cgarrard: Cool camera for cat shots.
":) Maybe its Schrodinger's cat ?"Possibly: the camera certainly uses a "Heisenberg" sensor.
Having been creating spherical panos for many years - quite a bit of it commercially, I'll believe this works properly when I see it. Unless it defeats the laws of optics - namely parallax errors - it's impossible to get accurate stitches if there are foreground elements. To do so requires rotation around, or at least close to, the no-parallax point of the lens. Even with the best stitchers such as PTGui or Autopano this is required.No doubt this will work after a fashion, with horrible stitching errors visible, which may well satisfy the selfie obsessed knuckle-draggers.
I'd buy this without hesitation for its unparalleled shallow DOF ability were it not for the fact that nowadays I shoot MFT and I think that adding an adaptor would make the whole rig a bit unwieldy.
Looks to me like a ludicrously expensive way of creating a fairly small amount of RAID storage in a cosmetic package. I can see that some people might need this for highly critical location work but it doesn't take a lot of thought to figure out ways of getting the job done at a fraction of the cost.
Well, whoever's responsible is certainly going to give it a rest for a while now that the news is being broadcast that Mr. Plod's on their trail. They can then resume once the hue and cry has died down...
Barend: Reading all the comments I think that my Nikon D700 still does a decent job.
" once you get used to the "fat" files from the D800 there is no going back :-)"So don't bother going "forward" then.
stevo23: Innovation is when someone provides a solution to a known issue. Like Polaroid - provided instant images on paper. People wanted that. Like automatic transmissions (I don't use one) - people didn't have to fiddle with shifting gears. Like autofocus - people realized that they could get more keepers and better focus if somehow the camera could do it.
It's usually something that people thought about but didn't think was possible. But I can't think of anyone ever thinking it would be cool to be able to change the focus point of an image after it's captured - and that with sub-critical focus and poor image quality. It's not an innovation, it's just a novel idea but with no real market interest. It's not solving anything that people were looking for and it replaces nothing.
This is not the future for photographers. It's a novel idea looking for an interested party. I can't really think of anyone or any application for this that makes it invaluable. Can you?
That's about right. The almost complete failure of 3D TV in favour of higher resolution, and hence larger screens, is a similar phenomenon. However if demand existed solely for what is actually useful, there's be a lot less junk out there. However demand is often created when there's something to be sold.
SeeRoy: The camera market is simply evolving to resemble many other sectors of the consumer goods market - watches would be a typical example. The function of any given watch is almost identical to any other. An inexpensive quartz watch is likely to be more accurate than the most expensive chronometer-grade mechanical example from Rolex, Patek or Omega. No one questions this any more. These products are primarily signifiers and their function secondary.
Function. All watches are timepieces. They're only incidentally male jewellery (we're talking men's watches, in the main.) All the other differentiation (mechanical complexity) is a way of justifying high prices. I own a few old mechanical watches - back to the 1920s - and they're all usable but need periodic and expensive servicing. Practicality or better fitness for purpose isn't their justification.The average new Rolex - to take a single typical example - is manufactured in huge numbers and depreciates by about 50% as the punter leaves the shop.Cars, TVs, furniture, clothing all would have equally been examples of the decadence in the consumer goods marketplace. Essentially identical items differentiated by advertising in order to appeal to an artificially stimulated status anxiety.
Retzius: "All components are packaged in a box designed exclusively for this product."
Trific unboxing-thrill factor...
The camera market is simply evolving to resemble many other sectors of the consumer goods market - watches would be a typical example. The function of any given watch is almost identical to any other. An inexpensive quartz watch is likely to be more accurate than the most expensive chronometer-grade mechanical example from Rolex, Patek or Omega. No one questions this any more. These products are primarily signifiers and their function secondary.
electrophoto: My dentist still loves it. He says it goes well with his Porsche Cayenne GTS...
Also likely to prove very popular amongst proctologists and spelunkers.
Bobby Handal: meanwhile in real life, owners of the V1 , V2 or V3 series know exactly how good these cameras really are, even though Nikon is not doing a good job in Marketing and some issues (like auto bracketing, Auto ISO WTF?, ITTL Wireless) - but Pricing Specially . This is the only compact mirrorless system that allows you to go over 800mm natively , that alone is a major selling point, if you add the silent shutter, and the good optics available, it is a no brainer.
Lin Evans:You're bashing your head against a brick wall - trying to apply rationality to a case of mass psychosis. This series of cameras, overpriced as they are, seems to induce it.
qianp2k: Will be free or you need to pay for a prod version when it's officially released?
But DPR wrote:"Nikon will continue.... while the beta version of Capture NX-D is available. Once the official version of Capture NX-D is released....To download the beta version of Nikon’s Capture NX-D..."Which would seem to contradict your statement - twice!
An absolutely hilarious product. Testament to a luxury goods marketplace that can best be described as decadent.
Bobby Handal: The only bad thing about the camera is the pricing. Nikon has put together a system that is great for wildlife, without breaking your back ! lightweight and responsive. Slap on a 70-200mm f/2.8 and its a 540mm f/2.8, and with the new lens that nikon (70-300mm) is selling you have a compact 840mm lens that is able to grab birds in flight easily , again , in a compact package.
Far too rational a comment. There's no denying that the launch price is very steep but no doubt the manufacturer has done the sums based on the previous models' price profiles.I am "invested" in MFT and FF gear but were I not I'd buy this camera and the 70-300 as soon as the price has declined.
larrytusaz: Why does anybody care about the video specifications of this high-grade stills camera? If I had $3000 to drop on this I'd do so for the amazing pictures it can take, not the Vimeo or YouTube clips it can record. It's an SLR, not a camcorder.
It's a still (DSLR) camera which can be used to shoot video. Providing you don't mind abysmal ergonomics and jury-rigged Heath Robinson clusters of ancillary equipment. Then there's the lenses.
tirmite: When will DPReview, the eminent technical blog supposedly, stop playing the dishonest lens equivalency game? So if it's "equivalent" to a 24-70mm then you also HAVE to make the f-stop "equivalent." It is NOT like a 1.8-2.8 aperture. It would give DOF results more like an f4.0-5.6 lens would it not? Being able to shoot in low light is more a function of ISO and sensor noise these days, but for some of us having control over depth-of-field is still what separates a snapshot from a photograph. This camera is NOT a replacement for a 35mm DSLR with a "real" 24-70mm f2.8 lens, although it's clearly a great little pocket camera. How about truthful, accurate marketing both by the manufacturer and camera reviewers about what a lens REALLY is equivalent to if you're going to make that selling point in the first place?
And so it goes, on and on.The 24-70 is nothing more than a useful way of expressing EFOV. I imagine that 90% of the likely customers for cameras in this product sector are well aware of what the associated apertures are in terms of EDOF.What's the problem here? You'd rather have the lens described in relation to its EDOF? It would still be necessary to describe its FOV; would it actually be better to use angular FOV? NO it wouldn't.Still this nonsensical quibbling helps people evade the angst of daily life for a few minutes.
Trific! Fills a real hole in the market - up to now there's been nothing with 8 wheels, just miserable 2- and 4-wheel examples; pathetic girly-bags more suitable for cosmetics. This one will do nicely until they release a proper 16-wheeler capable of containing an entire studio complete with infinity curve and a couple of assistants."Meets most airlines’ US domestic and international carry-on requirements...optimum, er, navigation (?)..."Ryanair will no doubt wave you through with this one as hand baggage.Edit: Oops I almost missed it. "Fits six to seven standard zoom lenses or strobes..."Now I like backup but even I never travel with that many standard (24-70) zooms. This is a real breakthrough.
"Weather-resistant"A worthless designation, now popular with many manufacturers since it actually costs nothing to offer. What are the chances of getting a warranty replacement/repair when these weasel-words fail to protect the electronics from water ingress? Slim I'd say. You'd be told you got it "too wet".
"Unboxing..."The most pitiful symptom of a bankrupt consumer culture - "bankrupt" in both a literal and metaphorical sense.