Castorp

@Emanuel I don’t understand how your link translates to the Q being made in Portugal. No doubt components are made in many places. But most of the manufacture will be done in Germany as is stipulated by German law. Otherwise Leica would be fined for using that label. Sweden and Switzerland have similar laws. For a product to state “made in Germany” most of the manufacture needs to have taken place in Germany. And it’s not just about assembly. If majority of components are made outside of Germany it’s not made in Germany. For the same reason I doubt it’s a Panasonic lens.

28mm is smartphone standard, making it the most commonly used field of view in the world. I think especially for the younger generation, those who are teenagers today, 28mm is really the new standard and what most people will be used to.

The keyword is ‘an’. That was _one_ production. Meanwhile NASA themselves have been using Nikon for four decades. Years and years. That’s reliability for you. It’s besides the point anyway. I don’t know why you need to make everything into a pissing contest? What is all this insecurity about? My first post was merely a reflection on the different institutions use all sorts of cameras and I don’t think there’s any question that Canon cameras are some of the very best. Someone in the thread replied to the initial moronic post about Canon and Apple being for ‘snobs’ with an equally silly response about ‘winners’ using a certain brand. I only wrote that many artist I know and work with don’t care what they use, trying to make the point that at the end of the day it doesn’t matter. The NASA thing was supposed to be a tongue in cheek response to the obnoxious Oscars thing. I merely wrote that Canon cameras are great, and look! Other cameras are also great, it’s unnecessary and childish to speak of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’. But I see that you’re mainly interested in playground style exchange. I don’t share that interest at all, and my dad’s bigger than your dad anyway btw, so I’ll leave it at that.

Thanks, it was a nice read. It’s a bit different though innit? It’s a production team from outside that specified what they wanted to use for their video production, not NASA itself.

NASA uses Nikon. I think since the F3. I have seen footage from the space station with D3 and D4. They just bought a ton of Nikon D5. https://petapixel.com/2017/08/25/nasa-just-ordered-53-nikon-d5-dslrs/ Also, food for thought, why would NASA use the lower resolution and heavier D5 when the D850 has such amazing specs? Each gram brought is pricey on a space ship. Reliability, robustness and handling.

Wow somebody wrote a silly comment about Canon and Apple users being for art snobs and suddenly the Canon people are losing it? hahaha If anything many artists don't care too much about what they're using and just go ahead and make the work. Cameras are being used over years and years and insecurity isn't projected into what camera is being used and the need to have "the best". The Canon RP looks to be a great camera making great work. Canon's are great. I've never liked the colour or lenses myself but sure wish I did. Sigh, condemned to being a loser I guess *shrugs* As is poor loser-NASA and countless other institutions that rely on, for example, Nikon.

The problem is that Northrup, unlike some other YouTube entertainers, makes claims to be fair, objective and unbiased. If you make the claim to be fair and unbiased and in the service of the consumer who is trying to find the right camera, when actually the reality of what you do is completely different, that’s a big problem. It could be called misleading on a good day and outright lying on a bad day.

Aye the Nikon clipped. But they had metered for her face, using a lightmeter, and the face was correctly exposed. Both Canon and Nikon have similar brightness and correspond well with lightmeter. I would be annoyed if I take a reading for her face and then it comes out underexposed (the Sony). Of course with any camera one will learn how it works and will adjust accordingly so it’s not a big problem. Personally I prefer when the camera I’m using correspond with lightmeter standard.

I didn’t find that slanted lens comparison of Z6 vs A7iii much better than the rest of the YouTube stuff. I’m not sure the Nikon is over-exposing. Isn’t it more that Sony (and Fujifilm) are underexposed? They had to raise the exposure in post of all the Sony images since they weren’t correctly exposed with the lightmeter reading. Looks like they’re shooting the Nikon with its default sharpening (which is too high). The Z 6 colour and white balance is to my eyes far nicer than the Sony. PS And Canon too for that matter. I never liked Canon colour - much to warm and glossy-feeling.

The thing with the Nikon Z is that it manages to have good specs but more importantly to me, has the best build quality, handling and feel that I’ve seen. It’s much more than it’s spec sheet. Love the thing.

Tony Northrup is the worst. It's all about generating this or that in order to get views. It's cynical and horrible. Has nothing to do with cameras.

This is a great review. I very much like how he deals with all the problems and then at the end says how the camera was fun to use and is a really good and effective camera. Looks like a great camera.

I haven’t noticed anything strange with the video IBIS either. I’ve only done a few short videos so far though. Looks good to me.

I'm a huge fan of the Df. Nothing wrong with making dedicated tools. Not everything needs to be a jack-of-all-trades. The problem with the Df in some ways was that it didn't take it far enough. They could've left the AF out of there and got rid of a lot more buttons. On the other hand the Df was perhaps the most versatile digital camera Nikon has ever made in terms of how you could use it. I'm a fan of Fujifilms layout too but the thing with the Df was that you could switch into 'A" with the mode dial while the shutter speed dial was still set to for example 250 and then when the light became stable again you flicked back to 'M'. Sort of a built in memory function. This kind of thing got panned in the reviews because people only had a few weeks with the camera. But if you worked with it for a few months or years it opened up so many ways of working. Amazing ergonomics and the most fun DSLR Nikon has ever made. And that sensor is incredible.

I don’t think it’s about releasing an “unfinished” product. It’s because our minds are stuck in pre-computerised concepts. Nobody would accuse Apple or Microsoft of unreleasing unfinished products just because they update the OS now and then. And it’s not only about fixing bugs. If you have a software system which you can improve, why wouldn’t you? I’d go so far to say there should be some regulation so that any product can be pushed as far as possible in firmware before releasing subsequent products. It’s horribly wasteful to do otherwise. Its only quite recently that the nature of software is starting to make an imprint in a wider sense. We are hardware minded in general. I know, for example, more recently in airplane software there are structures making sure flight critical software is completely separated from other software. This way systems can be upgraded continuously without the entire system needing to be re-tested and certified. So the concept of upgrade is built in to the core architecture from the start. We’re still quite a few years away before the nature of software is fully absorbed. To treat software based technology, like digital cameras, as if they’re fixed hardware objects from days old will look equally ridiculous as early cars that looked like horse carriages look to us now. In a sense the current transition is even weirder. I would say all cameras should be continuously updated. The camera makers may charge for that. I would not expect it to be free of charge. The failure to properly valorise software is of course another remnant of old thinking. People don’t want to pay for these things which is, of course, totally absurd.