munro harrap: Well, a deliberately missed opportunity... WHY is there STILL an AA filter? The D7100 at base iso will have greater resolution and acutance than a D610, so this move backwards , this photographically, optically , morally and visually retrograde step makes no sense.
What is needed simply is less. No AA filter. No uncontrollable auto AF, but a return (sighs of relief!) to the D200-D700 rocker switch arrangement of moving groups of AF points to where YOU want them, with Face recognition too-excellent, and can we buy one with a cover for the screen now? No, they have even dropped that on the D7100.
For those who know not, the lack of AA filter makes all the difference-things look like a photograph again. Its why Leitz and Sigma and Hasselblad don't have them, and you can see all the detail that the AA filter filtered out.
And then you have a great machine with not much noise. THe noise kills that resolution- the 1600ISO shots here are mushy,not all the fault of the dreaded 24-85G
Which is a bit funny in a way.. All 35mm film cameras, mounted with the same lens, would produce identical results with same exposure settings. Back then, it was about features and build quality, not about differentiated image quality.
Why am I confused on this matter? Ok, it's 12mm. 12mm is 12mm. BUt how does a 12mm offer the same angle of view (98.9 degrees per above), irregardless of the sensor's crop factor (eg. M43 vs. APSC, etc?)
What's the size of this oil spilling in China? Is this really a pollution worry?
This is why, for Nikon cameras, you should buy nothing but Nikon-brand accessories. Oh wait.. that's Sony..
turvyT: Unbelievable. I am just stating this from a neutral point of view, and after a huge waiting exercise. Will Dpreview explain some day why, after all this time, there is still no Pentax k3 review? Of course Dpreview has all the right to review whatever they want, but the lack of a review of a camera in which many people are or have been interested shows signs of the existence of some agenda which is all but transparent. Does Dpreview favor some brands over others? Not a nice thought, at least for me.
Richard,Your last camera review was in January. Is the K3 that complex? I have heard it has a lot of built in functionality and customization capability, but something has to give on timing vs. thoroughness.. IMO.
So is there maybe a full review planned this time around? I see that the D4 and 1DX only made it as far as "First Impressions" and "Overview" respectively. Maybe a "flagship" combo review?
Conspiracy theorists.. reason why this photo won:
PicOne: So.. the appeal is so one can print bigger right? They must be out there, but who orders eg. 36" portraits of themselves from their wedding day? I can't imagine having to live with a huge portrait that includes myself hanging in my living room, looking at this day after day..
Otherwise this 50mp Sony sensor is about equiv in density to 30mp on a FF dSLR which puts it right about where the industry is.
Yes, but in wedding photography (ie. the genre that this PR bit is focused on), and now with both of you saying its not about printing big.. for small prints then, how important is the minute details found in eyelashes? DOF appearance is directly affected by print size; the smaller the print the greater the apparent depth of field.
Daedbird: Unfortunately, this is just a series of camera messenger bags that continue to look like camera bags to me. Its a nice effort, but it looks like a camera bag with a flap....
I feel my only option is to buy a laptop messenger bag, and install some collapsable padded pockets inside to hold the camera.
Whatever happened to the fad of using these types of bags?
Greg VdB: So, the Pentax K-3... First impressions on October 7 last year, still no review. Despite the "explanation" R Butler once gave me (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-df?comment=1981666761), I can't shed the feeling that something went very wrong with that review(er?).
Not sure I see the point of measuring from day of announcement. Maybe more sense in looking from first day of availability in marketplace (in US since that's where DPR resides)? Manufacturers can announce a model any time they want in advance of actually producing the item.
rrccad: 1K USD sounds overkill for a CWD macro such as a 50mm 1:1 is.
macro's aren't rocket science and this seems to be you paying for the name on the lens versus the lens to a gross degree.
no one makes a bad macro and most sub 100mm are far cheaper - heck most 100mm macros are cheaper than this. and probably just as good or better especially from a functionality and usability point of view.
How well do any of those Nikon lenses work though on Fuji x-mount or Sony Nex? Isn't this what this lens is targeted at?
So.. the appeal is so one can print bigger right? They must be out there, but who orders eg. 36" portraits of themselves from their wedding day? I can't imagine having to live with a huge portrait that includes myself hanging in my living room, looking at this day after day..
PicOne: "Notably absent are four big names in professional ball heads: Acratech and Markins heads have smaller ball diameters (with 38mm and 48mm balls respectively), Manfrotto did not have their new Arca-Swiss compatible "Top Lock" quick release system ready for testing this past summer, and Kirk was a no-show."
So? Maybe qualify this with why ball diameter was used to exclude brands? And for Manfrotto, test their "top" offering that is in the market; why exclude the brand because an announced offering isn't sold yet? Kirk a no-show? You ordered one and it got lost in transit?
In the case of the Markins, the distinction was between 48mm (which caused exclusion), while 52mm was included. I understand the math (I guess), but not the criteria (I would think this should have been a review of the top brands, top offering)
"Notably absent are four big names in professional ball heads: Acratech and Markins heads have smaller ball diameters (with 38mm and 48mm balls respectively), Manfrotto did not have their new Arca-Swiss compatible "Top Lock" quick release system ready for testing this past summer, and Kirk was a no-show."
peevee1: DPR, you have a mistake in the specs, it is f/2.8-5.6 lens, not f/2.0-5.6.
Not only that, but the lens is a 4.3-215mm zoom. Or at the very least indicate that the 24-1200mm you indicate is an "EQUIVALENT"
This camera's review/rating, whether deserved or not, has led to it being banished to no-mans land.. At least I can't find it listed here, am I overlooking?
How does one digest the apparent contradictions?
"Conclusion - PROs...Good blend of traditional and contemporary controls...Fairly accessible menu system, considering the camera's complexity
Conclusion - CONs...Locking exposure comp dial is inconvenient (especially with large lenses)...Front command dial not terribly comfortable to use...No two-button card format optionNo 'live' aperture control in live view mode presents inconsistencies between lens typesNo time-lapse option (available on D610)No infrared remote trigger option"
Still no foveon support. what a surprise.
JordanAT: I'm happy they've opened it up. Right now I'm upgrading nearly every cycle for Lightroom at about $100 a pop. Until I got a (Very) cheap student version of PS 5.5, I was dropping another $50-$100 or so on PS Elements every year or two. So for the same money I'm already paying, I'm getting both with regular updates.
What happens when I leave? Well, in theory I lose my editable versions, but I still have my jpg finals. In practice most other major players support, at least to some extent, the psd format, so either I'll stop editing entirely (and the psds won't matter) or I'll go to a format where I can probably import most of the work for the rare case where I'm re-editing old photos.
Adobe doesn't say you'll get LR6 in this plan. It only says LR5 (and updates to such). LR6 wouldn't be an update to LR5.