As a Nikon DX shooter, I'm wondering how they will respond to this. They've been chasing prosumers upmarket to FX since the D300s, Canon seems to have called their bluff. The D610/D750/810 is still too pricey and the D7100 is a bit long in the tooth as well as lacking some key differentiators when compared to the 7D mkII.
Now that the Canon 7D mkII is out, I wonder how long some of the D750/D610 features will take to migrate down to DX land. I'd like to see a combination of the 7100 sensor, the 750 buffer, the articulated screen and 750 AF, but I know I'm dreaming.
As a Nikon shooter, this really catches my attention. For a lots of reasons, I don't want to go full-frame (cost being one) and Nikon seems to be driving pro-sumer DX users toward FX. Not going to happen for me. Cannon seems to be listening better to customer needs. Hmm..
Canon/Nikon/Sony be afraid, be very afraid..
I'd take 16-150 with slightly better optical performance if asked. Who honestly wants to carry this behemoth (or the equally massive Nikon 18-300) around all day?
Nikon had better get off their behinds and put out something that looks/smells like a D400, even if they don't call it that. I'm pricing my Nikon F glass to see what their trade-in value is because I'm tired of waiting. D7100 is only about 60% there. Show us some love Nikon, we're not going to wait forever and FX is not in the cards for many of us.
Are you listening Nikon & Canon?
Brilliant! Nikon and Canon caught with their knickers down.
David Emery: I sure wish this went down to 15mm. I used to have a Canon 17-85, and now have the 15-85. I find I shoot a lot at 17-22mm.
Love the wider end as well. Even if it only added 2mm to go down to 16 it would be huge.
Thanatham Piriyakarnjanakul: Hope for 18-55 f/1.8 OS!! Sigma do it!!! Please!!! :)
I'd prefer a 16-35 f/1.8 myself. Not being piggish, 2mm on the wide end is probably doable, much more than that is just dreaming.
Nikon, are you listening?
Arai: I own the perfect sharp 11-16 2.8 and it is almost allways glued on 11 it would be on 9 if it could ! So I personally never missed my old 12-24 reach there are some dowsides on Tokina's if you (like me) frequently take pictures in direct sunlight the sunflare is realy bad sometimes ! But on the other hand the 18 pointed sunstars are owesome on all Tokina's with there 9 blade sharp diaphargm..... So for me a 9mm fixed lens at 2,8 with less sunflare would be preferable till then I keep my 11-16
Really hard ($$$) to get wider than ~12 mm at F4 or better. I have the Sigma 8-16 and love it but would not pay the attitional $1k for a DX F4 or better version.
I rarely participate in these, but..
My ultimate camera would be able to perform 'multi-spectral' imaging where a single shot (or series of sequential shots) would be recorded in the complete light spectrum from infrared through to near UV. From this palette, (obviously greater than the typical 16m digital 24-bit digital colors) in-camera SW would take your preferences and produce an HDR-like multispectral image, or if you prefer, a 48-bit RAW file. Bayer filters obviously are not designed for this so some sort of advance in filter technology or a moving-mask filter would be needed.
Imagine taking a photo combining the full spectrum into post-processing, the possibilities would be truly endless.
FTW: We are indeed far away from that 1600$ limit that was expected for the new FF cameras from Nikon and Sony. Sony's pricing is a real shot in the water and this Nikon pricing is hilarious too. Had they not done better to drop some of there other cameras and make this at a reasonable price? If one can produce a Pro Level Apsc for 1300$, the release of a similar body in FF should be possible for just a 200$ more. FF is not at it's first essay anyway, it starts becoming common format, old known stuff in some way. World is in a financial crisis, but maybe they have not found that out yet. Only P&S camera manufacturers are on the good way, you can get a good one for 100$ and even less. Ok, ok, forget all you have seen or heard about Sony's RX1.
Then wait 6 months and it'll be $1699. Plot the price reduction curves on Nikon DSLRs over the past 5 years or so and it's pretty easy to predict.
cgarrard: "Nikon should be commended for not skimping on features in order to keep the D600's costs down or protect sales of more expensive models."
Except with of course with the lack of AF tuning/adjustment :).
AF adjustment is in there. Incorrectly listed as AWOL and then corrected on the preview. See apology by editor above..
steveTQP: Sounds awesome, but one thing that scares me, if I read this preview right, is the omission of AF Micro-Adjustment. After using other DSLRs like Pentax, I am seeing how valuable this function is in terms of obtaining maximum sharpness from one's lenses! What's the reasoning (beside the obvious "cost factor") of omitting this feature?
See the above apology for saying it wasn't in there - it is. DPR has the most open editorial/review process anywhere -kudos.
Navmark77: This is an incremental improvement to an already-good camera. If this camera were not in the Nikon product line, it would leave a gaping hole, as no other non-DLSR that they make offers the photographer so much control.
As far as features go, I'd gladly lose the OVF for the other features. I only wish it had weather/dust sealing.