ecube: I have been using the Nikon View that came with my D90 in the mid-2000s. The version that came with my D5100 and then D800 and later on-line updates. It is not perfect but it served my needs. While I have Photoshop, I hardly waste my time on it.
I just downloaded this free ViewNX-i and will see how it works. I can always get back to the previous NX2 if needed . . . regardless, no complaint here. Thanks Nikon for supporting your customer.
The website indicates update for edit function similar to NX2 by September
Dave Oddie: The focal length range is very useful. On APS-C i use a Sony 11-18 which is similar. Usefully wider then the 16mm on my CZ 16-80.
The problem with the Tamron though is with it being a FF lens is size and weight.
I can't help thinking if I was a FF user I'd be happier with a 24-105 zoom complimented by a 17mm prime lens for the wide angle forgoing the flexibility of the zoom.
Does anyone make a 17mm FF prime these days? It all seems to be zooms which are large and expensive.
Zeiss also has a 15 mm prime, but it is large, and it is expensive (which appear to be the two parameters you were hoping to avoid)!
Colin Franks: I was recently considering a new wide angle, and my interest was piqued whenI heard of this new offering from Tamron, but the moment I learned that it doesn't accept filters, I went out and bought the Canon 16-35 f/4.It seems strange to make a lens like this that will not accept filters. They're losing a lot of potential buyers.
Its target is the Nikon 14-24, the long time landscape standard, for which filters have always been the topic of discussion. Many Canon users have waited long for a comparable offering and this is for them. The less specialized 16-35's are there for the rest of us.
SRT3lkt: smaller company that sticks up gets hammered down by larger corporation.
No, the court in Japan, which is there to protect both of their interests, decided that Nikon was the wronged party, but not nearly as egregiously as Nikon had claimed!
Just because Sigma, who makes many great lenses, is smaller does make it alright to use and profit from another's intellectual property without appropriate license.
If a country allows its manufacturers to copy batteries or software and sell it we call it piracy, and condemn the country for not properly enforcing copyright and patent law. Explain to me; how does being a small corporation suddenly makes it right to live by a different set of laws?
Yes, I realize that typical piracy involves using the same name for a product. This seems similar, just hiding the issue inside another product and branding it as your own innovation.
I copy material to a term paper it is plagiarism and I am expelled from university.I walk out of walmart with a DVD it is shoplifting and I go to jail.I copy someone's lyrics it is copyright infringement and I pay a penalty.I use someone elses patented process to create a product I can sell to their customers at a reduced rate having avoided the R&D costs and .....I am a victim if the other company is larger?
So, a 1Dx user wishes to improve AF performance he/she logs onto the Canon site to download a firmware upgrade. A D4 user wishes to improve AF performance he/she logs onto the B&H site and buys a new body at a cost likely north of $6k.
abcdefghijklmnop: Help me here, Nikon did not change anything on the existing batteries or lenses we already own. I know since they did not recall mine, at least. So nothing about how the lenses and batteries operate was changed. If the third party makers had done their jobs right and accurately reverse engineered a product this would not have happened. Some of the lenses were sold with a port for lens software update which pretty well confirms to me that the maker knew everything had not been figure out about those lenses by that company. And since all third party lenses and batteries apparently, from reports, have not been affected does that not also point so sloppy engineering by some.
agree with the biohazard, these are not new batteries which do not work, but batteries which were functioning properly and are now rendered obsolete. I have had lenses which needed to be updated by Sigma when purchasing a new body, but have not had an occurence where an updated and functioning lens is suddenly, and likely intentionally, rendered inoperable. That would seem to cross the line in regards to customer relations and respect.
If someone changes the locks and my old key does not fit it does mean it was poorly cut (sloppy engineering).
HBowman: This is just dumb and ugly ... They wanted to mimic the look of the OM-D ?? They failed miserably !! OMG lol
Come on Nikon what are you doing ?? you, such an historic enterprise, serious, solid ... look at what you are forced to do :D
Even your high end gear have problems pffff shame and pity !
but it lacks your beloved foveon sensor and can therefore take a useable photo beyond ISO 100
flbrit: For my use it seems great.
I will consider trading in my VRII f2.8 depending how it tests on IQ mounted on the D800e compared to the 2.8. I am also interested to see how it takes TC's.
I will not be an early adopter
I will keep my 2.8. I would rather get rid of the 70-300 for this as a lighter (than the 2.8) travel 70-200. I also dislike the lens extension in zooming to telephoto with the 70-300!
Dan: It looks like it's missing something without the tripod collar mounted.
i would prefer and wait for the eventual RRS or Kirk collar which would mate directly to the ballhead.
Retzius: I knew this would come out before the Pentax K30 Review!
it is a preview, less extensive than the one done on your K30 in May
And a new type of battery and charger?