glass:(