Retzius: Otis and now Milvus? I am sure these are nice lenses but these are the most ridiculous names ever... they should just call their next high end lens the Bestus and get it over with.
I am looking forward to a 300/2.8 called "Phallus".
SmilerGrogan: Dear DP Staff
The 23rd rule of journalism is "Don't make your readers do the math. Your job is to do it for them"Giving measurements like .72 ft is pretentious, useless, and annoying. The correct form would be to say "slightly over 8 1/2 inches" or "8.7 inches."
No, the correct form would be to say "slightly less than 22cm".
Dimit: Why on hell no OSPDAF ?
Because theydidn't develop a new sensor but re-used the A7S sensor.
So a 2nd gen mirrorless AF system aready matches a 10th gen (D)SLR AF system... I guess there won't be any room for denial anymore when 3rd gen mirrorless AF systems are introduced.
kodakrome: or this one...
5-10 minutes of 4K video is infinitely more than 0 minutes of 4K video.
justmeMN: [Insert absurd anti-Canon rant here] :-)
Winning in the "best DSLR" category is like winning in the "best horse-drawn carriage" category when everyone else has already switched to motor vehicles.
Leandros S: I don't understand how it's a 2015-2016 award when only the first half of 2015 could be accounted for.
Because they want you to buy new gear now and not in 2016.
dmanthree: I think this is great, but some day they'll learn it's all about the glass.
What are you missing? Where else do you get Zeiss glass?
farcanal: Sony Raw uncompressed firmware update.
Sony engineer and manager Kimio MakiUncompressed RAW: Sony RAW is compressed, not uncompressed. But if we’re getting a lot of requests for it, we should make such a kind of no-compression raw. We recognize the customer’s requirement, and actually we are working on it. And yes Sony could provide that via simple firmware upgrade!
This misses the point.
People shouldn't care about whether RAW is compressed or uncompressed. What they should care about, if at all, is whether the compression is lossless or not.
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?