sgoldswo: Just curious, but other than build quality and resolution (which is a curse as well as a blessing) why is this rated a good bit higher than the A7? To my mind, the A7 is the better of the two, more manageable RAWs, less noisy shutter, faster AF etc.
Shawn, did you ever have one of those days when you just can't make anyone happy? ;)
Merry Christmas to my favorite and most valuable web site! To the staff I appreciate all of your hard work and advice, and to the members thank you for sharing your knowledge and opinions!
Nikon cannot be held accountable for not making sure third party equipment is compatible with Nikon's improvements or firmware updates. It is bad enough that Nikon gets blamed or even pays for a repair when the problem may have been caused by using a third party device in the first place. Everyone knows all batteries are not created equal. With a material like lithium, it is imperative that Nikon is able to make the camera and it's software or firmware work within their tolerances and specs. If you use a fly by night battery that came from a factory that did a single run of cheap batteries, and the battery characteristics are not within Nikon engineered tolerances, it could not only cause the camera to malfunction, it could cause a fire in either the camera or the charger you place the battery in. That third party company doesn't care what happens to you, your camera or your warranty- their stuff is cheap for a reason- no warranty and they don't have a reputation to maintain.
my only complaint is I have not been able to get my hands on one yet ;)
I know after I do, I'll buy one :)
Becksvart: AF accuracy?
Richard, I LOVE the "Preservative Paints" sign than needs painting! :)
Excuse me for sounding dense, but isn't autofocus a function of the camera? How can you blame a lens for the shortcomings of the cameras autofocus system inability to lock on to the proper focus point? Also wouldn't a 51 point focus system behave differently than the camera AF you just tested?
does anybody have a clue as to the projected price on this lens? Isn't that going to be one of most important factors as to whether or not this lens sells well?
Danamr: Seriously.Adobe is not a non-profit.Adobe is not a charity.Adobe does not owe you anything.They are in business to make money. Software piracy costs them millions of dollars a year. This goes a long way to eliminating that.Their pricing model is more than fair for what you get.This is the future. Get used to it.
I pay for all of my software, but I refuse to pay for it over and over again. If they (Adobe) want to play this game, then I will simply use someone else's software to get the job done. End of story, end of Adobe.
Ashley Pomeroy: I sincerely hope it turns out well. I suspect it'll end up like the Wankel Rotary Engine - a niche thing, with fans - but it's nice to have a bit of diversity. I can remember when the possibilities of digital imaging seemed endless, but over time the technology seems to have homogenised, with most of the effort going into the packaging; if this could be made to shoot video the results would be beautiful.
Although I worry that the technology is too complicated to add to an existing imaging system, as a kind of added ingredient, and conversely too esoteric to capture a mass market. I wonder if it could be built into lenses, so that e.g. you could stick a 70-200mm f/2.0 Selective Focus lens on your Canon, or what-have-you?
There are too many restrictions and not enough user control, plus a 1 MP camera? Seriously? I got rid of a 1 MP Sony Mavica a long time ago. I was excited about the concept until I find the resolution is crap. I thought I could take the picture and adjust the DOF later and print what I decided on later- I can't do any of this with a camera like this, not to mention be able to tell what I am framing outdoors on a sunny day. I'll take my $400-500 and put it toward a fisheye lens- I'd use that more than this....what a disappointment!
Andrew Butterfield: Several problems with Nikon's thinking.
With a decent lens on the front, this new camera will be no more pocketable than a Sony NEX or Micro Four Thirds camera.
The two main benefits of moving to an interchangable lens system are lower noise at high ISOs, and depth of field control.
Users put up with interchangable lenses. They don't really want them. That's why Pentax's novelty system will fail. But once you're resigned to them, it doesn't matter that much how big the camera is.
Sony has proved that smaller system cameras can complement your SLR range. There's no conflict if you pitch them right, even if you go for the high end (look at the NEX-7 and Alpha A77).
This new Nikon system seems to rely too much on the novelty of high-speed shooting. Most people just take regular snapshots in the end.
What will Canon do now? They can't ignore this market any longer. If they follow Sony's lead with APS-C sensors. Nikon could be in very big trouble.
from my point of view, if this product fails, so what? Nikon still has their DSLRs and lenses, and they still have their P&S line. They are "testing the waters" and certainly not "betting the farm" on this product line. If it does well, then good for Nikon, they have a new market niche, but if it fails, what have the really lost? They are still going to dominate with their DSLRs and lenses.