sportyaccordy: 82x80mm so it's a big honker... but it's only 355g, I'm guessing due to the plastic construction
Pretty cool, but still... Nikon we need lenses like this on DX. 16 1.8, 24 1.8 in addition to the 35 and 50 1.8s, and then an 18-70/2.8-4 and 18-50/2.8 or even 18-50/2-2.8 like Samsung has, with VR of course.
Really looking at things now Nikon could use a big upgrade... some mirrorless bodies, an in body IS, and making DX a viable pro option. It's getting a little silly at this point.
DX is dead.
Nikon wants you to choose between FX and CX.
peevee1: OK, could you predict that Samsung will be the second mirrorless system which acquires the essential pro zoom doublet? And m43 will get the doublet TWICE (from both Pana and now Oly) before Sony, Fuji, Nikon, Canon do it?Sony got sidetracked with all that useless FE adventure, where every lens has to include that missing flange distance...
What are you talking about. Sony has professional 16-35/4, 24-70/4 and 70-200/4 zooms for it's mirrorless system.
That price! The Tokina 50-135/2.8 can be found for $500 and is optically stunning.
TallTommy: Sony A7 owners have waited a long time for new lenses to add to the existing 35 and 55. And we get... a 35 and 50. Ok, these can be cine lenses but when will we get a fast 24 or 85?
No wonder Fuji is running away with it...
There might be several explanations for that. Either Zeiss has a deal with Sony not to undercut their offerings, hence only releasing FL that Sony already has on offer.
OR these lenses got rushed to market and 35 and 50mm just happened to be the easiest/fastest to design.
odobo: Interesting that people keep saying the new lenses are the same old ZM lens with a new mount... If that is true, shouldnt the M to E adapter have 0 thickness?
If that's true then the 35mm will be worthless, because the old ZM design smudges the edges. At those prices I doubt that Zeiss can afford to do that, so let's hope not.
What I don't understand about this comparison tool, is that if I pitch the A7 @ 6400 against the E-P5 @ 6400, I barely see a difference.
But then when I shoot my A7 against my E-P5 at home, there is a world of difference.
The E-P5 is completely useless at anything above ISO 800, while the A7 is perfectly happy at ISO 6400. Why are these differences not visible on the test image?
SaltLakeGuy: Such typical banter regarding the 18-55 "kit" lens. It is perhaps the most wrongly maligned lens out there. I've had the Nikon, Canon and Sony so called equivalents and they don't deserve to be in the same room as the 18-55 OIS. It is exceptional assuming of course you haven't gotten a duff copy which I don't happen to think there are many out there of. As for this new kid on the block, I'm sure for many it will be an essential tool. I prefer the faster 18-55 and frankly I don't shoot in rain conditions nor terribly dusty either so it's of no advantage to me. If I really need longer focal ranges I'll slap on my all time fav the 55-200 OIS which always gets it done as well.
@BarnET. Comparing the Fuji 18-55 to the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 is a daft comparison. The Nikon is a large, professional lens that is 26-85mm f/4 equivalent. It is reasonably wide at the wide end, and reasonably fast at the long end.
The Fuji is a zoom optimized for compactness, equivalent to a 28-85mm f/4-6. It is not particularly wide, and it is slow at the long end.
Sounds like a great camera if Nikon would copy some of the Sony lens designs. Come on Nikon design the lenses these cameras deserve:
9-26mm f/1.8-2.810-74mm f/2.8
That watermark is infinitely tacky.
Smokymtnhiker: A Gold award for this camera while the A7 with same 80% got a Silver?
That's ridiculous. A6000 looks to be a far better deal. I couldn't care less about video.
DPR should either give two ratings for every camera which has video capability...
1.) Photographic 2.) Video
..or only rate cameras like the RX10 against camcorders since that is it's primary function.
Look at the lens graph.
Sony RX10 - $1300
Sony A6000 - $650Sony 18-105 f/4 - $600total: $1250
Wetzlarkid: The "T" ~ A lovely piece of workmanship, it would look terrific on my Bro's desk next to his Maserati keys! Me ~ Nah..my X1 hits my shutter wants & desires.........
@BeaverTerror the Fuji 18-55 is mediocre at best and only half a stop faster than the Leica. This is Fuji f-number cheating trickery at play. I wouldn't be surprised if the Leica smokes the Fuji zoom.
Jogger: Really makes the $1600 Panasonic "Leica" 42.5/1.2 look even less appealing and more of a rip-off. Is it $600 better than the Fuji?
The Panasonic Leica renders significantly better than this Fuji. Though for me neither seem good value for money. I find the Olympus 75mm f/1.8 a far better deal with far better images.
Doesn't really look better than a "cheap" Nikon 85mm 1.8G, whether you use it on APS-C or full frame.
whtchocla7e: It's funny that even Leica releases a serious mirror-less system to the market before Canon and Nikon do... The CaNikon boys are stuck in a time warp.
You are funny considering that this Leica is almost an exact clone of the Canon EOS M.
fakuryu: So what is special about this Leica compared to the rest of the mirrorless market?
IMHO Leica is a special camera as they are able to fit a 135 sensor in something as compact as a rangefinder and in tandem with their excellent FF lenses.
So how does this compare and differentiate itself to Sony, Fuji, Samsung (you can also throw a Pentax K01 in the mix) when it comes to IQ? None really, the competition is so tight it will be hard to differentiate what is what.
So how about the lenses now? Nothing also really since other manufacturers also produce top quality optics on par with any other company. Mostly it is ignorance and badge snobbery.
@Zohan: fast native primes, accurate autofocus. At least that's why I dumped my Nikon.
Gazeomon: I think there are more exciting 'entry level' cameras available than this lame plastic 'iteration of an iteration'. Look @ Fuji, Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Samsung and Pentax.
Lenses LOL! If a person would want a nice (native) 35mm eq. walk around prime on Nikon DX, you can forget about it.
And that's quite a fundamental lens missing in this system.
The watercolor look from this camera is unacceptable (e.g. as shown by Steve Huff).
photo perzon: Have you seen zoom lens sizes for FF?
Have you seen the size of f/2 lenses for four thirds sensors? And those are just f/4 equivalent!
I'm surprised people are still so upset about this sensor spots non-issue. You can just wipe them off with a cleaning kit. It takes 2 seconds.
If I were to complain about the D600, I'd complain about the pathetic APS-C autofocus module, the hunting in low light, the constant missed focus, and how the focus points are all bundled in the middle (there might as well just be one focus point).
And I'd complain about the lack of decent lenses, first an foremost the complete lack of an even borderline decent 50mm Nikon prime.
nathondetroit: Angrily, the truck owner vents to his friend: “I’m so sick of these gas stations. Filthy equipment, rude employees, and I have to stop every 300 miles.”
To which the Nissan Leaf owner responds, “What gas stations?”
@yabokkie: for the same reason people switched to LCD displays instead of CRTs, and for the same reason people switch to solid state storage rather than magnetic discs. The same reason why bulky desktop PCs got replaced by laptops and tablets. The same reason we will all drive electric cars in the future. It's called progress. It's quite common in technology.