I'll take a look, but Canon still owes me an apology for the 16-35 II.
Rob Sims: Two (obvious) things spring to mind. Firstly Canon have done a great job of trying to out do the RX100 spec for spec, and seem to have achieved that for the most part (for photo, not video): Size - tick / Lens - tick / Controls - tick / Sensor - tbc!
But given that these cameras are design finalised several months, or even years ahead of production, I wonder what the reaction was in Team Canon when the RX100m3 turned up sporting a built in EVF.
And a very good EVF at that.
I've got a lot of Canons, but for now the SonyRX1003 gets the nod.
(unknown member): How long before this camera is found to have a common defect?
I've always gotten good customer service from Nikon, of course I just drive over to El Segundo on the way to work.
But I've also gotten good customer service from Canon, it's just a longer drive to Irvine.
itsmeavi: Better I shall wait for 760 ;)
What was the imaginary defect on the 800? Mine's reformed flawlessly since I got it.
rfreund719: Image quality is amazing. It would have been nice if in any of the many reviews raving about the camera that they mentioned that you can't use the viewfinder if you wear glasses. It must be so obvious that it does not get mentioned. However if you are nearsighted and wear glasses it is a waste of time to think the view finder is something you can use.
I wear Glasses too, and I didn't have a problem either.
Did you find the diopter adjustment lever?
Jogger: In 2000 years the 200mp images from this camera will seem like primitive cave drawings to us now.
You mean they'll be considered great art?
I doubt anyone will be talking about these images in 2000 years, but they'll still be talking about cave paintings.
sobi700: is it made in Japan or Thailand, any idea?
Or they'll be extremely spicy.
It's a lovely country and the people are very friendly, just don't care for the humidity.
I'm good with my D800, it's been an ATM for me.
LarryK: As many bags as I bought from Tamrac, I figured they be set for life.
I like their big semi hard storage cases.
Well, you can add "discontinued", I was thinking of picking another one or two up.
As many bags as I bought from Tamrac, I figured they be set for life.
Simon97: The large open structures look very modern for their age. Note that he uses large format cameras which should have the digital geeks up in arms.
That's true, I love a good view camera, even a bad view camera.
beavertown: How super embarrassing for Nikon!
Sigma 35mm scored an astonishing 43, while this Nikon 35mm scored sadly 36.
No wonder Nikon has been switching off some Sigma lenses since the D5200 released, as they know the Art lenses perform better than their overpriced lenses optically and properly better in many ways.
The once laughing stock has become the king of lenses.
Watch out Canon, they may surpass you someday as they have already surpassed Nikon.
No, it's junk, I've never seen a good one in person. I think reviewers are getting bought off. I've owned Nikon for forty years, and I don't apologize for their shortcomings, they've made plenty of turkeys over the years.
If you'd like to buy my friend's, I'm sure he'd be glad to get rid of it.
The Nikkor 24-120 is a piece of junk, my friend was foolish enough to buy one.
What? thanks for tipping me off! I haven't checked lenses in a while, and I've always wanted a 24-105 for my Nikons.
I'll gladly send my Money to Sigma since they appear to be paying attention.
And yeah, the Canon could be better, but it's all there was at one time.
JordanAT: That's one big lens (and big pricetag) for something as (optically) pedestrian as a 35/1.8. If I didn't know better, I'd think they were making the lenses intentionally larger and heavier than they needed to be to justify the price and make the photogs feel like they had a "big"lens.
I bought the last one they brought out, and was surprised when my old f2 was so much better.
Nikon should quit bringing out "me too" lenses at premium prices.
nikon power: Carl Zeiss to Sigma is Mercedes to Volkswagen. I'd go for the name, Mercedes, if I got the money.
The car doesn't do the driving.
Joachim Gerstl: I'm very happy to see this lens. I hope it's better than the 17-40L. I was close to buy the 2.8/16-35L but now I will get this instead.
Don't buy the 2.8 II, it is an utter disappointment, the only thing I can say is that it was way better than the Mark 1. I was going to buy a 17-40, but then Nikon brought out the 14-28 and I gave up on Canon UWAs.
Wonder if it's better than that lousy 2.8?