Biggiep: No OSS on the 24-70mm 2.8 in 2016? Step it up Sony.
"Stabilization is not as important in a wide-angle lens""Stabilization was left out to keep the cost down""People should have an A7 II by now"
The above are all excuses for Sony charging hundreds more for the 24-70mm f2.8 than their competitors, but not including OSS to justify the cost increase. If you don't want to include OSS, then price it the same. And considering the debacle that is the image quality of their 24-70mm f4, I'm very curious to see the reviews of this new 2.8. I would love nothing more than for Sony to step up their lens game because those amazing bodies deserve better. It's been a common theme for Sony to release lenses that are inferior to the competition and/or price them more.
Biggiep: I'd honestly prefer Sony delay the release of a body and make a new freaking kit lens. The 16-50mm is absolute trash and those amazing camera bodies deserve better.
I'm aware quality of gear isn't a necessary or sufficient condition for good pictures. Great pictures have been produced by point-and-shoots and smartphones too. This doesn't change the fact that the Sony 16-50mm lens is behind the competition. No other lens maker has such a poor-performing lens as their only kit lens. If you find the poor image quality an acceptable trade-off for the form-factor of the lens, great, but not all of us want that. Panasonic and Olympus also have smaller, pancake-like electronic zoom kit lenses that aren't the best performers - but they also have collapsible kit lenses with better IQ. Nobody is saying other kit zooms are perfect wide open - but the drop-off in quality going wide open is not nearly as severe as the Sony. Even when stopping down the Sony is still behind, merely "okay" as you stated. I'll go ahead and rephrase my first post: the 16-50mm has trash image quality. Absolute trash. Wasted potential for their amazing APS-C mirrorless body lineup.
We can agree to disagree, but you just explained why this lens is terrible. It's only "okay" after stopping down all the way to f5.6 or f8, and f8 more likely on the tele end of the lens. There are massive distortions, by far the worst out of all kit lenses in current production, and Sony relies on lossy digital correction as a crutch to make up for corner-cutting in lens design. I am aware all mirrorless lens makers do the same, but Sony is by far the worst. I suppose you find this acceptable, but a consensus amoung reputable reviewers doesn't.
What about owners of the first A7's that don't have IBIS? Forced obsolescence through corner-cutting in lens design? Wouldn't be the first time Sony is guilty of that (see A-mount).
If IBIS is end-all, be-all, why have OSS in the 70-200mm 2.8 then? Your excuses don't hold up here.
No OSS on the 24-70mm 2.8 in 2016? Step it up Sony.
I'd honestly prefer Sony delay the release of a body and make a new freaking kit lens. The 16-50mm is absolute trash and those amazing camera bodies deserve better.
tongki: I keep 17-40mm for extra 5mm reachand don't need stupid IS
if you can not handheld your camera in wide angle,then hire a photographer that can do it
It's bizarre how in 2014 people are still so ignorant about the benefits of IS. It's not just about shaky hands, it's also being able to shoot at a slower shutter speed in low-light situations. With IS, you'll be able to shoot in low light far better than f/4 without IS.
keeponkeepingon: MTF charts of the 10-18mm and the EF-M 11-22mm
(Cut and pasted from canon HK and US web sites):
It looks like the EF-M is a bit better? Would it be enough of a difference (.5 vs .7 at some points) to see a difference with the naked eye?
The EF-M lens does look to be sharper and half a stop faster, but it also costs at least $100 more assuming it's even sold in your market and it's also for a camera system Canon has practically abandoned. (I'm an EOS M owner and I'm not happy about it either).
The 10-18mm also goes a bit wider while sacrificing some tele, and frankly, I prefer 1mm extra on the wide end since I'm buying an ultra-wide angle lens.
Peter CS: I would have gladly paid a little more for a metal mount on the new 10-18mm, and even more for a fixed aperture! After all, an ultra-wide is not a lens that can be kept full-time on a camera, unless all you do is landscapes! However, STM is a welcome addition...
What makes you think a little more would get you a metal mount and fixed aperture? The 10-22mm has a metal mount but a variable aperture - its MSRP is more than twice of the 10-18mm MSRP.
The 10-18mm, if it has the same sharpness as all the STM lenses of late, looks to be a real winner. The fact that it is stops lower than the 11-22mm is mitigated by the presence of IS, which the older UWA lens doesn't have. UWA shooters generally aren't as concerned about the DOF difference between 3.5 and 4.5, so I'd rather have 4.5 and IS to shoot in low light than 3.5 and no IS. Not to mention, this lens will be less than half of what the 10-22mm lens costs, much less all the mirrorless UWA lenses. It's offerings like these that keep me married to Canon APS-C despite their outdated sensor. I won't head over to mirrorless until they get their lens pricing together.
KingOfAtlantis: I'm a noob when it comes to specs but this doesn't seem like such a good release vs other stuff that just came out or announced around this price range? Doesn't look visually appealing to me either
At least you qualified your statement with "I'm a noob" which tells us to stop reading immediately.
I supposed the G1 X must've sold well for Canon to find it more worthwhile to put in effort to make a successor to it as opposed to fix their EOS M line. This G1 X is the ultimate tweener camera, which means it's half-assed in multiple respects. Too large to fit into a pocket, not large enough to have a viewfinder. Too expensive to not have interchangeable lenses. It's also curious that Canon develops a totally different 1.5" sensor JUST for the G1 X line because as we all know, Canon has been nothing short of legendary when it comes to getting the most out of each sensor design (ahem 18mp APS-C).
Timbukto: The sensor is not even the biggest insult. Its the fact that Canon purposely is using this entry level camera to clear out existing inventory of its OLD kit lens when the sharper and far superior AF STM version is already released.
I actually find this more repulsive...nickle and diming the blue collared consumer or starting enthusiast is a bigger offense to me than Nikon milking the old and rich with the DF or 58. Nikon is doing awesome with entry level. The new collapsible kit lens looks almost good enough for the 24MP sensors. The 18-140 super zoom is looking good too, and the sensors and AF on an entire slew of Nikon entry level is now indisputably just better lately.
God forbid someone is INSULTED by Canon's LOWEST END product, which is also priced $100 cheaper than the D3300 that you are referring to. Give me a break. And please don't tell me, "It's just $100" otherwise we could play that game until we end up at full frame.
Domo P1000: I like the look of this. I am one who appreciates a fully articulated screen - very useful when photographing with arms stretched above head height, but may adapt to cope with the less manoverable screen supplied.However I do have one on-going bugbear: in the US this will cost just under £500 ($799) in the UK it will cost £750 (almost $1200) – why? WHY?!
Come on now, this is nothing new. Electronics are cheaper in the US in large part because the cost of doing business is lower here. European countries have many more laws that govern sales practices (ex. longer warranties) and employment practices (ex. wages, vacation time) that pose financial burdens to companies, so who do you think they pass the costs onto? The consumer of course.
It's very similar to Americans asking why transportation infrastructure and mass transit options are so much better developed in Europe. Well, if people making more than €50,000 (~$70000) were taxed at a 52% rate like they are in France or the Netherlands, we'd have amazing highways and train systems here too.
This isn't an argument supporting one way or another, I'm just answering your question.
So this is Nikon's equivalent pricewise of Canon's 35mm f/2 IS but f/1.8 and no VR. I'd rather have stabilization than 1.8, otherwise why not just get a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 when it's on sale instead? We all know Nikon never has sales unlike Canon.
Right, and if you created a poll that asked which of these three cameras someone would rather OWN, at least 100% of them would go to either of the full frame DSLR's. The OM-D is a novelty, a throwback to a simpler time that gives older photographers a warm and fuzzy feeling in their private parts. This kind of poll result is not based on substance - just one of superficial amusement.
This makes no sense. Nobody pays anything to use Instagram, so what exactly are the damages?