Panasonic KX-TG9472B DECT 6.0 2-Lines Phone with Digital Answering System and Contact Sync, Black, 2 Handsets

Panasonic KX-TG9472B DECT 6.0 2-Lines Phone with Digital Answering System and Contact Sync, Black, 2 Handsets..

Grab Now Panasonic KX-TG9472B DECT 6.0 2-Lines Phone with Digital Answering System and Contact Sync, Black, 2 Handsets By Panasonic

Most helpful customer reviews

80 of 83 people found the following review helpful.
Panasonic 2-line phone
By LovesBBC
After using for just under 5 months, the phone still works well and as advertised. A good feature is that the portable handsets use standard rechargeable batteries instead of the costly battery packs required by most other phones. Contrary to some raters, the range is also excellent, and I frequently use the phone outside of the house. The only downside found so far is that some of the buttons are not only tiny but are difficult to push, especially for elderly users. With larger and easier to push buttons, I would have rated this phone with 5 stars.

39 of 41 people found the following review helpful.
Solid Phone System With Great Range
By Charlie
We've owned the predecessor to this unit, Panasonic KX-TG6700 (2 line unit) for the last 5 years, and it still works well, but decided to upgrade the new version of the same system. We really were looking for better range, and after replacing the batteries a number of times (@ $30 a pop) it was time for a change. I'm always looking at the MTBF on any components and wanted to replace it because of that also.

Out of the box, the unit installation and setup was a breeze and the base unit was up and working in a few minutes. The cordless phones needed to be charged for 7 hours and were already registered with the base. We spent about 60 minutes getting used to all the new options, putting in all the phone book entries, setting the answering machine greeting messages and it was easy to do. The entire system performs very well and we are very happy with the purchase. We rarely had to look into the manual for help.

Here is what we liked:

The range of the cordless handsets is AMAZING, they were very clear at about 100-150 feet (outside) from the base unit. Also the "dead spots" in the house (3 stories) were totally gone. It had about twice the range of the old phones, big plus for us.

Battery life has improved considerably; we can use the phones all day, and still have lots of battery life left. The specs say you can talk for 12 hours on a single charge, I believe it.

The base unit has a large LCD screen for putting in your phone book, and other settings. Once you put in all your phone book entries, you can easily send them to all the cordless handsets.

Speaker phone works very well, clear with lots of volume.

The answering system will tell you what line the call came in on. I do not have to go through all the messages to see which ones are personal and business. I can just go to Line 2 messages, and get the business calls, and my wife can go to Line 1 messages to get all the personal messages. Like It.

The cordless handsets have 6 icons that are displayed when you press the Menu button. This helps in navigating through all the options.

What we did not like:

On the cordless handsets, the Talk and Off buttons are very small, much smaller than the number buttons. For buttons you use on every call, they should be bigger.

On the cordless handsets, the Talk and Off buttons should be backlit, when you are in a dark environment, you cannot find the button to hang up the phone or start a call.

When you create Groups (Friends, Family, Work...) for your phone book entries on the base unit they do not get sent to the cordless handsets. So when you take the time to organize all your contacts into Groups and send them to the cordless handsets, they all end up in the generic Group 1. Then you have to create new groups and move them around again, what a pain.

The ring tones you can select on the base unit are not the same as the cordless handsets, this is crazy. When a call is coming in, the base unit has one ring tone, and if the cordless handsets are near the base unit, they have a different ring tone and you have all of them ringing at a different tone simultaneously. It's very annoying.

When setting options on the base unit, there are screens you navigate to that you cannot get out of (no Back Button). You end up hitting Stop button on the phone itself to get out of that display. There should always be a Back Button.

There is an icon on both systems for "Help", when you click on it, it says to go to panasonic.com for support. Don't waste my screen space.

The cordless handsets are a little smaller than the previous ones and the plastic case is very smooth and harder to hang on to. I've dropped the old ones a number of times (still work), I hope these are as durable.

78 of 87 people found the following review helpful.
Mediocre at best
By Craig
I find this system to be mediocre at best. I had an older Panasonic semi-pro analog system (KX-TG4000B 4-line) that I wanted to replace to get the DECT 6.0 digital system, because we get interference on the old analog system. This system does indeed eliminate that interference, however in many ways it is inferior to that old system. Here are some of the primary downsides to this system (not in any particular order):

(1) If you want to turn off one of the lines so that it doesn't ring (like at night), you have to do it individually from every handset. There's no blanket turn-off from the base unit. (There is a "night" feature that lets you do an automatic scheduled turn off at a set time, but that's no good unless you go to bed and wake up at the exact same time every day.)

(2) The sound quality is free from interference, but the volume is low and the audio frequency range is not very good, on both the handsets and the base unit. Callers on the other side have complained that our volume is a little low.

(3) It has different ring tones you can select, which is great, but the set of ring tones is different for the handsets than from the base unit. So you can't have a consistent set of ring tones for each line between the base and the handsets.

(4) The speakerphone on the base unit is of poor quality. It is not loud enough. Also, when you mute it still cuts out when the other side goes somewhat quiet. If your side is muted, it should never cut off the other side. Because of these two problems, it can be difficult to hear the other side if they are not particularly loud.

(5) The volume settings are not granular enough. There are only 5 volume settings, and usually setting 2 is too low but setting 3 is too loud and distorts.

(6) No battery backup on the base unit. Seems like it wouldn't be much to include a few batteries in the base unit. I solved this by connecting it to a UPS.

(7) The quality (audio frequency response) of the recorded outgoing message is not very good.

It is not bad enough that I would return it, it is useable. But it is disappointing, especially compared to the old semi-pro system we used to have.

See all 141 customer reviews...More...

Kingston Digital 16 GB microSD Class 10 UHS-1 Memory Card 30MB/s with Adapter (SDC10/16GB)

Kingston Digital 16 GB microSD Class 10 UHS-1 Memory Card 30MB/s with Adapter (SDC10/16GB)..

GET Kingston Digital 16 GB microSD Class 10 UHS-1 Memory Card 30MB/s with Adapter (SDC10/16GB) By Kingston

Most helpful customer reviews

76 of 79 people found the following review helpful.
Too slow to be class 10
By BobbyA
I tested the Kingston 8GB class 10 micro SD card using ATTO Disk BenchMark v2.46
Write speed was approximately 7.5 MB/sec, Read speed was approximately 12 MB/sec.
I requested an RMA from Kingston and returned it for an exchange. The new one measured:
Write speed approximately 7 MB/sec, Read speed approximately 13 MB/sec.
Compare these to a Kingston 8GB micro SD class 4 from 2 years ago, which measured:
Write speed approximately 9 MB/sec, Read speed approximately 16 MB/sec.
Or an ADATA 8GB micro SD class 6 (FWIW 1st one of these had to be exchanged too):
Write speed approximately 7 MB/sec, Read speed approximately 16 MB/sec.

Conclusion, unless an application only needs to read quickly, where cameras for instance need to write quickly, I would not buy this SD card again for class 10 performance, since I can get the same result with cheaper claas cards, or better performance with another brand. I also tested each card in my Nikon DSLR, results tracked the Benchmark testing, measured as number of pictures in a 20 second period with the shutter button held down.

Update:
I recently bought a Wintec 16GB class 10, same measurement setup indicated 12 MB/sec write, 16 MB/sec read speed. Besides the wintec actually doing what it was advertised to, these results indicate nothing in my hardware was keeping the Kingston card from achieving 10 MB/sec if it had been good enough.

29 of 31 people found the following review helpful.
Returned 2, didn't meet class 10 rating minimum. My class 6 whooped it.
By Amazon Dealfinder
SD cards have a universal standard they have to meet to get a class rating. The class number guarantees a minimum write speed. MINIMUM being the point, it is NOT an average.

This card is highly rated by numerous computer hardware websites that benchmark flash card memory. On all of those sites the benchmarks show this card exceeding it's rated write speed of 10MB/s (most by double the rated speed).

This particular card is rated as a class 10 and therefore have a minimum of 10MB a sec. After using 5 different benchmark programs on 2 computers and an Android phone my results were: Writing speed: 6-8.6 MByte/s, Reading speed: 15-18.2 MByte/s.

At this point I still trust the Kingston name so I have opted for an exchange.

UPDATE: Got the replacement, tested with the same 5 programs and pretty much got the same result (ever so slightly higher average). So I am returning it and going to try another brand (keep reading).

On a side note. I decided to test my Lexar Professional Series 8 GB 133x Class 6 SDHC Flash Memory Card SD8GB-133-381 that I bought here on Amazon back in Mar09. That class 6 card, with the same benchmark programs were: Writing speed: 16-17.8 MB/s, Reading speed: 19-21.2 MB/s.

26 of 29 people found the following review helpful.
Failed and "Lifetime Warranty" is pretty useless
By Mark Edelstein
I bought the card and it worked fine for about 3 months than completely failed. Since it has a "Lifetime Warranty", I took advantage of that, returned it to Kingston, and since have had to follow up every step of the return process.

I got delivery confirmation from the Postal Service, then had to send Kingston an e mail two days after the card was delivered to find out what the status was on the order. Their website said they'd be a little more speedy on processing warranty claims. Two days later I got a note that they'd get the mailroom to move the package through, which they seem to have done, although it should have already moved through based on what their website says. I waited a day for an update on their website as to the status of the return and checked it this morning.

They finally processed the return, but DARN THE LUCK, the replacement item is BACKORDERED. I called customer service, and the lady was very nice, but told me the item "Just went on backorder" so she had no idea as to when it would be coming in and would have to check with their engineers to find out. Engineers? She didn't offer a replacement product or any other solution other than to wait to hear back from the engineers.

The card was OK, but when it failed I lost everything on it. Now I'm waiting longer than I should have to for a replacement. What good is a warranty if you can't replace a defective product? I'm not a happy man.

See all 184 customer reviews...More...

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX7K 10.1 MP Digital Camera with 3.8x Optical zoom and 3.0-inch LCD - Black

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX7K 10.1 MP Digital Camera with 3.8x Optical zoom and 3.0-inch LCD - Black..

Grab Now Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX7K 10.1 MP Digital Camera with 3.8x Optical zoom and 3.0-inch LCD - Black By Panasonic

Most helpful customer reviews

557 of 576 people found the following review helpful.
PANA keeps improving on the LX3, but still not "perfect..."
By Nathaniel Allen
Wow, this was a tough upgrade decision. Sony's RX100 is superb competition, and I was certain *IT* would be the camera that pulled me out of the Panasonic camp (I also own an old Panasonic DMC-FX50 "bridge camera" in addition to an LX5, which replaced my LX3 -- plus my wife kept a Pana FX35 in her purse before she switched to Sony's slim TX9.

Despite keeping these few cameras around (really just the 3: the FX50, the TX9 and now the LX7), I'm just your Joe Average photographer, shooting mainly the kids, family/friend gatherings, special events, and some home construction-type projects, and other hobby interests.

And what I've ever really wanted out of the LX series is a compact, low light-capable camera with a respectable set of manual controls. Exactly what the SONY RX100 is with its huge sensor, and of the two, it is unquestionably the better performer for indoor shooting situations of fast moving kids, compared to the LX3 and LX5.

If that were my only criteria, I'd have never ordered the LX7, and might be typing up my thoughts on the RX100 instead. But maybe my four years of familiarity with the LX3/5 got the better of me. Maybe I'm just a sheep with a Panasonic logo branded on my flank. But there were a couple of sore points with the Sony that just plain made me unsatisfied. Rather than trash the RX100 (not my intention), here's my list:

- There's no escaping the benefit of the wide 24mm lens on the LX series. Not to mention the handy aspect ratio mode switching right on the bezel. And I use the 1:1 aspect ratio more than I care to admit.
- The Panasonic's hot shoe is a hot commodity when I need it. I have a Metz 36-AF4O (since replaced by the Metz 36 AF-5, I believe) which is about as big as the camera itself, but provides more than adequate light with bounce capabilities.
- Two of my gripes with the LX3 and LX5 were the difficulty of adjusting manual settings via push-button & thumb dial inputs. The LX7's aperture ring and dedicated manual focus lever have addressed this, with varying degrees of satisfaction.
- I get to keep my LX5 spare battery, which isn't such a huge deal, but just know that its shelf life is spectacular. Although my predicted number of shots between charges has decreased, per the manual. Nothing drastic; still great battery life.
- Most importantly, the Panasonic LX7 has a certain ease and quickness about it -- probably due in part to my use of its predecessors -- and combined with the newly added manual controls, it feels to me the design is finally at a point where I can set up various shooting solutions with a minimum of fuss and button pressing, nearly (but not quite) like my SLR days many years ago. The "user experience" of the Sony, by comparison, felt a little too menu driven and sticky.

Where did Panasonic fall short with this new model?

- For one, the image quality really hasn't changed. My thoughts are that the LX3 was excellent, but the LX5 tended to focus a little soft -- although nothing that stood out horribly amiss; maybe within the normal manufacturing variations? I don't want to speculate on sensor sizes or type playing a role, but I can attest Sony's RX100 shoots a "cleaner" or "crisper" portrait-style photo -- although that difference disappears once the image is downsized for printing/sharing.
- There's still no remote. Or cable release. Or Bulb mode. Can't tell you how much I enjoy those features on other cameras. For the LX5, I have a cable release adapter that slides into the hot shoe and extends an arm over the shutter release for a cable release to activate, but the hot shoe has been realigned on the LX7 so it no longer works.
- I continue to have trouble reading the silver-on-silver symbols etched onto the 4-way keys.
- If you're one to complain about the lens cap (I'm not, but I know a lot of LX users HATE the thing)... well, it's still here, and it's smaller than before, making it a little more difficult to clip on/clip off.
- I once committed to never buying a camera without a tiltable display, but that's just not an option. All things considered, the LX7 display is not as bright at the RX100, but is very visible in all but direct daylight, and viewable from off angles without the colors inverting.

What did Panasonic get right with the LX7 update?

- The redesigned lens is noteworthy. It's a definite improvement over the LX5 for indoor shooting, and that extends through the entire zoom range (still only 90mm, which was an improvement over the LX3). I find that I take the vast majority of my photos on the wide end of this lens, but in low light settings, I've been forced to if I'm trying to avoid using the flash. With the lens redesign, I've got a little more flexibility in my zoom before resorting to higher ISOs.
- IC? Firmware? Who knows! The camera is snappier than its predecessor, in all aspects: start up, menu navigation, auto focus delay, and shot to shot. It gets shots off near instantaneously. And the kicker is a burst mode!
- I can't say I was disappointed by the 720p video of the LX5, but full HD video is a treat -- especially with memory prices as cheap as they are compared to two years ago.
- Finally, a dedicated white balance button on the 4-way controller! (Panasonic eliminated the "Focus" key featured on the LX5, and also added burst mode selection to the shutter self timer key.)
- I'm very excited about the inclusion of a time lapse feature. This was overdue.
- The clickable, dedicated aperture ring, especially, and the manual focus lever, sort of (light applause -- needs something more "ring like")
- The mode wheel is substantially firmer, preventing inadvertent turns while in the pocket.

Some random thoughts on the Sony RX100: It feels a little "rough" at startup (i.e. not-so-smooth lens extension, kind of rough feel & sound), and starts up about a second slower than the Panasonic, but not having to remove a lens cap negates that. Zoom time from full wide to full tele is about one second snappier on the Sony. I felt that the Sony's auto white balance "got it right" more often than the LX, but the custom white balance is at minimum one level deep into the menu (if set to the Fn key). Shutdown immediately after snapping a pic is an agonizingly slow 5-6 seconds for full lens retraction; 3-4 seconds if the camera is already at idle. And not so much a dig at Sony as a kudos to Panasonic, but with the 28mm constraint on the wide end, switching from 4:3 to 16:9 simply crops the top and bottom of the frame, whereas on all the LX cameras with their unique sensor usage, I actually gain extra pixels on the sensor to help compose the shot I want.

Panasonic's history of product support HAS to be a consideration. They released mid-cycle firmware updates for both the LX3 and the LX5, and with the unexpected LX3 update in particular, added new features -- not just bug fixes. (Wish I could say the same about the FX50, but that's a story for another day...)

I wouldn't be so bold as to recommend the LX7 over the RX100, but only want to give a little insight via some of the features I hold in high regard. They both definitely have their strong suits. If you're at all familiar with the previous LX cameras, you have a solid basis for understanding the LX7 improvements, as well as its shortcomings. That certainly didn't stop me from happily purchasing the RX100 before giving the LX7 a chance to hit the streets, but by doing so I immediately proved to myself that there is still no "perfect camera," and with the compromises that I had to accept, my preferences fell mainly back to the LX line.

191 of 200 people found the following review helpful.
Best compact camera for the price
By Bob
I feel bad for this camera because it got overshadowed by the Sony RX100, which everyone thinks is so amazing because it has a sensor that's midway in size between a compact camera and an APS-C DSLR.

Leaving aside the RX100, the LX7 is the best compact camera I have ever owned with respect to image quality and useability and features.

Some of the wonderful attributes of this camera are:

1. It focuses as fast as an entry-level DSLR.
2. Built-in level.
3. "Step-zoom" allows you to select focal-length-equivalents of 24, 28, 35, 50, 70 and 90mm.
4. Manual focus gives you an electronic depth of field chart which changes as you change the aperture. This makes it great for either zone focusing or for finding the hyperfocal distance. There's also an "MF Resume" option which will return the lens to where you last manually focused.
5. Lens is really sharp, only minimal corner softness at F4, and very useable wide open, more so than the Sony RX100.
6. I also see nearly zero purple fringing with this camera--I'm not sure if its the amazing lens or Panasonic post-processing tricks, but it's nevertheless impressive.
7. Lens is so fast that this camera is actually a BETTER low-light camera than any entry-level DSLR if you are only going to be using that DSLR with the kit lens. The lens is also faster than the RX100, so you need to take that into account when you compare the two cameras. The lens is fast enough to give you a little bit of blurred background, something I've never seen before on a compact camera.
8. Widest angle is 24mm (equivalent), which is a premium feature that you don't get on basic DSLR kit lenses and you don't get on the Sony RX100.
9. For a sensor if its size it's probably best-of-class, with better DR and less noise than sensors from a few years ago.

The negatives of this camera are:

1. Not as small as a Sony RX100. It is not a pants pocket camera, but fits fine in a coat pocket. The LX7 is slightly more pocketable than an Olympus E-PM1 with the Panasonic 14mm pancake lens.
2. The LCD is nice, but not as nice as the one on the Sony RX100.
3. Has a lens cap you need to remove before using the camera. The camera comes with a little cord you can use to attach the lens cap to the camera so you don't lose it, but I tried it and hated having a lens cap dangling around. So far I've only lost one lens cap in the last ten years, so I'll keep my fingers crossed.
4. Even at base ISO, the sensor is a good distance behind top-quality larger sensors, like the one in the Nikon 3200, so if your photographic goal is to make really huge prints, I recommend a Nikon 3200 with a sharp lens like the Nikon 16-85mm DX VR lens. But you would probably not notice this sensor's shortcomings in anything smaller than a 13 x 19" print.

Bottom line:

If you are going to buy an entry-level DSLR or micro-four-thirds or NEX camera, and are only going to use that camera with the kit lens, then you are probably better off buying an LX7 instead. This camera even has a flash shoe and can be used with a real flash, so there's nothing you can't do with this camera just as well or better that you can do with a DSLR+kit lens.

185 of 198 people found the following review helpful.
Best hiking/climbing camera ever
By Monty VanderBilt
My primary requirement for a camera is that it be compact, but still take great pictures under the conditions I run into often. I hike and climb a lot and do not want the bulk of a DSLR hanging in front of me, and the camera must be accessible so I don't delay the group while digging my camera out of the pack. So I gravitate toward the compact camera that gives me as much of the DLSR feature set as possible.

I chose the LX7 primarily because it has a very fast lens. For me that means handheld shots under a thick forest canopy are not blurred because of slow shutter speeds. My previous camera was the DMC-LX5, the predecessor to this model and it was great. I'm replacing it because I made the mistake of taking movies in a sandstorm during a hike down Buckskin gulch in Utah. Ever since that the camera has been complaining when sand grains stick in the lens mechanism and get inside the camera on the sensor. So don't do that!

When the LX7 arrived I downloaded the PDF manual (much easier to read than the small one in the box) and went through the new features to familiarize myself with how to use them. I kept being delighted with the improvements over the LX5 that make this the best camera I've ever owned for hiking/climbing shots. In brief, they are:

1) Fast lens - good for hand held shots in dim lighting situations (forests, twilight, ...). You don't hold up your companions setting up a tripod shot.
2) Wide angle - no need for a panorama when the wide angle lens can get it all
3) Compact - light and small enough to hand around your neck all day without being uncomfortable
4) Raw - Most of the time I take jpeg simply to document the hike. But when dramatic lighting or scenes call for it I can kick in the Raw for a killer result.
5) Bracketing - many outdoor shots with snow or sun/shadow scenes have huge contrast. Exposure bracketed shots combined in post solve this.
6) New! Auto HDR - LX7 will do the bracketing and merging in camera. Haven't tested enough to see if it beats (4) for quality though.
7) New! Auto Pano - I take a lot of panorama shots from viewpoints, and it's time consuming to stitch them in post. The LX7 will do them in camera.
8) New! 3D - I know, 3D is overrated, but for that shot hanging over the cliff nothing else works as well. LX7 has a 3D photo mode.
9) New! Time Lapse - I don't do time lapse much because I couldn't, but I hope to capture progressive alpenglow from camp, and a time lapse of 3 shots 1-minute apart also works as a long self-timer. I've nearly fallen scrambling on steep summit rocks to get in the picture withing 10 seconds.
10) White body - I bushwhack a lot and twice my camera has "sneaked" out of my case when I forgot to close the zipper. White cameras are easier to find!

See all 397 customer reviews...More...

Nikon D5200 24.1 MP CMOS Digital SLR with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S DX VR NIKKOR Zoom Lens (Black)

Nikon D5200 24.1 MP CMOS Digital SLR with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S DX VR NIKKOR Zoom Lens (Black)..

Buy Nikon D5200 24.1 MP CMOS Digital SLR with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S DX VR NIKKOR Zoom Lens (Black) By Nikon

Most helpful customer reviews

454 of 489 people found the following review helpful.
Solid performance, good value, Nikon nails it again!
By Yano
This camera may be the best APS-C in its class so far. After Nikon's quality control issue with the full-frame D600 (sensor oil spot problem), Nikon may be able to win back its trust with this new release, again aimed at enthusiasts and amateur photographers. Being an amateur photographer for years and have invested quite a sum in Sony, Canon and Nikon bodies and lenses, I myself settled with Nikon in personal preference. I would say all three brands got its personality (good and bad), especially with Sony pushing the translucent mirror technology.

The D5200 is a step up from the D3200 as an entry to mid-level body. Very solid performance and thank god it does not suffer the fate of the D600. The D5200 produces extremely good quality images just like the D3200. Both the D3200 and D5200 share the 24MP sensor resolution, with the difference being the light sensitivity in high ISO situations. Both cameras are able to produce extremely well results in terms of photo quality. I am usually able to get better image results from the D3200 and D5200 compared with Sony's A65 and A77 in actual use. Sony somehow made the older A55 easier than the A65 and A77 at getting a clean and noise free shot (maybe due to sensor difference). So Nikon wins here, I would say the image quality of the D5200 is as good as the well acclaimed Canon 60D in most cases easily done (with the D5200 at a higher resolution). So the major difference of the D5200 compared with the D3200 is the focus sensor and exposure meter sensor. The D5200 borrows the technology from the bulkier D7000 and presents 39 AF points including 9 cross-type AF points for accuracy and a more precise exposure metering system (D3200 have 11 AF points, 1 cross-type). This is extremely useful in specific situations, such as shooting moving objects or in macro photography. The D3200 performed very well in everyday shooting, but with my 40mm and 60mm Nikon Micro lenses, the AF failed to accurately or effectively focus on very close subjects. The D5200 however is much better, the body focused efficiently on to desired subjects precisely. The focus speed is still mainly dependent on the lens.

The swing-out LCD screen is useful in some situations and video shooting, but proves less useful to me. And keep in mind when using live-view, the camera no longer uses the phase-detection AF sensors, but rather switches to use contrast AF, which utilizes your APS-C image sensor and the CPU (less accurate and slower AF in most cases).

The D5200 is not designed to be weatherproof, but it will survive a short time of mist and a few droplets. Anything more may just end up killing the camera. The battery life is very good for photos, will last you 1000+ shots on a single charge in most cases while not using live-view. However when you need it for a video project, consider carrying a few extra batteries with you or resort to an external power source.

If you are starting out in Nikon or just DSLR in general, buy the 18-55mm Kit, and add on the 55-200mm VR lens (you get $100 discount bundled). The Nikon 55-200mm DX VR is a VERY GOOD lens, you do not want to get it later since you may be paying the full price for a new one. The VR (Nikon's optical vibration reduction) of the 55-200mm will allow you to capture subjects/people at a good wanted distance with extremely well image quality and brilliant background defocus, opens many doors for quality and creativity. The Nikon 55-200mm DX VR is one of the best lenses I have used and also at a very affordable price.

The other kit lens offering of the D5200 is the 18-105mm kit. The 18-105mm is not very good and I'm not going to get too much into the details; it generally is not very good in terms of construction for a heavier lens and causes more barrel distortion.

For me, how the function buttons are positioned on the D5200 is a little awkward, but for others it may just be a matter of time to get used to. Compared with the D5100, the D5200 is quite a big step-up in terms of crucial internal hardware.

272 of 303 people found the following review helpful.
ROCK SOLID PERFORMANCE! More Bang For Buck Than The Canon 6D.
By Faymus Media
Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R2F2NYTG7I4CR0 The D5200 has 24MP. 39 AF points 9 are cross type. While the Canon 6D only has 11 AF points and 1 cross type. The 6D is more than 2 times the cost and has 22MP. The Nikon D5200 has a rotating screen, picture control presets, aperture priority, shutter priority, P, and M modes. The D5200 has +/- 5 stops of exposure compensation, the 6D has 3!

The D5200 has a great burst rate of 5fps. ISO range from 100-25,600. Exspeed 3 processing power, face recognition, and full time AF with full HD video. What more could you ask for when buying a camera less than $900? I did a complete hands on review video for "Focus Camera" in NYC. I will be posting it to this review sometime later in the week when finished.

My thoughts are this camera is light, and while it is not as rugged as a 6D or D600 you get what you pay for. This camera provides great lowlight performance and stunning resolution that is higher than the $3400 5D mark II. Which is worth mentioning. Nikon has leaped ahead of the competition with their new line of cameras.

The auto focus on this camera while doing some street and urban photography is very quick and accurate. I had a blast using it as the weight is a very big plus because it can be more easily carried for longer periods of time. If you are in market for a great camera and you are not willing to spend $2k for the D600, there is nothing that will compete with this camera in terms of "Bang for Buck" with either of the brands for under $2k.

The only 3 things worth complaining about is you can't change aperture in Live View, however you can't do that in the D600 either. It isn't 100% viewfinder, which would be nice. Also the internal microphone is not that great but does have manual control. These 3 issues are not that big of a deal when considering what this camera does so well for its price range.

Great camera, amazing capabilities, worth every penny.

Video to Come later this week.

Corey Benoit
Faymus Media
faymusmedia.com
corey@faymusmedia.com

195 of 218 people found the following review helpful.
Nice step up from the D5100, Big Plus Articulating Screen!
By Adam Petrone
I upgrade every 2 years or so and was close to buying the D7000 when this was announced. I owned the D5100 since it's release and have been very happy with it, but being a gadget guy I'm always looking to upgrade. As far as I was concerned the D7000 was buying old technology. I love the D5200's interface as it's much easier to navigate than the D5100 and the auto focus is much quicker and precise. The photo's are sharp and very accurate in color. I'm very happy with the D5200. Just for the 39-point AF system for smarter focusing and tracking of moving subjects (compared to the 11-point module on the D5100), a 2,016-pixel RGB metering sensor (whereas the D5100 judged exposure based on just 420 pixels),the new Expeed 3 processor that permits up to five shots per second (versus the older camera's 4 fps)and the new easier to navigate interface makes it worth the price. Let me just add 1 more very big plus, the articulating screen, no other Nikon has it and it is a big plus. I've used it for shots over others heads and other creative angles that I could never get with a fixed screen.

See all 214 customer reviews...More...

Canon PowerShot SX280 12MP Digital Camera with 20x Optical Image Stabilized Zoom with 3-Inch LCD (Red)

Canon PowerShot SX280 12MP Digital Camera with 20x Optical Image Stabilized Zoom with 3-Inch LCD (Red)..

GET Canon PowerShot SX280 12MP Digital Camera with 20x Optical Image Stabilized Zoom with 3-Inch LCD (Red) By Canon

Most helpful customer reviews

297 of 305 people found the following review helpful.
Great Camera! Love the Wireless!
By Telemachus
I've had a number of PowerShot cameras. Really impressed with the picture quality of the camera and the overall speed. Colors and picture quality are quite good and the low-light performance is superior. The previous review focuses nicely on the picture quality, so I wil stick with the human factors.

Manual control and adjustment are simple to master, so you won't need to rely on the automatic settings. My only concern with the camera is hat the wifi settings are difficult to set up. I'm pretty good with wireless technologies and it took me quite awhile to figure it out. Make sure you run the set up disk. Unlike many other consumer wireless gadgets, this one requires that you run the setup software. Couldn't just turn on the camera and connect it to the router. As much as it pains me to say this, I should've read the directions prior to jumping in to try to set it up! :-)

Once it's setup, it works great. I've been transferring files to iphone, ipad, and laptop; and transferring to the Canon Image site. All directly from the camera. Even emailed my wife a link to a photo directly from the camera. Camera IS a bit of a battery hog, but I was expecting it.

Update: Since I concentrated on human factors in my review, I thought I would weigh in on flash location interfering with handhold
position. Personally, I didn't notice it until I read the other reviews. I've had other cameras with pop up flashes, so I think I just automatically adjusted to it. That said, I can see how it would annoy some people. The flash is located in the front left-hand corner of the camera, but there IS sufficient space behind the flash to place your finger. Could be a problem if you have large hands, I suppose.. Motor is also strong enough to remind me to move it when it pops up.

----------------------------
Update 20 May:: There is a glitch that's been widely reported that shows that the battery is drained when in video mode. This is a glitch in the indicator, not the actual battery life. Cannon has acknowledged the problem and is working on a fix. Expect the next firmware update to address the issue.
-----------------------------
Update 5 June: New Firmware Released Today!! Details Firmware Version 1.0.2.0 incorporates the following fixes and improvements:

1. Increases the duration of movie shooting by 20% in cases where the optical zoom is used compared to cameras running Firmware Version 1.0.0.0 or Firmware Version 1.0.1.0 through a reduction in the power consumption of the optical zoom.

*Time under default camera settings, when normal operations are performed, such as shooting, pausing, turning the camera on and off, and zooming. (based on conditions established by Canon).
-Under some shooting conditions, the recording time may be shorter than mentioned above.
-Recording time with a fully charged battery.

2. Fixes a phenomenon with cameras running firmware version 1.0.0.0, in which the low battery level warning is prematurely displayed while shooting in movie mode.

Firmware Version 1.0.2.0 is for cameras with firmware Version 1.0.1.0 or Version 1.0.0.0. If the camera's firmware is already Version 1.0.2.0, it is not necessary to update the firmware. Please note that, once the camera is updated to the latest version, it cannot be restored to a previous

I installed it with no problems.

443 of 462 people found the following review helpful.
A Great Campact Camera
By Just Another Reviewer
Enough said about how good this compact camera is in the other reviews. Only two quick comments: It is an excellent compact zoom camera complimentary to my SLR camera/lens collection on the road for quick shots (photo & video) without lens changing. Case Logic DCB-302 Compact Case provides good protection and a perfect fit with room for extra battery and SD card.

Update 5/8/2013: Per Canon technical support, the battery inside the camera cannot be charged via USB port like your cell phone when connecting to PC or outside USB power source.

Update 5/13/2013: When using "AUTO" on the dial as well as ""AUTO" ISO" in "P", "Tv" and "Av", the ISO is automatically selected from 80 to 1600, not to 3200 or 6400. To manually select ISO 3200 or 6400 in "P", "Tv" and "Av", you need to select "FUNC. SET" and then choose the 3200 or 6400 under the"ISO" list.

Update 5/19/2013 The flashing "low battery" warning in the video mode is indeed a design fault of the battery indicator not the battery itself. With a freshly charged battery, I can take either around 200 photos or about 30 minutes video (1080p 30fps). The low battery warning comes in about 2 minutes into the video shooting after some zooming.

Update 5/20/2013 Per Canon technical support, Canon is trying to resolve this "low battery" warning issue in the video mode. Decided to return this wonderful camera. Will buy it when the issue is resolved.

Update 6/5/2013 Canon just published a firmware update for SX280 to fix the low battery warning issue in the video mode at this web link: ([...] Click on "Drivers & Software". Select your computer's Operating System and OS Version. Click on "Firmware". Download the firmware zip file and unzip the file. Follow the instruction in the PDF file to update the firmware.

Update 6/7/2013 I repurchased a new SX280 with the hope that the low battery warning issue has been fixed by this firmware update. I updated the new camera to the new firmware 1.0.2.0 from 1.0.1.0 following the procedure in the PDF file. The premature low battery warning in the video mode for the updated SX280 has improved but not fixed.

260 of 274 people found the following review helpful.
Terrific Camera Overall
By J. Malinsky
Hi there

I've replied to a few reviews of this product before choosing to write my own, while keeping in mind everyone's opinions (especially about the battery) thus far.

Out of the way, I too noticed "problems" when shooting video on a not-fully charged battery. I put the word in quotes, because in my experience/view, it's really a software problem that can be fixed with an upcoming firmware update. It just flashes red prematurely, and you can certainly repeat steps to have that happen consistently. Also, you'll only get about 30 minutes or so of 1920/60fps HD video per charge (keep in mind the battery will likely be flashing red most of the time). But keep in mind, its really just a bug. When you power up your camera, the true charge is shown on the indicator.

I took the camera with me today to shoot a typical days worth of exciting things with my kids. I took about 35 photos, and a combined 7 minutes of full HD/1920/60fps video. I also transferred a few images wirelessly to my Android phone. After all that, my battery is still showing as fully charged and does not do the 'premature red battery' even if i take it to video. So that seems like a decent day for me, and it doesn't show a dent (and rightly so). I'll just have to remember to charge the battery fully before I take it out.

In the end, I do recommend the camera because of what I bought it for: excellent, truly best-in-class images from a camera under $400. This camera is my '2nd' camera, for times when I don't feel like dragging my DSLR around. The images aren't as good as a DSLR (no surprise) but they are by far the best images I've taken with a point-and-shoot. The 20x optical zoom is truly incredible, and the true/natural Image Stabilization (*not* digital) is fantastic: you can actually take a 20x zoomed picture without it being blurry! Not only that, the IS during video shooting makes it smooth-as-silk on playback, especially in truly stunning 60fps mode. Shutter-lag isn't as good as a DSLR (because the concept doesnt exist with mirrors), but it's miles ahead of my last 2011 P&S and also faster than my 2013 smartphone camera.

I can see why the video/battery issue is so frustrating: the video from this thing is truly amazing (stereo, Image Stabilization, and did I mention 1920 and 60fps yet??!) and you *want* to shoot a ton with it. It's also in ultra-convenient mp4 format right out-of-the-camera. And it does a superb job of focusing as you zoom on video (my older p&s wouldn't let me zoom in video mode at all). But if video is really your mojo, get a camcorder for the same price and be happy. If you're after stills, or shooting video "shorts", this is your bet. And hopefully the short-ish battery on video will make better videographers out of people by forcing them to cut down on the extra crap they shoot that nobody watches anyways :)

Touching on a few remaining things: I love that the camera has a metal body, love its hefty weight (remember when cameras felt like cameras and not TV remotes?) and dig the wireless. I'm not a GPS guy because the privacy issue freaks me out, so I don't run the GPS. As mentioned by other reviewers, the wireless is a bit tricky to set up if you want to go camera->computer wirelessly - you'll have to run the software on the CD (it retrieves the latest version from the net automatically). The easiest set-up is camera->smartphone; as long as they're on the same network, transfers are easy. If there's no wireless where you're shooting, you can actually use the camera as an access point itself and connect your smartphone/tablet to the *camera's* network. Keep in mind that the wireless transfer is *not* eye-fi: you have to *select* the images you want to send, after they've been shot (photos aren't automatically transferred wirelessly as you shoot). Believe it or not, you can actually tweet from the camera itself. That being said, I think the omission of Flickr is a drag, but perhaps that's because they are pushing their own "Canon Image Gateway" service for photo sharing/storage.

Also, I appreciate the restraint in megapixels... the filesizes and document sizes are realistic and appropriate for people who aren't blowing photos up to large dimensions. Focusing on image quality instead of megapixel count is a much welcomed approach in my opinion, and I hope the ridiculous megapixel race slows down in order to focus on the sensor quality/lenses that can be crammed into a P&S size camera.

Also, coming from DSLR world, I'm actually pretty happy with the amount of customization offered. The manual (on the CD only) is chock full of information, including how to use the self-timer in "wink" mode (wink to take the shot!!). All modes I shoot on (M/AV/TV/P) offer *center only* focus. I haven't seen that mentioned too often, but that is *exactly* what I like - in fact the first thing I do on my DSLRs/new cameras is turn off the 'smart autofocus' to use center-point only). It means you might have to take a moment to frame the shot you want (focus then frame), but to me it cuts down on silly camera "intelligent" errors when it focuses on things with contrast instead of the content that matters.

I don't find the position of the pop-up flash an issue; my finger fits behind it. Also, consider that the pop-up flash reduces red-eye quite significantly by being further away from the lens. Not only that, but this camera is *great* in low-light for a point-and-shoot - ease up on the flash and enjoy the great new processor!

This camera does exactly what I want it to do, and does it *really well*, but if I was planning on a day of really heavy shooting with video, I'd buy a spare battery. And I'm looking forward to a firmware update!

See all 497 customer reviews...More...

Canon PowerShot SX170 IS 16.0 MP Digital Camera with 16x Optical Zoom and 720p HD Video (Red)

Canon PowerShot SX170 IS 16.0 MP Digital Camera with 16x Optical Zoom and 720p HD Video (Red)..

Special Price Canon PowerShot SX170 IS 16.0 MP Digital Camera with 16x Optical Zoom and 720p HD Video (Red) By Canon

Most helpful customer reviews

397 of 420 people found the following review helpful.
Great Compact point & shoot for the money, battery is a non- issue
By Amazon Customer
Technology marches on. I am an avid amateur photographer with 50+ years of experience with every film and focal plane technology ever created. This camera is my latest "pocket camera" to have with me 24/7, it's for those unique unplanned shots that always pop up when you least expect them and when your DSLR is just not an option to lug around with you all day.

Some have criticized the change from AA sized batteries to a Canon propriety battery pack. Hogwash. Technology is going to move forward and the use of a battery pack simply does not mean this camera is any less useful. When you travel into the great whatever with an older camera you thought ahead and took extra batteries with you. Now you think ahead and make sure your battery is charged and yes if you will be away from an outlet you take as many extra battery packs as you need. I am guilty of not thinking ahead plenty of times with the AA technology with no means of stopping into a store to buy more, this camera is no different.

The feel and user friendliness of this camera is outstanding. The controls are simple, the instructions (PDF on-line only) are clear and easy to follow, and the image quality is great. You are not going to shoot that perfect close-up shot of a running back diving across the goal line with this camera, but for every day snapshots it offers a nice, cost effective solution to carry in your pocket every day.

It's not a DLSR. If you want a full featured high performance camera you'll need to spend a lot more money!

9/30/2013 addition- the more I use thus camera the more I like it. The autofocus feature is very fast, and images shot at max optical zoom are beyond my expectations, far superior to earlier Canon point and shoot products.

48 of 56 people found the following review helpful.
Great!
By begoodorbegoodatit
I was sketical about buying this camera. It should be stated that I am not an owner of a DSLR or Nikon, although I've used those before so I know how some who may own those and buy a camera like this may be disappointed or find it less than great. I don't really think it's fair to rate this compared to those kinds of cameras so I am comparing it to my previous "point and shoot" camera.

We had some traveling coming up and wanted a new camera since my current camera looks in really bad quality at night time or dim lighting (like concerts). So I opted for this camera with the Black Friday sale. I've taken multiple shots with this camera and my old one to see what the difference really is and I will say that this camera shoots way better. My old camera in natural light in my home would be dark, this one is naturally very bright. If I took a photo of a carrot peel with my old camera it would just look like some orange thing, whereas with this camera the carrot peel looks way brighter, the image is sharper, you can see the details such as texture or drops of water on the carrot unlike the old camera. I did go outside and try to take photos and while this does shoot better at night than my other camera, there isn't even a night time option so I'm still having that issue of the photo comes out with the bright lights looking hazy, but it's an improvement from the other camera we owned.

Overall, if you just need to update your "point and shoot" then I recommend this camera. My old camera only had a 10x zoom and it was 8 MP so this was a really nice upgrade. I take photos of animals, food, and landscapes and have been really pleased with the outcome. If you own a fancy camera, you probably won't be impressed with this camera.

326 of 413 people found the following review helpful.
The Day the Last 2-AA Battery, Travel & Field Camera - Died
By John Sturgeon
As some of you know, the Canon SX100 series are my favorite cameras. I always carry the latest model with me in a video-camera-shoulder-bag (i.e. - "purse" for dudes,) everyday, wherever I go. I have owned and used all of them from the SX100 to the SX160. I have long-considered the Canon SX100 line of cameras to be "The Best 2-AA-Battery All-Purpose Travel and Field Cameras Ever Made." I have posted 5-star reviews of both the SX150 and SX160 here on Amazon during the last two years, and I have made it abundantly clear why I feel so strongly favorable of them.

Accordingly, I bought a new Canon SX170. I tested it out to compare it. For sentimental reasons, I intend to keep it. But for the most obvious of reasons, which I just indicated in the above statement, I'm not pleased with it. To the contrary, I am deeply saddened about what has now been completely lost to all consumers, worldwide - The day the last full-featured, full-manual-control, compact, 2-AA battery, travel & field camera left on the entire worldwide market - Died.

Here is a summary of my comparative conclusions.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&
SX160 IS vs. the SX170 IS - A CAMERA COMPARISON - THE BOTTOM LINE

The Canon SX160 runs on 2-AA rechargeable batteries.
The Canon SX170 runs on a Canon NB-6LH proprietary battery.

Other than the battery, the two cameras are virtually identical.

I will start with the conclusion first - There is no serious reason even to consider buying the new Canon SX170 instead of the previous model Canon SX160 ... unless you absolutely HATE using 2-AA rechargeable batteries in a camera.

Both cameras have exactly the same features, the same functions, and the same specs - except for the batteries. Cosmetically they are virtually identical cameras in almost all respects except for a small change in the shape of the grip on the right side of the SX170 camera. Functionally they both work exactly the same, and they both produce identical quality pictures. No changes were made to either the sensor or to the DIGIC 4 image processor to bring any improvement to the final images produced.

The initial Amazon release price of the SX170 is $179. (Sept. 2013)
The current Amazon price for the SX160 is $144, about $35 less. (Sept. 2013)

Literally, you have to HATE using 2-AA rechargeable batteries in a camera to want to pay $35 more for the same camera with a mini-sized proprietary battery that will only take about half as many shots with each charge, when the quality of the pictures you get will be absolutely identical with both cameras.

SPARE BATTERIES. Amazon is currently selling official Canon brand NB-6LH spare batteries for about $38 apiece. (Remember, people, your camera warranty is now VOID if you use a "cheap Hong Kong knockoff" proprietary battery in it. You do so at your own risk.) A spare pair of top-quality Sanyo brand "eneloop" rechargeable AA batteries can be bought on Amazon for about $4, but even "cheap" AA batteries won't void your warranty for the SX160.

CAVEAT EMPTOR.

That is the bottom line.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
SX160 & SX170 - BACKGROUND INFO & THE "2-AA" BATTERY CAMERA.

The SX170 is the seventh model of the Canon SX100 line of cameras. This series began with the SX100 in the year 2007. From the beginning these cameras have always run on 2-AA rechargeable batteries. That has always been their strongest selling point - the fact that they use 2-AA batteries. If you happened to run out of rechargeable AA batteries, you could always buy spare AA batteries for them to keep taking pictures.

That is the main feature which made them ideal travel & field use cameras literally anywhere in the world.

The cameras of this SX100 series were all full-featured, with full manual control, and a good megazoom. They were also very affordable. Spare batteries for them could be purchased easily and economically. So these cameras were also inexpensive to use, too. And if you bought a new camera, you just transferred the rechargeable AA batteries to the new camera. You never had to buy any new (and much more expensive) proprietary batteries each time you bought a new camera. So in the long term, the AA battery cameras were always much less expensive for people to own and operate.

The new model SX170 no longer uses AA batteries. Instead it uses a mini-sized NB-6LH proprietary battery. These batteries are not readily available except by mail order unless you happen to live near a very large city. If you are traveling, the situation gets much worse. In many places the NB-6LH batteries will not be locally available at all. So the usefulness of the SX170 as a travel & field camera worldwide has been negated. If you are stuck in the middle of nowhere with dead batteries, then you are just stuck with no more pictures!

During the last couple of years, these Canon SX100 series cameras were the only full-featured, 2-AA battery, travel & field cameras still left on the world market. The SX160 was the last one. Now the consumer can no longer buy a full-featured 2-AA battery camera at ANY price, except for a few leftover models from previous years. And soon enough they will be gone too.

Some of you may realize the gravity of this loss, others may not. Most people don't miss things until they suddenly realize they can no longer buy them, because "they" don't make them anymore. And that is exactly what has just happened here. The day the SX170 was introduced was the day the last full-featured, full-manual-control, compact, 2-AA battery, travel & field camera left on the entire worldwide market - Died.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
ERGONOMICALLY - THE "NEW" GRIP

There is a "not-so-new" larger grip on the right side of the SX170 camera. Canon claims it has "introduced" a design change with a larger grip on the right side of the camera for better one-handed shooting. Ergonomically. This will indeed be a fine feature for many people. I agree. But Canon's P.R. department says this was only made possible by using the new smaller proprietary battery. No. That is not true.

The original camera of this line, the SX100, had that same style, larger right hand grip on it, and it used 2-AA batteries. Canon removed that feature from the next model, the SX110, and made the overall camera flatter. Some of us would have preferred that Canon not make that design change, but that was Canon's decision.

Now Canon is "reintroducing" that larger right hand grip feature with the SX170, but it has nothing to do with having to drop the 2-AA batteries. I measured the two cameras with a set of calipers. The dimensions of the larger grip on the right side are very similar on both cameras - the grip on the original SX100 (using 2-AA batteries) and the grip on the new SX170 (using the new proprietary battery.) Canon could have "reintroduced" this same design change all along on any of the other SX100 series cameras, and still kept the 2-AA batteries in the camera just fine. So the justification Canon is giving for being able to make this design change is completely bogus.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
RATING THE SX170

I'm giving the new Canon SX170 IS a 3-star rating only for sentimental reasons - it's still a Canon. It is still an excellent camera in many ways. It still has all of the same excellent features. ... But I won't recommend the SX170 to anyone.

Since it now runs on a proprietary battery, then it has to be compared to all of the other similar cameras today that run on proprietary batteries. And in that comparison, it does not measure up very well.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
WHAT THE SX170 IS NOT

The Canon SX170 is not a fast-action camera, and it never will be. It still has all the same problems of the previous models. It has a noticeable shutter lag, a slower focus, a slow image processor, a slow maximum shooting speed of 0.8 fps (less than one picture per second,) a very slow flash recovery time, it doesn't work very well indoors or in low light, and it does not shoot full 1920x1080 HD video, either, only the older 1280x720 quasi-HD video.

The SX170 is not a good camera for taking pictures of fast-moving children or pets, fast-action sports moments, or fast-focus views of flying birds. The SX170 simply won't work for that kind of photography.

There are literally dozens of other more modern proprietary battery cameras out there today that can run circles around the slow-performing, antiquated design and performance of the older-design SX170. So if you really want a modern, fast-action camera that works well in low light and that also shoots full 1920x1080 HD video, then why would you even consider buying the SX170?

Canon designed the original electronics for the SX100 line of cameras way back in 2007.* These cameras were originally designed as, "Stand here while I take your picture" cameras. And basically that is what they still do best. Changing the battery isn't going to change the primary use for which these cameras were originally intended. No more than injecting "energy steroids" into an old dog is going to teach it to do new tricks.

If you want a modern, fast-action, full-HD video camera, then the SX170 will simply not work for you.**

* Actually it was released in 2007. Design precedes release by about 2 to 3 years, so essentially these cameras were designed almost ten years ago. Remember what that world was like? Digital cameras were low quality and high priced. Most people did not have PCs, and fewer still knew how to use Photoshop. Computer hard drives were 30 gigabytes - smaller than a standard 32 GB SDHC camera memory card of today. Photo paper for printers was terrible and would begin to fade out within months, gone altogether in a few years. .... Most people were using 35 mm film cameras with 36 shots for each roll of film, paying $27 or more at 75 cents per print each time for all the photos, both good and bad. (There was no "preview" feature before they were developed and printed. Besides, you could not "preview" photos very well by squinting at a tiny, color-reversed film negative.) ... Most people could not AFFORD to take more than a few pictures each month. Taking pictures was expensive! Every single picture had to count, so yes - literally - using a camera back in those days meant, "Stand here while I take your picture!" It didn't MATTER if they were slow. Getting your "36 prints" back from the developers at Long's Drug Store took two to three days anyway. That is the world in which the electronic circuitry for these SX100 series cameras was originally designed.

** (If you do want that however, which obviously many people do, then for a short list of modern, fast-action, full-HD-video cameras in a similar price range of the SX170, please see my post of suggestions in the Comments Section, page 1. For a comparative list of (almost all) current Canon point-and-shoot and bridge cameras, please see my post in the Comments Section, at the bottom of page 4.)

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
FOR A CLASSIC CAMERA WITH FULL FEATURES, USING "2-AA" BATTERIES, CONSIDER THE CANON SX160.

If, on the other hand, you do like the classic Canon SX100 series camera line - as I do very much - you have to like it for what it is. It is an older style, classic design, point-and-shoot camera. As such you simply have to accept the fact that it has some very real limitations. And those limitations are not going to be "fixed" simply by putting a different battery inside the same camera.

It makes no sense to buy a camera first, expecting it to meet your wants and needs, and then end up being disappointed when it doesn't. It works the other way around. You find the camera that actually does fit your personal wants and needs first, and then you buy that camera for yourself and enjoy it.

If you do prefer the convenience of owning a classic design, 2-AA battery, travel & field compact camera, then I suggest you consider buying the Canon SX160, on sale now, while the supplies still last. That is what I chose to do. I bought two more SX160 cameras, and tucked them away safely in a storage box for my future use and enjoyment for the time when my current SX160 either wears out or breaks down. If you are interested in the SX160, please see my own previous Amazon review of it - 5 stars and more, if I could.

The Canon SX160 is still my number one favorite camera I have ever owned, and I still plan to keep right on using it for many pleasant years yet to come.

Sincerely, and with best wishes to everyone, John AKA SLOphoto1

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
POST MORTEM - USING "AA" BATTERIES AS A RELIABLE POWER SOURCE.

Energy independence. That is one of the main reasons why some people - like me - have been fighting so hard for so long trying to keep the last remaining full-featured AA cameras on the market - If you can choose your own AA batteries in a competitive market, then you have total control over your own power source. And there is no future time limit for being able to still use your camera, either. ("They" don't make that battery any more.)

I still have my original digital camera, an Epson PhotoPC 600, from 1997. It runs on 4-AA batteries. It still works well, and it still takes some interesting pictures. They are particularly interesting because the pictures have an "older" look to them, because of the older camera technology. I don't have to fake this "older" look with special effects in a modern camera or with Photoshop manipulation. They genuinely look older because they really are "older," due to the older technology actually producing them inside the original camera right now.

Imagine trying to locate a proprietary battery for a fifteen to twenty year old camera? The only reason I can even still use that camera at all is precisely due to the fact that the camera was originally designed to run on 4-AA standardized batteries. The same thing will be true of the SX160 cameras of today. Fifteen or twenty years from now, they will still work just fine, because they were designed to run on AA batteries.

AA batteries were standardized way back in 1954. Almost 60 years later, in 2013, they are still the most widely used standardized battery in the world. And especially now that they make rechargeable AA batteries (as in "green" - reusable and even "renewable" if you use a solar-powered AA battery recharger,) there is virtually no doubt they will still continue to be very popular for at least another 60 years into the future, too. They are and will continue to be a very reliable source of power - for millions of different items. This will still be true long after the proprietary - and non-standardized - batteries of today will only vaguely be remembered as a passing fad (and expensive folly) of the early 21st century.

Non-standardized products have no long-term future in an increasingly globalized world.

That's my personal opinion about it, but speaking as a retired history teacher I am also asserting that based on actual and repeated long-term historical patterns and precedents.

Again, best wishes to everyone - John AKA SLOphoto1

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

UPDATE: A FEW WORDS ABOUT BATTERY USAGE - HOW MANY PICTURES PER CHARGE?

I've been asked to comment on battery usage. How many pictures should a person expect to take with each charge? Here is some data on that. This includes an actual field test I did myself of the earlier model SX150.

The proprietary battery in the SX170 - the Canon brand NB-6LH - is rated at about a 1060 mAh (milliamp hours) charge. The preferred, high-quality Sanyo brand "eneloop" rechargeable AA batteries are rated at about a 2000 mAh change (or about twice as much.) There is no great mystery to it. 2000 mAh of power will take about twice as many pictures as will 1060 mAh of power.

The SX160 and SX170 each require about 2.1 to 3.7 volts to operate the cameras. That requires either one NB-6LH proprietary battery (at about 3.7 volts) or two "eneloop" AA batteries at 1.5 volts each, (two for a total of about 3.0 volts.) The NB-6LH costs about $38 on Amazon. A pair of "eneloop" AA batteries costs about $4. Either system requires less than one cent of electricity to recharge each time. However, the NB-6LH will probably recharge only about 700 times, based on typical lithium-ion battery life spans, which have a pretty high burn out rate, whereas the "eneloop" brand AA batteries are advertised as being able to take at least 1500 recharges.

I haven't tested the SX160 and SX170 cameras yet for the number of shots they will take per charge in actual field use (where you are actually using the camera under field use conditions,) but I did do just such a test earlier for the SX150, and here are the results. (Reprinted from my earlier review of the SX150.)

&&&&&&&&&
"On a recent field trip to the local mountains near Monterey, CA, I set out with a fully-charged pair of eneloop AA batteries in the SX150, and I carried a backup pair of eneloop AAs just in case. I did a full day of shooting with 425 full-sized JPEGs and 8 minutes of HD video, and I used a lot of zoom and frequently turned the camera off and on too. That is a LOT of battery use for one set of AA batteries. The batteries finally ran out early the next day as I was testing some of the features on the camera."
&&&&&&&&&

Based on previous experience, when I actually get around to doing an actual, full-day field test of the SX170, I anticipate the results to be about half the amount of the results I obtained for the SX150 (or would similarly expect with the SX160, since the electronic circuitry is basically unchanged in all these SX100 series cameras.)

&&&&&&&& PLEASE NOTE: These cameras all show a "low battery" indicator based on a sensor which looks for a voltage drop. In the SX160 and in previous models, these cameras were designed to use regular Alkaline AA batteries which start out at about 1.5 volts (3.0 volts for two of them.) When they begin to drop too low, the low battery indicator appears on the LCD screen. Rechargeable AA batteries like the Sanyo brand "eneloop" type only recharge to about 1.2 or 1.3 volts (or 2.4 to 2.6 volts for two of them.) The internal sensor will "think" that they are running "low" long before they actually run out, once they begin to drop below the "warning point" for the internal sensor in terms of "low" voltage. They are not actually anywhere near "out." My advice is just to keep right on using them until the LCD on the camera finally tells you to "change the batteries," as it shuts down on you.

I hope that gives everyone a fairly good idea of what to anticipate with both the SX160 and the SX170 cameras in general terms of the number of pictures to expect per charge.

Again, best wishes to everyone, John AKA SLOphoto1

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
UPDATE: Sept. 30, 2013 - DESIGN FLAW DISCOVERED IN THE SX170. POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO THE CAMERA.

Recently while testing the Canon SX170 camera in the field I discovered a serious design flaw. This flaw became apparent entirely by accident through normal use of the camera. It seems that the camera suddenly and unexpectedly turns on or off simply while handling it in a routine manner. This is especially true when trying to pull the camera out of a coat pocket, purse or camera carry bag.

Apparently in one of the few design changes, Canon has now relocated the On/Off power button almost to the very end of the right-rear-top of the SX170 camera (literally, only about 1/4" from the right rear corner of the top of the camera.) This is the side where the new larger right-hand grip is also located. It is the natural hand position to reach into your coat pocket or carry bag and grab the camera by the main grip in order to pull it out. When you do, if your thumb happens to be on the top of the camera, you can very easily activate the camera and possibly jam or even break the lens-extension mechanism.

When the lens pushes out against a resistance (like still being confined partially inside a coat pocket,) then the lens stops and retracts, and there is a series of several quick "beeps," similar to those of the time-delay shutter release. The more serious aspect of this is that each time this happens it puts stress on the delicate gears inside the lens-extension mechanism. Eventually this type of stress can cause the lens-extension mechanism to fail, and the camera will no longer work. (You see them on eBay, "Lens won't extend outward.")

Back in 2008, Canon faced a similar problem - and a number of lawsuits - over this very same problem with one if its "G" series cameras. If the extending lens hit an obstacle, the extending lens would sometimes jam and the camera would become altogether inoperable until it was factory repaired. (And the warranty only lasts one year.)

The SX160 did not have this design flaw, nor did any of the other previous SX100 series cameras before it. All six of the previous models of the SX100 series cameras had the On/Off power button located safely inward toward the center of the camera by at least 3/4" to 7/8" from the right end of the camera.

I've taken a total of 58 shots with the SX170 camera so far, and this "accident" has already happened to me three times. This same easy activation has also suddenly turned the camera off twice while I was simply standing there holding it. This design flaw is an accident waiting to happen.

I don't know how much of this type of stress the lens-extension mechanism on the SX170 can take. I have never encountered this problem before with any of the other six models of the SX100 series that I have owned and used previously. They all had the On/Off power button located well inward at a safe distance from the right end of the camera. So I have never previously encountered this sort of "activation by accident" with the SX160 or any of the other previous cameras of this line. But this flaw does have the very real potential to cause serious damage to the camera, and even render it completely inoperable, just by the ease with which the SX170 can be so readily activated just by complete accident.

Earlier I said that I would not recommend the SX170 over the SX160 to anyone. Now I must say that I specifically recommend against it.

Once again, best wishes to everyone, John AKA SLOphoto1

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& FIN.

See all 197 customer reviews...More...

Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS25 16.1 MP Tough Digital Camera with 8x Intelligent Zoom (Blue)

Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS25 16.1 MP Tough Digital Camera with 8x Intelligent Zoom (Blue)..

Grab Now Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS25 16.1 MP Tough Digital Camera with 8x Intelligent Zoom (Blue) By Panasonic

Most helpful customer reviews

117 of 119 people found the following review helpful.
Great Waterproof Point and Shoot
By Jamie
I have only used this camera underwater once so far, but it was absolutely fantastic. I took it to the swimming pool with my daughter and niece as a test run, and got some great shots of my niece swimming underwater, and alternated with underwater shots and above the water shots. The camera is made to slough off the water as soon as you pull it out, so the pictures out of the water don't have spots or water drops on them. It seems like a minor thing, but it really made a huge difference. As for being waterproof, it seemed to hold up great. After we got home, I noticed it had some chlorine spots on a couple pictures (after I tried to use a dry cleaning cloth on it) so I soaked it in a sink full of clean water for about 5 minutes, and voila! Perfect photos again. I've seen some reviews that say this camera doesn't work well inside, haven't noticed a problem myself. Pretty much every single picture I've taken with the camera has turned out with great color balance and good lighting. I have had a couple overexpose a bit with the flash, but hey, this is a point and shoot camera, not a professional grade camera. The overexposure can be fixed on the camera itself with the offered image editing or with editing software on your computer.

We'll be taking the camera on a trip to the lake in a week, so we'll see how it holds up with the sand and murky water, but so far I am more than pleased with this little camera, especially for the price! Can't wait to take it out and play with it some more.

EDIT: Used this camera on a trip in pools, lakes, and rivers. Had a blast. Got some great shots in the water, above the water, canoeing, kayaking, and even in a water feature fountain thing for the kids to play in, all with no worries about water leakage. I do recommend purchasing a floating wrist strap because the camera itself doesn't float if you drop it in deep water. Even in the lake and river the pictures came out great, though you need to be close to your subject in dirtier/murkier water. After a month and a couple weeks, I'd say it's already earned its keep for the price I paid. I think we took somewhere around 1600 photos on a two week trip with this little camera, and 99% of them were fantastic. I also bought an extra extended life battery, and with constant shooting, I did need to change the batteries about once a day. But, I take a LOT of photos.

EDIT2: After reading some of the other reviews here, I think something needs to be said - this is NOT an expensive, professional level camera. It isn't being sold as one, because it's not. No, you are not going to get perfect pictures every single time. You're not going to get perfectly clear-as-day underwater photos (although you will get some awesome ones). This is a point-and-shoot camera that you can take in the water with you. If you expect more than point-and-shoot quality, you should not buy this camera. But understand you will spend more money on something else. For the average user, it is an absolutely fantastic camera for the price. You can take it anywhere, it fits in your POCKET (how nice is that?) and it will stand up to being dropped, getting wet, getting cold, etc. Take it on your family vacation without worrying about it. Now try to do that with a $3000 professional camera. Also, for people saying the quality sucks, I have blown up some of the photos from this camera to 16x20 prints and hung them on the wall. I certainly can't tell they were taken with a $140 camera, and neither can anyone else.

72 of 83 people found the following review helpful.
Don't know much about cameras but I like this one...
By Mike Jacobs
UPDATE 2: Just noticed another issue. The flash sometimes causes a bit of reflection the color of my finger along the right side of the imate, evidently becuase my fingers are too close (to the flash). This isn't an issue, I just move my fingers a bit. Good thing I preview work-pictures, though. I can't tell you how much I am appreciating the water and dust-proofing in this SE Florida monsoon season! No change in the rating.

UPDATE 1: Since purchasing I've used this quite a bit for work and personal photos. I still love the camera - I've been able to take pics in rain, around water and with a 4 year old hanging all over me without worrying about dust, water or dropping it. However, there are a couple of issues I haven't seen in other reviews: (1) the lens is easily "dirtied" by a finger print when you take this out of your pocket (no cover), and (2) I have to be more careful about taking photos in the direction of the sun or I sometimes get a big glare-streak... don't know why my other cameras didn't have this problem but it sometimes requires two hands (one to block the sun). These issues have not changed my rating.

ORIGINAL REVIEW: Lots of camera-geek analysis here, and from what I read Panasonic meets my criteria - fast cycle after shooting, wide angle, durable and mainstream ("reliable") manufacturer. I mostly take photos for work, and any modern camera is satisfactory for family use.

This has a wider angle than my Canon PowerShot, which I am replacing, and no moving parts. I can shoot in the rain and carry it in my shirt pocket, neither of which are feasible with the Canon. The unit is "closed" so that I won't get construction dust or lint inside the lenses, which is why I need to replace my Canon.

Other than that, it's just a nice camera that I can get wet or drop, with all the usual bells and whistles (90% of which I'll never use). The price:value ratio is very good for my needs.

72 of 87 people found the following review helpful.
Works Well.
By DianeB
I took this camera to Mexico with us on vacation. The camera worked well and took some good pictures in and out of the water, as long as you used the normal optical zoom. My only complaint would be that the Intelligent zoom does not work very well, it's a bit grainy, especially in low light and under water. Saying that it has an 8X zoom is a bit misleading, since it is not a true optical zoom. Had no problems with leakage and we snorkeled for a couple of hours. My husband has an older model that has manual modes and a lot more picture options. Next time I would go with a higher end model to have those options. This camera is very small which can make it a bit hard to hold on to and the movie mode button is so small it is hard to push, especially if you had larger fingers. All in all I like the camera, but some small changes could make it much better.

See all 237 customer reviews...More...

Sigma 18-250mm f3.5-6.3 DC MACRO OS HSM for Canon Digital SLR Cameras

Sigma 18-250mm f3.5-6.3 DC MACRO OS HSM for Canon Digital SLR Cameras..

GET Sigma 18-250mm f3.5-6.3 DC MACRO OS HSM for Canon Digital SLR Cameras By Sigma

Most helpful customer reviews

273 of 277 people found the following review helpful.
Very nice lens. New leader in the "walkaround" category
By GaryPen
I am very very pleased with this newest superzoom from Sigma, paired with my Canon 60D. Build quality is excellent. Image quality is sharp at both ends of the range. Focus is quick and quiet. OS works extremely well. It is light weight and compact compared to others in this category, which adds to its value as a "walkaround" lens. To top it all off, the price is outstanding for a lens with this feature set, build, and image quality. (It's ~$100 cheaper than the "comparable" Tamron, and ~$30 less than the shorter focal length Canon 18-200.)

I had used the Tamron AF 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD LD Aspherical IF Macro Zoom Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras for a while last year, when it was the "hot" 3rd party superzoom. But, the images looked a little soft to me, especially at the long end. Plus, I didn't care for the build quality and feel of the zoom/focus rings at all. (The Tamron is made in China, while this Sigma is made in Japan.) And, IIRC, the Tamron zoom ring operated in the opposite direction from Canon and Sigma, which wreaks havoc with one's muscle memory. The Tamron also suffered from lens creep, which the Sigma, so far, has not.

I have been using the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Standard Zoom Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras with my 60D until switching to this Sigma, and the Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Standard Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras with my T2i before that. This Sigma lens focuses quicker, is much easier to hold and carry, and results in the same quality shots. It is much smaller and lighter than the canon 18-200. Yet, looks and feels as well made or arguably better than the Canon lenses. The AF/MF, OS, and lock buttons are positioned better than the Canon's. The Canon 18-200 also suffers from lens creep, which the Sigma, so far, does not. The image quality is about the same, although the Sigma does show a little less CA, which is a plus.

There is an older version of this lens with an almost identical title, just not "Macro" Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM IF Lens for Canon AF Digital SLR Cameras. But, it is larger, heavier, and slower to focus. However, if money is an issue, it's ~$120 cheaper than this one. So, it might be a viable option for you. But, not having used it, I cannot speak to its image quality, build, or operation. It does get mostly positive reviews, though.

I can, however, highly recommend *this* Sigma for your Canon EOS system body. Of course, it will not result in images as sharp as most prime lenses or almost any L series lens. But, I find it the best of the current crop of "walkaround" lenses available for the Canon APS-C sensor models. (It is not recommended for full-frame models.) I can almost guarantee it will rarely see any time not attached to yours, if you are like me and want a single lens for most of your everyday shots. Sure, there are plenty of situations that require that prime portrait or macro lens, or that long telephoto zoom. But, when you're at the dog park, or the kids' birthday party, or the family reunion, or tourist destination, etc, this is the lens.

137 of 138 people found the following review helpful.
Great lens - image stablization PLUS ultrasonic motor with 18-250mm range....
By P. Repage
I'm reading all the other reviews here saying to myself "are these folks really taking this much time and energy nit-picking over small reductions in image quality, or why this lens is not ACTUALLY 250mm but more like 239mm?!?"

Look at the facts - this lens is only $400 AND it's got a huge range, optical stabilization, an equivalent USM super-quiet motor, and capable of sharp, clean images!

Judge things on their own merits, not compared to lenses 6-8x the price. Some of these other reviews are actually akin to "I bought this Camaro for $35,000 and was duped into thinking it handled nearly as well as a Lamborghini Aventador at $375,000."

Will you get superior images from L-series glass? Every time. Is the auto-focus USM from Canon superior? You bet. Is the IS quieter than the OS from Sigma? Sure is. Is the low light performance of this lens inferior to the Canon counterparts at 3x the price? You know it.

BUT....

If you are on a budget AND are willing to compromise a tiny bit in each of these areas will you get a lens that comes very close to it's competitors for a GREAT DEAL LESS?! Of course!

Enough said. Get the lens, you'll be happy.

152 of 156 people found the following review helpful.
Awesome walkabout lens...thank you Sigma...
By arlen nercessian
I wanted a solid walkabout lens for my D5100 without breaking the bank. I had the option of buying the Nikon 18-300 for about $1000 or a 3rd party lens. I really did't want to invest too much in glass for a D series mount as I can see myself moving up to an F series in a couple of years. I was sick of changing lenses and lugging a lot of weight around and really wanted a zoom in this range.

After doing research online I decided to go with the Sigma (over the more expensive Nikon and competing Tamron). Their reviews were solid, and I have previously owned and been satisfied with Sigma lenses.

Here is the scoop:

Pros:
1. Fast, accurate, quiet autofocus (faster that the stock Nikon lenses which came with the camera (18-55 and 55-300).
2. Light weight, well built, well balanced, and ergonomically superb in every aspect.
3. Image quality is awesome (for a super zoom).
4. Image stabilizer does the job with at least 3 f stops improvement.
5. I love the internal manual focus mechanism, it is definitely an upgrade over basic Nikon lenses. Easy and fast to use.

Cons: The only thing I can say so far is there is lens creep. Actually more than creep. The front portions of the lens will extend halfway out while the camera is hanging from my neck. The good part is there is a very convenient lock that prevents this from happening when you are walking around. For me personally, lens creep is not an issue. I haven't bought this lens for tripod mounted macro photography. Be pretty sure that any such lens will have creep; If not right out of the box, sometime within a few months of usage. You can always send the lens back and they will tighten it, but the creep will again come back in time and warmer weather. It's just the nature of the superzoom beast....

Other tidbits:

***You will get a shadow using on camera flash even without a hood if you are shooting closeup with this (or any other wide/telephoto superzoom). Buy a SB400 Nikon flash and problem solved....

***I use a 72mm filter on this lense (even though the mount is 62mm). I like to do this because I don't get vigneting with a polarizer attached.

***The standard hood that comes with the camera is cute, but useless (as is the case with all hoods that come with superzooms). It covers you on the wideangle range but does nothing on the telephoto range. If you use the 72mm step up ring and filter trick, you can acually use a nice collapsible rubber hood that offers you more coverage (get Hoya's they make a nice one)...

See all 301 customer reviews...More...

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II AF-S Nikkor Zoom Lens For Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II AF-S Nikkor Zoom Lens For Nikon Digital SLR Cameras..

Buy Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II AF-S Nikkor Zoom Lens For Nikon Digital SLR Cameras By Nikon

Most helpful customer reviews

599 of 616 people found the following review helpful.
Great zoom lens for full frame/FX and cropped/DX Nikon camera bodies
By LGO
I am writing this review from the perspective of someone who also owns the earlier version of the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras. This new lens will be referred to as "VR2" in this review while the earlier version of this lens will be referred to as the "VR1".

Here are my initial impressions after using this lens and comparing it with the earlier version of this lens, the VR1.

This professional-grade telephoto zoom lens is very well-made. Its focus is lightning fast and it produces very sharp photos with very good contrast and dynamic colors even when shot wide-open at f/2.8. The increased sharpness at the corner is easily noticeable even at f/2.8 and now makes this lens suitable for landscape shots. I find this increased sharpness at the corner beneficial even for portrait shots when I shoot off-center rule-of-thirds portrait shots. The improved color and contrast is easily noticeable in certain shots in back-to-back comparison against the VR1.

The VR mechanism is very effective and helpful in keeping the photos sharp even when shooting at low shutter speeds in low-light conditions. The 1-stop improvement over the earlier version, the VR1, makes a very big difference, specially when shooting this lens from extended to maximum focal length with no monopod or tripod support. Being able to shoot handheld at 1/10th at 200mm is no easy task but it is possible with this new version.

The tripod leg support is nothing less than excellent ... slim yet very sturdy, with provision for two-screws mounting support. The tripod support can easily be rotated for shooting in vertical portrait position or downside up for easy hand carry. The tripod leg can easily be detached if needed for a less-obtrusive hold when shooting handheld.

Though this lens is heavier than the VR1, the added weight is not immediately noticeable. The shorter length and larger diameter makes for a more balanced hold when shooting handheld.

How does this lens compare with the earlier version, the VR1? Here is a quick and easy to read summary:

First, a definition of terms. The term "FX" refers to full frame Nikon camera bodies (D3x, D3s, D3 and D700). The term "DX" refers to cropped/APS-C Nikon camera bodies (D300s, D300, D200, D100, D2, D1, D90, D80, D70, D60, D40, D5000, D3000).

THE ADVANTAGES OF THIS LENS OVER THE VR1

1. Sharp corners on FX and DX, even when shooting wide-open at f/2.8
2. Less vignetting on FX and DX when shooting wide-open at f/2.8 (vignetting on DX at f/2.8 now irrelevant)
3. 1-stop improvement in VR (1-stop improvement really makes a big difference when shooting at 135-200mm).
4. Improvement in the bokeh compared to the VR1
5. Improvement in color and contrast, specially when shooting backlit subjects against the sun
6. More resistant to lens flaring (due to nano-coating)
7. Shorter more compact length makes it easier to pack, carry and use in crowded spaces
(the lens and the hood of the VR2 are both shorter than the lens and hood of the VR1)

THE DISADVANTAGES OF THIS LENS OVER THE VR1

1. More expensive than VR1
2. Slightly heavier than VR1
3. Not as good as the VR1 when used with teleconverters in DX bodies for long reach
4. Shorter reach or magnification than the VR1 when shooting at close range
(e.g., shooting at 200mm focal length is equivalent to 164mm when shooting from 10 feet away)

For FX users who still do not have a 70-200mm f/2.8G zoom lens, go ahead and acquire this lens. The corner sharpness of this newer version is remarkable, specially when stepped down for landscape shots. Even for portrait shots, the increased sharpness at the corner is beneficial when shooting rule of thirds portrait shots.

For FX users who already have the VR1, you will need to gauge whether the advantages will be worth the cost of getting this lens. If you need to shoot at this lens maximum focal length of 200mm, the lower magnification or the shorter "effective focal length in terms of field of view" when shooting at near range may be a major concern for you. This is specially a concern for events or wedding photographers. Note however that some photographers have adapted to this and actually found it helpful that the magnification remain near constant which minimizes the need to zoom out as the photographer approaches a subject or when the subject gets closer to the photographer. For some photographers, the reduced magnification when shooting at closer range is thus something that one can adapt to and take advantage of. It would still be best however to try the lens first and see how this impacts on your shooting style.

For DX only users who already have a VR1, I currently see no advantages to upgrading to this new version unless you need the one-stop advantage of the VR2, and/or if you want even less vignetting (easily corrected in post-processing), and/or if you want a lens that is more resistant to flare ... and/or more importantly, planning to upgrade or to add an FX body.

For DX users who still do not own the VR1, I recommend that you seriously consider getting this lens. Not only do you get the benefits of the newer version as listed above, getting this lens means that you will be well-positioned when you upgrade or add an FX body. Once you acquire or add an FX body, it will not surprise me that you will be doing a lot more shooting with the FX than with the DX. Since this lens is optimized for the FX, then getting this lens over the VR1 may prove to be a good decision. With regard to the issue of a shorter effective reach when shooting at near ranges, this should not be an issue with DX due to the 1.5X field of view of the APS-C sensor. If anything, it may even be an advantage when shooting up close.

Ultimately, both versions of the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G have their strengths and their weaknesses and it is up to the user to decide which version best fits his/her requirements.

As an FX and DX user, I have bought this new version knowing full well its strengths and its one limitation. The VR2 improved on what is already an impressive performance of the VR1, and then some. Except on the issue of lower magnification or focus breathing which hardly matters for me, the VR2 is an impressive step-up from the VR1.

I did retain my VR1 but this is primarily as a substitute to using a Nikkor 200-400mm f/4 VR. Matched with my 3 kinds of Nikkor teleconverters, the The VR1 is my lighter (and less expensive) version of the Nikkor 200-400mm and I use this with my DX D-300. The excellent center resolution of the VR1 is an asset when used in this manner. The other time when I use the VR1 on my D300 is when my VR2 is already on my D700. For all other usages however, I use the VR2 whether on FX or DX.

EDIT: For those who need to shoot up-close at 200mm focal length for maximum reach, this bit of info will be helpful.

Distance of subject / Effective focal length in field of view of the Nikon VR2 at 200mm
(Nikon 70-200mm VR2 at 200mm compared against a Nikon 200mm prime/fixed focal length lens)

1.27m ............... 128mm
1.40m ............... 132mm
2.00m ............... 147mm
3.00m ............... 164mm
5.00m ............... 176mm
10.0m ............... 186mm

Credits: Marianne Oelund

Edit: Sept. 13, 2010: I sold my Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR and retained only the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR2.

233 of 249 people found the following review helpful.
Greatest lens - but beware, beware of focal length change!!!!
By dilemnia
Speaking as a professional photographer - I have been using the original 70-200mm VR 2.8 for a while now and loved every moment of it. It doesn't matter how familiar I am with this lens, it still feels magical at times to be able to separate subject and background while pulling the background in as smooth bokeh. As most pros will tell you, the 70-200mm VR 2.8 "is" the bread and butter wedding portrait lens and more. That was then. This is now - as soon as I saw the announcement of this "new version", I pre-ordered it. While reading colleague Cliff Mautner's blog, I simply couldn't wait!! It finally arrived early this month(12/2009), I did some quick in-home test and was extremely impressed!! Not to reiterate on the amazing optical quality, the new version VR allows me to get a sharp image down to 1/5th!! and consistently at 1/15th. (The best $2400 I've ever spent!!). I packed up the original version and was getting ready to eBay it the following week!

I then took the lens for a real-world test few days later on my last wedding of the year. To give you some background - I always use this lens during ceremonies and in churches while knowing my movements are limited. I usually capture journalistic ceremonial actions as well as the reactions at either end of the pews at about 10-20 feet distance to produce intimate images. Something struck me as odd this day. I initially felt the reach was somehow inadequate, especially at 200mm, but, knowing that I should just love this lens, I quickly attributed this to the large church I was shooting in. However, after reading some reviews and complaints, I reluctantly compared this new version to my original 70-200mm VR 2.8 and then the 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 ED (as a second opinion) and found out that at 200mm, this lens indeed comes in shorter. It's like a 65mm-155mm equivalent at about 7 feet distance comparing to the other two lenses. The original 70-200mm VR 2.8 and the 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 ED was about the same at 200mm which the latter zooms in just a tiny bit closer. Unfortunately for those who doesn't owned the original 70-200mm VR 2.8, it would be hard to compare. But if you have the original on hand, please try it for yourself. Use a tripod and shoot a fix subject with all these lenses. It's easy to compare the older and the newer versions, simply turn both to 200mm and shoot it. As for the 70-300, dial the ring to 200 and align the middle zero to the indicator dot on your focal ring, you should get a solid 200mm reading from your EXIF data. The difference should be obvious. I am well aware that there's going to be variations between lenses, but as for the same manufacturer and essentially the same lens, the difference is simply too great. I will wait for the New Canon 70-200mm which I doubt would have this issue (Update 4/24/10 - The new Canon 70-200mm IS II is simply amazing - without the Nikon magnification shrink issue).

With the exception of a flimsier hood and the magnification shrink issue, this lens is overall slightly better in just about every other aspect than the Original (since the original is already a "CLASSIC", it's hard to do much better). Nonetheless, there's definitely improvements in color, vignette control, CA, distortion, and the VR is simply "incredible". Also, this lens is just a tiny bit shorter and it doesn't look like a "Bamboo" stick as the original:)

(It breaks my heart to rate this "new version" 4 stars not because it's performance and construction but simply because that it does not "replace" the lens that it's "supposed to" replace. The focal length changes with the distance so the 65-155mm is a rough average while shooting within 30 feet. The closer you are to your subject, the worse it gets. For instance, at minimum focusing distance, the new 200mm is about the equivalent of 130mm on the original!! And more unfortunate for me, I shoot most of my subjects within 30 feet distance. Here's the full comparison at under 30 feet distance(added 1/10/10) - I did the test personally using Manfrotto 190 CXPRO3 and a tape measure:

New 70-200 VR II........Original 70-200 VR

4ft. 200mm.....................130mm
6ft. 200mm.....................150mm
10ft. 200mm.....................170mm
15ft. 200mm.....................175mm
20ft. 200mm.....................180mm
25ft. 200mm.....................180mm
30ft. 200mm.....................190mm (even at 30 feet, it's still not a 200mm comparing to the original)

So picture this, if you are in a tight church 10 feet away from your subjects and crouched between a rock and a hard place, would you say that it's okay when you want to use a "200mm" lens for close-ups of a ring exchange(for instance) but realize that you only have a "170mm"?!! Sure you can crop, but that means you are going to lose 3-5 megapixels of resolution! This is exactly why I felt the reach was "inadequate" during my initial real-world test. Yes, if you move away far enough from your subject the effective focal length will eventually equate to the original but then again, it simply isn't the same application anymore.

Some has brought up the issue of magnification ratio (in comment, thanks to ATK!!) - everyone knows that one can get the same 1:1 ratio from a 50mm vs 60mm vs a 105mm etc.. But that's not really the issue "here". With macro applications, one can simply change the mag ratio/distance by moving a few inches to and fro the subject but with real human subjects, a few inches becomes a few feet!

Hence, if one normally use this lens at various distances within 30 feet, you will notice a huge change. The closer you get, the more severe it will be. While capturing moments as it unfolds in a fraction of a second, this lens' focal length just isn't as effective comparing to the original version. I love all my Nikons gears and this is perhaps the first real disappointment that I had to encounter for a while. (Perhaps another is the SB-900's overheating problem.) This focal length issue may not be too serious to many people but as far as my personal applications specifically assigned to this lens, and perhaps to many others like me, it is quite irksome.

One last thing, to capture normal human movement(not fast action), 1/100th of a second is a good start. I usually opt between 1/80th -1/160th as minimum - depending of the speed of the movement. So for this application, the VR will only keep your lens steady but it will not stop action. You will undoubtedly get a motion blur at 1/10th, 1/15th, 1/30th, 1/40th, etc.

Thanks - Sean Marshall Lin

88 of 95 people found the following review helpful.
Great Lens, but BEWARE
By Capt RB
The original 70-200 AF-S VRI is a legendary optic that continues to be among Nikon's most popular professional zooms. We had all hoped, at least in professional circles, that the new version would eclipse the old in every respect. Sadly, this is not the case. The new lens is optically superior over the same focal lengths, but this new lens exhibits the strongest focal breathing effect ever seen in a pro lens of this type. No other 70-200 or 80-200 will be stunted in reach as this new one is. It's quite unique in that respect and this issue will be a deal breaker for some event, wedding and portrait shooters. It is not a small issue and it cannot be corrected. Stranger still is the voices of several prominent online reviewers who seem bent on masking or underplaying this significance of a 70-200mm zoom that falls 72mm short at close focus. It's hard for many of us to believe that they are not protecting a relationship with Nikon. Typically, when shooting a wedding, we found that the new lens was too short and images required cropping. At a children's party the same issue presented itself. At 10 feet away it was not possible to frame a face as the original lens could do. And yet this lens is absolutely state of the art in every other respect. Likely, this will be one of Nikon's most debated lenses, though those who shoot over typically longer distances will find this lens ideal. Still, Nikon has a clear error on their website. They claim that the 70-200 maintains it's full zoom range at minimum focus. And it most certainly does not. Any honest shooter should not debate this issue. It WILL effect some professional applications.

So let's have a look at this beauty!

Handling:
The new lens is actually quite close to the size and weight of the original. I've put it on a D700, D3 and D90. I find it balances well on the D700 with grip as with the D3. On the D90 it's poorly balanced. Just for kicks I also put on my baby D40, which had almost absurd handling, but one could get used to it. The loss of the focus lock button was not missed by me. This is a heavy lens and it can tire a person out over the hours on a job.

Build Quality:
Well, I think we all knew what to expect and got it. I'm not sure that the 70-200 is built better than the old version, but it might be. It's 100% top notch.

Sonics:
The new lens focuses as quietly as my old lens, but the VR noise is cut by half or more. In fact you have to strain to hear it. Nice little improvement!

Sharpness:
Thus far I find sharpness exceeds all of my other lenses and that includes a new Tamron 180. Previously I found the Tamron 90 and 180 sharper than the Nikon 200, 24-70, 105 vr, 28-70 2.8 and so on. But the new zoom is so stunningly sharp wide open, that it's truly a marvel.

This shot, wide open at 2.8 and set for 200mm, proves what kind of performance is to be expected...
[...].

Color, Contrast and Bokeh Rendition
It's difficult to say if the new lens exceeds the original for color, but the obvious improvement in contrast certainly helps. The nano coating is doing it's job and the results, even around strong stray light sources appear to be universally superb. Bokeh is also what we'd expect. At the same apparent focal lengths it's on par with the original lens, but the micro-contrast makes images pop more and that may lead some to think bokeh is improved.

Zoom Range
This is probably going to effect many people more than any other single aspect of the design. This lens exhibits severe magnification loss which may significantly effect your work, especially at distances below 15 feet. This has been discussed and outlined (at last), but to put it in a nutshell....at about 4.6 feet away you'll be at 128mm, which is a loss of 36%. While every other zoom of this range and caliber exhibit this effect, none have ever lost so much. This is unique to the 70-200 II and it will effect wedding & event shooters, not to mention photojournalists. It's significant enough that Nikon is seeing lenses returned. My source for that info is a Nikon rep and a saleperson at B&H photo. While some people are compelled to debate this issue, you simply need to say "135mm at 10 feet away is NOT the same as 190mm at 10 feet away." If you can say that and understand BASIC photography, then you already know that even 10mm makes a huge difference for some types of shooting. Sadly, we're looking at a LOT more than 10mm loss here.

Here is a series of shots taken at a party:
[...].

While the shots are passable, some also required heavy crops at distances where the original 70-200 would have required little to none. My usage of the lens on a job led me to a simple conclusion: The loss of magnification is a problem. But the lens is so good at close range at it's typical focal lengths that it's still worth keeping. Using with DX or with a TC are also viable options. I've seen one informal test showing that the 70-200 II with a TC 1.4 is still sharper than the older version and that's with both set for F4. That's amazing!
Still, people who enjoyed using this lens for heavy portrait work may be unhappy. The lens was known for it's flexibility in that regard and it's clear that some of that is lost. A major online reviewer actually dared to suggest that 135mm at 6 feet was "good enough because that's a classic portrait focal length."
Can you imagine anyone saying such a thing? With the original version of this lens, 185mm was a pretty classic focal length too! It's amazing what depths people will plumb to protect their interests.

Focus
I don't know exactly how or why, but my focus hit score yesterday was nearly 100%, which is on par with my 24-70. I was always closer to 90% with the old 70-200. So I'm going to say, rather offhandedly, that this lens has better AF. If so....it's a BIG deal!

VR II
No huge surprise here. You can, with some good technique, hold this puppy down for sharp shots below 1/10. I could do that with the original but worked a LOT harder to make it work.

Value:
Well, you can kick yourself in the head every day and say it's fun, but a lot of people will call you crazy. The new version costs 2400.00 US and that's nearly 800 more than I paid for the VR I. But most people think the old one's price was insane, so why worry. High end lenses cost a lot of money. I paid 3K for my speakers and a lot of people would call that nutty as well. Tomorrow I'll do a job using the new lens that will easily pay for it, so for a professional it's much less of a question. Do we get 500 dollars worth of improvements? Heck no, not with the loss of FL! Is the new lens worth having? Heck yes, especially with the better IQ and VR! If I was a hobbyist shooter I'd probably stick with my old version and be happy.

Summary:
The 70-200 VR II is a bit perplexing. It's IQ is really beyond most expectations. My copy shows sharpness that exceeds a stopped down 85 1.8 and my macro primes as well. But a good deal of people will be troubled by the loss of apparent FL at closer range. One fellow on another forum has already explained clearly why this hurts wedding work or even shooting someone standing at a podium from 12 feet away. If you typically used the previous version at closer distances, you'll either adapt or be unhappy. Adding a TC helps, but now we have a 2800 dollar lens! So if someone wanted a pro zoom for event work and they wanted to do a LOT of ultra tight portrait shots, this would probably not be a top choice anymore. In the end the ultimate value of this lens is somewhat diminished by the obvious advantages at MFD of the original. Yet we do get stellar state of the art IQ that's hard to pass up, even at 128mm MFD. My choice is simple. I've decided to keep mine and use a TC 1.4 or 1.7 and also learn to use it on DX more often if the situation demands it. It's not as sleek a solution as I hoped, but the resulting images should be better overall. I rate the lens at 4 stars. For it to hit 5 stars it would have come close or matched the MFD ability of the original. You simply can't ignore how good the original was in that respect and I'm disturbed by seemingly intelligent shooters out there who are content to present misinformation on this point. One of the most famous online reviewers actually said that the new 70-200 VR II exceeds the performance of the original in every way. Of course that's patently impossible when the new version can't even come close to the near focus focal range of the original. Whatever fuels this "Protect Nikon" position, it does only harm to the photographic community.
I'm hoping that mainstream reviewers present honest detailed reviews that pull no punches with a lens that is unique against every other 70-200 and 80-200 on the market when it comes to losing magnification at less than infinity. A reviewer should respect the full scope of applications for a pro lens, report on a products strengths and weaknesses and leave his own agenda at the door.
So: The new 70-200 VR II is going to be a fantastic upgrade for some shooters and a serious letdown for others. For me it falls somewhere in the middle. Based on your individual style and job requirements, YOU must make your own ultimate judgment.
It's a crying shame that Nikon failed to maintain the reach factor at close focus as in the original 70-200. If they had, then this would be among the greatest lenses ever designed. Failing that I rate as basically equal overall to the original version. which is really better for some types of shooting.

See all 208 customer reviews...More...