MikeF4Black: I'm not sure, but I think noone has mentioned the LA adapters yet. Don't they negate the whe "Oh so light, oh so small" concept, and look slightly rodiculois as well? They must serve a very important purpose (VIP).
@MikeF4Black, if you want a decent lens selection you should just wait until March until Zeiss announces its 5 native primes + the 2 additional primes Sony will announce soon.
If you can't wait that long, just get an M-mount adapter and buy all the Zeiss, Leica and Voigtländer lenses your heart desires.
BillGarrett: Fuji seems to be on a tear with its new lenses! I've been shooting Nikon DX for 6 years, the last 3 with growing frustration about Nikon's apparent halt to building out its DX lens lineup. I've been thinking about jumping the fence to the Fuji X-mount; this lens makes the choice more compelling. But, oh, the price! The Sigma 10-20 I shoot on my Nikon cost less than half the price.
Though DX (and DSLRs in general) are a dead end indeed, the Nikon DX system has had this lens for ages and then some:
- Nikon 12-24 f/4- Nikon 10-24 f/3.5-4.5- Tokina 11-16 f/2.8- Tokina 12-24 f/4- Tokina 12-28 f/4
And your Sigma costs less than half the price because it is optically terrible. You get what you pay for. I doubt Fuji would ever release a lens as bad as that Sigma.
jhinkey: It's lenses like this one that really makes me think twice about having both a FX and m43 system - If I only had one system Fuji would be it.
You mean you want a system with lenses the size of full frame lenses yet with the image quality of micro four thirds? Because then yes, you should get a Fuji.
For all the trolls (yabokkie etc..): if you do the aperture equivalence, you also have to do the ISO equivalence.
To imitate an image captured by four thirds 17mm/1.4 ISO 6400 (clean on an E-M5), you'd have to set your full frame camera to 34mm/2.8 ISO 25600. Suddenly the comparison becomes less attractive when you do *full* equivalence...
JosephScha: Aperture: ... Lowest value 16Should that be "1.6" instead of "16"? If not, I'm confused. But then I'm confused by T1.6 instead of f/1.6
Yabokkie, a 17/1.4 does gather the same light on MFT as a 34/2.8 on full frame, but it concentrates this light on a much smaller surface, yielding better sensor performance.
So you have to adjust for equivalent ISO if not you are just spewing nonsense and/or trolling.
sebfarges: I have used the prototype of this lens this summer and did a first video test on OM-D E-M5 (new test with the final version soon) :
looks really good!
driftnomore: i would appreciate much had they marketed first the d400,then this one..
DX is dead :(
I don't understand why everyone is raving about this lens. Judging from the sample pictures the rendering is awful. I *strongly* prefer the images I'm seeing from the Panasonic 20/1.7, the underrated Olympus 17/1.8 and from the new Sony Zeiss FE 35/2.8.
Seems like a repeat of the highly overrated Fuji 35/1.4 which is basically a rebadged Sigma 30/1.4 which nobody wants to admit. Behind the scenes Sigma is an OEM for many major brands, and Fuji is definitely one of them.
I think it's a bad move to recommend the D7100 simply based on the fact that Nikon completely abandoned the development of DX lenses. And this is coming from a Nikon user.
I consider the D7100 and 70D as 'bait' cameras. Enthousiasts buy them because they are inexpensive, and in the case of Nikon the 35/1.8 lens is inexpensive as well. Soon thereafter most enthousiasts realize that there does not exist a nice set of APS-C primes. After this point it is a) upgrade to FX or b) switch to another system.
I think any photography website should strongly recommend micro four thirds cameras because it's an open standard and these Nikon-style shenanigans are impossible on an open standard.
I really wish there would be an open standard for full frame as well.
Optimal Prime: The orange background of the main page photo for the GX7 review is truly unflattering and an awful choice. Usually the new cameras are presented in a much nicer way. What happened?
DP Review is paid to discredit the micro four thirds system.
Make no mistake about it: the GX7, E-M1 and E-P5 are the worlds best cameras at the moment. You have to try it in your own hands to understand what the fuss is about.
dannyboy5400: Less features for more money? Nikon deserves to make money off any fool willing to buy this.
Quality instrument like the broken D600?
Plastic dials and the AF unit from an APS-C camera. Enjoy your 'quality instrument' my friend....
techPro: Big bulky and too expensive better to get the EM1 or G7.
@Tom_A, the df obliterates nothing about the EM1.
The EM1 destroys the DF in autofocus speed and accuracy. I know this because my current Nikon DSLR has the same crippled AF unit. Once you try the Olympus AF, you know it nails every shot, and you feel crippled when you get back to your Nikon DSLR. What good is full frame if half your shots are out of focus? What are they thinking putting an APS-C AF unit in a full frame camera anyway?
The EM1 destroys the DF in stabilization on fast primes. Sure you can get VR on zoom lenses, but not on the f/1.4 and f/1.8 primes.
That and the Olympus lenses are generally better than the Nikon ones. It's a matter of taste of course, but that 50mm f/1.8G is rubbish.
photo nerd: this is the worst joke in camera history... wtf is Nikon thinking the price is ridonculously. They did have all the possibility to create a massive Market leader in retro looking camera but instead they made a huge pile of ... *headscratching*.. na I can't say it on here but you all know what I mean.
@vFunct: this is like 1999 all over again and people shouting "NO PROFESSIONAL USES AN LCD SCREEN". Look how many people are still using ugly big CRT screens...
Sony is 2 years ahead of the game.
And Zeiss glass poops all over your 'professional' Nikon and Canon glass anyway.
Regueira Photo and Film: I'll be delighted to see is someone is selling his/her D7100 to pay less than half of this camera.
I'm sorry to be sarcastic, but looks like Nkn Engineers just didn't learn anything from Leica's M about how to make a retro camera and producing a good and relative cheap one for the masses.
Appealing of DF is fantastic, but I will not trade it, neither ergonomics, functions or capabilities for a less capable camera, specially paying more than $750 over a better one (D610/6D). Nice try. Good for snob and riches. May be good for Nikon and/or Nikonians.
But we will see in a few months if this is a goal or a fail.What do you think about it?
As a Nikon user I feel insulted by this camera. It's like a grotesque retro Pentax K1.
I will sell my Nikon DSLR and f/2.8 Nikon zooms and either stick with my excellent Olympus PEN or get the new Sony. I find it insulting that my cheap-ish PEN half-frame camera works better than my Nikon DSLR.
valdazis: For this price it supposed to have 51 point AF module at least. That "sanitary towel" on a FX viewfinder in Nikon is just not right. I like the idea that it's 16MP by the way, but that again does not add up to the pricing. Good camera - bad strategy. Pity though...
The problem with the Nikon 39-point AF module is that it doesn't work. It's slow and misses focus all the time. Also, it is intended for APS-C, so on full frame all the focus points are squished in the center of the frame. It's terrible.
stormwatch888: Nikon, Nikon....what is more to say about "this"? Old old sensor, old AF, old expeed, one card slot, no wi-fi, no gps, no video, and tons of other features expected, but of course not implemented. Ridiculous ammount of knobs and dials, mediocre design from start, but catastrophy in the real world, too big, with those ridiculous "new" old lens with glued silver ring around it.
Whom you gonna sell "this" in 2013 and 2014 except the "great" audience of ~5000 people...what are you actually doing? You launched 3 new cameras this year - "this", D610 ( but it's only the old D600 with fixed oil problems) and the D5300, which is the best ever crop camera regarding IQ, and from the samples on your site, D5300 performs better in high ISO than "this" and moreover it HAS Expeed 4, video, gps, wi-fi and it looks like a modern camera, not like an old bat with hypster mutations after some serious hangover ride in time machine.
This camera is aimed at old farts who cannot deal with the mirrorless revolution.
It will join the ranks of ugly CRT screens, beige desktop computers (vs. laptops) and of course hard disk drives.
Anirban Banerjee: This is a good move by Nikon. Fuji has been the pioneer of the 'retro' look with its X100/s and the X* series cameras -- esp. the physical shutter speed dial -- and Fuji has been very successful.
Fuji has been successful because it offers exciting lenses in a reasonably sized and priced package. Plus the Fuji cameras have clean lines somewhat in the direction of Leica.
The Nikon has an incredibly ugly, bloated design. It has nothing to do with the Fuji looks.
It looks insanely bloated. There's a comparison pic on Steve Huff's blog: the Sony and the Leica have such clean lines, and then there's the Nikon bloatfest.
Worst of all, you are paying $3000 for a camera with broken autofocus intended for APS-C. I have the Nikon Multi-CAM 4800 autofocus module in my current Nikon DSLR, and I know first-hand that it doesn't work at all. What an insult. Why carry a DSLR if the autofocus isn't even competitive with an Olympus PEN.
And don't get me started about that dreaded 50mm f/1.8G. I own it. It doesn't get sharp until f/2.8. The bokeh and rendering is horrible. I very much prefer my Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4. One would expect the full frame lens to be 4x better but it isn't, it's inferior.
I think I'm done with Nikon. It's just insult after insult. Abandoning DX, then forcing us to the broken D600 which is absolutely terrible in every aspect, and then this bloated attempt to compete with Sony/Olympus and Fuji. It's a poorly skinned D600 :(
liquid stereo: Deck chairs on the titanic...
Oly/Pana/Fuji/Sony: Here are different/better offerings — ergo, sensor size, solution size, high ISO performance, etc. — at a lower price.
Nikon: Here's one of our cams — same features, in an angled body — for the same (high) price.
Canon: What's all this then?
@Plasterk, I find it very hard to believe that Sony would be losing money as they supply all the sensors including for Nikon.
And yes, INSANELY bulky. It is 2 cm fatter than the retro Nikon cameras it is trying to imitate (which are also F-mount). Why should I be carrying this useless amount plastic when the slim Sony camera does the same thing better?
Other bulky items that got phased out by technological advancement: CRT screens, desktop computers, hard disks, walkmans, etc...