Great stuff. Never mind the Luddites. They were the same guys who cried about digital sensors, AF, AE, etc. All those things have come and become standard, and lo and behold, photography is still alive and well.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Takes about 13 1/2.3" sensors to match the sensor area of an APS-C and about 8 to match an MFT. Splitting sensors into the primary colors and black and white would enable better optics, higher light transfer and simpler + cheaper camera design. It's a no brainer, and I'm surprised it hasn't happened sooner
Ben O Connor: A full frame sensored, Canon EF mouthed Nokia ? Or 5D mark V, that allows phone calls to friends !!!
Both sounds exciting :D
How would this even work?
Jon Holstein: I hope they decide to make a "D710", to be a mid FF model. With a nice amount of real time control, and vastly improved AF-system over the D610. If possible, a bit higher bitrate, and probably around 24MP resolution. Kinda a FF version of the D7100.
I think they can put the D610 to rest, and introduce a more entery level FF. They could skip the focus motor. Have less real-time controls. And probably lower burst-rate than the D610. Like an FF of the 5000 series. (but with two dials, instead of the single dial of the 5000 series).
And really, they should do a Df MkII. The auto-focus system really let that one down. Especially considering the low light capability of it's sensor.
The merging of 800 and 800e, plus some smaller updates, were in line of what I was expecting in a form of a D810.
No reason this budget cam couldn't have the 51 pt AF AND the drive motor. But if the driver is value, the AF motor makes way more sense. There's no format AF heirarchy- the V3 for example has 171 AF points. People who want more AF points will have to pony up.
Semantics. Point being I think there is a large market for a low content FF DSLR body, if the price is right. We aren't there yet, but it's only a matter of time with the D610 getting down under $1500. Just a matter of Canikon committing to such a product and giving customers what we want.
I think people could live without 51 pt AF for a sub $1k FF DSLR body.
I agree that Nikon should come out with a cheaper FF, but the focus motor is crucial. Ditching it would make the body cheaper, but make lens choices more limited and expensive. I'd rather an extra $200-300 on the body than on every lens I buy.
This would make a nice second camera once it drops below $400 this fall.
JABB66: I don't plan to buy one of these, nor another Leica, but after all those days this model still is the first in the most popular cameras list here...
Not necessarily a good thing.... negative response is always more voluminous than positive response
I could definitely make do with a bigger sensor and a faster zoom with less reach. I am talking ~F/1.8 the whole way through at the minimum. Reach is not that big of a deal for a cameraphone.
All I want is a 3x zoom with equivalent aperture close to FF 2.8 through the range. I'd rather the speed than the reach for the same aperture diameter. Hell, I could even do a ~24 to 35mm FF equivalent fixed lens if it were ~F/2 equivalent.
srados: I think that this website should change name to Digital Video Preview...more and more I am being pushed away from here, to look information about cameras.Not interested in video but photography.
Article had video right in the title and you clicked it anyway. Don't blame DPR for your inability to know what you want.
Infared: Rut Roah!!!!!!!!!....but I love "real" cameras soooooo much...this could be the beginning of the end!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No way. Different camera forms will always have different advantages over each other. There will never be a phone with a large sensor (like APS-C or bigger) and a fast lens. Arrays are the next step but again I don't see them making cell phones with the ~13 or so 1/2.3" sensors it would take to get the sensor area of an APS-C camera.
Justtimthen: The lens and sensor should be a two in one module that just clips on to the top side.
That would just add needless expense w/o any benefit. I'd rather spend $400 on a great lens than on a so so lens and sensor.
Why not just do 4 sensors... R, G, B, luminance
Less filters -> more sensitivity; more resolution too.
2 sensors and 4 megapixels isn't enough....
Id rather just have multiple camera sensors. How quickly does this take the burst? The function is pretty much limited to static scenes/subjects.
Give us arrays!!!!
sportyaccordy: I would love if they did something with an F1.8 ish (or faster) 3x zoom. Call it the RX200.
I was hoping Sony would use a logical naming structure for the RX series. Single digit for FX, double digit for DX, 3 digits for 1". This should have been the RX200 IMO.
1.8 3x zoom would have an aperture diameter not far off from that of the RX200.
I would love if they did something with an F1.8 ish (or faster) 3x zoom. Call it the RX200.
Jogger: Can they change the law of physics can make a 1/3.2 sensor capture as much light as an FF? If not, gtfo.
Maybe not FF. But an array of small sensors can approximate a large one.
sportyaccordy: I keep saying it... but CaNikon should just have made native mount mirrorless cameras. That would give them a reason to make a fuller range of DX lenses too.
The cameras would not be as big as DSLRs. A NEX camera with an adapter for example is still plenty smaller than a DSLR of the same mount. I'm unaware of any limitations that would prevent these lenses from working with on sensor AF as well. Hell, Canon already has OSPDAF on some of its EOS bodies and that works fine.