tamras29: IMO, it's not really about image quality at all at this point in the market or value for money. It's like watches - I wear an Omega because I can afford an Omega. A Citizen, Tissot, or Davosa tells the time just as well as my Omega for a third of the price and some of them are beautifully designed. I can not afford a Rolex, an IWC, or a Patek Philippe, at 3 times the price which are also lovely watches but tell the time no better that a $50 Casio quartz!
Humility? I wear a citizen and some people I know can't even afford a watch at all. Here you are talking about 5000-80000 dollar watches. If a guy wants to flaunt his watch whether it cost him 1 dollar or 100 000 I say let em flaunt it.
Shamael: I worry about the negative trend in DSLR that we've seen recently and about how that will develop. Market conditions worry me most of all.
Makes sense, but nothing happens. In the mean time the only mirrorless in a correct sensor format that make the match are from Sony, followed by the 4/3 plot.
Performance encompasses the entire system. As an entire system of bodies, lenses etc + post processing capabilities none of these other system match CanNikon. None! Sure the pictures may look similar but in terms of how you can put together a shoot in varying conditions etc none can equate.
As far as EVF goes, I've tried it and it isnt there yet. In the mean time I have jobs to do for clients and I can't shoot them with hope, I shoot with the best system I can pu together.
As far as weight goes, I'm young but I am old school. The heft everyone complains about adds balance to my shooting. I in fact dislike that weightless silly feeling that smaller sized, lighter systems have. The ergonomics are often a bit too childish for me.
Is it the future, sure and I'll adapt to whatever the furture holds but for now I shoot in the now and right now thats CanNikon.
zodiacfml: A lazy attempt. By current specs, this should be around d610 pricing or even less.
I have been wondering what it is they are on for a long time now.
Entry level type DSLRs like my D5100 help me to take outstanding photos. I would love to buy a second body (D7100/D610). In terms of updating my D5100 I think manufacturers must realise that a DSLR is not an item I am going to change every year or every two years.
People like me are looking for deals and spending $1000-2000 every year just to take slightly better looking photos is not going to happen. Instead what for e.g. Nikon could do is to produce more affordable accesories such as cheaper 2.8 zooms. Right now that 17-55 cost way to much for a prosumer. They did a great job on the pricing of those 1.8 primes though!
Right now its all about value/cost. The economy is just only righting itself in some parts of the world and I think many manfacturers (not just camera makers) are really overestimating our pockets. After that recession most people like me are not gonna spend like crazy.
VREN: Another slow 18-something slow lens. I have been a DX user for the past 4 years. Tempted by the 17-50 F2.8 from Tamron and Sigma, but wanted Nikon....an average sized fast standard lens not the behemoth (size and price) that is the 17-55mm. Even an F4 lens equivalent to the full-frame 24-120. For some reason they refuse to fill the huge gap between the 18-*** slow lenses and the 17-55. I have had good experiences with Nikon lenses and wanted to remain Nikon. However, they have convinced me that Sigma is the way to go. With USB dock we can now be "future proof" and this was my main concern with third party. I think I agree with the opinions of many experts, they are trying to push us towards full-frame, where they have more lens options. Too bad for persons like me who think APS-C is the sweet-spot between size and performance.
People have a constant need to compare Nikkor apsc to a FF. 2.8 on apsc is indeed far better than 3.5-.......
JakeB: f3.5 to f5.6.
These lenses are designed for people taking pics on vacation in bright sunlight and very limiting in most other photographic situations.
If constant f2.8 is overkill in terms of weight and price, at least go for constant f4.
I have to agree. To me what Nikon would get great sales from would be a cheaper 17-55 with VR at either constant f 2.8 or f 4.
$79 for a redesigned U.I. and a few fixes and filters. Shout me when they get to 12 or 13.
I really like this photo. Very nice.