sportyaccordy: This should have been an F-mount mirrorless camera. W/video, the D610 sensor and a price tag of ~$1500 it would have made a lot more sense. It should have blended the old with the new like Fujifilm and Olympus' cameras.
I don't get the point of F-Mount mirrorless. The F-Mount would require that the lens to sensor distance is what it always was, so you'd still have the bulk of the mirror box, just with no mirror inside. OK, you'd save on the pentaprism. But to put up with the bulk of the mirror box and put up with no OVF - seems the worst of both worlds to me.
TFD: Is there an optional retro Flash bulb flash taking big #5 flash bulbs.
I hope it has an analogue match needle exposure meter and a mechanical shutter cannot be retro without the sound of the mechanical shutter on long exposures.
Of course the original Nikon F's were manual focus so not sure that autofocus should be available on a retro camera, all you should need is a split screen viewfinder and your eye.
@TFD but there is no retro technology on this camera, no camera equivalent of the CRT tube etc. It uses todays technology, dressed up in retro clothes and control layout.
carrigman: "For anyone simply looking for the best image quality from a compact, the RX100 II is the answer." You can stop reading after that. IQ is what it's all about and the RX100 (versions 1 and 11) delivers that in spades. I have the original RX100 and I am constantly amazed at the quality it delivers.
I would not disagree with you. But I would add that for myself the most important thing is fluidity of use and reactivity/accuracy of focusing. IQ still needs to be decent, but the things I photograph move, and A1 IQ but out of focus, or the moment missed, is no good.
HubertChen: Very romantic retro design.
Using excellent Nikkor manual focus lenses on such a great sensor with no any focus help (no split screen on the OVF, no live view in the viewfinder with magnification) will soon cause a very frustrating awakening.
The only way to focus will be at arms length same style like with a point and shoot using Live view and magnification.
All my Pentax DSLR can change the split-screen (and I use them successfully). I am surprised this camera can't. On my Pentax it is a cute option. On this camera which is emphasizing the use of manual focus lenses it would be a must.
For me the whole benefit of manual focusing is that it frees you from the tyranny of fixed focus points. The camera just focuses wherever your eye directs, through the agency of your left hand.
I ditched my split image screen in favour of a ground glass screen and found my pictures were much improved. I would compose the shot, and focus anywhere I needed to on the screen. If you are framing a child's face for example, waiting for an expression to flicker across it, whilst keeping the composition correct and the focus on the eye (wherever that may be, seldom bang in the centre), I don't see any other way to get it right.
marike6: From the preview: "The choice of putting ISO and exposure compensation on the top left and adding locking buttons leaves me cold. In contrast I love the Fujifilm X-Pro1, because its traditional control dials are carefully-placed for ease of use."
They are? There are only two dials: Shutter speed and ISO. I can't imagine how they are more conveniently placed or well thought out.
The X-Pro1 has no ISO dial so you need the Q menu or Fn button for ISO. And using Auto ISO, you have the camera defaulting to 1/30 minimum which is barely passable for handholding.
As long as the DF has the current ISO setting display in the VF, you could theoretically change ISO without removing the camera from your eye. There is no difference. Besides with the great D4 high ISO ability, there will be a ton of Auto ISO shooters.
As far as locks on dials, all X100 users who have accidentally moved the EV compensation dial will tell you how important the locks for dials are.
Presumably if you are into the whole retro, film-era way of thinking then you will not be thinking of changing your ISO on the fly anyway. And if you have decided to take a break from retro-mode then I guess you'd go the whole hog and set auto-ISO.The exposure compensation lock does look a pain, but it was ever so. I hated the system on my FE2. I think the lock should apply only to the 0 position, with detents for all the others. or even get rid of the lock altogether and have a heavier detent on 0. Serioulsy, how easy is it to knock a rotary dial out of position?
hidden1: Its a shame the included kit lens doesn't have an aperture ring.
It kind of ruins the retro camera experience when you have to use an e dial to set the aperture.
Good spot! The aperture ring control is an ergonomic tour-de-force, and all quite by accident (as in, that was the only way they could do it back then). It falls neatly to hand, is portrait/landscape agnostic, and its location communicates its purpose. For me it was one of the best parts of old camera control layout, such a shame to lose it on this of all lenses.
Jeff Morris: I myself sold all of my DSLR equipment. I like many other hobbyist enthusiasts have gotten tired of the large amount of equipment and the difficulty transporting it. It does not mean we do not appreciate what a great DSLR and lenses can provide the professional and advanced amateur. It simply means many people are looking for an alternative.
A year ago I purchased a Fuji X-E1. I absolutely love the camera. I plan on making a kit of a wide, normal and tele zooms. I should be very satisfied. If someday I decide to go back to DSLR's then so be it. But more and more we are seeing advanced amateurs and pro's embracing mirrorless for it's excellent performance, lite weight and compact form factor.
Lets face it, we needed a penta-prism back in the day, however today is a different story.
@OP"Lets face it, we needed a penta-prism back in the day, however today is a different story."How true. How sad then that so many ultra-modern digital cameras still have a pentaprism housing, despite not having a penta-prism. Camera body design is so hamstrung by its heritage that it still carries the baggage that constrained camera designs in the 1970s. I'm still waiting for someone brave enough to start with the current state of the art, and a blank sheet of paper.
ethanolson: I want something that I can use to teach my daughter photography the only way I know how to teach it... how I was taught. That would require a fully manual camera.
@T3Can manual focusing make you a better photographer? When I used an FE2 I got rid of the split image finder and replaced it with a grid on a plain ground glass. I found my composition was much better since I just focused wherever I needed to on the screen, instead of being distracted by the centre split-image. Focus and composition were simultaneous.When I moved to an F100 with autofocus that all went to pot, since I relied on the AF and found my photos were less well composed, or just plain missed since I was faffing about selecting another focus point.Then with the D70, I couldn't see anything in the tunnel like VF anyway, and things got worse still.Even with a D800, the VF is smaller than the FE2, and manual focusing is not so easy, and there is always the temptation to rely on AF, and my eyes are older...I think I took my best pics on the FE2, and a large part of the reason was the huge viewfinder, limited UI distractions, and manual focusiing.
Nishi Drew: So will it not have a rear screen or AF either?In that case it might as well become the cheapest FF camera yet (aside from say, a used 5D classic)
Actually the rear screen will serve one function only - it will display a skeuomorphic of a torn off film carton end slotted into a plastic windowed holder, showing the ASA/ISO value
wetsleet: Once a camera gets to this size, and the lenses too, is there much of a size or weight benefit left over FF DSLR? That is, once you stick a pro lens on the front, will you notice the weight saving of mirror and box? And if not, are there any other advantages of mirrorless over mirror to recompense the loss of the optical viewfinder? Speed maybe? Reaction time? I'm just thinking out loud...
@T3when you compare APS-C and FF DSLRs the difference in size and weight is in both the body and the lenses.
However when you are comparing FF DSLR against FF Mirrorless, the only saving is in the body. The size of the lens is pretty much governed by the sensor size, so both the same. Hence, stick a decent sized pro lens on the front and a few more in the bag, then the weight saving becomes insignificant relative to the total system weight. Hence my original question.
Once a camera gets to this size, and the lenses too, is there much of a size or weight benefit left over FF DSLR? That is, once you stick a pro lens on the front, will you notice the weight saving of mirror and box? And if not, are there any other advantages of mirrorless over mirror to recompense the loss of the optical viewfinder? Speed maybe? Reaction time? I'm just thinking out loud...
Vaughn T.Winfree: I miss the birds and what they were capable of doing.. They built the ISS and NASA was a great place to work for when I was there. I sat in that very comanders seat before at Launch Pad 39A in the vertical position of course. It was a great era and I was sad to see it go... I feel like we have fallen behind on space exploration and what we could be accomplishing now. I can only hope that private companies can get things going in the right direction in a much faster pace... Space X is doing a fantastic job thus far. I am glad I was a part of it....
"I can only hope that private companies can get things going in the right direction..."Up?
tkbslc: Remember when phones could fit in your pocket?
and if they really were still 'phones' I'm sure they would still be getting smaller.But in truth we are not comparing like things here. The phones of 2002 made calls and did texts. The 'mobiles' of today are portable technology suites, encompassing:Sat NavWeb BrowsingEmailStills cameraVideo recorderGames consoleVideo playerPhoto viewerI'm sure I've missed some - of yes, phone calls and texts...etc
Stuart001: Don't get me wrong--I don't mind panoramas, but as Samuel Goldwyn said, 'A widescreen just makes a bad film twice as bad.'
be positive - maybe it also makes a good film twice as good?
olypan: Wow. Dpr so full of enthusiasm, such a contrast to your grudging brevity when announcing m43 products.
so, damned if they do, damned if they don't?
ripleysbaby: At last. A camera hard enough to take with me winter walking in the Lake District and Scotland , that I can clip to my rucksack straps without the need of an extra bag !Still might need to change the battery at some point. Shame it ain't got a vf.
"I only have a shower in the house"
reminds me of boarding school - they did used to have a shower out of the house, bloody cold in winter ;)
JustDavid: 'announced alongside two equally rugged lenses' - surely not 2m shockproof lenses :)
So I can drop this thing, camera and lens combined, from the height of a doorway onto what - concrete, asphalt, soft grass? - it lands excruciatingly at an angle on the rim of the lens, and then I start shooting with it, no problemo.
I'd like to see that tested, thoroughly. I mean, presumably that is no more of an ask than testing its focusing speed or ISO performance - likewise they don't need a new camera after each test result either?
jon404: Waterproof? It'll sell in Seattle!
and Manchester (UK). Sony once got into trouble for an ad featuring their all-weather cam-corder with the billing that it would be ideal for Mancunians. The regional tourism authority took umbrage at the characterisation of their weather.
Jurka: No stabilization. :( Not suitable for handheld video shooting. Under water use tripod!!! :)
but who knows what future lenses may hold - why not some OIS, maybe?
Actually, I wonder - if you attached a massive (as in: mass, not size), but neutrally buoyant load to the camera, I guess that would give it a good degreee of stabilisation under water. Not sure how practical it would be?
GodSpeaks: Interesting that they managed to keep the Nikon 1 lens mount AND make it waterproof to 15m.
Presumably there are differences in the lens mount which are exploited by the AW lenses, and which account for the AW lenses not being able to fit on the other (non-AW) 1 cameras. However I understand that the otherway around does work, albeit that you have to remember not to jump in a lake.