Digital Suicide: After the price tag brings you back on the ground, you start to see what Nikon did:Took same D600 body and made more angular (no attempts for innovations to make it more compact);Took written off parts from Nikons warehouse and placed inside the camera;Removed some features like Video from it, so it won't compete with D610 or D800;Called it "pure retro photography" and that's it.This appears very convincing reason to rip off buyers.
It already doesn't compete because it costs more than either D610 or D800. I could have the latter plus the AF-S 50/1.8 in my hands by tomorrow afternoon for a measly 2320 €.
Face it, it's a D600/610 with lower resolution and different control layout. Same idiotic AF sensor with 39 sensor points covering roughly the central 2 megapixels, the same not-all-metal case build, a smaller battery, consumer-grade "small" wire release/GPS port (not sealed in any way), no video support (although with Nikon's past focus on that subject, it's probably for the better)...
It just costs significantly more than the D610 and does less.
thecameraeye: Add in a Lenspen and some form of remote flash trigger. I love my optical slave.
Yes, by all means, carry a Lenspen. It's still one of the most useful pieces of cleaning equipment.
With a 15m rating I wouldn't take that thing into a puddle, let alone doing anything that could be considered "underwater". If you manage to drown it in a swimming pool, service will probably laugh you out too.
qwertyasdf: I don't own this camera, but if this camera is "ULTRA-CHIC ANSWER FOR CAPTURING AMAZING IMAGES"Then there must be no words in my dictionary that can describe the pictures the D800E takes. (Or even the Panasonic LX3 for that matter)
@bizi "How much money we can extract from the rich idiot demography?", asked by every CEO ever.
At least it doesn't seem to be an Android failure like that last attempt at a not-a-phone-cameraphone.
dennishancock: Timely article and greatly appreciated!
One further question: what would be a recommended color temperature setting?
For outdoors, I keep the camera on its built-in daylight WB setting. That produces an initial colour rendition that I find easy to work with. If you find anything off, you can easily fix it in post and apply the setting to the entire filmstrip. IMO it produces a fairly "neutral" starting point.
As long as you shoot in raw, it doesn't matter though since you can just equalise the entire shoot in just a few steps, and with night shots it matters even less. I just found working from a daylight setting beneficial for my tastes, and it also captures changes in ambient light rather nicely.
pixelized: I joined 500px in Nov 2011. I was impressed with the quality of the work then and found good photographers to follow. What I have not seen mentioned in this forum is one of the main reasons many that I followed left the site - the dislike button. It is abused and manipulated in vindictive fashion. I don't know the original intent for it, but it has ruined the experience for many and taken the quality on the site down.
As has been mentioned, a downside to 500px is that it is a numbers game, a vote for a vote. The copy and paste comments practice has elevated some awful snapshots to insane amounts of votes while great work goes unnoticed. True dialog is rare and that is a shame.
The member fees. I am still on a free account for two reasons. The owners do not listen to members opinions and I don't see real value for the fees. The sales model they created is silly. Does anyone want to sell their file for $3? Do many people want to buy $300 canvas prints?
"Dislike" buttons are hard. Stackexchange did theirs in a way that actually consumes user "score", so if you vote something down you actually pay for it. Same goes for upvotes, but much less so.
If love or hate are unlimited resources, they will always be abused.
Benarm: I love 500px. Very professionally designed, clean interface, beautiful look, and most importantly the photo sharing is focused on quality rather than quantity (I'm looking at you, Flickr!).
Have you ever gone through the "fresh" stream? There's little focus on quality really. It's as much a deluge of mediocrity, just as every other place out there.
Sure, the streams get better on the way up (with more votes), and the editorial picks tend to be great, but that's not so much of a site feature.
I'm pretty much returning to Flickr after having used 500px for a short time. 500px appears to be a rather gimmicky site without a real "killer feature" or a pleasant userbase. Most comments I got were essentially cries for attention ("I'm so lonely and I want more people to click my images, I upvoted your so please upvote mine!"), the fixed resolution is very limited by today's standards, metadata is frequently parsed wrong…
Maybe I'm getting too old to see the appeal of those pseudo-social sites, but all in all I'm not really a fan of the experience there.
Just don't buy poaching scopes then.
At a lower price and with an (optional) full-featured EVF, that'd be a definite maybe. Nikon needs to talk to Olympus about that and maybe do some licensing.
As it stands, it's just another bigger-sensor compact and the "meh" sentiment is overwhelming. Looks nice though.
cd cooker: Is it something that a built in WiFi connectivity couldn't accomplish? This is a very expensive accessory.
@mgblack, in the picture it's using the wire remote port on the camera, in this case a pretty stupid connection that can't do more than provide a two-stage trigger.
The USB port is behind the topmost flap.
The A-Team: Nice features. Same old clunky body and ergonomics. No thanks.
I'm missing a contoured thumb-rest, which the optional battery grip actually has, and which would help a lot, especially with heavier lenses.
Apart from that, the more clunky Nikon style generally fits my (rather slim and "girly" but long-fingered) hands better than what Canon does.
I hear Hasselblads have good handling.
Retzius: Thanks Nikon. Some DX primes would be nice though...
mgrum, wouldn't that mean that you'd just end up with something that's (almost) as heavy and almost as expensive as an FX lens, but would make you buy new glass if you ever decided to go FX?
For the Nikon it would mean calculating new lenses, setting up production, marketing, and it'd end up not even saving you money (not like anything they did would ever do that). On top of that, it would cut into Nikon's obvious push to establish FX at the upper end of the current DX market, so it's likely not going to happen.
I'm not sure if fast DX primes would be a mechanical advantage over FF. Their build is limited by the rather huge entrance pupil which requires big, heavy front elements, and I guess especially Nikon are running into limits with their "industry's biggest" flange distance too.
Even declaring this a professional accessory would not justify the hideously excessive price. Realistically, one should expect such a device to cost maybe 50-150 USD/EUR/GBP.
Funny you should mention Leica because just like Leica (prior to the new Leica M Type 240) Billingham bags have an old stuffy design; and just like Leica have had to do (Leica M Type 240) at some point Billingham are gonna have to modernise the design of their bags (I doubt young photographers, say in their early twenties, are gonna wanna be carrying around bags, that are quite expensive, that look like they were once used by their grandpa when grandpa was a young lad (after it was handed down to him by great-grandpa!).
And keeping up this Leica similarity, just like Leica gear, when you pick up a Billingham bag it oozes quality build/manufacture.
Trends come and go, and (like you probably), I doubt that there's anything like a design that will remain en vogue forever. However, at the moment, there's a strong market for stuff that looks old, and there's always a market for things that work and get good promotion by word of mouth.
(Between DigitalRev on youtube, the reviews I found on the web, and the replies to this article, I ordered a 335 today, let's see how that works out.)
DavidsfotosDotCom: To much surface area for wet (leather dries slower buckels slower etc) & flaps don't apear to be dust resistant!
Well-maintained leather is pretty much impervious to normal water exposure. See shoes and saddles for example.
Chev Chelios: How can a camera that has, according to its reviewer, "Mediocre photo quality" with photos that are "soft and noisy" and has "Terrible battery life" and has "buggy" and "outdated" software, and whose wi-fi "has very poor reception" with "occasional connection problems" score...
How bad does a camera have to be to score an average 50%? (let me guess, probably unable to take a photo at all!)
I guess to score below 60%, the device would need to be from a company with a public advertising and sales block for dpreview or their parent company (last I checked that was Amazon, so we can be glad they don't just paste the better user reviews). Racial slurs printed on the case and randomly showing adult content on the display would help too. If there is a viewfinder, there could be a spike that stabs the user in the eye from time to time.
Let's be frank: "reviews" you find on the internet are used for the pictures so you can have a look at things like button layout or menu structure.
EDWARD ARTISTE: Someone mentioned a good question, and one that ive been wondering as well- why doesn't dp reivew buy equipment to test? Ive seen mentions of you guys have to wait for samples...
...while many samples await you at the rental shop and bh/adorama.
Just a question. Love the site, but yall have to see the pitchforks being raised....
It boils down to the simple question, "why buy what you can have for free (or at least a lot cheaper than retail)?"
With the heaps and heaps of interchangeable rubbish compacts being spewed into the market all the time, it would cost a lot of money to buy all the crap on top of testing and exposing of it properly.