Dervast: Hi all, since I am new to this new game. What is the pro difference between for example the Tamron 28-70 2.8 for sony bodies. IT does not have this pro tag but what other differences are?
There is no Tamron 28-70 for Sony bodies. You either mean the 24-70 or the 28-75.
Clive50: interested if it fits my Canon 600d ;-)
The question is if your 600D fits the lens. Not the other way round.
mpgxsvcd: Just for reference a High End 800mm Aperture telescope with a 3040mm Focal length and F3.8 focal ratio runs about $220,000. However, you can get a nice 2800mm F10.0 11” SCT with a very nice mount and a warranty for $6999. You would have to be a fool to buy this telescope as anything but a collectible.
But do these telescope cover a large (sensor) area? I doubt it.
stevo23: I don't know, I thin I'll wait for the IS version...
Attach it to a Sony A7ii and you have IS.
Aero Windwalker: When people having trouble having decent photos they play with equipments.
Or post in forums...
Dimitris Servis: A word of caution: do not put junk store lenses on your camera unless inspected for fungi. A contaminated lens may contaminate your camera and every lens you put on it.
What do you mean with "contaminate"? Release spores of fungus that are present in the air by the millions anyway?
gLOWx: I may sound harsh, but i will go anyway ;)What is the point of using a "more-than-thousand" body with such lenses ?
When i look at examples, there are some very nice shots quality wise (mostly SMC PENTAX 1:2/35, the best one probably) but most others looks like lomography/instagram. All that money on body for that result ?Spend less on body (any entry level DSLR will do) and buy GOOD glass instead. Because at the end of the day, glass makes all the difference.If not...what is the point of full-frame (or APS-C) sensor ?Something a lot of DSLR+average kit lens buyers don't understand...until you experience it ;)
There are some old good glass, and not so expansive. But more difficult to find than those ones ;)To give you an idea : Super-Takumar F:1.8 55mm V2.This is what i call cheap (around 100 bucks for V2) and good glass.And even not so rare...but you need to SEARCH, not to FIND :D
The point is: a full frame body will work fine with mediocre lenses, often even better than a small sensor with high end lenses.
HowaboutRAW: Good for Sony, now reconsider compressed raws in general.
Both of you: show us one picture taken by yourselves where cRAW is a problem.
GoneMirrorless: A 1 inch sensor with an F/5.6 lens and no RAW output means there is no way possible that this is a serious or even 'amateur' stills camera.
Does it come with a flash to overcome those flaws?
brendon1000: A pretty good review and I agree that I feel the weight of the A7 II is a bit heavy. Was pretty happy with the weight of my A7 which I feel is ideal for a mirrorless camera.
Even I am clueless why Sony went from those lovely dials on the A7 to the crappy ones on the A7 II. Why Sony why ????
One area I don't agree on is the high ISO performance. The low pass filter on the A7 II is pretty weak and your own comparison tool shows that at high ISO the A7 II files are sharper than the D750 and I even downloaded both files to compare and honestly its a tie for me upto ISO 12800.
IBIS was turned ON in the A7II shot, as the EXIF of DSC00499.ARW clearly proves. This is against Sony's recommendation when shooting on a tripod and has been proven to decrease resolution.
mick232: As for the RAW compression issue - the same compression algorithm is used in the A99 and other Sony cameras such as the RX1. Not the dpreview review of the A99 nor any other review I am aware of has found this to be an issue when they reviewed the A99.
Now that there is a hype around the issue all over, it suddenly is a big deal even in reviews. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
The review complains about compressed RAW and the fact you can't change it to uncompressed.
At the same time, the studio test scene (DSC00478.ARW) has been shot with IBIS turned ON on a tripod, against Sony's recommendation. This has been proven to result in less than optimal image quality.
So I am left wondering why it is a problem that we get less than optimal image quality and we can't do anything about it due to technical limitations, and why then it is not a problem to get less than optimal image quality when we actually could have done something against it?
The A7S review points out the benefits of compression (smaller files, higher write speed). That part was unfortunately omitted in the A7II review.
The review also fails to clearly point out that the issue is not a general problem with A7II RAW files but affects a diminishingly small subset of all RAW images in extreme cases. ("Unfortunately, one persistent issue with Sony Raw files might limit the usability of Raw files, particularly when pushed.")
Millions of images have been taken with Sony cameras for years without anybody noticing the issue, including reviewers. It was first mentioned in 2014. Now it is presented as a problem that everybody knew about for ages ("Raw compression issues we've seen from lossy compression in many Sony cameras").
Much of the excitement about this issue is probably not even due to the practical implications of it but the contradiction of marketing claims ("14 bit RAW") and technical reality, which one could rightfully criticize.
As for the RAW compression issue - the same compression algorithm is used in the A99 and other Sony cameras such as the RX1. Not the dpreview review of the A99 nor any other review I am aware of has found this to be an issue when they reviewed the A99.
DenisBBergeron: How Sony Camera sensor can be worst than Nikon or Canon sensors ? Sony make sensors for both !
@Rishi Sanyal: if the isue shows up fairly frequently as you say, then why wasn't the issue noticed in the DPR A99 review? It uses the same cRAW compression algorithm as the A7 series.
In fact, 14-bit RAW is praised as an advantage of the A99 in that review. My theory is: there was no hype around this so-called issue back then, therefore nobody cared about it.
It doesn't get any truer the more often that myth is repeated. Lossy compression may cause slight degradation in extreme cases, but gets blown way out or proportion in the review and these comments.
The different scores in image quality compared to D750 seems to be blown way out of proportion by DPR. Besides, the 6D has higher scores than the A7II which totally contradicts what the review text says.
Eleson: "The taller, USB 3.0 port means you can get data off the camera faster but it leaves no room for the headphone socket featured on the EOS 5D III."
Are you implying that that the lack of headphones jack is due to lack of real estate? Why not be honest and say that is was left of for market positioning?
SmilerGrogan: Now that this camera has such a sophisticated metering system why can't Canon engineers change the sensitivity of individual areas of the sensor in response to the light on the scene? In other words, why can't they raise the ISO in the shadowy areas of the scene, lower it for the highlights. That would get rid of the need for HDR and make all the high-dynamic range people happy.
The metering system tries to make each area of the image 18% grey. If you adjust sensitivity in different parts of the image according to their brightness, all you'd get is a 18% grey image.
LMCasey: It really is too bad that Canon did not take the opportunity to also improve DR of their sensor. I guess this is a stopgap.
They confused DR and noise - instead of lower noise and higher DR they created it the other way round.
Rick Knepper: It was improved, relatively speaking. A sensor with twice the pixels has the same DR as the 5D3 = improved.
No doubt the technology has improved - Canon is now capable to cut 7D sensors the right way and glue them together to fill a full frame area.