Rocco57: I'm saving every nickel for this camera. I hope that it has the same ergonomics as a pro Canon. Everything else seems in order for a need to have.
You might be disappointed as the ergonomics are nothing like a Canon pro camera.
andix: Sadly this is a big warning signal for buyers about the real costs of such products and how big brands get away with markups of 300% and more. Now don't get me wrong, I don't condone counterfeit in the least, but the whole story still leaves me wondering - if the manufacturing price for a speedlite is about $40 and pirates still make a profit selling it for $100, why are we paying $600 for the real deal? You know, kind of how like Hasselblad is selling the same Sony for triple the money.
I suspect greed and GAS are a lethal combination. For our wallets, that is.
Canon charges a lot more because they had to pay for r&d, they pay for marketing, as a reputable company (I assume) they pay decent wages, pensions, for staff vacations, VAT, corporation taxes etc etc. The counterfeiters pay none of this and no doubt steal patents from other companies. It's easy to think that the raw material cost of a product is all someone should pay and that a company is "ripping us off" if we have to pay a lot more. In reality it's the tip of a large iceberg. And no, I don't work for or get paid in any way by Canon or any other manufacturer. I run my own company and I understand the cost of doing business.
I hope the lens is better than their website. Stable it is not.
ekaton: Uncompressed raw, better battery life, touch screen, please. Version IV, maybe?
YES to touch screen. Can't believe it doesn't have one already.
technotic: Why not usb3?
Wouldn't you like it faster?
Very useful for tethered shooting in studio. I assume the files will be big.
Why not usb3?
technotic: Why no touch screen? I find that really useful on m43 cameras. Baffled why Sony don't use them.
Let me rephrase. As a Phase One user who has a touch screen that is incredibly useful, I don't understand why Sony don't use them. Why dismiss touchscreens and imply the are not for professionals?
Why no touch screen? I find that really useful on m43 cameras. Baffled why Sony don't use them.
Hugo808: What's the EQV focal length on micro 4/3s?
Or is it 70mm? Confused :-).
A lot more than that surely. It would be a crop from 6x6 inches not 35mm.
munro harrap: The D810 seems OK, BUT and it is big BUT, looking at the file sizes here the D810 file sizes are so much bigger than the D800/800E's for the same image at the same ISO- i.e. 74.3 MB @100 (D810) as against the 43.6MB @ 100 of the D800E,that there really must be something very odd going on, as this means 4/7ths the number of shots to a card and vastly increased (by 4/7ths again) use of and consumption of Hard Drive Space, plus slower to work with files- that I as a user of Lightroom 4 and Elements 11 am unable to open with even the most recent updates- and I note with bitterness and rancour that Capture NX2 does NOT open D810 RAW files at all.Are the original files here at compressed as against uncompressed? or 12 instead of 14 bit- what IS going on please????
Just get a Phase One
HeyItsJoel: Are there people who still shoot at 28mm? Maybe it's just me but I prefer to choose between a 24mm and 35mm in that focal range.
When I shot Nikon, I hated that the lenses would start at '18 - XX mm' which translate to '27 - XX mm' in full frame equivalent. It just wasn't wide enough for me.
Focal Lengths go out of fashion?
Top Dog Imaging: Elinchrom quadras are better
In what way?
JoePhoto: I think these are terrible images ... (not the cameras fault) !!!
Were they shot by a 2-year old ???
The WIRE in the sunset shot ??? give me a break
What a rude and silly comment. It only serves to highlight the mentality of the poster.
Duckie: Long live the D760!
Only the 760th person with that "joke" :-)
Teila Day: Darn right no DX lenses! I still think it's foolish for most people who ultimately want to use their photography to make regular income (enough to pay the mortgage + bills) to invest in DX lenses. I STILL maintain that the 14-24 (or 17-35) f2.8; 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200VR or IS f2.8 are the 3 working lenses that will cover nearly every job that a working photographer will be hired for and I would highly recommend budding photographers looking to earn money or a living with their Nikon/Canon to spend money on those lenses first and skip the dx lenses and 3rd party stuff unless it came with your kit.
24mm yields an effective 36mm on a crop sensor? So, step back. The reach the 17-55dx has over the 17-35 is the equiv. of 1 step forward. I chose the 17-35 because it made business sense; it offered max versatility; film and digital bodies (including my Canon w/adapter). Spending near $2k for a dx lens is ludicrous w/few exceptions.
The author is setting people up for failure.
Totally disagree with your point.
Totally agree with this article.
Albert Silver: Nice video and excellent effort. The biggest problem is that a video on taking pictures of salmon in a creek is not a very compelling subject (interesting but slow paced). For one thing, in spite of the talk about how demanding it is on the AF, this was not at all appreciated by the viewer. The pictures of the fish lying about in the creek did nothing to improve this. Consider interspersing some pictures of the stills within the video, with the settings used. It is a common technique in such reviews (ex: CameraStore or DigitalRev to name a few), and works well.
Furthermore, Barney strolling in a straight line to the photographer did not seem like the sort of tracking test that would convince me it could work in a faster sports/wildlife environment. I'm not saying it cannot, but the video did nothing to clarify this.
One suggestion: speak up. You are a little too soft-spoken for a video presentation.
I could hear him perfectly.
capanikon: Eh. Canikon mirrorless is gonna crush Sony whenever they get around to taking mirrors seriously.
Crushing may commence in 2040?