nnanda: Why Nikon kept AA filter? It is throwing that out from all its cameras (at least newer models), then why it is still there? That alone is a deal breaker for me!
"That's the problem when you don't have your own sensor design, and stuck with whatever the market had to offer."
You're assuming that Nikon could develop in-house sensor manufacture better than can Sony. The problem with doing it yourself is that you are stuck with whatever you can make.
@JDThomas"Let's simplify it so you can understand it better."I wish I could be as offensive, and still feel good about myself.
I've always been a Nikon user, But in this Canon I see a very welcome focus on...focus. To me that has always been the Cinderella of camera design (along with viewfinder size and clarity). You can yammer on about resolution and ISO, but honestly most cameras seem to have those in spades anyway. What ruins most of my shots is framing (tunnel like viewfinder compared to film) and focus errors.
Peter Bendheim: The Apple haters will be out in full force...bring on the popcorn.
The iPhone has a barometer now? I didn't know that. I guess they invented it and patented it, retroactively?
That is too bad, it means I will have to surgically remove the barometer from my 3 year old Galaxy Note. I'll miss seeing the daily atmospheric pressure fluctuations.
And the screen got bigger too? So did mine, about the same time it got the barometer.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même que Samsung!
attomole: The photograph belongs to the photographer in question because he was in command of the creative process even if by accident part of it was random.
If the monkey had obtained the use of the photographic equipment made it available for use in the setting where the photograph was taken and rendered it in a suitable state to take the photograph with the intended artistic intent, the photograph would be the monkey's
It did not do any of those things, that was done by Mr. Slater. He is the owner of the photographs. Pressing the shutter is not important, ownership of the equipment is not important. by the deliberate actions of Mr. Slater, not the Monkey, created the photographs even if some of the circumstances of the event that captured the photograph were random, like the lighting or weather some things are out of your control in this case the timing of the shutter even if it was accidental.
" it conflates triggering the shutter release with creating the photograph"Not in the general case, but in this particular case, yes, it is only because the monkey took a selfie that the picture has any greater worth - a point not lost on the photographer who was so keen to stress that detail. That fact is the originality, the creativity, of this image.In the general, unremarkable, case, such as when an assistant under the photographer's direction presses the button, then no.
aftab: Is it possible that photographer himself took the photo? Was there any witness?
"He might regret making so much of the monkey taking the photo now"Yet if he had not, then nobody would ever have noticed the photo, and he would have held copyright to just another stock image. It is a nice enough photo, but only the fact that the monkey took it makes it really special.
"The photograph belongs to the photographer in question because he was in command of the creative process even if by accident part of it was random."I disagree. The standout feature of this photograph is the very fact of it being taken by the monkey. That is the creative element and what lifts it out of the ordinary. Had it been taken by the photographer the photo would not have the same impact, and nobody would have been interested in it - the creative element would have been lacking.
Recall when everybody was pleading with Nokia to release their great phone hardware ... in Android?
daddyo: Sorry Nikon, but this seems like a bad joke. If you compare image quality between this and the Olympus E-M10, it's not even close. The E-M10 with 14-42mm lens goes for $799 right now, and includes a built-in EVF.What am I missing here?
@LGJim"most of us enthusiasts shoot action only occasionally, so we will never see the "value" of the V3"I'd have thought candid pictures of our children at play is equally demanding of a camera's speed, and a subject close to the hearts of any photographer with children. There are so many 'nearly' shots in my collection, nearly in focus. Or else they are more static or posed. But true 'action' shots of the children, very difficult.
zettlers: This one is not for me so I hate it and expect everyone else to do the same!
"This is supossed to be an "enthusiast" camera. Meaning RAW. "
Maybe it is a camera for people who like to take and show pictures.
I'd bet that if you took 100 pictures, randomly assigned 50% to be taken as RAW, the other 50% to be taken as in-camera jpeg, then printed them all out and asked people to choose their favourites, that you would find zero correlation to RAW/jpeg.
It is the picture that matters to most people, get over the measurebating.
What I really don't get, however, is your logic. You dictate which people this camera is for, despite knowing features which you suppose won't appeal to those very people, on which basis you declare that they won't actually want the camera. Circular genius.
"alone that it use MICRO SD cards shows that the engineers have not the user in mind"You really do have to be quite arrogant to make comments like that. I'm quite confident that the engineers thought through every aspect of the camera. Clearly you, in 2 seconds, are able to outsmart them and come up with better solutions. The shame of it is that your talent is wasted.Did you consider that many users might never even remove the microSD card from the camera?"only morons would buy this" - more arrogance.
martinj68: Can someone please explain why we need QHD displays on a phone screen?My Galaxy S5 has full 1080 and impossible to see the pixels with the naked eye, so why are manufactures wanting to go beyond this already high res for such a small screen?
Would be nice if someone of DPR's standing could do a proper "blind" trial of phone screens, something I have yet to see on any of the "advertorial" review sites."Blind" is perhaps an unfortunate description in this case, but I mean that in a comparative review of several competing screens the reviewers (plural) must have no way to know which screen is being looked at, not even whether it is the same screen or a different one, over a course of multiple viewings.
Please DPR, nobody else has ever done this.
wetsleet: I'm constantly amused by so many armchair experts pontificating to whichever manufacturer how to fix their cameras and pricing to make them sell, and then just carry on with their mantra regardless when, guess what, the camera sells as-is, due - but of course - to a gullible public who sadly lack the archair experts' expertise and tragically don't realise that they should be buying a different camera at a different price.
You're kidding, right? Because Western camera makers exploit their unique understanding of the customer to rampant success in world markets? Home markets? Any markets?
I'm constantly amused by so many armchair experts pontificating to whichever manufacturer how to fix their cameras and pricing to make them sell, and then just carry on with their mantra regardless when, guess what, the camera sells as-is, due - but of course - to a gullible public who sadly lack the archair experts' expertise and tragically don't realise that they should be buying a different camera at a different price.
Kodachrome200: I think they are just shocked people actually want to buy this. I sure was
but in fact you bought.... neither? (I'm guessing)
forpetessake: How is Sigma's "try before you buy" any better than buy and return for full refund if not satisfied most vendors offer? In fact it's worse, Sigma offers just one week, while most vendors allow 30 days of use.
I bought the wrong item by mistake from Argos (UK). I returned it a few hours later in the still unopened, factory-sealed box. Argos broke the manufacturer seal and opened the box to check the contents. Kudos to Argos for checking (years ago I bought a car stereo from them, and found a customer's old unit in the new box!). But I did wonder what they do with it now that it has become "second hand".(PS if they would put the manufaturer model number in their product description I'd not have made my mistake)
sneakyracer: I for one find the D810 does a better job to to attract even more Canon users to switch over to Nikon than even the D800/E did. The refinements and add-ons make the D810 a much more complete camera. The improvements in Live View performance and the shutter alone make it a worthwhile upgrade to landscape shooters. Great job Nikon (pending thorough testing of course ;) )
Why do you say the lens must be better than the sensor/film? One or other must be the limiting factor - but why does it matter which?
AdamT: They remove a very expensive item (the AA filter) and keep the price at D800E levels - Rather like Audi Charging extra to have an option of No power steering in the R8 - LOL !!! ...... Crafty buggers are Nikon .
What this does mean is cheap D800s on the used market - now that IS a good thing
In pure economic terms, sale price and cost of production are not related. Firms sell at whatever price they can make in the market. But in so far as that market price is influenced by customers' expectations, and nobody likes to feel ripped off, there may be some drag on the price due to customers' understanding of the costs. But I'd guess that is a very limited effect.
Sonyshine: Why would you buy one? It's only designed to make you keep shopping at Amazon. Surely that is not chat any sane person desires?
somebody decribed it as a mobile cash register for Amazon, which I thought was a crisp summary
grasscatcher: Do the cameras/tilt perspective/3D, etc. work if you are wearing sunglasses? Or polarized sunglasses?
Also, my wife gets nauseous from 3D, so it may not be for her.
"my wife gets nauseous from 3D, so it may not be for her"Good job this phone isn't 3D then ;)But then there are no actual 3D systems out there that I know of, only stereoscopic, which may well make a person nauseous since the eye is hunting for a depth of field which isn't actually there.Good job this phone isn't stereoscopic either then ;)