And how does the study determine that x no of reviews are "fake"? Some of the top Amazon reviewers review many products some are Amazon purchases, and some will have no doubt purchased/used items elsewhere and spent the time to put their thoughts up, and sure some might not have used them! It is the users of sites like Amazon that determine if the reviews are useful or not. IMO 5 star wonder reviews are just as useless as 1 star anger reviews. It is usually quite easy to spot reviews that are of no use or out of spite/anger or irrelevant (ie packaging problems that are not real product issues) DPR has lost my interest in recent years as they miss problems that users discover with some cameras, and they tend to gloss over or not mention weaker points that users do. I find user reviews for the most part very useful. The study is just "sour grapes" few camera reviews sites are man enough to be genuinely critical.
Steve Balcombe: Wow, I've just learned the price of this thing - Wex (in the UK) are taking pre-orders for £1299 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
People want buy into this purely on bad handling. Doesn't even have a mode dial, that's not going to rub for most folks
I saw that just got the email from WEXINSANE price and it's doomed to be an epic failure.This isn't the future of cameras, a body with almost no hard controls and a big touch-screen LCD
Barry Fitzgerald: Pentax show they can put out well crafted photographer geared (dual dials, 100% prism VF), great bang per buck bodies. Sadly they insist on huge price increases on their lens range pretty much wiping out any interest most buyers might have.
Ricoh are doing exactly the same as Hoya did, price gouging on lenses. It really hurts Pentax and their potential.
I've a good knowledge of prices on lenses and have done for some time. USA prices went up massively, they went up a lot in Europe too. It's a problem for the company and holds them back.
By "we" you must mean "you" as I'm sure you don't speak for everyone.
Credit where it's due for making some good bodies, but marketing counts and 16mp nice and all folks will carry on buying 24mp Nikon DSLR's with crippled features and bad viewfinders. That's a shame, but Pentax need to do more than just offer another bunch of 16mp bodies.
They've no real high end APS-C model (K5II was just a bug fix for the bad AF module mostly), and no FF one either. Pentax don't need 2 more entry models.
Pentax show they can put out well crafted photographer geared (dual dials, 100% prism VF), great bang per buck bodies. Sadly they insist on huge price increases on their lens range pretty much wiping out any interest most buyers might have.
Barry Fitzgerald: It's a nice lens tried this and the 18-135mm STM. Good optics and low price it's a winner for Canon (shame about the 1.6x crop though for APS-C users) The focus by wire is "a bit better" than some previous versions, but as ever it can't respond to faster turning like a mechanical focus can, it's weird as focus by wire always is.
On both lenses manual mechanical focus would be superior no questions about it. So I'd downgrade them a bit based on that. A good mechanical focus always beats electronic focus by wire hands down.
So you means all those AF-S Nikkor lenses that have mechanical focus and yet have quiet built in focus motors? Not sure I get your point. Old school manual focus just happens to be better.
Why try to re-invent the wheel..who cares about focus by wire on mirror less cameras, they're hardly a benchmark for others to follow.
My view is that focus by wire will never be as good as mechanical focus, it lacks feedback that you get with the "old way". Same for power zoom, both these technologies are flashbacks to the 90's they're here for video users, not stills photographers.
The photo industry does not always take the road that it should, we've seen this in the past.
It's a nice lens tried this and the 18-135mm STM. Good optics and low price it's a winner for Canon (shame about the 1.6x crop though for APS-C users) The focus by wire is "a bit better" than some previous versions, but as ever it can't respond to faster turning like a mechanical focus can, it's weird as focus by wire always is.
Barry Fitzgerald: Please stop the "no movie button" nonsense this is a stills camera. I have a movie button on my camera, and guess what I disable it in the menu because you set it by accident (now I have a useless button that does nothing in stills shooting). This movie button commenting on reviews is tiresome.
The point being here for folks who don't shoot video or that often (ie most of the DSLR users out there) the video button on Sony/Nikon models is just another useless button that can't be configured to do anything else, yet given a prominent place on the camera ergonomics wise. This is a waste IMO and I can't really say relevant to most users, sure mention it but at the top of the cons list?
Please stop the "no movie button" nonsense this is a stills camera. I have a movie button on my camera, and guess what I disable it in the menu because you set it by accident (now I have a useless button that does nothing in stills shooting). This movie button commenting on reviews is tiresome.
Barry Fitzgerald: Too many limitations on these Nikon cameras some of which are quite important.No Auto FP/HSS, no wireless flash, no DOF preview and basic live view mode.It's also a shame about the small viewfinder..no in body AF motor and limited metering support on older lenses
No progress has been made on entry level Nikon's for years. Someone should tell Nikon it's 2013 not 1993 budget 35mm film SLR era.
DOF preview is quite useful and even more so in live view. Oh wait Nikon's live view can't stop the aperture down you have to leave the live view mode and set it before hand.
DOF preview isn't a gimmick it's actually quite useful. But as it stands the stand out worst element is the lack of HSS/Auto FP, even a top end flash gun and you have no chance of using faster shutter speeds, you'll have to buy ND filters to get there.
Wireless flash isn't advanced it's been around since 1994 from Minolta, fast forward 20 years and Nikon are still leaving it off their 2 entry models.
A few points.Wireless flash isn't a high end feature it's on every other makers model range in this price segment. I have 35mm film SLR's that have it.Auto FP/HSS is standard on every DSLR regardless of price across all the other makers.
I understand that you need to differentiate between models, but this is 2013 time has moved on and it's expected now. I'd take those 2 over the 39 point AF system that's for certain.
Too many limitations on these Nikon cameras some of which are quite important.No Auto FP/HSS, no wireless flash, no DOF preview and basic live view mode.It's also a shame about the small viewfinder..no in body AF motor and limited metering support on older lenses
No built-in flash, so external controller required for shooting with groups of flashgunsRelatively unsophisticated Auto ISO (really how so?)
No mention of this on the A99 review (lacking a built in flash)DPR again show a lack of consistency with reviewsFair enough on some points (such as single slot, lack of AF points etc) Canon probably did cut it down too much.
But if you selectively apply critique to one model and not another it looks like you are not being fair.
Draniki: This result isn't blow to prestige of the Canon and Nikon cameras, but blow to prestige of a site DPReview.
I have it's not bad..but not great eitherCramped controls and weak handling. Trying to retro a 35mm body into the digital age didn't work.
Basic 35mm cameras needed few controls v digital ones I can see the charm appeal, but on a practical level it didn't quite work.
Might have caused a storm if it had a real 35mm FF sensor, nice as the newer micro 4/3 sensor is you can get as good if not better IQ for half the price of the Olympus.
Kirk Tuck: Just used the a99 for a three day conference here in Austin. The EVF was perfect for "pre-chimping" in mixed lighting for stage shots, etc. The 3200 and 6400 were very clean and the body and controls felt just right in my medium sized hands. I think it's a remarkably good camera for any professional who does not shoot fast moving sports stuff. Don't underestimate the appeal to working professionals of the EVF. It's a great addition for me. And the front dial on the camera, set to exposure compensation, means you never have to take your finger off the shutter to mess with EC when actively shooting speeches, etc.
Bonus, the EVF is much better than OVF under very low light.
Thing I thought I would never used that came in handy? The Smart Teleconverter.
I think DP Review's rating is just right. You buy this camera for the sensor and the EVF. If you are dropping $3000 you know why your are buying it and those features outweigh all the anti-fanboy rhetoric.
Instead of wasting all our time and calling people a newbie..learn to read exif it was not shot on an EVF camera. Why you waste your time discussing this 90% of people shoot raw and AWB so hey what WB argument?Open your browswer and think wow I want a FF body
Hover over the buy button on a D600 and then try not to press it.You've just made the most important step to understanding how the commercial camera market works. Pay less sell more = more users = more profit.
Test shots are test shots WB was unimportant for that focus test it's not "art" nor portrayed as such.Price and EVF are factors that will be important to a lot of buyers.Yes the D600 was £2000 odd at launch which was entirely unappealing (esp with the D800 being so close to it at the time price wse)
Things move quite quickly in this market and the FF area is heating up a lot. Both Canon and Sony need to respond to Nikon's heavy price cuts. Their strategy is very obvious, to pull as many FF users in as possible it will probably work too.
But not as boring as the usual Sony fans blasting out the same tired stuff we've heard for years. Personally I have no brand loyalty but I'm not dumb enough to ignore what goes on in the market either.
People are not going to pay £2300 for this with a D600 at £1350 and no matter if you utterly adore EVF's that alone is a striking price difference. Wouldn't matter if this was an OVF model Sony are not competitive.
The only thing that matters is how this model sells and if it's a huge hit then we can assume the SLT concept is working well.
If it does not do well then we have to look again at what Sony have put forward here. It's less about OVF v EVF (be in no doubt though that most FF shooters will prefer an OVF that is beyond any debate) but Sony's position in the market.
Granted the UK price is quite poor at £2300 odd, but the idea of SLT will never really gain much acceptance until Sony promote it with the main advantage it can offer. "It's cheaper"That is the only way it's going to work for them. And they show no signs of being willing to take that value based path.
You can make as many personal remarks as you wish, nothing changes most FF users want an OVF camera, yet Sony make an EVF one.
It is very obvious what the target market wants. And all the fanboy talk in the world won't be able to force feed buyers something they don't want. Until Sony work out SLT isn't going to grab people unless they price it as a budget offering (A99 is really a £1300 budget FF model) it's dead in the water really.
Of course if I'm wrong and it sell so well I'll eat my words. It's not even for sale on Amazon UK right now that's how much excitement it has generated.