sandy b: Lets see, best 24 mp sensor, class leading AF, advanced carbon fibre build, a real optical viewfinder, Excellent FPS for its class, access to the best lens lineup, upgrade possibilty to the best FF camera lineup.
Nothing exciting here, it must suck because its a Nikon.
How is 11 point AF system with 1 single AF point which was first used 7 years ago be considered class leading ? :P
Pentax and Sony offers have better AF systems here.
Excellent FPS ? The K50 has 30 JPEG buffer vs a class leading 6 frame JPEG buffer on the Nikon ! :P
No AF support for Nikon AF-D and AF lenses (a first for any system where an AF first party lens won't AF on their own camera).
I agree sensor is good but this camera is nowhere near class leading.
GodSpeaks: This 'might' have been interesting back in the days of film (ie: last Century), but today?
Honestly I never like the IQ of film. I very much prefer a 35mm FF camera to film any day. :P
Its a personal thing I suppose but I am not fond of the grainy film look.
mosc: DPR, did you miss that optical viewfinder thing on the top? All the mirrorless cameras you list don't have viewfinders! The D3300 is an APS-C sensor (a good one at that) with a viewfinder. Compared to an A6000, it's priced pretty well (D3300 is $150 cheaper). If you're going to compare it against mirrorless cameras at least note that an mirrorless with a viewfinder will set you back at least as much.
You really want a reason not to get this camera, talk to people about the old A65. Same sensor, cheaper, built in wifi (and GPS if you're into that), full coverage viewfinder, faster shooting, etc
Lets not forget that at $348 you can buy 2 of them for a little more than the price of 1 D3300. :P
Black Box: Nice, light, quite interesting DSLR. Yes, there are "more exciting" cameras. However, given a choice, I'd pick Nikon any time any day. Just think about it for a moment.
In the past 2 years, Sony has started and buried a whole new line of cameras, and is now burying one of the oldest mounts.
In the past 10 years Canon has started EF-S, then EF-M, and didn't do much good with any of them.
Even Samsung already introduced NX Mini in addition to barely breathing NX mount.
The only two mounts with hundreds of legacy lenses are Nikon F and Pentax K. For better or for worse, Nikon respects their customers' habits, providing them with cameras to use their lenses with. And consistency is the sign of class.
This camera can't even AF with a Nikon branded 50mm f1.8 D lens. :P
The reason Nikon gave that up to save a few pennies at the expense of their customers. No other manufacturer has ever done that.
And their handling of the D600 dust and oil leak issue was simply appalling.
And lets not forget their recent attempts to break 3rd party lens compatibility.
Finally they also stopped sending spares to 3rd party repair centers meaning you need to spend a lot of $$$ on Nikon service centers.
Honestly this is a fine camera but I would never get a Nikon ever again unless they change their customers can screw themselves attitude.
MiraShootsNikon: 24MP crop sensor + secondary mirror phase-detect autofocus with no fine tuning = recipe for disappointment.
^^ I would wager there would be plenty of people using this type of cameras with a 50mm f1.4 as its a pretty inexpensive lens.
Reinhard136: just about class leading sensor ? so which apsc sensor is better ???? I am not a Nikon fan, but aren't you getting a camera that with the same lens will take the same photo as any of its 24 mp "big" Nikon brothers ? in a very compact size - at a fraction of the price - from a brand which automatically gets all the nice independent lenses, like the new 16-300 ? and giving away a handful of rare to use features ? Sounds like gold material to me ????
Well for starters it cannot focus will all Nikon lenses out there which is a pretty poor point.
Second Nikon has been screwing around with 3rd party compatibility for some time now. Its possible in future they may find a way to make 3rd party lenses completely incompatible. (Extreme case but seeing what they are doing now its not impossible).
And lastly Nikon seems to be pretty dead when it comes to innovation. They haven't come out with any really new feature in the last couple of years. Canon was in the same boat but they were the first to come out with some very useful Wifi implementation in their 6D. And their dual pixel tech is also very very useful for those upgrading from P&S cameras.
I think a Silver award is justified given the high IQ of this camera but not a Gold.
Photography is a hobby for many. Some people love tinkering with old film cameras. I have tried film and the experience is very different than using a modern DSLR camera.
To be sure it wasn't my cup of tea but I can see the charm some people may have.
Its like those people who use love tinkering with old bikes. Performance wise a cheap Honda 250cc might outperform any of those oldies and give far less vibrations with a far higher fuel efficiency. But the charm of riding an older heavier bike is something you can't get from a lightweight Honda.
Reinhard136: If you have a sony E mount, would you be better off buying the Canon mount version, which has the VC, and using the E - mount / Canon adapter, which I think gives full functionality ? - or is that clunky for some reason ?
The Metabones Canon adapter results in pretty slow AF but yes you will get IS.
Conversely the Sony version will offer pretty fast AF but no IS. :P
Ben Stonewall: Is there an adaptor that'll allow the use of Sony lenses?
No. Sony lenses lack an aperture control so you cannot use them except wide open. So no one has designed such an adpater.
LensBeginner: Cons:1. never shot jpg2. ditto3. that's a problem with lenses, not camera4. true. But it's a camera, not a videocamera5. true
...not many cons there, are there? ;-)
I am referring to a 'zoom' lens. A 560mm or 300mm lens are good for birds but not for wildlife. The 560mm is not a lens I would mention is the same sentence as a 100-400mm or 80-400mm lens. :P
The 300mm f4 lens is a good option but its a prime and hence a bit restrictive.
The 645Z seems to be an awesome camera by all accounts. The high ISO capabilities alone are amazing. But as an upgrade path there is one issue - None of the existing Pentax lenses will work with the new body.
I will concede the lens lineup hole is not as great as I thought when I wrote that post but generally there isn't too many lenses in the current Pentax line up that I care for honestly.
And judging by the state of sales of Pentax I am not alone.
gdfthr73: It Just drives me nuts. So many amazing full frame lenses for the K mount camera and no full frame K-mount camera exists. WTF
@robbo - Yes its true many pros are getting smaller systems for less serious work but their main work is generally always done with FF or MF.
And if I really need small I would rather get a Fuji or Olympus m43 system than a DSLR. The m43 system current IQ is ridiculously close to APS-C now.
And their primes are even more compact than the primes from Pentax.
And I disagree that APS-C has caught up with old FF cameras. Maybe the 5D MK 1 but the MK II and D700 are still better than current APS-C sensors. Its not just high ISO performance but general IQ that is better. I have generally found FF images to 'pop' more than APS-C photos.
Valeriu 64: Congratulation Ricoh, and team Ricoh - Pentax for your succes.Pentax K-3 is the best APS-C DSRL at this moment .
God , bless you
^^ Look at the DPreview test and see how many OOF shots they got while tracking. Tracking focus is one area where everyone other than Nikon and Canon lag behind.
I myself am a Sony user and while for static subjects I am happy with the AF, for tracking ability my friends basic 60D is much much better.
Well for starters, a good quality wildlife lens is missing. Not talking about a Sigma 150-500mm lens which is a below average lens but something like a 100-400mm L or a 80-400mm AF-S. Even Sony has a good 70-400mm lens.
The excellent Tamron 150-600mm isn't going to come to Pentax anytime soon at least.
Secondly, they lack an upgrade option. I started the Sony system when there was no FF camera around. Never bothered me as I never thought I would want to spend so much money. Now I wish to get into FF and Sony has an option. Not so with Pentax.
Earlier FF was too expensive compared to APS-C but now bodies like the Canon 6D are available for as low as $1599 so those not looking to shoot in bad weather can have a camera with better IQ than the K3.
Lastly Canon and Nikon are simply better available. In my country there are very few Pentaxians so getting used lenses is difficult. With Canon or Nikon there are generally tons of vibrant used markets in almost any part of the world.
Then why go APS-C when 4/3rd is so close ? And why go 4/3rd when 1 inch is so close.
You want the best IQ this side of medium format you need FF.
I have shot extensively with Full Frame while still using crop and FF is just better. Not that I can't take good photos with crop but FF is noticeably better.
The K3 for all its many pluses doesn't have the best AF system. The AF system on the D7100 is about the best you can get with any APS-C DSLR today and that makes a difference.
Yes this seems like an excellent camera at a good price. Pentax has done a very good job with this camera.
Unfortunately as a whole system Pentax isn't very complete and that's holding back potential first time buyers.
People have been waiting for a Pentax full frame camera for many years now. Don't know if it will ever happen. The problem is they have plenty of prime lenses for FF but hardly any zoom lenses.
The 16-50mm f2.8, 50-135mm f2.8, 12-24mm f4, 60-250mm f4 are all APS-C lenses. So they will need a whole range of FF zoom lenses to go with a FF camera. Currently they lack even one FF zoom lens.
toomanycanons: Maybe the IQ will blow everyone away. Like, sharp edge to edge from wide to tele. Only time will tell.
Highly highly doubt but in any case such lenses are for convenience like when traveling. Hardly anyone takes such a lens for a specific shoot.
camcom12: I might jump for 16-160mm for the same price, but with slightly better IQ, but this lens portends to be quite the compromise. Who knows, maybe it will surprise us.
Tokina has a 16.5-135mm lens. Nobody seems to be buying it though.
That said I have a Sony 16-105mm that I love. Between 16-70mm or so it matches most of my primes in center sharpness and contrast. Corners are really really noticeably crap though at the wide end.
beenthere: I'd take 16-150 with slightly better optical performance if asked. Who honestly wants to carry this behemoth (or the equally massive Nikon 18-300) around all day?
You need to shift to mirror less if you consider this particular lens heavy !!! :P