I have X100s. It's a fine camera that does a lot of things well. Unless you can live without a zoom lens, this camera may not be for you.
AllOtherNamesTaken: According to Lenstip, the Tamron 15-30 is sharper, 1/3 the price, is stabilized, and has 5 times the warranty:
"When it comes to the duel with the Canon EF 16–35 mm f/2.8L USM II the Tamron wins hands down. The Canon was able to compete successfully only in the frame centre, on the edge of the frame it was definitely worse. Still it is possible to use filters with it, a quite important asset in this class of parameters.
To sum up the boasting of Tamron about the superior quality of their new lens proved to be true. The company managed to present a device which compares favourably with its rivals, is cheaper, has optical stabilization and a 5-year warranty period – it would be difficult not to recommend it. Independent producers have been proving for some time that they are no longer specializing in cheap equivalents of brand name lenses. The Tamron 15-30 mm is an excellent example of that strategy."
You give up 4mm, but you gain alot
Curious to see some more reviews down the road.
whoever needs extra 4mm has only one choice, the rest could buy the Tamron.
rrccad: whoever complains about the price couldn't have looked at zeiss, leica, or even at nikon or canon super telephoto lenses lately.
Well, if you compare to Canon itself, this is the new high.
WayneHuangPhoto: $3,400? Wow. I'll just get a Samyang when they release their own FF UWA prime.
Yep, this price is the new high for any wide angle lens.
Thoughts R Us: It's funny because if you read the thoughts of pro photographers, you see a pattern. They always say stuff like:It's the glass that really matters; invest in lenses moreso than camera bodies.When choosing a camera, all of them are more than sufficient for most people's needs; choose based on ergonomics and handling, and again, based on lenses, and total product ecosystem.Don't go by spec sheet or pixel peeping.Also consider QC and service.
So Canon basically follows that philosophy. They dedicate considerable resources to building up their lens selection and release some of the finest lenses on the market. They have the most complete lens lineup on the market.Canon makes their equipment generally one of the best, if not the best, in terms of handling, ergonomics, ease of use. They have the best service and great QC.
Yet they get lambasted in forums like this for sensor specs and pixel peeping deficiencies. Canon is not perfect but no brand is; they offer the total package.
Pro photographers are you and me buddy. We are all patting each other on the back and repeating the same rhetoric in circle to keep each other warm and calm. Those who needed more DR, resolution, and different set of lenses, have switched already.
quiquae: Can someone enlighten me as to why the photo shown in the article was chosen as a winner in the first place? It looks totally uninspiring except for the rather obviously enhanced sky color, which could just as well be atmospheric reflections from neon signs. Second and third place entries look much better.
because his photograph is ideological. If your photo shows that capitalism is the root of all evil, unfairness, and greed in the world, you get in front of the line.
APenza: He can always be a cameraman for Bill O'Reilly.
You need to worry about all the scandals on the left
Nice to see yet another example of third-party manufacturers stepping up their game. If they keep going like that, soon we won't choose our bodies based on what lenses Nikon or Canon produces, since third party guys produce for both, but rather we'd choose bodies based on what the body does.
It will be a fine camera. The problem is, if Nikon is to release a D400, it really needs a better DX lens selection, otherwise whats the point of D400.
That's it folks, with these specs don't expect D400.
zakk9: I hear from my camera dealer that the 7D II sells in very small numbers. Why? Because photographers aren't willing to pay the high price, more than 50% over the D7100. Now there's the D7200. How many photographers in the market for a sub $2,000 camera really need 10fps?
I don't know if it's in another league. This camera should compare very well against 7D2. The only thing that 7100 lags in, is FPS. On the rest of the features it is either equal or better. Plus don't ignore exmor sensor and the attractive price. Given the native ISO specs it should exceed 7D2 in low light too.
For $1100 it is plenty.
It's amazing that these guys begin photography, but their photographs look better in composition and lighting than what most can produce today.
justmeMN: Canon estimates that they will sell 6.4 million interchangeable lens cameras this year. Not bad, for a company that does everything wrong. :-)
Whocares how much Canon or Nikon sells. How does that make my life easier, or makes me personally happier? It does not. This blind brand loyalty by some posters is getting ridiculously comical.
Canon may sell more cameras, good for them, but some of us more informed bunch, already know for a fact that their cameras do not produce best image quality, and the best bang for the buck. And I personally don't care what your reasons for choosing a particular brand are, but I shoot with what I know works best for me.
The only reason why Nikon released this camera is because there is demand for astrophotography, and perhaps it is another avenue for them to get exposed. If astrophotography get dominated by Nikon (even if the market is thin), their name will become synonymous with astrophotography and perhaps that would help propagate their brand.
justmeMN: "Serious Nikon fans are disappointed today. No D7200. No D300s followup. No new lenses. No radio activated flash. Not even a new Nikon 1 product." -Thom Hogan
Nikon users are disappointed because they caught a Canon disappointment bug.
krestenov: Can't get all that moaning - if you like something else, support the manufacturers by giving your money to them. DR will not make your photographs an piece of art, it's up to your talent, eye, taste, experience... It's not Nikon, Canon, Pentax that make your shots great. There is no Holly Grail in photo equipment. Better work on mastering your art - that is what will stay beyond your time and not your tools. Who cares what were van Gogh canvas and brushes???
Technology makes it easier. More DR means more flexibility, do you disagree with many people who claim that DR makes their life easier? It's not about end result, its about how hard one has to work for the end result. And I guarantee you with Canon's DR you have to work harder either by merging HDR, carrying extra weight to create less contrasty DR scenes with fill light...etc. So let's not trump technology just because you can't tell the difference in the final results.
ttran88: MP is easier to market and understand for consumers, try to market or explain ISO and DR to consumers
You are not marketing semi-pro DSLRs to consumers. Therefore those who are purchasing 5Ds, probably know what ISO and DR means.
HowaboutRAW: And I know Canon realizes this:
A 2006 DSLR is still very good still camera in most situations.
They’ve been lazy about introducing any serious mirrorless system.
Much of the world’s economy is still a big mess, because of the derivatives fiasco.
Better question: Why in 2015, if I were starting from scratch for digital, would I pick a Canon? There are two recent exciting cameras: The 7DII and the G7X–neither is without serious challengers. And the older 5DIII, 6D, and 70D all have serious competition.
Fuji, Samsung, Olympus, Sony, Panasonic, and even Nikon, Leica and Ricoh are significantly ahead of Canon in mirrorless. (Despite the prevailing attitude, the Nikon 1 system is a plenty serious, if too expensive, mirrorless line.)
Now there are reasons to pick Canon pro and prosumer video cameras, but those also have serious challengers.
Before any person goes to Costco he asks his friends around or does some research on the internet, rarely does anybody go into Costco to buy an DSLR (entry or not) without some background work.