athomasphoto: I LOVE how people are freaking out about $1,995 somehow being overpriced. It's 2016 people. I paid $1,699 for my D200 and D300 10+ years ago, basically similar cameras with a new chip or so.
Physically this camera has NEW mechanical items like carbon fiber? Huge tilting touchscreen LCD? Illuminated lights? Wifi, bluetooth? Compared to Dxx models of the past and 10+ years of inflation, this D500 @ $300 more IS AN ABSOLUTE STEAL.
It'll sell out and redefine the market just like D100, 200, and 300.
I thought Nikon had abandoned me and gave up on a replacement for the D300, finally caved and got a D7200. Bittersweet I guess.
This camera shouldn't be compared to a 750 - different things entirely. I NEEDED a D300 replacement, if you're okay with a 750 then you're hunting in the wrong market segment entirely.
For many of us, the Dxx models provided something no other model line ever has. Essentially a 5x cheaper D2, 3, 5 camera.
I feel complete again :D Now to sell my soul...
No, you paid $1700 for your D300 7 years ago and it came with a lens. There hasn't been that much inflation in 7 years!
Buy the D500 if you don't value money.
Zero polycabonate: Hey look, another A7RII DPR article...
@Zero - Check the link/banner in the top right of this site. http://connect.dpreview.com/
Boissez: It has only one competitor: the Sony RX1R and that one costs 1000$ less but has a slower lens without IS. The price isn't as crazy as some people here suggest.
No, it's a crazy price. The Sony is too, only a little less crazy. It's like saying Jeffery Dohmer is justified because he didn't kill as many people as Gacy.
2 is good. Red, white, black background matches the man's black and red clothes and the white bag he is carrying. His placement in front of a black background is a nice touch as are the red and white Campbell's cans in the bag, which also match the background.
3. Has potential but isn't quite there, IMO, but still fairly good.
5. Makes a good use of color. The umbrella fills the gap nicely.
Of course, everything is subjective but those are my personal faves.
Camera+ for the win. That app keeps getting better and better.
TN Args: Inspired by curved TV panels.....
To be fair, in was easy to miss the humour since it was so small. ;-)
That name has been taken by another tech company. ;-)
No, inspired by the back of your eye.
Aroart: super awesome. Pani is dueling with sony and us as customers are the winners. Ive been waiting for this type of camera for 4 yrs. Sony almost had me with the rx10 but a bit pricy for crappy codec.
Why would he use dueling as a reference to business partnership? They're two opposing meanings. lol
He means competition between companies is good for the consumer. The bar keeps getting raised and prices keep coming down.
G3User: The demise of paid photography continues. I cant believe all the positive posts to this story. No pro photographers I guess among the comments? How sad. Steve Job's legacy is that he created a product that is killing off pro photography. This will only accelerate the process. Now, even soccer moms wont bother hiring a pro photographer, thinking that because they can slide a few levers on their tiny phone screens, they are now photographers and may convince them self's that they don't even need someone for their daughters wedding. How sad. and what a joke. Paid photography RIP.
In other news, the sky is falling.
forpetessake: This camera needs a bigger sensor with at least 20MP resolution, good interchangeable lenses, they need to do a serious work on the body to make it ergonomic and convenient to use, they also need to add a good EVF and tilting LCD and all other conventional features. Oh, by the way, they can drop that light-field silliness and make use of some good Sony sensor. Then people will probably start buying the camera as long as it's priced competitively.
I really hope this was sarcasm.
forpetessake: "24-120mm equivalent F2.0-3.9 lens"
When manufacturers lie it's call an advertisement. But of all sites DPR should know better than repeating the lies and leading the ignorant readers astray. The lens is 12.5-62.5mm F2.0-3.9, not the stated equivalent. The FF equivalent lens would be 24-120mm F3.8-7.5 -- a big difference.
IGNORANT READERS NEED NOT TO REPLY.
I'd better upgrade my light meter then. Mine only requires me to specify ISO and Shutter Speed in order to give me the correct F-Stop. It doesn't ask me to specify what sized sensor/film I'm using.
Lee Jay: "The large apparent size of a moon low on the horizon is partially an optical illusion."
"The longer lens you can get, the better. "
Filling the frame with the moon will require about 2500mm equivalent.
"With a big lens and a subject at such a distance even a small amount of motion results in an out of focus photo. "
Not "out of focus", motion blurred. They are different.
"The moon is very bright, even during an eclipse."
At totality, it will be very dark.
"...the moon is bright white"
The moon is a dark charcoal gray.
"Even a little bit of ground light can ruin a shot of the moon."
That's just total baloney. The moon (except during totality) is far, far brighter than the worst light pollution.
"Bring a flashlight with a red bulb or gel."
You don't need good dark-adaptation for the moon.
"Shoot with manual focus. The moon is tricky to focus on and it’s best to rely on your eyes instead of the camera’s autofocus."
That's almost total baloney too.
Try not to take everything so literally. Were you potty trained at gun point or what?
tornwald: A photo never tells a story, because it is not capable to do so
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
madeinlisboa: It looks like a DSLR but it will never be one, not even close....
I don't think it's trying to be a DSLR, that would be ridiculous. It's just trying to bring the familiarity of DSLR controls to a phone and I think it does a fairly good job at it.
Photato: Nice concept but boring camera.I'd have preferred a 3X or 5X quality lens with larger aperture, say at least f/2.8.Usually the megazooms are for the general public.I'd think a person willing to carry the extra bulk, weight and cost of a camphone hybrid, have a higher standard and interest for photography than this product offers.Maybe good for people that genuinely need that zoom range. I dont.
I'm sure the general public is exactly who Samsung is targeting with this phone. They didn't make this for photographers. (Except perhaps those working at the Chicago Sun-Times)