yabokkie: should give it the highest priority over all other reviews.
Not the above the Pentax Q
yabokkie: 26mm f/14.2 equiv.
Have you noticed yab that when you post, anger follows. I wonder why that is? Hmmmm.
Neodp: Aak! Windows! Pass.
We don't want to hear about your toilet activities yab.
nathondetroit: Angrily, the truck owner vents to his friend: “I’m so sick of these gas stations. Filthy equipment, rude employees, and I have to stop every 300 miles.”
To which the Nissan Leaf owner responds, “What gas stations?”
Yab still has valves in his cameras.
Eleson: Every time a product gets these kind of issues, it is really an opportunity to create loyal and forever happy customers.
And yet, so seldom is the opportunity taken ...
I'm not sure how that happened yab since you never take any actual photos. The shutter must have fused shut and you hit the shutter release accidentally?
caver3d: Buy either m43 (Olympus and Panasonic) or Fuji X-systems. These cameras have great IQ, are feature-rich, and are built very well. Time for you misguided FF fanatics to get a reality check and dump your dinosaurs.
Pentax are creating a Medium Format version of the Q yab and promise F 0.75 lenses. Are you interested now?
Jim Evidon: Just as the Ford motor company will always be known for the Edsel, no matter what they did afterwards, Nikon will always be known for the D600. In fairness to Ford, the Edsel was an ok automobile with styling that misjudged market tastes. But the D600 will forever be known as living proof that Nikon really doesn't give a hoot about either it's customers or it's dealers.
For nearly 50 years I was a loyal Nikon customer and user. If I were just getting into serious photography today, I would avoid Nikon like the plague.
Some guy got busted for selling "cleaned" D600s out the back of Edsels in Tiananmen square.
CaseyComo: The Chinese government will shut you down in a heartbeat for not following proper business practice. Proper business practice consists of showing the proper financial consideration to the officials of the government.
Yes, the Canon guys got the bribes delivered and Nikon didn't. What is wrong with Nikon these days? They can't even get a suitcase of money to the party official on time. One can only imagine the level of corruption and slimy business practices that led to that decision from the Chinese. Or perhaps the Chinese are seeing the light and realising mirrorless is the future.
bakhtyar kurdi: The only use came to my mind with this camera is bird photography, mount my 70-200/2.8 on it and I have 540mm 2.8 with VR under 2kgm, or my sigma 100-300/4 and I have 810mm f4 for under $40000, I think it will be better than super zoom bridge cameras. but wait six months until I find an open box for $280.
Dimit: Gentlemen, the fact is that it's worthless investing in a 1'' system.Eventually pay too much for a limited potentiality.1'' is perfect for ''just go out and get excellent snapshots'',therefore just built-in lens (RX100 success).The more m43 and apsc give you,is an initiation to invest in lens,simple as that.
For the record yabokkie your posts are the most worthless on dpr.
SRHEdD: Put aside brand and format rivalries for a minute, and realize what this might have potentially been if Nikon had used a m4/3 chip and mount. That's all, just think of where this might have gone, the lens possibilities, the possible combinations of lens and camera, etc.
THAT would have been a breakthrough "enthusiast's" camera.
More than you apparently know yab.
NCB: I'm fascinated by the number of comments about small chip, etc, when there hasn't been a single test, let alone a comprehensive review, performed with the camera. Are people only interested in specs these days? m4/3 used to suffer for precisely the same reason, and possibly still does.
Anyone who doesn't have a Medium Format cameras doesn't care about image quality. That is a stupid statement and so is yab's. M43 image quality is well good enough for large prints and nobody says "oh dear that's a beautiful image but shame it wasn't taken with a much bigger camera". It doesn't happen. It only happens in theoretical discussions on gear forums. People on these forums account for 0.00001% of people who do photography and look at photographs. Only a small fraction of people on forums actually take photographs and show them to other people anyway (especially as large prints). People here also like to spout off about gear they have never used and yet are ready to proclaim them as rubbish. These people (yeah Yab I'm talking about you) need to use whatever gear they have and be happy. Those continually rubbishing gear they have no knowledge of should shut the duck up (yeah Yab I'm talking about you).
LaFonte: Wow, 3000 shots on battery, it is a beast!
Would a Pentax Q would make a good backup for a D4(s)?
Jim Salvas: Nikon introduces the 1982 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham. Undoubtedly a great model.
I now charge by weight. If a client wants me to use a larger heavier camera they have to pay more for a session. Someone has to pay for my back treatment.
fuxicek: great camera but the lenses are somehow expensive, there is no budget 50mm or better 25mm f1.8 lens... for 100 euro you can get only toy lenses...:( ...and I wonder, if there is any small external flash, like Nikon´s SB400?
Nice one Stu 5. I notice that yab has remained silent on this question. He has no experience it appears. He bases his stupid little ideas on specs. Anyone with a brain cell knows cameras are far more than the sum of their specs.
elf kerben: So, in half or a year these package as an D700 successor with optional battery grip and i will forgot the missing D400 all these years.
Don't forget Quark cameras, way better - better resolution and dynamic range. Atoms are way too big - full of space don't you know?
Heavy cameras make make you a pro. The heavier your gear the more pro you are.
Plastek: " We have done some studies where we presented consumers with a DSLR and a mirrorless camera and ask them if the image quality was the same, which one they would chose, and generally they chose the DSLR." - I would answer in exactly the same way. Simply because DSLRs offer by far wider choice of lenses many of which are superior to mirrorless glass. And then there are whole systems of accessories, flashes, and well: everything else that in the end creates a photograph.
So: Yes, DSLRs DO offer better final image quality, but reasons for that go beyond body itself.
I'm curious what the DPR staff think of yabokkie's comments.
Shamael: I worry about the negative trend in DSLR that we've seen recently and about how that will develop. Market conditions worry me most of all.
Makes sense, but nothing happens. In the mean time the only mirrorless in a correct sensor format that make the match are from Sony, followed by the 4/3 plot.
...is stupid BackinTheGame
Frank_BR: Most likely, any reasonably capable Japanese optical company can make today a virtually perfect 35mm lens, especially if the aperture is a modest F2.8. Indeed, except for the high price, this "Zeiss" lens does not seem to be an authentic Zeiss, but a Japan-made lens with a Zeiss tag.
The question is, why Sony charges a reasonable price for the cameras, but so much for these faked Zeiss lenses?
In the near future, the prices of FF entry-level models should fall below $1000. Then, it will be clear to everyone that today's prices of most prime lenses are too high.
Don't you think you are the one being insulting yab?