brownie314: Why Nikon! Why make a lens that already exists for DX. The Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 is an excellent lens that can be had for less than half the price of this Nikon lens. Why not give us a nice, compact 24mm 2.8 (or 2.4) prime! It would make the D3300 and D5500 very compact. But no.
I dont doubt that the nikon will probably slightly better than the sigma in most ways. Slightly. I just think most dx shooters are a little more price sensitive and wont be able to justify the 2X price difference. We will see.
attomole: Lens choice still a compelling reason for a flappy mirror camera, nice to see Nikon offering some more options for its DX line at the higher end, always want cheaper but Nikon so about what you would expect
If you restrict the lens selection to DX lenses - doesn't look so great.
rhipeturs - exactly - at $1000+ you can wait. If it had been a $250 24mm f/2.8 pancake - you probably would not wait. I know I would not.
ludex - negligible is up to interpretation. I am saying there isn't that much between 16 and 17 - which means to ME it is negligible. I also don't see much between 78 and 80 - because to ME it is negligible.
ludex - yes there is a visible difference. Just like there is a visible difference between 78mm and 80mm. The question is - is it worth $500 more? I don't think so, and I don't think most DX customers will think so.Photog74 - agreed. A 16mm 2.8 would be great. but I think we are seeing the weakness of F mount for wide angle lenses. I am not sure it is possible to make a compact 16mm 2.8 even for DX F mount.
Laurent - if 17mm won't work - it isn't likely 16 will work either. Not a big difference there.jec - legitimate concern. However at half the price the Sigma still looks pretty good.
Why Nikon! Why make a lens that already exists for DX. The Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 is an excellent lens that can be had for less than half the price of this Nikon lens. Why not give us a nice, compact 24mm 2.8 (or 2.4) prime! It would make the D3300 and D5500 very compact. But no.
artnaz: This 16-80 looks good! Better than the f/3.5-5.6 of the previous lens (and the current comparable lenses of the competition), especially on the long end!
However, while not interesting for me, but just to kick Canon's ass, release a D400 with a 16-55/2.8 VR! :)
The competition for this lens is the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 at about half the price. I think this Nikon will be a hard sell.
mgatov: Thank you for posting this. It led to me purchasing the Panasonic LX100... as I was really on the fence between these two cameras.
Yes, LX100 looks better because you are comparing a lower resolution image with a higher resolution RX100 IV image.
Well I'll be D. I think the III actually looks better. It is at least as good as the IV at ISO 6400 (and I almost never shoot higher than this).
AT ISO 3200 5Ds/R looks like more noise than D810.
Rooru S: Hey DPR team, you know what you should do? A versus match between the best focusing mirrorless against the best focusing DSLRs.
The test should include the following. Tracking in the Z-axis (subject coming towards you). X-axis (panning) and low light focusing (night and indoors)
The lens of choice should be simple. If you're comparing A6000 with A77M2, you should use the SAL70200G2 in the A77M2 and the SEL70200G in the A6000. Or A7RM2 against D810 with similar lenses (native lenses only).
Rooru - I agree that DPR should quantify this AF difference and put this matter to rest. With quantifiable numbers - with repeatable tests. Yes I totally agree they should do that. But probably won't happen.
I don't have the GR, but I have and shoot daily the coolpix A. Great little camera. The 18mm lens takes some getting used to, I usually like them slightly longer, in the 22-24mm range for a prime. But it is still great. What I would really like to see is Nikon/Ricoh do is something like the x100. A 23mm f/2 lens with lots of manual controls. Yes, I know it will be larger, but so much more usable lens and controls.
Roofu - yes - DSLR will outperform most mirrorless in tracking for sports photography. Most people do not care about this. If you shoot pro sports all day - by all means please stick with DSLRs for a few more years until mirrorless catches up.
Good job cherry picking the one area where DSLRs are still ahead (for the moment). Not everyone needs sports style AF capabilities. For portraits, I prefer the much more precise focusing of mirrorless (oh, and face detection).
How long will it take us to get DXO scores on this one?
nikkornikon: I got a message from the President of Canon, Mr. Akihiro Canon and he wanted me to tell you all...If you don't like this camera, and it's over the top price, and no 4k, and our rather Old Dusty Sensor..or any up to date features on other cameras, then by all means, move along to Sony. Thanks...Mr. Akihiro Canon.
Eddy - like Detroit in the 70's and 80's.
Ok. Thanks for your permission. I will do so.
eddie_cam: Max. 1/2000 sec. at f/2.8? No 4K? Only 5.9 fps? No built-in EVF? Good luck with that, Canon!
And if you want to shoot raw? Who knows how slow. The panasonic looks better.
jhinkey: I foresee a lot of snapped-off connectors . . . . . if it was designed specifically for an Iphone then a more secure connection should be possible.
Agreed, this should have been a designed more like a cover or something - but then it gets big.