paulybrooklyn: I just downloaded the 7100 and 5200 raw files and from what I can see, the 5200 is significantly better...so much so that I wonder if a mistake has been made. The difference is most apparent in the shadowy area inside the box with the fuzzy balls and spools of thread. The 7100 looks smeared and can't seem to resolve the saturated reds.
You're right -- at ISO 6400. Everyone should look at D5200 vs. D7100 @ ISO 6400 -- looking at Mickey's face or the Fuzzballs in the dark corner of the box with the thread. The D5200 is clearly SIGNIFICANTLY superior... at ISO 6400. At every other ISO they are pretty similar, with D7100 barely winning occassionally. I can only say that D5200 should be very seriously considered as a mid-level cam or backup.
Anepo: Well, no more google search engine for me, it has sucked HARD for the last 4-5 years anyway, also google you just pushed me away from the android market as well, it is bad enough that android runs as well as windows vista did at the start, but i get junk spam text messages every now and then which does NOT happen on ios NOR did it happen on my old non "smartphone". Your censorship in china, your horribly designed and half functioning android, your destroying companies, and your business ethics overall have finally pushed me away, now i have got a collection of android devices im gona have to sell. You are simply NOT trustworthy as a company AT ALL!
You hate Google because it censors in China (as required by Chinese law - what do you expect?), AND because it allows everyone to make an App (such that you apparently download anything, bringing garbage onto your own phone)....... I think you are seriously biased. Here's an idea: See how they play within the law as proper citizens of each host country. And stop downloading crap Apps that have less than 100,000 users. Google search has been the best for the last 10 years, and its only the last one or two that the competitors are even matching it. Plus all the services that Google gives away for free, its been a blessing to our entire world. You think Apple or Microsoft would have done that? Google is a pillar of the modern society. That's probably too much responsibility for it to succeed everywhere (just like Microsoft could not). So count your blessings and stop whining about the stuff that you actually can control. Entire industries are built around Google, AdWords, etc!
RichRMA: The only thing is, not enough new customers, so go after your current customers with numerous lens upgrades that feature huge price increases over the old lenses. 85mm f/1.4, 70-200mm f/2.8 and now the 80-400mm comes in at over $800.00 more than the old one. I'm sure it's better than the old one, but camera bodies seem to keep improving without the huge price increases over the previous models.
Nikon is milking its upper-middle class consumers that's for sure, but they are not delivering the same ratio of improvement. Its precarious and a bad investment. All of the newer Nikon lenses will decrease in value. Meanwhile, consider the 14-24 and others of that generation, which have held value. I think only the weakly made 50/1.4 lost significant value. But these new primes, and many of the zooms will lose value, due to Nikon not being competitive (they are raising sharpness & bokeh quality, but they are not doing it in line with market forces - competitors are quickly catching up and even exceeding sometimes). So this generation of purchases are relatively a bad-buy. Any of the D-lenses are a far better value, as are the third-party lenses. If a bag comprised of those, you'd be able to buy 75% MORE lenses than if just purchasing Nikon's most current lineup. This isn't good for Nikon in the long-run.
HENNIGArts: I expected this update since 2008. What took Nikon so long? Anyway, nice to hear they finally made it.
Maybe they waited for the Mortgage Crisis/Recession to end? The 70-200/2.8VRII was the only other really expensive consumer-level lens to be released (I mean, non-exotic lens) that significantly pushed price before the end of the Mortgage Crisis... and that might have had to do with competitor pressure.
At the end of Recession, it was quickly followed by some ridiculously priced primes (if Sigma pricing is any indication, Nikon is taking 2-3 x marketable profit on Nikon primes). Now that consumers at the top-end of the middle class have money again, they are probably trying to rake in as much as possible. But I think Nikon's pricing/operations might be inefficient. They leave a lot of customers on the table & third-party competitors are catching up and in some cases exceeding (Sigma 35/1.4 e.g.).
arpikusz: I think we (hobby photographers) are in need of something like a Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L for $1200, much more then a $2700 zoom lens. :(
Or why not a 300-500mm/4? Why does Nikon constantly believe we need 70-XXX lenses?? We have more than enough lenses that get to 300mm. When do we get a 300-500mm/5.6 or 400-600/4? A 300-500/5.6 (1.7 x length) would be less optically complicated than the 200-400 (2 x length), not to mention darker. How many ways do we have to get to 300mm these days - but we are always stuck there.
Nick Wong: The top pic ( http://2.static.img-dpreview.com/files/articles/7205672840/new80-400mm.jpg?v=1978&v=1978&v=1979 ) of the lens has no tripod collar. This triggers me to think if Nikon is selling the tripod collar seperately, just like the 70-200/4VR...
Hoping I'm wrong on this. Otherwise, a $2k+ lens without the tripod collar (or lens hood) is sooooo unacceptable!
$2k+?? More like $2.5K+!! It should have its damn tripod foot.
fyngyrz: I have another perspective.
I wonder how many people are like me, where I see the f/2.8 and react "just another slow lens" and never even consider purchasing?
I want to see f/1.4 or better yet, f/1.2. /Then/ I'm thinking of cracking the cookie jar.
Half of each day, on average, is spent in the dark. And just because it's dark doesn't mean subject matter will hold still. So slow lenses are not of interest.
And before someone says "f/2.8 isn't slow", you come back and tell me that after you've shot in the dark with an f/1.2 lens like Canon's 50mm or 85mm. If you do, I'll know you haven't actually used a fast lens. :)
I think really what you meant to say is that DPReview and others shouldn't call f/2.8 "fast" -- f/2.8, f/4 are rather "Moderate" -- and obviously anything f/5.6 or above starts to feel 'Slow." But then, we are not talking "Fast primes" we are talking "Fast zooms" Apples to Oranges. Your post is meaningless -- f/2.8 is darn fast for a ZOOM, and your tradeoff for a zoom is having to bump up your ISOs. Sorry, thats how it is. Everyone already knows that f/2.8 is the slowest of the fast -- f/1.2, f/1.4, f/1.8. f/2 obviously all being more desireable, but hardly feasible in a zoom that consumers could afford.
Gesture: Longer time when posts are editable. On Amazon.com it is open-ended and you can delete a post.
Definitely. I hate that you own our words -- but we should be able to own our words. It does help civility. Many times, users want to go back and "clean up" a poor choice. But your policy ensures that it stays there -- forever.
Ian: Sadly the guys who write comments on this part of the site are not really interested in the camera, just making stupid comments on a camera which they would never buy one.
That's NOT true at all -- I want a TINY camera with TINY pancake primes to COMPLEMENT my D700 -- not to replace it. But to replace my P&S.
Nikon has delivered something that is as large as Canon's APS-C cameras (STUPID, Nikon!) and is making DARK, HUGE lenses for it -- rather than slender primes.
Not to mention its slippery as heck -- they need to put a rubber grip on it and 5 programmable buttons. YES, I wanted to buy this. For a small system to complement my large system. Stop saying we didn't want to buy this or never would -- many of us were very much looking forward to it. But right now its worse than a P&S because its 3 times more expensive and has none of the pocketability.
Stupid, stupid, Nikon. Bad call.
macky patalinghug: any color but black! my 350d, 450d, 500d, 55od, 600d, 20d, 30d,50d, 7d, D5100, e-330, c-8080 and GF2 were/are all black.
The red and silver EF-M sure looks good. No more black for me.
Where is an actually attractive blue (not fake/cheap looking blue) when you need it. Red is too noticeable no matter how its done. And silver always looks like a cheap black.
Dougbm_2: I thought they would have used the sensor from the G1-X. Then it would have had smaller lenses. Is any one really going to mount a huge L lens via the adapter on this? Seems quite good with the touch screen but no wow factor. Sony Nex 7 seems more appealing despite the dearth of decent lenses. Then again I think Sony is on the money with it's RX100. Maybe this camera is for those that don't have a compact or a DSLR??? Won't encourage me to move from my X100. Anyway it can't be any good - doesn't have an X in the name!!
This camera is CONFUSED. It is for the DSLR user who wants a "more subtle" camera (thus keeps APS-C sensor). But its controls are for "idiot user." I hate this condescending attitude of Canon and Nikon when it comes to the Mirrorless cameras -- make one for a pro. For gods sake, its not unimaginable that Photography Majors in college, Professionals, and those wanting a real DSLR will actually buy this thing. Just make a "simple mode" if you are expecting your customers to be simple minded -- and give us a few more buttons and setting switches. There is such a thing as being "too Apple" for your own good. I don't want a car where I just have one button to push -- I want a car that I can drive, whether its a mini, a corvette, or a semi.
eyeshutter: I just saw a video demonstrating the focus speed. SLOW AS MOLASSES.
It probably is slow. Unfortunately, even DP Review's review mentioned that it is as slow as using Live View with a Rebel. So that's your benchmark.
Jokica: Can someone justify price difference between Canon EOS M (with18-55) and Sony NEX-5n (with18-55)?-------------------------------Battery Life (CIPA) 230 ?
$100 for the Canon brand. Canon has more loyal users than Sony -- so it can charge more. (Call it a "sucker tax"). Canon can quickly get as many users as Sony even with the premium price. So from Canon's perspective, why not keep the price up? They can always lower it later. By the way, if anyone from Canon reads this, I am a Nikon user and would consider buying this camera if it was a $100 less expensive! Its just slightly too high right now. Thanks.
highwave: Dpreview guys
As always I love your work and very much appreciated
But I sure wish you included side by side shots with competitors and even SLRs like you usually do.
Thanks overall though.
I totally agree -- I want to see it next to the S95 series, as well. A lot of consumers will be upgrading from there (probably more than will downgrade from a DSLR) -- just a thought!
Gesture: Yes. The agile shall inherit the earth. Was at a farmer's market today. Several taking photos with phones, including "neat multi-exposures." And no one asks what are you doing taking photos as I often hear when using conventional digital cameras!
I've experienced the same thing -- go into a museum 5 years ago, they would say "Youre in a museum, you aren't supposed to be taking photos!" But I just made a tour of 6 museums, and none of the guards cared. Most even allowed flash. The ubiquity of camera phones is HELPING photographers. I can use a P&S almost anywhere that proprietors don't care if someone uses a cellphone! Meanwhile, the DSLR is still banned in many places. But that might change soon thanks to small DSLRS/micros. I love all this new cam tech. My question for Sony though -- at an increase of only 10,000/month for sensors costing a few bucks -- how many months does it take to recoup $1 BILLION???
Don Kiyoti: What is the point of these interstitial pages? I have long wondered why, when one clicks on the link on the home page, it doesn't go directly to the review/preview.
Completely agree. Half the time, I don't even click through. What is the point of clicking a link, just to have to click another one. These "middle man" pages need to go away.