Wye Photography: If you don't own the original it's not yours to copy.
It's not ethical to copy someone else's work and then use it for your own purposes.
What a load of thieves and people of low moral fibre we have here.
It isn't just DPR readers who are of low morals. China's population needs fibre because practically everything here is a copy of someone else's property.
An irony that you pay every month for a subscription that let's you download older software.
Nonetheless, a small victory since older versions of software are likely to be less trouble-prone than the most recent. Now, if I could just subscribe to Windows XP and Mac Leopard.
Michael Piziak: Adobe is right up there with Microsoft in my book. Two companies that thrive off getting continually paid for continued updates - updates that rarely offer desirable new features.
That's not fair. Adobe has done some stupid things and they may have run out of useful new features, but Adobe products usually work and are relatively trouble free. The subscription model may be unacceptable but at least the product is pretty good.
Ron A 19: So basically what everyone is agreeing upon is that the Zeiss and Sigma are so close in performance in sharpness that Sigma should be lauded for having created an affordable autofocusing Otus. I for one feel empowered that I can afford something so amazing, and can't wait to find an excuse to upgrade my current 50mm.
And then there are people who've owned Sigma lenses in the past. People seem to be unable to grasp that different people will have different results. One says my Sigma is flawless--20 stars!! Another user says I had four before I found a good one. Neither of these people accept that they are porbably both right.
The Otus isn't relevant except for rental or bragging. $3000 for a D800 is one thing; there's no shame admitting you're not considering $5000 for a "normal" lens.
Jogger: I prefer my 50 to be cheap, small, light weight and have good enough image quality.
Badda bing, fastlass! It may be an optical triumph but it's still a 50mm lens.
If these people are trying to work the system or get away with something they're certainly paying a high price. That said, if Ken Rockwell posted social commentary his remarks would be on a level with the comments here.
Just to show that I've missed the point, I'm puzzled as to why the 17TS was chosen.
Potomac Golfer: Dumb question -- if I don't care about the viewfinder or tiltable screen, shld I get the RX100 M1, M2, or M3? I do care about low light shots so am presuming M2 or M3.
Presuming the lens is excellent at 24mm. The "old" version is not excellent at 28mm. This is what I do not understand. If you care enough about getting the absolute best image quality (and if not, why not get a $300 camera) why all the concern about control rings and electronic finders until it's determined the lens is stellar. If it's soft in the corners, who cares about the rest?
Already, people are asking for more zoom range. And, if enough people ask, Sony will do it even if the image quality is sub par. Think of those Tamron super zooms. They're small, light, huge range and awful. People love 'em but they're not discerning DPR types who spend $800 on a compact camera.
Pallke: This is very useful for morons that protect their costly lenses by filters and deteriorates the optical quality...
Hoya makes Nikon's and Canon's filters so they're fine. I'm sure Roger could do a test to show the effect of filters is negligible.
backayonder: I am not going to buy another Nikon product until the company hand over the reigns and research to the posters at DP Review. It is obvious that Nikon have no idea what they are doing.
If Nikon product development ever got into the hands of customers all hell would break loose!
Frank_BR: If fluorine is so good to repel drops of oil, why Nikon did not use it on the D600 sensor?
With DPR's love of lists, could there be comment of the year? I think we have a contender.
Knowing Tokina, this should be outstanding. But all 70-200 lenses are great so this must be for some system that doesn't already have a 70-200?
Chris Yates: And whoever thought the MP war was over is sadly mistaken.It's just that Canon can't keep up.
That's why everyone uses Nikon and there aren't any Canon users. One of my regrets with the 5D3 is that the file size wasn't big enough to justify buying a new computer and drives. I really wanted an excuse to go out and buy everything all over again but I didn't have to.
Well, maybe Canon will do something for Photokina so I can buy not just a camera but all the other stuff as well.
BigPhoto: Broken record... We don't like the clickless control wheel. So we're going to beat that drum over and over again and call it distancing and inert. The nature of highly subjective reviews.
What was the previous record for not liking clickless control wheels?
When the test reports appear, I'll go straight to the 24mm setting. If the corners are sharp, I'll buy one.
"The forecast calls for pain" -- Robert Cray.
gmke: Agreed. This is something that should have been caught in the testing department at Olympus. It is going bit far using the word "THE" on the testing department presumed for DPreview and Imaging Resource because that would mean that Olympus has NO testing department. It is true, A flaw was detected AFTER the camera shipped. Nikon has been replacing whole cameras with dust spots on sensors without admitting there was a problem. For them it involved an unpublished design change and a quick change to a different model number to give everybody something else to think about than focus on something Nikon missed.
Mistakes and problems occur. When computers are involved, a problem is called an "issue" to mask the seriousness of the problem. The problem with problems is that, unlike issues, sometimes there is no solution, short of redesigning or replacing the product.
KAllen: I have a love hate relationship with the 17-40 L I have. It does somethings well and other things really badly. Then again it's my most used lens, i look forward to an optically improved performance and IS.
It's very versatile and reasonably priced so people love it. Like the 24-105, it's just not that great but not everybody notices or cares. I've seen great shots from the 17-40.
The MTF for the 16-35/4 look great. I wonder if they accomplished this without the very high barrel distortion of Nikon's 16-35 VR.
Nikon has repeatedly said they will focus on high profit margin items so no surprise there. But this business of converting dollars to Sterling at 1:1 puzzles me.
RichRMA: Not a minute too soon. The 17-40L is a mediocre lens, especially on FF.
They'll knock $100 off but so long as the 17-40 costs less than the 16-35/4, why give it away? Just more choices.