HFLM: The eye AF game changing ability remains to be seen in dim light and AF-C. If that is really holding up its promise (I doubt but hope for it), I buy one, too, because this is the most important feature I strive for. On the A7ii it is pretty useless in dim light at weddings according to my experience. T. Northrups test of a person approaching him within a room and the 70-200/4 was not convincing, unfortunately. But I have confidence in Rishi testing this thoroughly. Better low-light AFC and two card slots and I would be even more excited.
FWIW my Canon 5DmkIIIs are pretty useless at most dark wedding venues. I found the EVFs on my Panasonic allowed me to actually get focus when the Canons did not.
I agree that the photographer does not need to travel to an exotic locale to take a great photo but the premise is a bit flawed when backed up by a series of images from exotic places.
By definition the exotic is appealing because it displays a dramatic landscape unfamiliar to the viewer. The Grand Canyon is spectacular but almost no one lives there so by default it becomes exotic. Bolivia is exotic because people with cameras and internet do not live there in any numbers. Same goes for Iceland (the current darling as judged by the countless images in portfolios and camera ads) Africa, New Zealand, India, The Himalayas etc. The fact is you traveled there with big wallet, harvested your photos and came back and uploaded them.
In the end people do not want the familiar, they want the exotic and love to show off.
picnut: I have an X-E1 and X-T1 plus several Fuji lenses. I love them all, but I more often shoot with my Sony a6000 simply because the lenses are so much smaller and lighter for walk-around and travel purposes. I don't understand why Fuji's lenses are so much larger when both cameras are mirrorless and have APS-C sensors.
Chasing the cheap buyers is a loser's game. The volumes Fuji produces are far smaller than others and they see themselves positioned against Canon and Nikon. Thus , by comparison their prices are fair. Panasonic is trying to buy market share and in truth their lenses ARE cheaper to make.
Fabio Amodeo: I find suprising that in the review RAW quality is judged only by the Adobe support of it. If so many people are too lazy to test some other RAW developers, mainly Capture One or Iridient, is not a position DPR should support. Lightroom is not the standard of industry. Photoshop was, but now is endangered by the crazy subscription policy. In the past Adobe has been an essential building force for the whole digital photography movement. But now I find it erratic in decisions, just as if they had lost vision.
LR is not the standard of the industry?What data can you point to? C1 is popular but I doubt it exceeds installs over LR.
ChuckTa: The Canon ultrawide lens doesn't seem to work too well with the Sony sensor. Maybe need some strong lens correction profile.
They say as much in their notes. The adapter issue will become the new topic of debate IMO. Edging out the DR, bokeh and other past issues dujour.
brownie314: Is Nikon not aware of the current situation in the camera market? Why throw more uber high priced lenses at a market where people are willing to spend less money?
I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about the number of pros out there actually making a decent (but quiet) living. The fact that you don't bump into them all the time is because they do their work where you aren't. Just like I know there are a lot of electrical workers but I never see them because I am not in their environment.WRT pricey lenses, Nikon Canon et al. have made millions selling them to hobbyists these many years and those purchases have spurred the development of more great (but expensive ) lenses. As the politicians say, "When you subsidize something, you get more of it".
I note that my FZ-1000 does not lag too far behind and the camera comes with a lens!
Samuel Dilworth: Great to see Nikon do what it does best: innovative optics and mechanics.
However, I sold my AF-S 24-70 mm f/2.8G ED because it was like carrying around a millstone. My example weighed 915.9 g naked or 1035.8 g with caps and hood. In its case it was a staggering 1216 g.
This new lens supposedly weighs 1070 g naked, or a lot more in bag-ready form. Bonkers!
The new lens is also 154.5 mm long. The Canon is 113 mm long. Ah, but the Nikkor is a slim, easily packed torpedo! Not any more. They’re now the same width.
A very impressive lens on paper, but an awful lot of these will be eBayed after a year for size and weight reasons.
Everybody screams for maximum IQ, robust build, and VR/IS yet when the lens is delivered the whining begins.
Size! Weight! Cost! Quack quack quack.Welcome to the realities of physics and economics.
Of course we may all be stupid here and some poster here will come out with their 21-200 f1.4 VR zoom that is 2.5 inches long and weighs 240g and covers FF with tack sharp goodness from wide open at all FLs.
Oh yes, it will sell for $199 and come with a 20 year warranty.
saeba77: 24-70 isn't a bit too expensive? the tamron cost 1/3 (with VC) and the nikkor non VR cost 1/2
the 200-500 maybe is a must with a Nikon 1 system:)...1350mm
Amortize the cost over the life of the lens.Nikon and Canon will probably last 15+ years and still have repair facilities and parts for them. Sigma, Tamron, Tokina may have service but I am less confident about their lifespan.
WACONimages: 24-70mm $2399 In what world is Nikon living, on Mars maybe ;-)
"Clients however, don't care about gear! They want a good result. And ofter there are good alternatives to give such good results.
It is us photographers who want to show off with the latest and greatest. In reality for 90% of your assignments or private family pics you don't need it."
I wonder about pros who obsess over gear. I can only imagine that they don't have enough jobs to keep them focused on making great images.For the hobbyist I get it. For the pro it is a tool that makes money or not. One should always buy the best tools for ones trade but that also means that one buys the tool once and keeps it until the work demands a change.
Antony John: Lots of negative comments but:1) Nikon has provided probably a better performing 24-70 for professionals (albeit at a higher price, size and mass - but if that's what's required for IQ/usability improvement then so be it).2) Nikon have again replaced ageing prime optics with (assumed once more) a better quality solution at an affordable price and F1.8 (c.f. Nikon 24 F2.8 AF-D)3) Nikon have developed a new 200-500 lens at an affordable price. If it has similar IQ to the 70-200 F4 then it'll be a winner. Perhaps not as good at 200 & 500 as the Tamron/Sigma lenses, but if one only needs 250 - 450 then my guess it will be equivalent if not slightly better (based on the premise that the extremes of the focal lengths are always the weakest) than the other 2.It's taken some time but hopefully Nikon have nailed it with these lenses at their respective price points.
Why are you talking sense here? ;)
R N: Hey, Canon shooter here: that 200-500 looks pretty awesome, especially at the price. Hard to understand some of the caterwauling and griping.
Price trumps the argument for many.
backayonder: So the new 24-70 is what in Aussie dollars around $3400?Makes the secondhand version that I am about to buy tomorrow for $1300 including UV filter a bargain.
"When I compare it to my vintage 35-70 f/2.8, petite by compare, I have to ask myself, why this 24-70 is so gigantic."
Because the lens formula is entirely different.Note the similarity in size to the Canon. This formula has been found to yield the best performance. In addition they added VR.Note that the Zeiss Otus and Sigma 50 Art lenses are both large compared to classic designs. That is because they have determined that that configuration is the optimum for IQ.The manufacturers have heard the public demanding ever better lenses and they are delivering. They don't necessarily result in small packages.
I don't know if you have been following camera news for a while but the demand for fast, high quality zooms with VR seems to be quite high. The Canon owners are STILL whining about the lack of IS on their 24-70 L II. I would suspect that Nikon saw a great opportunity to make some good money on a new, must-have lens for serious photographers and maybe pushing a few others to jump to Nikon.Great move in segment that is still throwing off profit.
FuhTeng: I'm curious just how big the market is for people to buy a $1000 a7 and then a whole bunch of $1000+ lenses.
There's the kit zoom and used/grey marketZony f4 standard zoom, the 28 mm + adapters, the slow (and tiny) 35 mm f2.8, and then used/grey market 55. That's it for less than $1000 lenses.
Is their goal to have a high profit margin in ILCs? Sure, the a7 family will give them that. Largest market-share? I'm skeptical. They need more <$1000 lenses to keep their impressive market share if they're going to completely abandon the APS-C line.
If they're going after well-to-do enthusaists "pro" market, and they're happy with high margins, sure, keep the $1000+ line coming - MF Loxia, AF Batis, G Macro, 70-200 f4, Zony 16-35.
@ttran88. I think your comment is inaccurate. However in the push and shove of business if the demand is there, make money by filling it.
The market is huge if you get a bunch of Canonikon customers.As Sony is still small, they can take share. Canonikon has to protect share. The defensive position is the weaker one.
Photomonkey: More profit in FF. More status in FF. More easily marketed to photo wannabes.
They will likely see a huge jump in market share with the follow on advantage of selling FF sensors to their competitors.The real question is what R&D will there be for APS-C people?
In the smaller formats there is currently almost no profit. Thus they can't make it up in volume.As for volumes, Sony has stated it is mounting large push into getting the volume sales.I see no reason to doubt them. Profits will slip as volumes rise but at the moment FF has the margins other segments lack.
More profit in FF. More status in FF. More easily marketed to photo wannabes.
I think Canon is quite aware of their intentions and their progress.That's why they went to change their unders.
Niklas Ramstedt: Am I the only one here who likes LR and PS CC and is prepared to pay for software?
It seems that way sometimes. Americans are happy to complain that everything is too costly. They also seem to have a Socialist flavor to their endless rage about Corporate profits and conspiracies despite their otherwise free market jingoism.This is occasionally leavened with an observation that they could probably make a better image editor if they had enough duct tape and twine and two weekends free.