watson076: The camera looks cool, the features are brilliant, the image quality however looks like s$@t
@ArtAlt: I think Nandbytes was being sarcastic.
FastGlassLover: Props to Sigma for doing something new. While many are saying, "what's the point" or wouldn't buy it, like myself, it's still good to see something new being done. Of course, with Canon and Nikon it's not the same. They have troves of fantastic lenses deserving updates, while Sigma has troves of garbage that is best forgotten. So it makes sense for them to start carving their own niche with interesting products.
A bit off topic, but I forgot how much DOF APS-C has, looking at the portrait made me remember why I went FF.
At focal length equivalent (e.g., 100mm on APS-C, 150mm on FF), the depth of field difference between APS-C and FF is only about 1.3-1.5 stops (meaning DoF on APS-C at F/2.8 would be between F/4.5-F/4.8 on FF). It's not as big as some make it out to be.
With the new Sigma lenses being very fast, F/1.8 zoom in this case, that is 1.33 stops brighter than most zooms in FF. So shooting at F/1.8 with this lens will give a DoF close to F/2.8 on FF when factoring in equivalent focal length. Fast primes, however, will still have a greater advantage on FF since there isn't really anything faster to be found on APS-C.
Zoron: Renew tamron 24-70mm F2.8
I went through 2 copies of this lens in A-mount and returned both, the second one after sending it back several times to them for calibration.
Both copies had accuracy issues which couldn't be resolved via MFA. At one end of the focal range it would BF while on the other end it would FF. Adjust for one end would make the other worse and the difference was so large, needed -7 at 24mm and a +6 at 70mm, there was no happy medium. I gave them benefit of the doubt and their customer service was excellent.
When they finally got the lens dialed in close enough to live with, still not perfect, I then discovered that their was an aperture issue when shooting with EFCS on, which none of my other lenses experienced. The aperture would be inconsistent, closing too much or not enough, creating varying DoF and exposure issues (as much as 1 stop difference).
Shame too, I liked the lens when it worked. I would be interested in an updated version that fixed these issues. The USB dock would help too!
halfwaythere: I'm just curious how many of the vocally enthusiastic people will actually buy this lens.
The cheaper and lighter 18-35/1.8 isn't actually that great of a seller.
Seems to me like Sigma is flooding the market with lenses that nobody ever asked for while ignoring the "usual suspects": 84/1.4, 135/2, 24-70/2.8 OS or an updated 70-200/2.8 OS.
I beg to differ.
While you may be looking at current sales, the 18-35 was an extremely strong seller (the lens has been out for a few years now). So much so that the lens was frequently on back order for the Canon mount when it came out for several months because they couldn't produce them fast enough. It had such an impact that they delayed the launch of the Nikon mount by almost 6 months and Pentax and Sony mounts by over a year (I should know, I had one preordered during that time). Even when the Nikon mount was released, it too was on back order a few times because they couldn't keep up with demand.
How many 85mm, 135mm, etc. need to be out on the market? Why follow that when there are so many to compete against when you can offer a unique product that satisfy multiple requirements?
While I would like to see Sigma release an updated 24-70, 70-200, 105 macro, and maybe a 135mm or 150mm, Sigma has been hitting home runs with almost every Global Vision lens they have released.
VirtualMirage: So $400-$750 for the camera and $50-$75 for the film cartridge. Each film cartridge is good for 2.5 to 6.5 minutes of movie (depending on chosen framerate). Clearly, this is not aimed towards any kind of cost advantage.
Short of millennials and those seeking authentic nostalgia, what is the point of this product? What does it bring to the table? What void does it fill that we cannot do with today's products better and cheaper?
For a fraction of the cost you can give your digital videos a similar look via software and filters.
I'd be less critical of the product if it actually allowed you to record video digitally and it applies the Super 8 look to it instead. But film cartridges only? Sounds more like Kodak is clinging with a death grip on their past as way to try and turn a buck today. Clearly, they are having issues keeping up with the Joneses.
A product that was once used to bring accessibility and affordability to the masses is now the exact opposite.
I'd like to add that I am not an opponent of film. There is something to say about how the analog format can present itself. It can have a feel that is very unique to itself.
I guess my issue here is the format chosen, how its being implemented, and its price considering the short shooting times. Super 8 was a way to get your foot in the door of videography. It was something that was accessible and tangible to a fairly large market. It had great timing and, as such, influenced many of today's best film makers.
But just because it was influential to them, does it make it a benchmark or requirement for today's developing and would be artists? Do we have to use the same medium as our forefathers to understand and appreciate the art?
As another similar example, take a look at Polaroid and what it did for the people, the industry, how it evolved, how it fell behind, and where it fits (or doesn't) today.
So $400-$750 for the camera and $50-$75 for the film cartridge. Each film cartridge is good for 2.5 to 6.5 minutes of movie (depending on chosen framerate). Clearly, this is not aimed towards any kind of cost advantage.
QuietOC: This is a big improvement over the previous A58 model--specifically the better AF system and the UHS support. The EVF, display, and mount are fine. It is not a replacement for the A77II which is a good deal for those who need it. I'll take the cheaper price, lower weight, and longer battery life. What I am not sure about are the size and general performance.
@Scottelly: While the A65 will offer you 1080P60, the A77II (and mostly likely the A68 even though it doesn't do 1080P60) will offer overall better video image quality. I noticed an improvement in video quality going from the A77 to the A77II, and I am not referring to just the higher bitrate either.
@QuiteOC, but the A6000 is smaller. You are thinking of just extra components that the A6000 is missing an not the added cost and complexity to manufacture a product that fits a lot into a small package.
VirtualMirage: MSRP aside, seeing what the excellent A77II can be had for new on the current market, I see very little reason for someone to choose this camera instead.
There is no size nor weight advantage (only 37g difference, identical dimensions), all composite/no alloy build, smaller and lower resolution EVF/LCD, slower frame rate, slow max shutter speed, lacking Wifi/NFC/Bluetooth, limited video resolution (no 1080P60), and a simplified articulating LCD screen. And that is just scratching the surface.
All for $200-$250 in savings over the A77II?
I understand it isn't intended to replace the A77II and is designed to be a step or two below, replacing the A58, despite it's A65-like name. But the "small" price difference between the two makes it a hard sell, in my opinion. Nothing stands out, nothing is notably new nor a step forward in its class.
Maybe its fit will make more sense once we hear what else Sony has lined up for A-mount in the rumored announcements that are to occur soon?
@QuietOC, read the product announcement, the MSRPs are right there. $599 for body only in the US. The A77II body only can be found for around $848, a difference of $249.
Sony is pretty stringent on the pricing of their products and official Sony retailers are not allowed to sell their products for less unless authorized by Sony themselves. Google UPP or Unilateral Pricing Policy for more information. That is why you see very little price differences with Sony products when you are shopping around. If it is drastically cheaper, then they are either not an authorized retailer or you are looking at used or gray market material.
@Randy Veerman. We have been hearing about "the end of A-mount" for a very long time now. So, I'll believe it when I see it.
From a marketing perspective, it makes no sense for Sony to have put work into refreshing their top of the line Zeiss and G series lenses only to release a beginner/amateur camera as their last camera to a demographic whose budgets will most likely not even both consider paying the high price of those new lenses. The updating of the high market lenses hints at something else being available down the pipe, and I don't think it is just for FE owners to use via an adapter.
Also, there are still some things that E/FE mount camera is quite capable of yet that the A-mount is still a strong suitor for. It doesn't mean that E/FE mount cameras will never be capable of this, just that it isn't quite there yet.
I also feel if Sony was to pull out of A-mount they would at least go out with a bang, offering one last must have high tier camera to the community.
Above $500, less than a $1000, puts the cameras very close together when it comes to shopping comparisons. $200-$250 in itself is no small change, but given how close the two are in price, it's quite small considering the competition that would be in the same pricing window.
Price the A68 less, closer to the $500 mark, and I wouldn't be as harsh on what the camera has to offer. But as it stands, the A77II offers the better bang for the buck.
Size is identical to A77II. Weight savings is minimal too, only .09 lbs (37g) lighter than the A77II.
As for longer battery life, that is still up for debate. Same sensor, same AF, same processor. EVF/LCD are smaller and lower resolution, but I don't think that is going to make a huge difference in battery performance.
It is cheaper, but current market prices only put a savings of about $200-$250 between it and the A77II. Since you are already approaching the $600 mark with this camera, it just comes across as sacrificing a lot for a "little" savings.
If the camera was closer to $500 or if the A77II was selling closer to its MSRP, then I would probably be singing a different tune. But at their current prices, I feel it doesn't have enough uniqueness to set it apart from the A77II yet is downgraded too much to justify the price.
MSRP aside, seeing what the excellent A77II can be had for new on the current market, I see very little reason for someone to choose this camera instead.
Biowizard: Purchasing Photoshop CS6 both for Windows and my Mac is the last money I'm sending Adobe.
What do you consider expensive? The cost of a fast food meal once a month is expensive?
Yet paying $1,000 for a full version (original MSRP) and around half that anytime you want to upgrade is not? Then throw the cost of LR on top of that.
I can afford and justify $10 a month but cannot justify spending $1,000 on a single piece of software and another large chunk every time I decide I want to upgrade. At the amount I spend every year on CC is around the same amount or less I spent on LR and upgrading it every 18 months, yet I am getting far more for my money.
As for trying to negate the original comment as trolling, consider the fact of its relevance (or lack there of) to the article at hand. Making a comment about disagreeing with CC only route well over a year ago during the articles covering the announcement, that is relevant. Still complaining about it over a year later on an article referencing an update and not costs? It's off topic and not relevant. It only stirs the pot.
People are still pounding sand about this?!? Get over it and move on. It's been over a year now since PS CC exclusivity was put in place.
If it doesn't suit you, find something else. Meanwhile, it's been working fine for me, both from a cost and product/service perspective.
Eddy M: Tried the cc 2015 last week but it only loaded once then everytime I launched it, it crashed and crashed and crashed. Reinstalled, fix my graphic card driver, followed the helps from adobe forum but still didn't help. Yesterday, I uninstalled it for good!!!
No issues here on my custom built Windows 10 PC.
Matt Random: Looks like they increased the 'Pro for Sony' price. It was $30 for v8 and is now $50 for v9.
I will say it took some effort to find the right location on the site.
@Eric Hensel -- That's odd. I just bought it last night, upgrading my Pro 8 for Sony to Pro 9 for only $40. I live in the US as well.
I'm looking at the site right now and it says $40. It's $50 to upgrade from Express. Here is the link:
VirtualMirage: What I want to know is did they finally incorporate some kind of plugin or integration option for those that still prefer to use Lightroom as their DAM?
I didn't know responds to drag and drop, but that would require having CO already open, correct? Not sure if you are referring to Windows or Mac interface (I'm using Windows).
I currently use a plugin with LR that allows you to do a quick open of the picture(s) into another editor. It's not the most graceful method, but it works for opening. Problem is saving since the files don't pull in automatically into LR afterwards. You have to do an Import again. Plus, it doesn't always open directly on the image itself, but instead to the folder it is located in, listing all photos in that location.
I was hoping for something a little more fluid, like how LR reacts with PS or even the Nik plugins. Right click>edit in>CO, CO opens to photo, edit image, save, file imports into LR, CO closes.
Same goes for PS, it would be nice to be able to use CO like I do Nik where it opens the image, you edit, and when you save, CO will close and the saved image appears as a new layer to the original.
What I want to know is did they finally incorporate some kind of plugin or integration option for those that still prefer to use Lightroom as their DAM?