haplens: Sony seems to be insisting on using full frame lenses with APS-C mirrorless bodies as well. To hell with that!, we wanna use a APS-C due to its compactness, if they insist users to use FE mount lenses which are bulky, more expensive and heavy weight (compared to APSC lenses), and not producing APSC lenses, the whole point of APSC is gone! Im not a sony hater and I own an a6000, but this really is sick! Sony why don't you get some lenses for APSC only??
@ecka84 "You are doing it wrong!FF 600/5.6 ~ 400/3.7 crop. NOT 400/5.6!"
400 & 600 F5.6 lenses are F5.6 lenses regardless of what camera you put them on.
I do NOT need to mount a 400 F3.7 lens on a crop sensor to get the same field of view and same exposure settings for a given amount of light as I would if I were using a 600 F5.6 on FF.
The only differences between the two scenarios are depth of field and the fact the FF sensor will theoretically have less noise than the crop.
Theoretically because these days that only applies at high ISO and it would be foolish to suggest the difference in the noise performance of crop v FF is a constant value equating to exactly 1.5 stops or whatever.
If the light is EV16, my FF and crop camera are set to ISO 100 then if I want a correct exposure I must set 1/1000 @ F8 (or 1/500 @ F11 and so on) on BOTH cameras.
If you were right hand held meters would need a setting for each format to give different values. They don't so you aren't.
rugosa: I just logged on to say that the first photo of the woman sitting on the bed with the phone is amazing. The setting, the look of worry on her face + the lighting. You could could imagine a whole movie or book behind this one moment. My compliments to the model + photographer. Also love that green phone, pure 70's!
You think that photo is amazing? Really? It stands out like a sore thumb it is contrived, as we know it is. It is so unspontaneous it is untrue.
The expression is what I'd expect from an actress in a silent film where they used to over emphasise their expressions to show emotion in order to make up for lack of sound!
I think I read in a previous interview with Sony on DPR they said they were going to introduce fast lenses as they felt they were lacking in the E mount range.
OK but why an 85mm F1.4 and not an 85mm F2? Most F1.8/F2 lenses of this focal length are pretty small (Nikon F1.8 for example) whereas as soon as you go F1.4 (or 1.2) the size and weight goes up a lot. D.o.F is still very shallow at F2. Sensors are so good we don't really need the extra stop for noise control.
F2 is still usefully fast and a smaller F2 lens would be more in keeping with the smaller form factor of the A7's.
It's not just Sony. I made a similar point the other day about Sigma's huge 20mm F1.4. The whole industry seems obsessed with specification and beating or matching the other guy. It's as if they are frightened to be pragmatic and introduce more portable lenses. The don't have to be F4 or F2.8 for primes to be smaller, F2 would be a good compromise in my view.
"There's absolutely no size, weight or price advantages with crop optics. "
Well that is complete and utter nonsense.
A 400mm F5.6 lens is simply no where near as big or as costly as a 600mm F5.6 lens and you know very on APS-C you get the same field of view from a 400 as you do from a 600 on FF.
Look at the size of of the Sony CZ 16-80 (very sharp lens) and compare it to Nikon's FF 24-120 or Canon and Sigma 24-105's and tell me there is no size advantage.
Sony 16-50 F2.8 v any 24-70 F2.8, the Sony is much smaller.
I suppose you will rely on this notion that "F4 on FF is still better than F2.8 on crop". Well being F4 that means your shutter will be a stop slower or your ISO a stop higher.
Yes FF sensors have less noise but this is now only an issue at high ISO. You can't tell low ISO shots apart these days from virtually any modern d-slr/milc, even from 4/3.
Unless you need narrow depth of field of FF there is no real world advantage just theory not backed up by facts.
davob: Unless you want to set off a new equivalence tsunami, I suggest you amend the commentary to slide 6 to something like "a 34mm f3.6 lens would (at least from a depth of focus perspective)..."
I understand what is said about it and know how depth of field works. My gripe is with those who witter on about the different light gathering ability and so start telling you you need an f 0.5 lens or whatever on the smaller format.
Given you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between an ISO 100 shot on 4/3, aps-c and FF that form of equivalence is redundant.
Sure as you go higher up the iso scale the differences soon appear but so what? We know this just as we knew back in the days of film an enlargement from 6x6 cm negative would show less grain than a same size print from a 35mm negative shot on the same film.
Bob A L: When are folks going to learn aperture, shutter speed and iso control exposure, not sensor size. F 1.8 is F1.8 whether tiny sensor or 16x24" sheet film. Wonder what the aperture equivalent of an old 4x5 speed graphic was? Maybe that's where the "speed" in the name came in.
Back in the days of film no one wittered on about equivalence between half-frame film, "full frame" 35mm and 6x6 or 6x7 etc.
It was just accepted that at higher print sizes you would see more film grain from 35mm film than off a 6x6. It's no different now where larger sensors offer up less noise though at low ISO it is getting hard to tell them apart.
No one went around telling people that their F1.4 50mm lens was really an F2.8. Anyone doing so would have been deemed a complete idiot.
It was just accepted that 50mm was standard on 35mm film and 80mm was standard on 6x6 as they gave similar fields of view.
Robert Holloway: Maybe it's me and this is not a comment about the Sigma. I just don't see the need for 20mm f1.4 . Can someone explain where this lens would have a real practical use. Astrophotography? Not really something I'd think of for portraits. landscapes at f1.4? Thanks!
I am with Robert. The lens is also huge as are the other F1.4 Art lenses.
Back in the days of film Olympus used to to make "two of everything" at wide angle with their Zuiko lenses.
They had a 21mm F2 and a 21m F3.5.24mm F2 and F2.828mm F2 and F3.5 (later replaced with an F2.8)and 35mm F2 and F2.8.
I owned the 21mm F3.5 and it was tiny with a 49mm filter thread. As did the 35mm F2.8 I also owned.
These days with ever improving noise performance from sensors I'd like to see an equally small set of lenses such as those F2.8 and F3.5 Olys. They would go really well with the Sony A7 size of FF body for these who don't need the speed.
Instead despite better sensors that require less light for good performance everyone seems obsessed with F1.4 lenses.
"DPR have chosen their side of that debate and are sticking to it."
Which doesn't contradict what davob posted if you read what DPR said in their missive on the subject.
To be honest I don't know why the even bothered mentioning the equivalence thing in the caption to the photo, which is a photo of the camera with a 17mm F1.8 lens on it.
Thomas Richter: Nice. But why a dedicated color/art dial and still no dedicated ISO dial? (Same applies to almost all cameras in the market; I just don't get it. Even PASM is less important to me. I mean; for that retro type of feeling I want focus on the essentials: shutter, aperture, ISO; visible, with imprinted numbers on the dials, not necessarily re-configurable; always at the same place; is it so hard?)Also, pricing it twice as much as the X-E2s might be a bit steep.
I think on the film original the "art" dial was actually the shutter speed dial (and apertures were set via a dial around the lens).
Looks like Oly chickened out of going the whole retro hog here with the "art" dial.
I have never quite understood why the majority of digital cameras have relegated setting the shutter/aperture to dials on the body.
I suppose it makes manufacturing the lenses cheaper.
However it is easier to turn a lens aperture ring with your left hand while using your right hand to manipulate the shutter speed simultaneously rather than trying to do both with front and back dials with your right hand.
Makes shooting in manual mode far quicker. I think only Fuji with some lenses and panasonic on the fixed lens Lx100 work like this?
halfwaythere: What we have here is a premium priced device but lacking the latest in both EVF and LCD technology.
Gotta give it to Olympus, 'cause they have some serious cojones.
Why is it lacking the latest EVF and LCD tech? The EVF is very high res and the LCD touch screen.
Am I missing something here?
All that blog says is basically that he took a shot with the second lens, found it needed adjustment and Bob's your Uncle "I found I needed an adjustment of +9".
How did he determine it was +9 and not +10 or +12 etc?
Isn't the tedium of doing this job arriving at the correct value required? Unless there is some way to determine that from the scales on Lens Align or your ruler isn't there much more work required than is implied?
biza43: Interesting interview, thanks. What I take away from it:1. Not having past electronics experience slows down upgrading times. It is interesting to see that Fuji struggled with developing suitable processors. On the other hand, Sony, being at tis core an electronics company, has no problem with processors and sensors.2. No doubt that APSC IQ is more than enough for real world users; but a Fuji X system can not be more expensive than Alpha 7 FF... it is difficult to convince customers to buy an XPRO2 (or XT1) when the price is the same has the FF from Sony (or even Canon and Nikon). And top quality Fuji X lenses are actually not cheap... There is a disconnection here.
"Leica is more expensive, so are many other brands."
So what? That doesn't mean the Fuji lenses are not over priced. They are and Leica always has been as well.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Another digital camera without a tilting or articulated rear LCD.
I honestly don't understand why. Having the ability to use it as a waist level finder or for other situations is a real boon and with digital it is not anything hard to implement.
Arguments about robustness are spurious in my opinion. The forums are NOT littered with stories of broken articulated LCD's.
User8894381729: Back to past...
Why without flash?Why 20.9 MP?Dear Nikon tell me why?
No flash = better viewfinder? Since when?
Given the D750 has a flash and has an excellent full frame VF I don't think you are right there.
I also don't think it is beyond the wit of Nikon to make a weather sealed pop-up flash.
It will be interesting to compare the high ISO to Samsungs 28mp sensor as well.
Scottelly: Sony, what is the point?
This is a downgrade from the A65, which you discontinued years ago.
Scottelly, what you see is typical Sony who go for market segmentation rather than simply making the replacement model an improvement on the previous model.
They have done this for years and as an A100 user was dismayed to find out useful features that model had vanished in the A2xx/A3xx/A4xx/A5xx lines some of which only came back in the original A77!!! I bought the A77 and did not "upgrade" prior to this as I wasn't prepared to lose some of those features before its release.
They cut GPS from the A77 (and a couple of other features) to go to the A77II so yet again Sony sticks to the form book of adding some really good stuff in but taking other useful stuff out.
vscd: There is nothing like a Canon 85L 1.2 ;) But the Fuji is getting a quite serious system now... for the fact of the unsharp eyes I can say this depends on the distance. Setting Trees free in a landscape is a nice thing on f1.2 @fullframe. There is so much more to a f1.2 lens than portraits.
"The "daylight between the 85L and the Fuji" is more than one stop (sensorwise)"
Am I the only one who detests the above notion of equivalence?
If the light allows you to shoot at F1.2 @ 1/125 (for example) it doesn't matter if you are using an aps-c camera or a full frame one. That is what you are shooting at.
Will the aps-c image be noisier than the full frame which is where this particular notion of equivalence comes from? Not necessarily true anymore and certainly not at low ISO.
Look at the Samsung NX1 low ISO performance and compare it to the Sony A7's and Canon 50mp sensors. It is at least as good if not better. So bang goes that theory.
In fact noise at low ISO on the Canon's is higher than previous versions of their full frame sensors.
Technology has rendered the simplistic rule of thumb of equivalence based on sensor noise redundant as apc-c sensor performance has improved and FF stalled somewhat as more pixels are added to FF sensors.
Poweruser: What´s worse than IS? Double IS!
sh10453: "This is less the story of a DPReview.com editor professing his favorite piece of gear from the year, ..."Since this is the case, I think the title "Gear of the year" is totally misleading.The title is what grabbed my attention, and brought me to the article.
I think it is impossible for an owner of a camera to be an impartial reviewer of the camera, it's normal human being behavior, and it is far from appropriate to declare his own camera as gear of the year! The article sounds far more personal and sentimental than professional journalism, IMHO.
I have nothing against the camera at all. But I think the title for this article should have been "Opinion, The Nikon D750"; then I'd have no issue with that.
I don't think it matters it is not impartial. He makes a good case for it for his circumstances and I can certainly agree with his opinion on an articulated LCD.
I never ceases to amaze me that all D-slrs don't have one. The usual "they are not a strong" argument is nuts, just keep them close against the body if you want to tos your camera around.
Of course if he'd taken up with that Sony A77II he tested he could have had an articulated LCD and a camera that focused fast when he used it :)
I also like the fact he still has a bit of a wish list such as in-body stabilization because there is no perfect camera.
vesa1tahti: Dan has done the best choice, absolutely. D7200 and D750 are market's best cameras, absolutely. And OVF beats EVF in any respect.
"And OVF beats EVF in any respect."
Well that is your opinion and not one everyone shares (including me) so why post your opinion as if it was a fact?
Because it most certainly isn't.
RedFox88: Meh. Only 5 lenses and only one of them is high quality.
The 105mm macro is excellent. Up there with manufacturers optics. When SLR gear tested it it came out slightly sharper then the Canon and Nikon macros.
If that isn't class leading, what is?