My current and previous cameras both have a viewfinder and flash. I use the viewfinder every time I take a picture, I seldom use the flash. So if I had to choose one or the other I'd take the viewfinder and lose the flash.
Not quite a fair comparison, since both cameras are DSLRs, but I wonder, would I make the same trade in a compact? Probably I would. Give me a decent viewfinder (EVF in the case of a compact), a 'full-eyeball' version, not some 'tunnel-vision' version, and I probably won't miss the flash all that much. It was necessary in the days of film, but with today's ISOs and OIS, it's less necessary.
jodvovauk: Its back panel with buttons looks like from 1999, it's ugly.
Most people take pictures with their camera, not of their camera.
you can already fully charge most Samsung *phones* in about 30 seconds or so. You remove the back cover and swap the exhausted battery for a fully charged one.Honestly, I don't see any other way of transferring that amount of energy into the bowels of a phone in that short a time.However, extend the time to about 10 minutes and the numbers become do-able. 10 minutes isn't so bad, after all.
Itai42: I see a lot of calculations on how much energy will be required to charge the phone assuming it charges at output voltage.
They obviously solved these issues to a degree since the charge they describe is about 500W and by the calculations in the talk-backs it'll require about 100 Amps which is more then the current used by a house full of electric appliances all operating together.
They are using a rather unimpressive connector with no ground while standing quite close to it and not using protective gear - they are not afraid for their lives - they probably overcame the limitation using higher power density in some way...
so now you have 10 x 10 amps, which still makes 100amps, so you still need connectors with a combined cross-sectional area similar to a set of car jump-start leads.
dsmeltz: Except for the obvious problem (comparing outdated Canon cameras against MUCH newer cell phones and a Nikon) it was an interesting exercise. However, the choice of models for comparison kind of makes it mostly useless as well.
"Except for the obvious problem (comparing outdated Canon cameras against MUCH newer cell phones and a Nikon) "......and I thought that was actually the whole point of the article.
Raul: Have you any idea on how many patent's subject-matter never reaches the light of day? What a waste of time on your side!
A cycnic might think such patents are taken with a dog-in-a-manger attitude - they have no intention of commercialising the idea and want to be sure no one else can either, so they patent it.
Marty4650: I think we should remember that the Kodak "legacy" isn't for making high end cameras.
Their legacy was always "cameras for the masses" like the Brownies, 126 and 110 Instamatics, Disc cameras, etc. While they did occasional produce a high end camera, their main goal was make photography easy and affordable. So these Kodak branded cheapies might fit right in.
These are probably aimed at emerging third world markets.
Steve, I believe in fact senior management at Kodak deliberately stiffled exploitation of their digital imaging technology for fear that it woud cannibalise their own market. Of course they were right about that, digitial did cannibalise their market...(I've never understood the strategy of preferring that cannibalisation of one's market be left to others)
Artistico: So, basically a blank cheque for law enforcement to prevent photography in public places. Obviously, they can't stop everyone from doing it, but it means they can stop whomever they pick out. Doesn't sound very nice.
The people most often photographing the public in a public place is the police themselves. If they have to ask for permission off everybody in a street garthering, it could slow things down a bit.
elf kerben: So, in half or a year these package as an D700 successor with optional battery grip and i will forgot the missing D400 all these years.
What is the utility of a 72Mpix FF DSLR? Already at 36MPix the resolution limiting step is no longer the sensor but the lens, due to diffraction, on apertures smaller than about f7.That is not to say there is no point using smaller apertures, but when you do you won't notice any advantage from the 36Mpix over lesser resolutions.Push the Mpix ever higher and the diffration limit comes at ever wider apertures, until there is no remaining resolution advantage to be gained throughout the aperture range. Meanwhile the cost is ever increasing file size.I suppose the advantage is that you know your sensor capabilities are beyond your lens capabilities, so you are realising the maximum performance possible from your lens. Then at least you have to call a halt to increasing MPix any further.
Apewithacamera: Ok how do they cut these in half?
There has to be more to it that just wielding the diamond-tipped angle-grinder, under water or not. Surely most of the lenses would drop out without the other half there to hold it in place? I'm guessing much of this is a painstaking manual job for the apprentices to demonstrate their art.
frisianstar: I count 32 maybe 33 glass elements in the ef 200-400mm lens, a double or a triple cemented element count for 2 or 3.That must be a huge light loss?
you are doubtless reading this via light that travelled through glass many miles thick. Much depends on the quality of the glass.
falconeyes: RGWB bayer pattern (Sony), X-trans Bayer pattern (Fuji), SuperCCD (Fuji), Foveon (Sigma) and now Foveon Quattro (Sigma) -- all are just minor variations of the de-facto standard RGGB bayer pattern sensor.
All variations (which include variations in spectral width of filter colours) are just a mathematically described trade-off between luminosity and color resolution and noise. With the standard RGGB bayer pattern being already very close to an optimum (taking the reduced color resolution of the human eye into account).
The problem is:
Who on earth makes the vendors believe that their variations of the standard RGGB bayer pattern will be paralleled by software makers in their raw converter algorithms which are highly tuned for the standard pattern?
Of course, they won't and rightly so. And after Sony abandoned their approach, Fuji and Sigma are now alone. No way their proprietary color schemes will survive. Just like SuperCCD didn't.
I'd agree about the others, but the (original) Foveon arrangement is fundamentally different. It alone captures RGB at the same spatial location, all the others capture the colours spatially dispersed and then do some maths to work out what would have been at each individual location, wherein some artefacts creep in.
Revenant: Interesting that the S32, which is supposed to make photography easy for all family members, has a slower lens, a smaller sensor, and no physical image stabilisation at all. The manufacturers do so much cost-cutting with these "family-friendly" models, that they're almost useless for their intended purpose.
I just hear the noise in five to ten year olds all the time.
terrymcke: I want to add my comment about who might really benefit from this camera. And by the way, I have the NEX 7 and my son the RX 100. And we have shot pics together. The one problem a serious amateur has is changing lenses in awkward places - like on the Brooklyn Bridge or in a mountain in NY State. We are not as fast as the pros, and the pros actually often have at least 2 bodies set up with lenses for their shoot.
So if you are willing to forego buying a body and a few lenses (i have the 18-55, the 55-210 and a wide angle 16mm) you will have almost all that I have, in one camera, and you'll never have to clean dust off your sensor.
For the serious amateur (but not wealthy) i recommend this!
Never clean dust off the sensor? Only because you physically can not get in there. But I'm guessing that lens displaces air as it zooms in and out, and that must entrain dust. I do wonder which is the major cause of dust on sensors - lens bellows effect, or whilst changing lenses?
andy amos: With all these retro, whoops, I mean, cool hipster style, cameras coming out it looks like a good excuse to do an "external-Dial-control" group test later on this year! Oh, and include the Konica Minolta 7D just for good measure, it would be fun to see what we actually get after 10 years of "technical advances"!
The thing the camera is interfacing with, Jo/e Bloggs, has not advanced that much in the last ten years. Not that much has changed with regards to fingers and thumbs that would mandate a move away from external dials. The tech behind the interface, of course that has changed, but it remains behind the interface.
Robert Soderlund: Fine looking photos, but all unrealistic and should be considered as art photography.
Photography is not just emotional or artistic art, it should also include truth, honesty, and documentary, and be able to show the world we live in, sometimes in the most true way possible.
Like that picture of Santa, all processing, no photography:http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/126097-forget-the-ipad-morgan-freeman-this-santa-pic-was-drawn-using-ms-paint
And I wonder whether Vermeer would make the cut as a photographer?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25492810
NCB: My Df arrived yesterday, spent last night setting it up, today nipped down to the sea in wet squally conditions to try a few sample shots, and survived! Initial thoughts below.
The big question in my mind when ordering it was grip and handling. The grip is fine; I can just grab the camera with confidence, and it's designed to work well with the top mounted shutter release. Likewise handling feels great; no nasty uncomfortable edges where I wondered if there might be.
Don't understand the comments about quality. Feels like a solid, very well made camera, despite being relatively light; most modern DSLRs feel like plasticy lumps, even when they're not.
It's what I was looking for when ordering it; a relatively light and compact full frame camera which has traditional controls, thoroughly modern innards and handles well. Forget about nostalgia; it's that combination which appeals to me and to others.
Value for money? Same price as a fixed lens Sony RX1 with no grip or viewfinder.
I don't think that follows from what has been said. You seem to imply that only by buying in haste is it possible to come to regret a purchase.
@marwizNo, you got that wrong, but I think you know that already.
Muus: Dear DPR staff, this may be nitpicking, but: 1/4000th sec is not maximum but minimum shutter speed. Please.
le_alainThe curtains moved at a fixed speed, regardless of the shutter "speed". The change in shutter speed is down to the change in the interval between the first and second curtain starting their travel.It doesn't help that we always refer to shutter "speed", when it is really a shutter time.Much ado about nothing I suppose, but I've got time on my hands...(said the watch).
mike kobal: interesting to see so many comments about af performance and very few complaining about the exposure compensation dial on the wrong side and to rub salt into the would - you need to unlock it before you can turn it, now THAT was the real deal breaker for me. Most current DSLR's and ILC's have it on the right hand side, it won't matter if the Df is you only camera but using it as a second body on a shoot this sure throws a wench in your workflow
@mikein your sarcasm you overlook the essential: it is the the camera's control layout and ergonomics which hark back, whilst its technology is modern. So your analogy with drum brakes, an old technology, is inappropriate.If you would have the Df ape the modern camera's control paradigm then very little would be left of its 'retro' appeal.If you don't like the control and ergonomics of a 30-40 year old design I can well understand, but to criticise a camera, whose aim is to reanimate that design, for succeeding in that aim, seems odd.