That 'speculation' sounds logical to me.
Nikon is better for sports? Guess that explains all the white lenses at the games...
I gotta disagree with you. The petition is not "useless" if anyone can sign it. There are those like me who are considering this camera who might be turned off by the oily sensor issue and want to...
I think the price is proportionate to the features you receive. It has something the 2.8 doesn't: IS, and a better macro feature.
If you send it to me I'll pay for the shipping.
Kinda reminds me of a Canon 600D with a better sensor.
Aside from the jump in megapixels, I don't see a good reason to buy this camera. My internet pictures won't look any better.
Considering its price, I'm hoping this lens' IQ is on par with the 24-70 2.8 II, just with less focal length and smaller aperture.
What do yo say again, Barney?
What do you say again, Barney?
I like Sony products, but they're overpriced. Yes, their technology can compete with Canon and Nikon, but I don't want to pay out the wazoo for it.
Samsung makes the screen, as well. The chip and the screen, arguably the most important parts.
Kinda ironic that Apple is suing Samsung, it's most important parts supplier. Why doesn't Samsung just cut them off at the knees?
Great review, but I'm a Canon owner. What else do you have? :-)
Canon should make a smarthphone, or at least make a camera for smartphones. I'd buy one.
Cool, thanks. :-)
It clearly states it can be yours for "just" $224. Wow, what a bargain.
Still waiting for those lens reviews you promised on Oct. 2
No, the price is $1149 for the Canon lens, and I'll take the lens with the proven track record. Nikon is reaching here.
Actually, the current price for the Canon lens is $1149 on Amazon, eBay, etc...