Some years ago, I had a Tamron 70-200 that was optically, mechanically and physically identical to the Nikon equivalent. It wasn't particularly good under either brand name but that's not the point.
Since you "know for a fact" that some big name OEM lenses are made by other companies, it might be useful to say so. Why? A lot of the negative, fan stuff here has to to with "It's an "L" lens, what more do you need to know?" or "You pay more but you get Nikon's legendary quality", etc. What if people knew that everybody makes stuff for everybody else?
tabloid: As usual we have usual cretins with their sarcastic comments.
We need more censoring on these sites.
Unless a person has something constructive to say, his post should not see the light of day.
I would love to be moderator on these sites.
Just looked at the Guinness website and one of today's records goes to Colonel Meow, the cat with the longest hair. Some jerk will chuckle at that one, too. What has this world become?
The best part? When he yanks the sheet and cameras stay in place!
If he concentrated on Minox, Tessina and Compass he'd still have enough room to sleep in his bed.
mpgxsvcd: I bet even he wouldn't buy the Hasselbad Lunar.
I learned something today. Really outstanding lenses are expensive. Perhaps 1/4 the price of Leica but still expensive.
Frank_BR: Pentax playing Leica... What is the purpose of producing such expensive lenses? Pentax should focus efforts on true innovations rather than boutique products.
Poor Ricoh and Pentax. It's not enough to make superb lenses that don't say Nikon or "Zeiss"; they have to offer these lenses at really low prices, too.
dual12: Even if it sucks, it will still be better than the Eos M!
Dimit: Predictions:1. Will definately be a best seller2. E-mount gear will definately benefit in general3. DSLR crap,irrespective apsc or m43 (G.. Pana,d3...Nikon,Rebels..Canon) will be substantially cheaper within the next 2-3 months4. Upgrades will follow for sure,a lot of variables can be easily optimised5. IQ similar to sony apsc brothers.In fact the luck of physical controls doesn't prevent that6. If there would be a dpr review which would normally get 75,will eventually get 80 due to the price issue!!7. Nobody is going to use it with other than the kit lens..no need!!Decoding all,merely 300,comments above:80% of them seem to like the idea of this cost/efficiency efford.It tells something,doesn't it?
1. It's cheap and has lots of megapixels2. It's cheap and has lots of megapixels3. It's cheap and has lots of megapixels4. It's cheap and has lots of megapixels5. For all other considerations, see items #1-4
Great news for consumers. Canon, Nikon & Fuji may not go this low but everyone else will have to. There should be some amazing deals for the holiday season.
I sympathize with your dilemma but these comments are inevitably a catch-all. Here, we have people who are new to photography (I would characterize anybody who's never shot a roll of film in this category) and at the other extreme, people who need to show how much they know. Like the person in a meeting who asks questions he/she already knows the answers to.
Then, there are the engineers, who want to discuss DxO numbers down to the last decimal; the white orb alarmists "Fuji will go out of business, tomorrow!", Foveon attackers/defenders, camera collectors, people who use Holgas and now phone photography. And this doesn't even address people who are only interested in images and don't care about the type of camera. Quite a mix!
Mr Fartleberry: The biggest problem is that there's no category discipline enforced. Too many people head for the professional Nikon forum (AKA the D600 forum now) and post dumb questions about filters, camera bags and tripods.
It's painful and time consuming to figure out what is actually an issue, especially wading thru the usual, "I went to the Zoo Sunday, look at my pictures".
I can only hope companies like Nikon get a grasp of what their customers think when they see hundreds of negative posts about their new 500 dollar D800 grip.
That's where these comment sections have value, who sits down and biatches to say, Nikon about prices in a formal letter?
At least this way you don't have to waste a stamp, asking Nikon for more reasonable prices. Presumably, they can get what they charge and realistically, that's all that matters to them. Canon sells $45 lenshoods (that should have been included, free) while eBay copies are $7.50, so it's the same all over.
These do look like Popular Photography covers from long ago but so what....
If you are a photography expert or "pro" (and who isn't) living here would be fabulous. Totally serious. Just think how quickly you could test a lens for barrel and pincushion distortion and soft corners.
May I respectfully suggest How To Be Outraged On The Internet:
Seriously, this could have been written by Ken Rockwell (and he'd even get the joke.)
If it had bee a Nikon it would have worked perfectly. It would have cleaned itself, too.
This is great news for everybody. If Magic Lantern turns out to be popular and trouble-free, Canon can re-evaluate. If it causes problems, it voids the warranty so it's 100% the user's risk. If the user wants Magic Lantern but not the risk, they can rent from LensRentals. Something for everybody.
Cipher: Canon = Toyota. Stick with safe boring albeit reliable products.
A perfect analogy but the "fans" just don't get it. And if Canon makes a mistake, it's like those Lexus cars that had problems with the accelerator. That sure put Toyota out of business.
robjons: I say good riddance. Like the old AT&T they unjustifiably screwed consumers for years on what was essentially a bulk commodity. A management team that just couldn't see the way forward.Nikon, are you paying attention?
They made a profit. And that profit paid for R&D, salaries, benefits, health insurance, college tuition and retirements.
But their highest profit product was replaced by something free. And when it came to switching from a high profit consumable to a free one, they were very slow to react. Granted, Antonio and his crew hastened the demise but it was inevitable because free and instant wins every time. That's the reason home photo inkjet is going down the tubes; you can't make prints for free.
Francis Carver: CEO Antonio M. Perez. Man, he single-handedly destroyed Kodak as a viable company. And now, the idiotic Board of Directors are keeping him on, like nothing had ever happened to the company, huh?
Man, I am so glad i do not have any of my money invested in U.S. companies.
He's earned a position of honor in the Meg Whitman Hall of Fame.
Potemkin_Photo: $550 for a G16 when you can get the, EOS-M with wide lense, flash, and a much bigger sensor for $350?! Are you freaking kidding me? Whatcha be smokin Canon?
It is an interesting comparison. If you don't mind slow focusing, you can get much higher image quality and much closer focusing for much less money.
These are fine, but I stlll hold out faint hope for a faster G1X. For its size, the image quality is just outstanding, but I understand why people will choose smaller sensors in exchange for faster operation (and lower price, of course).