EssexAsh: how much! its like that car Homer designed. Is there a button somewhere that makes it play La-Cucuracha?
You can probably hack it so that the shutter sound plays La Cucaracha :)
As much as I love my Nikon D300, but I have done basically the same with my Leica M9 and a Sony RX100. The fact that I can carry a small camera bag that houses both cameras, plus two additional M mount primes that weighs less than my usual two-lens D300 walkabout kit has made my D300 almost obsolete.
I still use my D300 for macros and architectural photos, but the RX100 fills in the former in a pinch. The M9/RX100 can do architectural, but requires a bit more PP than using a PC-E lens to begin with.
The app has been pretty unstable on my Evo Shift 4G and it doesn't seem to allow me the option to set the Facebook posting to a specific page.
Mssimo: Sounds like a D800 that can shoot at 120Fps. WOW
Except that the sensor is 21.5mm by 12.1mm versus the ~36mm by ~24mm FX sensor size in the D800/D800E.
mhobert: I have a D300 and have been anxiously waiting for a mid-range camera as I can't afford the D3, but am worried about the frames per second as I do a lot of wildlife photography.
I'm a D300 user as well, but opted to go to the Leica side for FF and for something that was lightweight. While I would love to pick up a D800E (and keep the M9), but I'm more anxious to see what Nikon will replace the D300/D300s with. I like to have the extra reach that the crop factor provides and the slightly smaller package (compared to the D700/D800/D800E).
Jogger: Ive been shooting the Nikkor 24-70 for almost 3 years, i dont think ive ever needed IS/VR once. If you are shooting under 1/60, youre going to get motion blur from your subject... so, nice sharp background and blurry subjects.
There's a reason why there are as many kinds of lenses as there are styles and schools of photography. I have several lenses that have VR/IS and use them when I need reach (70-200mm f/2.8 and 70-300mm VR). For the 24-70mm focal length range, I just can't justify the size, weight and cost... with or without VR/IS.
I don't use fast primes only for shallow DOF or for nostalgia; instead, I like to travel as lightly as possible and it fits the photography that I do.
Adding to footdoc66, is the extra weight and 82mm filter size worth it if one doesn't need VR/IS?
For me, I'll stick with faster primes that don't weight down the camera as much.
ngollan: 825g for a standard zoom is a wee bit nuts. The unstabilised 28-75mm/2.8 weighs well under 600g and is already a clunker to lug around. Especially on an APS-C sensor, I'd really think twice about it.
The Nikon version (which does not have VR/IS) weighs in at around 900g -/+ 10g. As good as the Nikon lens is, I can't justify the cost and size over three faster primes.
Is that reverse-1337 code for the Sony NEX-7? :)
larrytusaz: I am with elleyyh totally 100%. What in the WORLD is going on with all of this worship of Apple lately? How come none of the Android smartphones are mentioned, ever? What next, are they going to rename this site "steve-jobs-is-god.com?" And the pros drooling over this things are mindless idiots with zero credibility.
OT: At first, I read "iTards" as "Tardis"... which makes the interpretation of your post pretty darn hilarious.
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review