Nice ad (masquerading as an article) to help bolster Amazon pre-orders.
mujana: This lens looks perfect! Too bad it isn't available for m4/3rds. I guess I have to stick to the 75mm/1.8 and the 45mm/1.8 Zuiko for portraiture...(not a real problem by the way)
Why would you want it for m43? The lens is made for FF and it'd be a waste of glass to use it on that sensor size. You'd be better off with the Panasonic Nocticron 42.5mm 1.2 lens or the 25mm 1.4 lens if you wanted the 50mm FOV.
Though it'd be nice if Sigma made fast glass for mirrorless.
dwl017: Who exactly is this camera design for? John Doe and his his wife with two kids? or the hipster single guy with disposal cash? The $800 price point seems massive to me given the fact that its still a point and shoot camera. I also disagree with the whole pocketable argument since I doubt very few people are shoving there new $800 gadget into a pants pocket.
So again back to my original question just who sets out on a saturday afternoon to buy a $800 point and shoot camera and how exactly is the price justified given the fact that 90% of the photos taken around the world today are only posted to Facebook, Twitter, Flickr or Instagram. Depending on the state you live in within the US this is $850 camera when tax are added.
Perhaps the original Sony RX100 might even be a better option at the end of the day? price point wise. I did a quick Flickr scan of the Canon S120 and all the photos look no different from the current Sony RX100 model.
The $800 price tag are for gadget geeks who need the latest and greatest. They'll buy it, take pictures of their cat and then sell it in a month for something else. I'll buy this camera once it hits the clearance bin for the next version that has a slightly longer zoom and more megapixels.
I'm hardly a fan of Sony gear, but this camera is cool. I think Sony's stand alone cameras are great. Not a fan of their system cameras though.
larrytusaz: The existence of quality "always with you" options like this, the 3rd version of the RX 100 III, is why there's no excuse for EVER using your freaking PHONE for photography pursuits because "the best camera is the one that's with you." As small & potent as this is, using the smartphone's camera is so lame. (As for price--you can now get the 1st RX100 for a relative song.)
I hate phone pictures. Just go on any social media site and the myriad mediocrity of cell phone pictures just shows how bad those type of photos are. If one is serious about good photos something like the RX100 or any of the mini mirrorless bodies like the E-PM2 will produce far better photos.
Where the heck is the Nikon 300mm f/4 VR? I bet they'd sell more lenses of that over the 400mm even with the car-like price!
Homam: It was about time...When CANON introduced 24-70 F2.8 II it overwhelmingly beat the then Nikon King 24-70 f2.8. When it introduced 70-200 f2.8 II it again beat the Nikon 70-200 II. I seriously hope this 16-35 f4 can beat the unbeatable Nikon 16-35 f4 which is the sharpest ultra wide lens I have ever laid my hands on. Canon users deserve an ultrawide lens of that quality...
The old Canon vs Nikon pendulum swings...while the rest of the photographic world is focused on mirrorless!
Snooze. I bet the Df or D3S still beats it for low light. Next.
You're all a bunch of whiners. Nikon will fix your D600 regardless of warranty status. I should of bought one on clearance when I had the chance.
Snooze. Nice photos if you're showcasing your work in a Photoshop magazine.
Honestly I think the Nikon 1 design and implementation is first rate, but the older sensor is subpar to the competition despite all the wonderful tech behind the 1 system. I'll reserve judgement for this new sensor, but I'm not holding my breath.
Better off getting an E-M1 and have the awesome 5 axis IBIS.
kewlguy: Better experience the real thing - save more money, at least get an A7/A7R and 50 Lux APSH.
A7/R? Better off getting a FF/FX DSLR that actually has lenses available right now.
SeeRoy: Since probably less than 5% of these lenses go to professional users - in any sense of the word "professional" - they are primarily a luxury purchase to make the buyer feel special. It happens in all sectors of the consumer durables market. Yer pays yer money (or not) and yer takes yer choice. Personally I feel that knowing how to use the camera and what it's pointed at are about 95% of what's required to get decent results. But we all fall for this marketing nonsense to some degree.
I think real pros are buying the 50mm 1.8 G and banging out amazing shots with that lens at a fraction of the price.
photo perzon: Nikon should make a smaller AFS retro for the rest of us.
Umm, actually you can.
A bunch of whiners on here. If you make any money with your camera gear, buy first party batteries or use AAs in a vertical grip.
dylanbarnhart: Sony fragmentation continues. Just when you thought the Alpha was great, Sony tells you the SLT is better. Then the NEX came a long with even better image quality in smaller size. Then scratch that, full frame NEX is here. Oh and lenses you bought don't work now. If you're sick of buying lenses, then the RX superzoom is for you. Actually who needs a camera anyways, since we're all using camera phones nowadays. So scratch that and buy the QX lens camera instead. All you really sacrify is image quality.
But really, no matter what lenses you buy today, they won't work for yet another Sony system to be announced tomorrow. But don't worry, there will be adapters.
I thought Sony learned a lesson from their TV days. Guess not.
It's like throwing darts on the ceiling and seeing which will stick!
Does this mean if you buy a dirt cheap warranted D600, will Nikon replace your shutter mechanism with one that doesn't splash oil onto your sensor? If so that would be a much better deal!
Premium lens for rich doctors and dentists! Saying that, Nikon needs to get on the ball and either replace or release a premium 50mm. The 50mm 1.4 G is quite literally junk.