is clear that Nikon should have stopped production of the D600 as soon as the issue became apparent. Big mistake - their reputation would have been saved by standing up and admitting the issue, and putting efforts into the D610
I am afraid that as long as it has a Sony name on it then it will remain 2nd division. Contax, Pentax, Minolta, Leica, Olympus all produced outstanding 35mm film camera systems aimed at the highest end of the professional markets with little or no commercial success. Its all about brand. And yes I have used one and most of the range as part of my work - its a fine camera.
interesting people to photograph and for the best reasons but the images are very ordinary and show zero originality 5/10
shame the Nikon UK advert features one of the worse, if not the worst lenses Nikon ever produced the 43 ~ 86 zoom. You do wonder if the Ad agency had every carried out any research.
Interesting camera - but disappointing in its resemblance to the Leica D-lux 3, oh and the price!
can Sony please calm down with new products - the NEX system has been shunted around so much customers will not risk buying a model that is out of date in weeks.
GWYNOXY: How does M4/3 not end up on the list - it was a game changer.
I used to think the NEX series a game changer - until the sun came out and the beautiful big screen blanked out.
The AGFA daylight developing tank - the best !
My Lumix DMC FX35 with is 25mm (equiv) lens is a star performer its with me all the time and this looks like the replacement and upgrade. and using a phone instead? my FX35 with its tiny sensor produces A3 size prints to equal my Nikon FX D700
CameraLabTester: Tiny sensor.
This is soooo Last Year.
...or maybe 5 years ago.
...No, make that 10.
large sensor is not the be all and end all for everybody - if you want exhibition pics then fine - my Lumix with a 6.08 by 4.56mm 1/2.33" sensor delivers fine pictures for the 'net and A4 prints my Nikon D800 for work
dpLarry: I hope future models of these cameras have larger sensors. 2/3 inch or 1 inch would be great.
having used the canon G1x there are downsides to a larger sensor - to give the 35mm equivalent lens range the wide angle 28mm on a G1x compared is a longer lens and the depth of field reduces as the lens gets longer. The reason the smallest sensor camera have almost from nose to infinity depth of field. Also the overall size of the camera grows to accommodate the larger sensor. My G1x was sold and I returned to the G10 BUT the landscape images from the G1x - excellent to fantastic! My Sony NEX is a neat sized camera but it needs a large lens to work with and is no longer pockable. As with most camera choices its a balance of advantages and negatives.
pbailey4: I printed up pictures taken with my old second hand Lumix FX-35 (cost £30) and my Nikon D700 to A0 size and in comparison and judged by a dozen people the picture taken with the FX-35 was favoured over the D700, shows a camera with a sensor just 3% of the full frame.
sample snap with the Lumix http://www.flickr.com/photos/theotherbailey/8431279575/
PS - in the headline picture why is the guy holding the viewfinder to the frame of his glasses?
I agreed with you comments - but I seemed to have missed your point, it was?
I guess like most products there is an optimum value for money point then the as functions, robustness & build quality increase the cost to manufacture and develop increases and are spread over a lower volume. I guess if Sony could sell 1 million of the DSC-RX1 the price could drop to a fraction of the current level.
I agree and both had low ISO settings (D700 at 100 - its an old habit from the film days) no RAW option on the Lumix and the Nikon lens the 24 - 85 f2.8. Sure the image from the D700 would have been capable of further enlargement and better performance at higher ISO but note the sensor area of the FX-35 just 3% of the Nikon - 28 sq mm Vs 850 sy mm. And of course if you are going to take sports, fashion portraits and publish pictures or need poster size printed images then the SLR is the choice. Don't forget to enjoy taking pictures as well.
I printed up pictures taken with my old second hand Lumix FX-35 (cost £30) and my Nikon D700 to A0 size and in comparison and judged by a dozen people the picture taken with the FX-35 was favoured over the D700, shows a camera with a sensor just 3% of the full frame.
looks great - a comment on sensor size, clearly we are tempted to and do believe that the larger the better, there is more. I have produced A0 size (46.8 x 33.1 in) prints from my Nikon D700 sensor 24 by 36mm and my Lumix FX-35 sensor 6.2 by 4.6 mm, both at the 28mm lens setting and simply showing these pictures to a dozen people to guess the expensive camera shot (the FX-35 was used and cost £30) and most picked the image from the cheaper camera. Also the smaller sensor means that lenses will be appropriately shorter to deliver the 35mm camera equivalent focal lengths - if you love good depth of field this is a good thing. My Canon G1x suffers with a huge lens that extends because of the larger sensor and a reduced depth of field.
What we do miss is that not all camera of the same make and type will do not deliver idendical results - manufacturing tolerances means some will deliver better results vs an identical model.. having tries back to back this is my experience.
it is impossible to select a 'best' camera because best for one photographer may well be complete nonsense to another. The best camera will always be the one you have with you & not the one left at home! - so it may well be a iPhone or like my pocket scratched and dented Lumix FX35 that cost me £30 and delivers perfectly good A0 prints, but neither would earn their keep as pro portrait sport or wedding cameras.
as the song says 'love the one you are with'
HDR techniques - please respect the fact that some people (ok it may just be me) see these images as a manipulation to far, compressing the natural lighting range to show detail. Did I just say the king has no clothes?
kjh7: Had a chance to check out this camera. Why are people complaining? The fixed display lowers the weight, and it very clear. It's much easier to hold for longer periods because it's only 310g. The lens is bright and fast, and menu system is typical Canon, which is good. I would have liked a dedicated ISO button, but no biggie. Just waiting for the price to go down a bit.
I have tried and rejected the G11 G12 and the G1x because of the swivel screen - its fragile - impossible to protect with a hard screen and therefore never ready to use
delighted the fixed screen has returned having tried the G11 and G12 and been dismayed at the flip screen being fragile and difficult to use I will looking to replace my G10 with this model. BUT some idiot has reverted to the 'hidden' flash like the G1x - what a dumb action, more moving parts and of course the flash becomes never ready to use - the reason my G1x hit the bin (ok eBay) - so for me 1 large step forward over the G12 and a hop back because of the flash. But like so many photo product will this be out of date before I get it home - the product change roundabout is going to fast and will make buyers sit back and wait?
it still reminds me of April 1st ! All Fools Day.
I have to say that having run my G10 against a G12 and the mighty G1x - the G1x is up for sale... the G10 with its outstanding rear screen and fine image quality does it all. I am in the q for a G15 bring it on...