Galbertson: BrownyYou made statement that all of us have no right to respond to your "ugly" lens statement, that we are not modern of thought as you, that we must stay in 2008. We are just as here as you. Some of us just don't care what a camera looks like, or the lens. Just blind, i guess...for me, literally.
Gal, You have the right to do whatever you want. I don't give you that right, or take it away. But with that right, you also open yourself up to criticism if your response to my statement is stupid. Just as I have the right to make a comment on the aesthetics of a lens, you have the right to say no person should consider the aesthetics of a lens. I personally think you are wrong - we are photographers - we are visual creatures. We can judge if something is ugly or not. And given the choice between shooting images with an ugly can of tuna (like some of Sony's e-mount primes), or something like a Fuji X-100s - I would take the later. Let's say it inspires me more to have attractive equipment. Go ahead disagree if you want - it is not a right or wrong thing - it is my opinion.
brownie314: such a pretty little body, but such ugly lenses! OK, here comes the hoard of people telling me that it doesn't matter what a camera looks like. Please, save your comments for 2008. Today - yes it does matter. I like the pancake prime, and the collapsible zoom - but other than that the other primes look like a can of Vienna Sausage.
tbcass - you, sir, are retarded. You probably read lots of photography forums - in fact that is probably why you consider yourself a photographer. Because the statement you made is one I see often repeated on all of these forums - always regurgitated by a dumb old troll. But SURPRISE! When I go read a professional review of something like a Fuji X-whatever camera - the reviewer is a professional photographer - but it is always one of the first things they mention - it is a beautiful camera. "the tactile feel is wonderful" - "it's a camera that just makes you want to put it on the shelf and display it as artwork". How could it be? Professional photographers care what a camera looks like? OMG. I have no respect for them! How dare they even look at a camera and think it might be more or less beautiful than any other camera! Go back in your hole - stop reading so many forums and go get another hobby.
Well, back in the age of the model T ford, no one cared what cars looked like either. They were just replacements for horses. But today, the product has matured and now looks are important too, some would say the most important. We are coming out of the film age, where cameras did not have much choice in size and shape. We are entering a new era of possibilities. Looks have mattered in the past for cameras, but not so much. As we progress, I am sure looks will start to dominate how the products look. Look at Apple - they have made an empire based on slick looking design - there products do not function any better than others - they just look better.
dude - At what point did I say that "what a camera looks like as primary reasons for purchase"? I said it matters what a camera looks like. I didn't say that it mattered above all other things. All these new crop of mirrorless perform at about the same level. There are some philosophy differences in the interface - but IQ wise they are close. So if you could have a camera that, all other things being equal - looked ugly as fu****, or one that performed just as well, but also looked nice - which would you chose? Clearly we make choices like this every day. Any car will get you from A to B. They all do exactly the same thing. But then why do we chose to drive cars that look different? How could it be if you are right that it doesn't matter what it looks like? Try to think outside of your box a little. Get my drift?
trainerKEN - wow you must be psychic or something. Never seen one image I have ever produced - yet you already know I have poor photography skills. You are some kind of genius. I was simply saying that Sony has some ugly lenses. I never said I could not produce high quality images with it - or any other camera. Can I blame your poor thinking skills on the design of your brain?
burnymeister: I think people are missing the point on this camera. $1200 isn't that bad when you consider what you're getting. For under $3k you can get a system that covers the focal range of 18-800mm with pretty good features and small enough to fit in a backpack.
How is this not a great thing? 800mm in any other system will either result in a horrible unbalanced mess or $11k just for the lens and will be so heavy you won't hike it anywhere. This is the first time I'm interested in the 1 series. I think Nikon's finally coming through.
I am with KameraFever. 800mm is cool, but for any FL that is shorter - almost every other mirrorless system is better. Everything from Pany/Oly, Sony, Fuji, even Samsung - all of them have IQ that will blow this out of the water (yes, I know we don't have tests yet, but I am pretty sure it will perform about like the V1 and V2). Yes, if you need 800mm, in a small, inexpensive package - this is pretty much the only game in town, but for the other 5,999,999,999 people in the world, there are better options than this system.
rhlpetrus: Richard, you nailed the problem with Nikon outside their FF lines:
" That's just two serious enthusiast-targeted lensed, and one of them costs $900. On the plus side, this doesn't compare too shabbily with the number of dedicated primes Nikon has made for its DX shooters (three, in the nearly 15 years since the launch of the company's first DX format camera, since you ask), but it doesn't give a clear picture of who 'CX' is for."
I am a relatively long-time adopter of APS-C Nikon cameras, an eraly adopter of the V1, and I'm having second thoughts about both systems. It's the same with Canon, btw, no dedicated good lenses, especially fast zooms. I'm rethinking MY strategy, as Nikon's seems clearly indicating their "serious" line is FF, and just that. So, my first move will be getting, likely, a Panny GX7, with a fast midrange zoom, then use it for some time. Then, maybe, get an FF, but even that is on hold at the moment.
I am in the same boat. I have a D7000 which I love, and a V1 which I have a more rocky relationship with. Then I see what OlyPany is doing with m4/3 - and it makes me wonder if the 1 system is going to be a short lived system. Then I see what Sony is doing with its e mount and FE mount bodies - and I know the 1 system is not long for this world. Then I see the price of the V3 body and look around the market at what can be had for that price - and I think that today is the day the 1 system just fatally wounded itself.
steveh0607: This camera is loaded with great technology. If Nikon joined the 4/3 group they would own that market. The 1 strategy doesn't make sense to me.
yup - I would love to see a camera with this much technology and that sweet 4/3 16mp sensor - that would be an awesome combination.
The price strategy from Nikon is truly baffling. But the good news is that we will probably be able to pick up V3's on fire sale in about a year with kit lens for about $350. I have a V1 - bought on fire sale - really cheap. It is good, but IQ doesn't compare to other mirrorless systems. If Nikon is going to make me compromise on IQ, then they had better give me a system that is at least price competitive with some of the cheaper mirrorless systems that have much better IQ.
b craw: It is the bread and butter of DPR and its members to compare cameras based upon functionality and IQ hair-splitting; and I enjoy this nearly as much as anyone because I am fascinated by cameras. But any camera in the rough price range of the X-E2 will be a good tool in the right hands. Certainly qualitative differences do exist between cameras, and, quite appropriately, comments are made about those differences here.
My concern, as an photography instructor, is that newer photographers are too influenced by minute differences in quality and performance (this not referring to things tangibly applicable in terms of proper camera types for different situations - sports, inconspicuous street work, etc.). The visceral impact of this camera or that one in an individual's hands - that subject rightness or wrongness - is going to be more important to producing quality images/art than whether in-camera noise reduction is too heavy-handed in a particular camera. Given the advantage of better perceptive skills and concepts, a photographer will generally produce more compelling work with my Samsung NX300 than others using a full frame camera of any sort. This is, of course, is widely understood by most experienced photographers (although sometimes I do wonder if it is), but such an observation should be presented periodically to those new to the media that might otherwise feel priced out of the possibility of producing excellent photography.
I agree - all this hair splitting over IQ is over blown. What really matters about a camera - how quick it is to respond to user inputs - AF speed - are talked about only briefly and not really quantified in testing. For my type of shooting, I need fast AF speeds. After reading this review, I have no idea how the Fuji AF speed compares to say Nikon D7100. There is no quantitative test devised for that purpose.
such a pretty little body, but such ugly lenses! OK, here comes the hoard of people telling me that it doesn't matter what a camera looks like. Please, save your comments for 2008. Today - yes it does matter. I like the pancake prime, and the collapsible zoom - but other than that the other primes look like a can of Vienna Sausage.
Tootsall: I'm in the process of moving up to DSLR from Bridge and what I don't see is folks commenting on the advantages of the swivel/tilt LCD. The availability of that feature on the D5300 is almost enough to make me consider it in lieu of the D7100. Once you've used that feature you'll never want to go back to a fixed LCD for high/low/around-the-corner shots! Really nice when you've got the camera on a low tripod and don't want to lay down in the dirt to line the shot up too! Sure wish it was on the 7100 and that would be a slam-dunk.
IMO, the tilt/swivel thing is nice, but rendered not very effective because of poor live view performance. If live view had better AF performance - it might be worth it. Honestly, I hate to say it, but if you want a body that has tilt/swivel and good all around live view performance - you might have to go with another brand - like a Canon 70D, or something from m4/3.
tbcass: Given the choice of a Canon 60D, a Sony A77, a Nikon D7000 or a D5300 for the same price the older cameras are clear winners IMO. I'd rather buy older higher end technology than brand new lower end. Cameras today aren't any better than those from 2-3 years ago. It's all hype from the manufacturers to get you to waste your money.
Yup, agree. The D7100 is not light years ahead of my D7000. In fact, I see no reason to update my body to a D7100 - I don't think it offers anything that would change the way I photograph things. Nice glass - that would definitely change how I photograph things.
calijente: Like others here, I initially found #3 boring, unimaginative and pointless.
However, the more I look at it, the more I like it. Just cover the upper half of the picture with your hand and look at the lower half until you get the feeling of the place. Then do the opposite, look at the upper half after you cover the lower half. Quite two different pictures, isn’t it? But it is only one.
The new, tall, ugly and lifeless buildings look to me like an approaching tsunami that will soon cover the old world. Quite a story, I would say.
Having said that, my favorites are #7, 8 and 11, in this order.
I agree - the same thing happened to me - at first I said "what the fuzz - why is the image here". But like you I know see the contrast between the huge, high dollar towers and the street scene - really interesting - would love to see it printed wall sized.But I can't understand the inclusion of #5. Even if the composition were better (which it isn't) the colors are pushed too far and the white balance makes this girls hair kinda green. Really not a good image.
Zeisschen: DSLR is just a transition technology from film to digital. Mirrorless (or better CSC) is the only future, even Canon and Nikon have to admit that sooner or later. In 2013 mirrorless already took the crown in picture quality and equaled in sensor size (A7r) and 100% replaced the OVF (A7, E-M1). In 2014 video and AF are the last things that mirrorless will fully catch up and overtake the DSLR (actually I think AF is already better today because accuracy is more important than the last 1\100 of second a DSLR might be quicker). In 2015 CSC will surpass DSLR in market share, in another 3 years the DSLR as it exists today will probably be reduced to one pro FF body and one crop body per brand for some people who still prefer an OVF. The actual only other reason to do that is to serve people bodies for all the the lenses they still have. But most will adapt then to a CSC (without the advantage of having a smaller system).Finally in 2050 Nikon is going to release the DF mkII. It's basically the same thing but it has a video button to record 1080/30p.
Why people get all excited about the flippy mirror thing - I will never understand. It isn't a big deal. I think you are really arguing for your brand vs. Canon or Nikon - it is a thinly veiled argument. Canon and Nikon will gladly dump the mirrors and switch to mirrorless as soon as they see that the advantages of dumping the mirror outweigh keeping it. They are not married to the mirror. They have been making "mirrorless" compact cameras for over 10 years. You may like a brand that is not Canon or Nikon - that is fine. But arguing for/against a mirror is not an argument for/against Canon or Nikon.
noirdude: And Nikon didn't win any..
Nope. Do you really think in a beauty contest anyone would vote for the big bully on the block? Nikon isn't winning any beauty contest, but they might survive this changing imaging market, where Oly/Pany/Fuji - well maybe not.
febphoto: I wonder why a camera from Nikon or Nikon is favoured over a ground breaking camera like the Pentax-Ricoh K-3? Dpreview is not a biased site, is it?
I am not sure what you mean by favored? As as I know DPreview has not recommended anyone buy this camera over the K-3.
VENTURE-STAR: Yet another cheap and cheerful SLR from Nikon that has little new to offer the serious photographer who is more interesting in taking pictures than simply wearing a camera like a piece of jewellery. No doubt Nikon has already planned a future firmware update for the D3300 that will stop affordable batteries being used. Great stuff!
Scottelly: $650. That's $150 less than the D5300, and the D3300 comes with a lens. Nice work Nikon. Still . . . I wish you could make a camera that can compete on price against the Sony A65! The A65 is only $500 without a lens, and only $600 with a lens (cheaper than this slow camera). And the Sony A65 has built-in GPS and a fold-out screen, like the Nikon D5300. One more very important feature most of the Sony cameras have is built-in image stabilization (in the camera body), something that should be a serious consideration for people trying to choose what entry-level camera to buy. Frankly I'd say Sony wins for the entry level photographer who doesn't expect to spend a lot of money on lenses in the future. Sony offers a few good upgrade options too.
But if you want a Nikon, this is a really good starter camera that can be used to capture very sharp, high quality photos, I'm sure.
Sony does not have the lens range of Canon or Nikon, or m4/3. But all of the lenses I would use are available for about the same and sometimes less money. Take as an example the 16-50 f/2.8 sony lens. The equivalent lens in Canon or Nikon form will cost you much more and you won't get weather sealing like the Sony lens.I am not bashing Nikon. Nikon products are, to me, still very good. It's just that there is a legitimate argument to be made for other products too. And for someone not invested in any system who does not plan on becoming a pro who needs every focal length there is, I think the Sony SLT system is a fine system. I am sure if you split evey pixel, the D3300 will be better than the A65. But most amateurs print, in large size, very few images. So most will be viewed at screen resolution. So keeping that in mind, most potential buyers will never see the imaging potential difference between the two systems.
Gesture: Is the modern digital camera reaching its end-point.
Well, I don't see the point in spending vast sums of money on R&D for new sensor development - there is little difference now in IQ between the D7100 and the D4. You have to split pixels to tell the difference. I think the future is more portable bodies and more camera body and software features. I think we will continue to see more pro features trickle down into lower cost bodies.