They continue to omit Nikon's manual focus lenses, 24/2.8 and 28/2.8.
"the viewfinder is really good,"
Truly? I see no indication whatsoever of a viewfinder. Where is it?
This site has degenerated. It is no longer what its name implies, digital photo review. Maybe, instead of this filler material, the reviewers could test lenses. For instance, how do the Nikon manual focus lenses compare with new plastic wonders on new cameras?
RStyga: I think Pentax 645D is still the cost/performance king *by far*.
Actually, if you're going to refer to D800 as 35mm, you certainly can't refer to digital Hassies as medium format. They're not. The real smallest medium format is 645, the negative size, not the name.
RichRMA: Never been a big fan of Kowa spotting scopes, the German companies and Nikon produce better ones, but the lenses may be good. Kowa made some 35mm cameras (re-badged?) and lenses in the 1970's I believe.
Also made Kaloflex twin-lens in 50's or 60's. I had one. Good quality.
To all you people talking about pp or post processing: first you have to process. The word you're looking for is "processing."
KariIceland: Truly disturbing images, the one of the execution speaks volume more about the photographer rather than the ones doing the execution, the photographer is worse in my opinion in this case.
Kari, what are you talking about? The photographer is worse than...? Worse in what way? Aren't you on this forum because you're a photographer?
To answer the title question, no, they didn't get it right. They could have left off the front/rear control dials, rear screen, maybe even autofocus. The camera should be smaller, more like FM. The consumer idea of retro is to make the camera more usable, not just to look cool.
I think dpr and all other review sites should refuse to review any more cameras that don't have optical viewfinders. Just consider them non entities. Maybe the camera companies will get the hint.
What am I missing here? Digital crop-smaller sensor, less pixels, doesn't show in external viewfinder, unless you constantly change finders. What's the purpose? Isn't it better to crop when ready to print?
Does this mean they're not coming out with 35 or 50mm cameras?
rsf3127: I don't get all the hype about these fuji cameras. The image samples look dull, mushy, without contrast and unsharp when compared to NEX and the 100D either in RAW or JPEG. The ergonomy is ok and the build quality is nice, but this does not compensate for the IQ problem.
The IQ from my x100s is as good as it gets. Where have you seen prints from these cameras? I can make a 40x60 that is sharp all the way to the corners.Contrast? That comes during processing.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should. The greatest power comes from not doing something just because you can.
Creativity is the willingness to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep. Great creativity. No art.
Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but I don't see any shutter speed or f-stop adjustments. How is that possible?
Good scopes are a great aid in not crippling animals.
Photographers don't care about the built in camera. The things they might care about are not even discussed here. Can you use the tablet to transfer photos from card to hard drive? Will it run a catalog program? Will it display RAW files?
Just to vent a bit - why do you guys even bother with on-line samples. Nobody can tell anything from them, unless, of course, they're really awful. The best thing you could do for us is to make some big prints and let us know what the results are. Can we get as good a print as from the a Contax T3 with tri-x?
So, if you want to buy this camera that is 3x the cost of a D800E, you get no cash rebate? What a great deal.
At least put a tunnel finder in it.
The catch to the split image thing is that you have to be using the digital option instead of the optical finder.
Again, the 800/E is NOT a successor to the 700. It is an original. Second of all, there is a big difference between most-popular and best. When will this site return to some rational objectivity?