GaryJP: Not only do I not share the experience of "good service" some claim here, I considered myself lucky if I ever met a salesperson who gave a da*n about photography.
Can't have gone to that many Jessops, then. A good third of the people I know in the company live and breathe photography - I dread to think how many photography graduates work for the company.
Joe Ogiba: It's 2013, why would anyone want to buy a camera from a B&M store ? In the last 15 years I have purchased all of my camera gear online and before that by mail order. I did buy $20,000 of photography studio gear at Photo Expo 86 (Nov 1986) in NYC from Calumet/Photo Marketplace because of show special deals but that was not like a local camera store.
Not sure what "It's 2013" has to do with anything, can't remember the last time I looked at a calendar and thought "damn, guess I'll have to stay home today, going into town was SO 2011"...
camerashopminion: Woohoo! Wonder if I'll still have a job by next week?
The bottom quarter of the company scorecard says hi. Nuff said.
crisotunity: I picked up a small camera at 12:30 today. The manager at the Jessops in central London was as creepy and pushy as they come trying to sell me a 50GBP 3-year insurance. I practically threatened to walk out of the shop without the camera and he still wouldn't stop. This was out and out fraudulent behaviour - the guy basically made sure that there is no coming back for this retailer. He might as well set fire to the store. This is why the high street is on its knees. I'm sorry for the staff who don't deserve this, but the company obviously promoted the bullies. The good retailers (John Lewis, Apple,etc) are still making mad cash and don't blame Amazon for their own idiocy.
90% Truth - but I never list John Lewis as one of the "good retailers". Not since I found out they were actively advising customers to come to us for advice then come back to them and they'd undercut our prices, on the grounds that they knew almost nothing about the products. While I know this is the act of a few bad eggs and not company policy, I still hold it against them that this sort of thing was allowed to go on as long as it did. Thankfully, a few decent and honest customers rumbled them and it eventually stopped.
Reilly Diefenbach: Thanks, Amazon!
I don't blame Amazon that much. Mostly I blame the people who come to the shop, talk to me for nearly an hour, and once we've established exactly what they want and made it fit their budget... They say they're "going for a coffee" and never come back. Then show up a week later with the camera in hand, asking how to do something with it. And yet, I still end up helping them... It's MY FAULT! I was too nice...
dgblackout: I feel sorry for the staff that work there but the upper management knew that they were fighting a losing battle. It was a turd that the market couldn't flush for a number of years and now they're as good as gone.
This will open up space on every major high street in the UK for small, independently run businesses. Or space for another branch of ladbrokes per town. We'll see.
My money is on Ladbrokes. Boom boom!
BryMills: Sad to see, but the high street stores simply can't compete with the tax dodging global internet marketplace.
The dodgy dealers are indeed partly to blame, but so are the people who knowingly purchase their products - it might put a friendlier face on tax evasion, but if people didn't convince themselves it's ok then it wouldn't be such a problem.
Woohoo! Wonder if I'll still have a job by next week?
Matthew Miller: I wonder if it might make sense to have completely separate silver/gold awards for video and for still photography? They're really very different use cases, and I know there's a trend towards converged devices, but it's a shame that a camera which really focuses on being a great camera gets dinged in the awards because it's not a camcorder.
I have to admit, this isn't actually a bad idea
the_chris: There should be two final ratings - one for the stills, one for the movie capabilities. The K-30 would have gotten a gold award if it would have been regarded as what it is, an excellent stills DSLR.
This is why manufacturers have to implement video features at all despite the camera could probably be a better stills camera for the money if the video stuff whould have been left out. You need to have the features because of the final rating which is what most readers remember in the end.
We have finally reached the point I feared this hole video stuff would lead to: "Coffeemachine of brand A makes better coffee than the machine of brand B, but brand B machine makes milk foam also so it is the better machine".
I want a coffee machine that makes 10 coffees per second
flbrit: For my use it seems great.
I will consider trading in my VRII f2.8 depending how it tests on IQ mounted on the D800e compared to the 2.8. I am also interested to see how it takes TC's.
I will not be an early adopter
@revio:Pretty sure he was responding to the original post, wherein fibrit said he was considering swapping his f/2.8 for the f/4. All in all a pretty relevant response, surely?
Saffron_Blaze: The 70-300 was often reported as good as the 70-200 in that range. How will this be any advancement given the cost differential?
I believed that hype until I got my D7000 and found it to be a bit lacking. It was sharp enought for my 12mp body, but 16mp made the difference far mroe apparent. I'd been HOPING this lens would fill the void - shame about the lack of weather sealing. Fingers crossed on the upcoming Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC (or winning vast sums of money to justify buying the Nikon)!
luxborealis: My initial reaction was "What a rip-off" $224 more for the tripod collar/mount - that make the total package over $1600. To compare it to the $2100 ƒ2.8 - the extra $400-500 is worth it.
If they were to just make the tripod collar included in the lens, economies of scale would drop the price well below $200. It tells you that in this case, Nikon is more about marketing and price points than photography. I know they are in competition with Canon, but really, this is petty.
HOWEVER - The lack of a collar is also a general comment on photography. Fewer photographers these days are willing to go the extra mile by using a tripod. By far, most who buy this lens will never use a tripod or monopod. Are VR and higher really that good that a tripod is no longer needed? For some work, yes. For most, photography is a weekend hobby that doesn't warrant the additional quality possible with a tripod - so why bother including a tripod collar when most won't really need it.
I think that saying using a tripod is a matter of being willing to go the extra mile is a bit daft.
Pixel Judge: Nikon FF 70-200mm F2.8: 205mm (8.1in) long, 54oz.Nikon FF 70-200mm F4: 179mm (7.0in) long, 30oz.Panasonic m43 35-100mm F2.8: 100mm (3.9in) long, 12.7oz.
Mmmm.....Which one to buy???
And you'll have trouble fitting it on one of those lovely Nikon FF bodies.
oselimg: What's the point of "hands on preview" about a lens that is a very well known lens format, offers nothing out of ordinary for current times, no sample pictures and it is pre-production sample other than product endorsement and hype. I can understand a preview about a new camera since there may be many more variables compare to a very well known lens format.
I found it interesting to see the scale of it against a body, far more useful that just reading everything in millimeters or inches.
Fotoman53: No way would I trade my 70-200 /2.8 VRII for this lens. Might have considered it if I was still using the Sigma I use to have or had neither. What I really want is an update of the 80-400 VR. Nikon is purposely dragging their feet on that one. Maybe it still sells well or they are afraid many pros would pass on their expensive 200-400 F4.
With all due respect Fotoman, I don't think replacing the 70-200 /2.8 VR Mk2 was something Nikon expected people to do with this lens!
X100 that doesn't develop a new quirk every other month? Not too much to ask, right?
It'll be interesting to see if this one can achieve shutter speeds faster than 1/60 while it fires 60fps, might actually try selling it if it does.
ClearGlass: Making the switch over to Canon is becoming more appealing with every new product release. Nikon has completely lost its way. It's sad to see a company previously known for their quality, and for correctly reading the market, to fall so far down the ladder, very sad indeed.
Don't Canon also have a 70-200 f/4 IS?As others have noted, price on release is always overinflated.
raincoat: Pro enough to buy a pro camera, lazy enough not to read the manual.OK.
Yep, that sounds like 75% of my pro customers. Although perhaps lazy is the wrong word.