fraserj1: $2700+? Bwwwwahahahahahahahahaha!
The D3x is a professional camera.
The Sony A900 is for kids.
It's not even in the same league.
There are major differences between the two that only appeal to pros, like focus speed, battery life, ergonomics, etc.
NO professional photographer would ever use an A900.
vFunct: Only talented people can use this camera.
Untalented people have to use Sony or Canon or Olympus.
Also, it is a mark of amateurs to use cute baby mirror less cameras.
Aww how cute - a newb photographer with a mirror less camera!
Maybe one day the mirror less camera photographer will grow up and use a Reflex system like the big boys do.
Yay! We're rooting for you, cute little mirror less camera kiddos!
Nikon KNOWS that mirror less are for n00bs. That's why they market the One system to that audience.
They would NEVER introduce a mirror less for advanced users, because mirror less are useless to advanced photographers.
Nothing wrong with being an amateur n00b photographer... everyone has to start somewhere!
Amateur n00bs need their mirror less cameras.
Only talented people can use this camera.
Trollshavethebestcandy: Just make a mirrorless one so it wont be thick as a brick and add the mirror slap audio function to get your retro jollies. Please take away some of the ugly too. It is distracting. Maybe it is to get the WTF look from people as you street shoot?
Professionals don't use mirror less.
I'll let you figure out why.
Ilebeback: Makes the Sony A7/A7r look like tomorrow's technology at a bargain price.
Yes, but A7 is a mirror less.
Mirrorless are not as good as reflex.
Nobody likes looking at an LCD viewfinder. That's what amateur point-and-shoot cameras do.
f64manray: Why not go truly retro and get rid of the LCD screen on the back of the camera and not allow the user to see his photos until they're loaded into photoshop at home. Now that's photography for the passionate photographer. At least that's how it was when I was a passionate photographer.
This seems more like a cam for modern digital photographers to feel like they're old school. NOT even close boys.
That's not real photography.
Even in film days, you used Polaroids to preview your shots.
And the writer is definitely having fun in the article.
A+++ I LOL'd will LOL again!
BTW the article is wrong in stating that this and the Sigma SD1 are the only dSLRs on the market that can't shoot video.
The Nikon D3x (which is amazing BTW) is still on the market, and it doesn't do video either.
Mirrorless cameras are garbage.
There's a reason ZERO press photographers use mirror less.
Get a REAL camera with an actual optical reflex system, not one where you have to look through at an LCD display like an amateur n00b holding a compact point-and-shoot camera.
Really, mirror less cameras are for clueless n00bs.
Using mirror less is a sign of unprofessionalism.
There has NEVER been a good shot taken with a mirror less camera, ever. They're just that bad.
I'm glad Nikon knows this, and markets their mirror less system towards n00bs.
Professionals use dSLRs only.
Let the small women use mirror less cameras instead.
photo nerd: this is the worst joke in camera history... wtf is Nikon thinking the price is ridonculously. They did have all the possibility to create a massive Market leader in retro looking camera but instead they made a huge pile of ... *headscratching*.. na I can't say it on here but you all know what I mean.
Sony Video cameras (which are great) are completely different from their photography cameras.
One thing about retro-styled cameras is that they can be a point of discussion between photographer and subject, to help build a critical relationship.. something to think about.
Sony sucks. Their cameras are mirror less garbage.
They need to figure out how to make a professional camera first.
NO professional uses a Sony camera.
vFunct: And no, you DON'T need video in your dSLR.
dSLRs are the absolute WORST bodies for videography purposes.
The reason is that dSLRs are designed for still photography, and their grips are close to the center of gravity. This allows them to be turned and rotated quickly. Basically it's an unstable system that works because still images generally don't need stability.
Any cinematographer that's tried video with dSLRs quickly learns of this hidden problem with dSLR video, when they go to edit and they see useless, shaky footage. This is a MAJOR complaint editors have with dSLR video (another complaint they have is that everything is out of focus because of the shallow DoF..)
Meanwhile, videography requires constant stabilization. That's why ALL professional video cameras include shoulder mounts, or are used with Steadicams.
People that think they need dSLR video have no idea how bad dSLRs actually are for video.
You really need a different camera for quality videography.
You guy need to actually do videography if you want to talk about dSLR video.
First do some professional-level dSLR video then come back to this discussion.
The worst videographers are 5D videographers. I'll let you go ahead and figure out why.
ENG cameras don't need any buildout, because they need to be quickly ready to go without attaching all sorts of gear.
And for most people's purposes, they're going to be doing quick, ENG-type work - quickly documenting real life, family events, etc...
Most people are NOT going to be producing movies where they spend half a day getting their cameras ready for their indie cinema feature!
Additionally, the huge megapixel count of the dSLR sensors are actually a BAD thing for video. The sensor itself needs to be match resolution for video, or you have aliasing problems. People actually sell add-on dSLR anti-aliasing filters to reduce the 24megapixel down to 2 megapixels for video.
Really, dSLRs are the WORST thing you could possibly use for video. Everyone needs to understand how useless they are.
vFunct: Actually, it seems like the kind of camera that would last a generation.
The body seems solid. The SD format seems stable. (CompactFlash seems like it's going away) Nikon F-Mount lenses are going to be around forever. And 16 Megapixels is more than enough for most people and pretty much reaches the diffraction limit of most lenses anyways.
Seriously, I don't see how one would improve on the functionality of this as a still photographer's camera?
Have we officially reached "Peak Camera"?
Seems easier than changing ISO on my D3x, which required pressing a button and rotating the knob.
Marla2008: This is not only very ugly, it's also insulting to the intelligence of its target audience. It SO screams "let's milk the money of the wealthy retirees". Faux retro and marketing cynicism at its worst. I initially thought the Sony A7 (which I have on pre-order) was ugly and looked put together from non assorted bits, but it actually manages to look rather sleek and sexy compared to this monstruosity.
The problem with the Sony is that it's a crappy mirror less system.
Mirrorless systems are the worst.
Cameras are meant to be used with a real optical viewfinder, and NOT with an LCD monitor in the way..
And the irony is that Nikon was the FIRST to put video into dSLRs.
I guess they learned their lesson that video needs a completely different camera body type.
Hopefully they come out with an actual proper camera designed specifically for video, that can use the F-Mount lenses...
And no, you DON'T need video in your dSLR.
I'm not sure all the refinement went in a positive direction.
Sometimes you do need a reset and rethink of design.
(Not that a redesign automatically works, I'll have to have it my hands to judge)
And, over 30 years, I've never had any issue with any knobs/dials on a Nikon camera.
But, depending on usability, I think it might need a split focusing screen to properly work with the older lenses.
(although maybe the led indicators would assist here.. dunno)
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review