ryanshoots: Still offering two basic colors of skin-tone, peach or grayish yellow. This is a wonderful camera in may ways. Nikon colors not being one of them. Do they offer one with a b&w sensor?
True, Nikon colors aren't the best. My preference among current production cameras is Sony. Nikon or Olympus second. Pentax next probably. Canon... doesn't crack the top ten lol.
Just a Photographer: A nice camera, but way overpriced for what you get.
How foolish must one be to buy this camera in Europe where it is still $500 MORE expensive then a D800E?
This in a time where the dollar is worth just 0.65 cents to the Euro.
More like .73 actually.
D1N0: low light champ (just)
I prefer the D4's files to the D3s's. More flexibility in my experience. I have the Df but haven't used it enough to really give a complete opinion about its files yet. Plus, as mentioned, the files have to be modified to use anyway.
marike6: "While the inner frame of the D610 is magnesium alloy, there's quite a bit of plastic on the outer shell. That wouldn't be an issue on something like the D7100, but on a $2000 camera, you'd expect metal on the outside, as well."
There have never been any $2000 FF cameras until Nikon made the D600 and Canon later produced the 6D. Both are robust enough for most enthusiast uses.
First characterizing the D7100 as "plasticky" in the K-3 Preview contradicting DPR's own D7100 review, and now complaining that one of least expensive FF DSLRs ever produced uses some plastic? What is up with this reviewer?
We wouldn't "expect" anything from sub-$2000 FF DSLR because before the D600 there were no sub-$2000 FF at all. To not understand that cost cutting measure in both the D610 and 6D were necessary, and to imply some level of disappointment in build quality vs the competition when the competition has NEVER offered a sub-$2000 FF really hurts credibility.
Incorrect. The FF Sony a850 was sub 2k YEARS ago.
What a total dodge of the important questions. This isn't quality journalism DPR.
Gesture: Longer time when posts are editable. On Amazon.com it is open-ended and you can delete a post.
If the ISO is not set to automatic the letter 'M' appears, correct? Why doesn't the actual ISO value get displayed? That seems like an easy code correction to me.
True amperez, many of these are definitely not decisive at all. Feel free to penalize those images that are not on theme with your votes!
Elinas: Cool... so the day that they will decide to make Camera raw available for the Fuji X-Pro1, this means I will need to buy CS6...
It's unlikely that LR3 will get an update but LR4 should work just swimmingly with CS5 with this update.
Fredy Ross: If I have no bugs and no new camera do I need to update?
Tomskyair: Couldn't agree more about DNG. But Adobe's policy to terminate support for older versions of Photoshop by just not issuing ACR updates for previous versions any longer does also upset me a little. To me this just looks like a marketing move rather than a real necessity. I'm happy with my current version of PS and would see no need to upgrade anytime soon. However, my next camera will probably be the Fuji X-Pro 1.
So I'm screwed, along with the acquisition costs for the new equipment comes the hefty upgrade price of PS if I want to carry on with my usual workflow and stay on the legal side as well. Clever move, Adobe - but for sure one that annoys the hell out of not to few customers.
Vista wasn't a disaster except in terms of marketing failure. Windows ME, now THAT was a disaster!
Skroob: Last for CS5. what a scam. "Sure, you can use this software you paid for as long as you wish. Oh, you want to be able to open your files? Well, you will have to pay for an upgrade then."
Exactly. DNG converter solves the problem. You want added convenience? Pay for it.
LaFonte: You have to understand that this is the "real" Zeiss, not a pay-for-rent name that is used on sony lenses. As such it actually isn't that expensive and will probably hold its value for a long time.
Neither does the 85mm for that matter Brendon. I'm a former Sony user (now Nikon) and the thing I miss most about the Sony system is the CZ85mm. The Nikon 85mm isn't nearly as good.
SantaFeBill: This policy also means no more sales of 3rd-party warranties, since you wouldn't be able to get repairs under one. So Nikon gets a monopoly on extended warranties as well.Since I don't like Canon ergonomics, and in any case can't afford a complete change of systems, perhaps it's just as well that I'll shortly be stopping doing photography.
Actually Victor, it is. That's not to say that it's right but it IS a business's decision to choose how they run their business, including who they sell parts to.
sir_bazz: So this tog makes $50K per year and gets the luxury of 8months holidays every year? Nice work/life balance he's going got there and one that many othjers would love to have as well.
Poor wedding tog's really doin' it hard.
Again, if you believe that is the case you're a fool. 50k in revenue is NOT 50k IN PROFIT! Sheesh.
skrulm8: As a businessman I feel that if the wedding season lasts only a few months, the gentleman is not supposed to make a living from it. It's a part time job and he should be doing something else for the remaining 67% of the year. I'm not saying $500 per wedding is the answer, but $1000 is more than enough if you ask me.
I mean, for $3,000 I can buy two 550Ds, a Canon 70-200 f/4.0 L, a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and rent the two flashes out. I'm sure there's relatives of mine with hands that have fingers on them, who would gladly take the pictures for free. For the few potos that need post processing, I'll do it myself.
And, yes, I've done wedding photography myself.
A real businessman wouldn't have posted what you did, so I'm forced to conclude you've never actually been in business for yourself. For 3k you can purchase that stuff, but 3k is really more like 2k when you take out taxes. And that 2k is really more like 1900 when you add in insurance. And that 1900 is really more like 1600 when you subtract the cost of the album. And that 1600 is really more like 1500 when you count in the cost of depreciation. And that 1500 is more like...
I think you get my point. Anyone who thinks that 3k is pure profit is an utter fool.
TORN: To me standard (!) wedding photography is pretty much "worth" the same money as every similar complex service, like for example a car repair. The freelancer has to cover his cost and keep some more to live on it. Here in Germany you would pay for a car repair something like 40-80$ per hour. With an average of 60$ this would mean 50 hours for 3000$ budget. If I take 8h for the wedding + 8h for a secondary photographer + 24h image processing and then I add travel cost + consulting + extra equippment then I do have pretty much the same relation of budget and what service you get for it.
You get what you pay for and if you are satisfied by 10 unprocessed wedding pictures from an amateur photographer then you can well get off for 50-100$. But if you want to have a professional service than you need to pay for it.
I did 4 weddings for friends and for free. Afterwards I decided they either pay me for all the stress & hassle or I enjoy the wedding and have some drinks & fun instead.
You're missing a HUGE thing Andreas, while it does hurt to have to pay 20 hours worth of labor to get your car repaired, if you're doing so it's because it absolutely necessary. No one is being forced to pay any amount for wedding photography. She's 'hurting' because she can't have what she wants, not needs, at the price she's willing to pay.
andersf: Did I miss something? "Excellent response"? The response actually just confirms her suspicion?
The photographer does 20 weddings (that is 20 days at the most, in other words not a full time job by a long stretch, rather a side income as a semi-pro enjoying a hobby), and then goes on to motivate the cost with *living expenses*? I understand the reasoning behind the costs of gear/software, transportation to/from the shoots and so on. But living costs?
If I just made one wedding per year, I could motivate a price of $50k then, using the same logic?
That said, I don't care if a photographer wants to charge $3k or $10k, I'm free to choose not to hire them, and I'm sure there are cheaper options. But I'd prefer motivation to be an honest "because I can", or "because I don't want to work more than 20 days per year"...
Apparently you didn't actually read the response. A photographer who shoots 20 weddings a year doesn't ONLY work those twenty days. They work those 20 days, plus at least 3-5 on the back end for every wedding editing photos and designing albums and contacting clients. Not even to mention all the business upkeep like taxes and accounting, all the marketing needed to actually get 20 weddings, etc. Your post clearly shows you have little experience with how the business works.
Bob Meyer: Geez, the number of idiots here who on't understand that running your own business is far more costly, than being a salaried or hourly employee is frightening. Those of you who are employed by someone else don't have to worry about paying the rent on the office space, business insurance, the employer portion of FICA, a business accountant, and the hundreds of other expenses that a business owner has to pay for.
Does she make money photographing other things the rest of the year? I sincerely hope so. But that doesn't change the fact that $50K in *revenue* is not the same as $50K in salary. Ask you boss how much it costs to employ you, over and above your salary.
I work in a field where people are often billed to clients on an hourly basis. The typical cost of overhead expenses (rent, utilities, insurance, administrative costs, taxes, marketing, equipment, etc., etc.) is equal to the total salary load. So it costs a company twice as much to employ you as they pay you.
The fact that you believe 50k in revenue during the busiest time of year is good means that you've never actually run a business where you have to worry about all the things Bob mentioned. 50k in revenue certainly isn't awful but it's not 'pretty darned good' either!