i may sound naive, why does Olympus lenses (say 300 F2.8), which just have to cover half the image circle of a Full frame counterpart be this heavy (i guess 400gm more than nikon) and this costly (almost 1000+$ more) ?i guess if Olympus had invested in making smaller and lower cost lenses (with similar quality), once they stopped making Film cameras, they would have been a more popular brand now.i guess i made the right choice of moving from E-30 to D300s, even-though i was not dissatisfied with E-30.
its too early to thrash a new system. as the system and sensor evolves, i guess, nikon 1 will supplement a pro shooter well along with his/her DSLR.lets wait for fast primes and light weight telephotos. till then i am not buying it ;)and i really dont want more then 10 or 12 MP in my camera. and i think 99% of world's photographers doesnt need it on a regular basis.
Thanatham Piriyakarnjanakul: I love this video...
as the system and sensor evolves, i guess, nikon 1 will supplement a pro shooter well along with his/her DSLR.
Unless its weight is lesser than Canon counterpart, Nikon will have to lower the price very much to get market. Canon have been doing exceptionally well to lower the weights of their super teles.
Auto Exposure Bracketing is still 3 images :(when i saw '... significantly improves ...' i expected a better AEB for HDR shooters.
Jogger: if youve got an 18-50/2.8 it makes more sense to get the 70-200/2.8.. the 50-70mm difference is nothing and can be made up by walking. the extra 225-300 on the tele end is far for useful.
70-200 on a film body eq 50-150 on a dx wrt FL. 70-200 is a classic range but for FF. but DX shooters need something on a similar range and halp the price make it interesting. but i am not going to sell my 70-200 VR2 for a 50-150 OS :)