Stanchung: I pity Canon users. Just pay for a Sony sensor already.
Even the D7200 APSC kicks its a$$
Are you 5 years old?Gaming is a step up for you then.
Nice gift, always great taking a happy occasion and it's McNally!
KonstantinosK: From all the superzoom samples you posted recently, this must have the worst IQ. Terrible sharpening halos...
They're shameless copycats.
It's a good strategy though, if you want to sell, copy from the best and sell it cheaper.
Japanese products were in the past like that but they're now innovators. Just like Chinese products are now copycats.
bernardly: Canon and Nikon—are you seeing this? Your overpriced 1DX and D4 cameras are being undercut by Samsung with a product that has the same form factor with dramatically lower size, weight and drastically lower price. It includes a lens with all the focal lengths a photog dreams for. You better watch out CaNikon—Samsung is coming after you.
not even close but i like your comment.
Bitpimps: if I did not already own the 14-24 i'd probably consider the tamron to be a worthy challenger.BTW for those who want wide angle lenses that do accept standard filters, Zeiss is an option, just sayin'..I own a 21mm 2.8 Zeiss, no regrets at all, it's an outstanding lense for landscape work. Zeiss's own engineers consider it to be on par optically with their more expensive lenses under the Otus name.
Nikon's is slimmer and fit in the bag easier than the Tammy.
Have to reconfigure the pads in my bag to fit this beast.You should be perfectly happy with the Nikon unless you need VC.[which is hardly ever unless you're like me and shoot in dimly lit public aquariums]
Once he has seen how easy it is to recover from a high contrast scene shadow detail or even underexposing for shutter freezing action/more DOF, he would understand the benefit of better DR.
Something I was always doing in my RAW[D7000/D90/D200] pics but with the extra DR in DF[ it's heaps better] and I've not been noise reducing my pics for quite awhile now.
So yeah, one stop is a big advantage but two stops, seriously? It will make you a more efficient photog with less processing, better low light or high detail DR photos.
If it's any consolation, the 6D looks slightly better than the 5DS R. No surprise there. More pixels crammed into the same space more artifacts.
He needs some cream for the hurt.
Here are some of my pictures. Nothing special IMO.
This is a gear review site, not a photo comparison site.
Go click on D7200 vs the 5Ds.
Don't let your butthu... get in the way of objectivity.
vantje: Lighter, smaller and VR.Equal sharpness as 300 f4 AFS, not noticable better.Bokeh is NOT good and very harsh. Not a minor issue for me.
Bokeh must be good or else all that sharpness is ruined IMO.A problem with the Tammy 17-50 and 24-70.
bmwzimmer: Images aren't super impressive, just ok. It lacks the punch other long teles have. Perhaps raise the shadows 6 stops and add a bit of contrast will help
like nice gold boxes
PeakAction: I bought this lens the day it was available, and I haven't looked back. It's so good, I sold my 300/2.8 because the PF actually performs better. It's *very* sharp, with excellent contrast and color rendition. Focus is spot-on even with shooting action (I'm a full-time wire and pro sports shooter), and the VR is actually usable when shooting sports, believe it or not. It's the first VR lens I've owned where the VR actually stays on for games (mostly NBA and hockey). On my D4 bodies, it even had no problem covering MotoGP races. The images in the gallery are NOT representative of what this lens can do, trust me. It's an awesome lens. You won't believe how small and light it is.
shutter shock is feeling you get when you the bill from shutterstock. j/k
my guess is it's the vibration from the mirror slap
I pity Canon users. Just pay for a Sony sensor already.
Albert Silver: The biggest issue I have with it is neither the price nor the concerns of sharpness, but the weight: 1010g !! (over 2.2 pounds) That is heavier than any 24-70 out there and by quite a margin. For example, it is over 25% heavier than the Canon equivalent. I know a lot of people complaining about the weight of 24-70 lenses as it is, so it is hard to imagine this being a runaway success unless the optics are out of this world, and the AF is too.
I hated plastic lenses but it seems that plastics do have an advantage over metal with it's flexing capabilities.
Time will tell but yeah, weight is a B especially when traveling and some budget airlines will even charge for an extra 500g in the baggage hold!
Stanchung: Tokina, please do something about the italic gold font on all your new lenses.
It looks so kitschy and doesn't match the rest of the cosmetic look of your new lenses.
Take a hint from Sigma Art and Sony Zeiss.
It looks and feels ok till I look at that gold italic font and get nightmares about comic sans and papyrus fonts.
Build quality is there but the look quality... just change that damned font already! LMAO.
Yes I am shallow. It bugs me to be owning something that looks fugly. Don't get me started on the 3 syllable brand.
If this proves ot be an outstanding lens I'll call it a Tokkie but I'll have to put some black tape on a ~$1000 lens? Oh come on.
ImageAmateur: Looking forward to the Photozone review. I currently use an older Tokina 28-70 2.8 AF-D and it works lovely on my D300. Really nice optics.
If this lens comes with the usual Tokina optical excellence, and comes in around USD1,000 it will surely sell well.
Hopefully they keep QC in top form, avoid decentering issue with copies etc.
I don't care about VR, moreso optical and build quality. And at say, 1,000 it will not be much more expensive than some fast primes and much cheaper than others.
Why would you get this for DX? This isn't wide enough IME.
A 16-85 or 17-55 makes more sense.
brownie314: I don't get Tokina. They have been successful with wide angle DX zooms, but the rest - they seem to just be copying zoom ranges and aperture ranges from other manufacturers. I don't think this strategy will work for them. Why not look for something unique or a gap in the offerings of one of the majors? Why aim straight for where CaNikon are strong?
it makes sense for them to do so because they are filling the gaps in their own line ups?
copying the ranges isn't a bad thing as somebody may have a wider popular zoom and need another one to fill the gap.
bdjcsd: I have a old Nikon D200 - still a GREAT camera! But it is getting heavy for me (I'm a 73 yr old gramma) and I'm looking for something that has just as good work'ins but lighter in weight - is this it?
The D5500 might be the one for you with the touch screen but the D7200 feels more professional[maybe because of the heft-lol]
I had a D200, D90, D7000 now DF. The sensor tech from then and now are just worlds apart.ISO 200 on the D200 is like ISO 800 on the D7000!
If weight is the issue I'd go for the D5500 at 420g unless you're invested into AF-D lenses and prefer auto-focusing. In that case, go for the D7000 16MP[780g], 7100 24MP[765g] or 7200 24MP[675g].
More megapixels means slower processing and larger storage. Something you have to consider because 10MP D200 to 16MP or 24MP means a much slower workflow and additional expense of computer hardware upgrades.
fishbait99: I know the very question I'm about to ask has probably already been asked many times in other threads on this site, but here goes. I've had my eye on the Canon 70D as 'the' DSLR I've waited to buy for years. I've always loved Canon cameras, but my last two pocket cameras have failed in some way, and now I read so many good things about the Nikon D7100. I'm a picture taker more than videographer, which camera do I buy? I like the flip-out touch screen on the 70D, but I am reading that many think the D7100 is a better camera? Takes better pictures? Can someone throw me an opinion or ten? Thanks
Should always buy what you love, however...
Image quality of the Nikon d7100 is noticeably better. I'd go for the D7200 for a little bit more though. But do check out the new D5500.
The Canon 70D makes taking videos so much easier. I have one at the office. The pictures are pretty good too, but it doesn't do as well in low light situations and shadow detail is terrible. Canon sensor DR has at least 2 stops to catch up with Nikon/Sony IMHO.
Shooting RAW allows you to underexpose a tad with the Nikon and get faster shutter speed to freeze action or use smaller apertures for more DOF, maintain highlight detail. This is actually quite a big deal for general photography. Not so much for studio flash setups or if you prefer shadow areas to stay dark and contrasty!