Mike Fewster: Sony's strategy seems to be working well. The smaller formats are decreasing under pressure from camera phones. Sony has had toes in the water with camera phones/ apsc/compact cameras and FF. They are reading the market requirements and focusing accordingly. Serious photographers are likely to be shifting to larger formats. Plenty of people still want smaller format cameras between FF and camera phones, but it is a decreasing market. To be taken seriously as a photography name, you need high end models that are seen as leading products. Lesser models piggy back on that reputation. Three years ago, people would ask what camera I used and respond with disbelief when I said "Sony". No longer. The landscape is changing.I think Sony will come out with a medium format model in the next couple of years. The future for camera makers is to establish in areas that are beyond the quality that camera phone type devices can deliver (and they are catching up fast.)
Canon makes Sony look like a wild-eyed dope fiend.
Chris Page: I am stopped from purchasing an A7 due to the lossy raw files.
This is as big a deal as Canon's mediocre dynamic range and sensor banding. But far easier to fix!
Old Cameras: Remember the Elcassette and the mini disc audio recorders? Proprietary memory sticks? Sony has a history of changing its mind, I almost bought an Elcassette many, many years ago. And maybe those were good ideas but they were dead ends and Sony cut and ran and if you bought one, you were stuck with a nice paperweight. Is it a mystery that they are focusing on the FE mount cameras? Wasn't that obvious? What happened to their translucent mirror cameras? Was that such a bad idea? I thought they performed rather well and were well regarded. The A7 cameras seem like a good idea but they need to stick with it and continue to develop the system and improve it. No serious user is going to buy and reply upon a third party adapter for suck an expensive system, that's a joke. They need to invest in a complete lens system and accessories and stick with it. They could do the same with their SLT cameras but maybe now they won't.
Canon used to make pellicle mirror cameras too. So what?
If the EU passes this, I will have made my last trip to Europe.
Hasselblad should be informed by the Faustian myth: once you sell your soul, there's no getting it back. Doubly so, when the new CEO comes straight from the very same Mephistophelian realm that bought your soul in the first place!
I think this ad campaign is stupid and offensive.
Needs an articulated LCD.
Too late Nikon: because of the "dust" issue, I bought a 6D instead.
Charlene_S: I wish topaz Labs would take all their wonderful plug ins and create a stand alone application then I would say "bye- byeAdobe" or Corel cmon and make Paintshop Pro Mac compatible.
Topaz has that application. It is called photoFXLab.
"Adobe is clearly concerned about alienating existing users ... "
Huh? What? Where do you get that idea?
luxborealis: My initial reaction was "What a rip-off" $224 more for the tripod collar/mount - that make the total package over $1600. To compare it to the $2100 ƒ2.8 - the extra $400-500 is worth it.
If they were to just make the tripod collar included in the lens, economies of scale would drop the price well below $200. It tells you that in this case, Nikon is more about marketing and price points than photography. I know they are in competition with Canon, but really, this is petty.
HOWEVER - The lack of a collar is also a general comment on photography. Fewer photographers these days are willing to go the extra mile by using a tripod. By far, most who buy this lens will never use a tripod or monopod. Are VR and higher really that good that a tripod is no longer needed? For some work, yes. For most, photography is a weekend hobby that doesn't warrant the additional quality possible with a tripod - so why bother including a tripod collar when most won't really need it.
None of the Canon 70-200mm f/4.0 L zooms has ever included the tripod collar. That includes the first version (which did not have IS), introduced in 1999. The raison d'etre for these f/4.0 zooms is the same pro quality as the f/2.8 zooms but with a lot less weight & bulk. Photographers that do serious hiking and climbing really appreciate such a lens, especially because they often still need to carry a tripod.
Nikon has needed a zoom in this category for a very long time, and I, for one, am very glad to see it!
Just because Canon is struggling to make headway with mirrorless, doesn't mean the consumer is.
What version of ACR was used in this review, really? The RAW review page 13 says, "ACR - Adobe Camera Raw 6.7 Beta" was used - but I have that version installed (just double checked and I have the absolute latest) and it will not open the ORF files provided for download on the RAW pages of the review! Neither is it shown on the list of supported cameras. http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/cameraraw6-7/
Is Beta 6.7 not the same as Release Candidate 6.7?
openskyline: Chuck is great, Dan Chung is not so great, I don't see the point of his questions!
It's called restraint.
This dog don't hunt.
If I wanted the ISO increased, I'd increase it myself.
It's butt ugly.
NEWS FLASH FOR NIKON: if you are afraid of being your own best competition SOMEONE ELSE will be your best competition.