>>3047551>These kind of products sell only a fraction of the amount what regular modern cameras sell, so their profit margins must be excellent to keep the business afloat. What is Fuji?
>>3047551>Inb4 I don't want a Leica, I want a digital F/FM/FE/whatever.That's what i WANTED, because I had neat manual Nikkor glass(i sold all of it right after Df debacle).
>>3047695>Your whole argument is that it's not a camera you want, therefore that makes it bad.No, I explained why it's bad from a design perspective. You can call that subjective, what's fat to me may be normal to you. Americans have different standards for that anyway. I'M SURE IT'S A GOOD (if a bit overpriced)DSLR, but it's !!!!! U G L Y !!!!!, and disappointing. It's not just to me, it's ugly for people who have taste, and it's disappointing to legions of Nikon film shooters.
>So you're just butthurt that you assumed the DF meant digital F,I wasn't the only one to assume that. You would remember this if you didn't pick up photography(or shilling) last year.
>whining and quit an entire brand?I didn't quit it just because of Df, that was just the final straw, i wrote that before... I quit an entire brand because what Nikon offers today is not what i want. I quit it because they remove basic features and lens compatibility from their smaller cameras(they got a bit less horrendous with that in the last several years, but are still the only brand that sells a DSLR without a bracketing function), because they are afraid of innovation both with bodies and lenses, because they are too cheap to properly honor their legacy, their fans, and their manual lenses that they still SELL BRAND NEW, and because lately it looks like they really don't know what they are doing apart from their well established DSLR lineup(Nikon 1, and more recently KeyMission).
It may be a great option for working pros, but it isn't for me. I don't see the problem here.
