The review forgot a few things : parallax problems when close viewing, complicated menu handling, expansive ......I agree with software jpegs. i have sold mine after three weeks, Will probably buy Sony rx100....larger sensor and probably better lens....more pocketable.
High quality at moderate prices ???? I Am dead !!!! If you want quality you have to pay for, cheap stuff from sigma is not a good deal : 50 per cent is decentered, mecanical problems, un reliable autofocus.....So again a 1700 USD Lens and what ? Buy a used nikon or canon instead.
SeeRoy: The cons don't include the fact that the vf has no diopter adjustment? DPR thinks this isn't important??? On a camera whose vf is one of it's principal USPs? At this price?
The example I tried, wearing glasses (hint to Fuji), had an in-focus optical and out-of-focus evf on the standard eyepiece. Given that no dealers bother to stock alternatives I can't judge what would happen with a different value inserted. Oh yes, wearing glasses meant I couldn't see the full vf image either.
I have tested that new camera and as I am wearing glasses, I could not use either the optical viewfinder or the electronic one. The optical is totally unprecise, the electronic one gives you a blurred image you cannot correct. It is a shame that dpreview did not mention another problem : the image is freezing when the point has been done. This definiteley outperforms the Fuhji xpro 1 as a competitor to Leica which remains the only real telemeter performance camera, which the fuji xpro 1 will never be at this stage. We all know the Fuji is no telemeter camera ok but even if it is a camera that delivers good resolution, everyone has to admit that the problems of af precision (my test camera has been unable to make the point at short distance with a f1,4 lens in a shop with normal light), diopter adjustment, freezing image, aso. By far, I would buy the oly EM5 : maybe less resolution BUT : weather sealed, quick AF, a lot of excellent lenses, easy to use, small and ... much cheaper !
3systermuser: well, the 24-120f4VR was a bad lens , it was not as sharp as I expected it to be and it was huge , it was not very well built.so, I just sold it after using it for a few weeks in 2010.
the 24-70 is a good lens but it is also heavy and bulky , and more importantly it lacks the VR2 , so I still have it but seldom use it now.I think this AFS24-85VR is a good lens for 580USD and it is so light and small , also this really confimed that the rumored the D600 is for real.any way, when we need really good lenses for landscape ,studio and as such , we still need a set of Zeiss or expensive f1.4G Nikkors, so I think this is a compromised optics but it can be a great walk around light lens for the D800E.
when you say the 24-120 was a bad lens, do you mean the 3,5-4,5 ? which is true but nomore with the 24-120 f 4 which according to mansurov's tests is very similar in image quality to the 24-70 f2,8 !