mgrum: Prices are very high for the new lenses, that is for sure.
It seems Sony have gone all out for quality in the first round of lenses (which necessitates a large lens if you want to extract the most from a 36+MP sensor). That is to be praised I guess as others tend to do it the other way round and bring out the good lenses after you've bought the budget options.
Hopefully the next round of lenses will include one quality wide prime, and some more affordable Sony (non-G) 24mm, 50mm 85mm or 100mm lenses.
Or they don't know how to make lens nice and inexpensive.
agentlossing: When people talk about mirrorless cameras destroying the low-end DSLR market they seem to forget (or maybe Canon has forgotten) that mirrorless cameras tend to be more expensive than DSLRs for the same target market, due to the higher quality construction that is standard with mirrorless manufacturers. If you can charge $200 more (say) for a mirrorless camera with a metal body and more user controls over a plastic-body DSLR, why worry that you'll leave that low-end market behind? Embrace the change, and get those ugly shiny-plastic low-end DSLR bodies in the garbage where they belong.
"the higher quality construction that is standard "
Looking at Nikon's entry levels cameras, which are very well built, it is hard to take this statement seriously. Mirrorless are more expensive because of the cost — lower sale volume = high cost to recoup R&D cost. The same reason why Sigma lenses are cheaper than Nikon or Canon's counterparts.
xfz: I think for mirrorless to replace DSLR it has to wait until contrast AF is faster than phase detection AF in DSLR. This is possible because contrast AF live by moore's law, and mainly depend on computing power and algorithm; which can be greatly improved over time.Before that, i don't see why ppl will move away from DSLR.
But don't you think the AF in dSLRs can get better still? Thus there will always be a gap. But going to mirrorless can reduce the cost of manufacturing of cameras and the overall bulks of the camera system, which many people prefer.
disraeli demon: A beautiful looking lens, just a shame nobody's making a nice, compact reasonably priced 24mm f2 for APS-C that would give a fast 35mm equivalent.
Agree that we need a couple nice and compact wide angle primes for Nikon and Canon shooters. I think the trend is to push all of us to go FF bc of the higher profit margin in the era of declining sale volume. To say that the 18-35/1.8 is the substitute is missing the point. This zoom is big and heavy and not wide enough. There are many f2.8 zooms that already go out to 17mm and the Nikon DX 35/1.8 is nice, small, and cheap.
G1Houston: Why isn't anyone making a 16/2 or 16/2.8 lens specifically designed for the APS-C cameras?
"Sigma has the 18-35 f/1.8 for APS-C. How's that selling? If I were shooting APS-C, I'd get it in a heart beat."
Not wide enough. there is a big diff between 18 and 16mm on the APSC. The 18mm is covered by many many zoom lenes.
Why isn't anyone making a 16/2 or 16/2.8 lens specifically designed for the APS-C cameras?
G1Houston: If the "issue" in the camera causes not only flare but also front focusing, why shouldn't we be worried? Is AF inaccuracy a serious issue?
"So by that logic the 5D MarkIII, D810, 1Dx are all not good cameras because"
Yes, especially considering how much they are priced. Which is why some argue the live view AF on mirrorless cameras is better in terms of accuracy. Take the two 750s for example, the AF on the one without the flare is so close to perfection that to many users, considering how many real life factors can affect image sharpness, that they can live happily with this copy without having to worry too much about AF fine tuning.
Yes you CAN adjust, but the one with the flare problem needs MORE adjustment so its AF is more inaccurate. The flare itself can be avoided and very few will ever need to shoot into the light. In contrast, AF impacts every picture and everybody. I for one would rather not bother with AF fine adjustment — why should I, they should make the AF accurate in the first place. The AF adjustment process is laborious and very difficult to do if you have a zoom lens. To expect every customer to routinely adjust their AF is to make an excuse for not making a good camera in the first place.
If the "issue" in the camera causes not only flare but also front focusing, why shouldn't we be worried? Is AF inaccuracy a serious issue?
Retzius: Are these lenses made in Korea or in China?
"If we agree that quality doesn't need to be an issue of manufacturing country, one might still want to ask that question out of pure interest."
If the country of manufacturing does not impact quality, why, why, should any one care? People ask and then pretend they don't care because they do not want to offend anybody.
Flashback: Pop-up flash yet again. ugh...
Is it just me, or does anybody else think the over hanging flash, just completely spoils the look of a fine camera?
"Then why not just a small flash window to the right of the lens?"
That works with compact body with a compact lens that is not too wide (FOV) and long (Length of the lens). Otherwise, the flash will cast a shadow.
HowaboutRAW: Mr Physics+Frank C:
According to Wikipedia the flash sync speed of the D70 is 1/300 sec.
With a smaller (APSC) focal plane shutter it is easier to build higher sync speeds.
The top shutter speed of the camera is indeed 1/8000 sec.
it used a CCD not a CMOS sensor.
attomole: I think that is a very useful demonstration of the sensitivity and dynamic range of modern full frame sensors, would be interesting to see what and near as equivalent uFT set up would do under the same circumstances (honestly not just trolling) based on my experience of ageing APSC Nikon, this is astonishing, but I am seriously thinking of jumping ship for (uFT Pana GX7 or OLY something ) and three decent compact primes, as I have had it with bulky DLSR gear
Indeed, we see quite a few testimonies from FF shooters in the m4/3 forum that they have sold all their FF gears to switch b/c they cannot see any difference between FF and m4/3. The key word here is THEY, that in their photography, the advantages of FF are not apparent. They do not need a FF, and should not have bought one in the first place. However this does not mean that FF cameras, such as the D750, are not better in many ways except the weight and bulk of the gear.
If you do not shoot in low light (ISO>3200) without flash, if you do not need to focus track moving objects, if you do not need to dramatically lift shadows and recover highlights, and if you do not crop much, m4/3 is fine. Many people say, why would I need to shoot at ISO 6400? Keep in mind that if you photograph people indoors in low light, you need at least 1/125 sec to get sharp pictures since people move. A gentle wave of hand, a smile, all need high shutter speed to freeze. For kids, I typically use at least 1/200 sec. This, together with the use of slow lens, can easily push ISO to very high levels. No IBIS can help you with that. The greatest things about m4/3 is the balance of performance and size of the kit. If you need performance that modern technology can achieve, D750 is no doubt a spectacular camera. I wish I knew it was coming before I bought the D7100, which is already better *for me* than m4/3 in AF tracking and overall IQ.
Infared: I REALLY like the idea of the camera. The sensor, the 5-Axis etc. It's still the lack of dedicated AF lenses that stops me. It is priced really well too.Makes me crazy!!!! LOL!Could the Sony A7 II please mate with my Canon 5DIII and make a Love Child that we all want so bad. LOL.
"Obviously, you are not aware of why Sony decided to go with "NEX-9" that people were demanding following NEX-7. One word: Adapting lenses, especially old lenses. It is one of the pleasures of owning a Sony E-mount system (and I got into it, mainly to do just that)."
To you may be, but there aren't that many Einstein around, you know. :)
"Please explain what you mean by that?"
The vast majority of people do not consider using an adapted lens to lose full compatibility with the camera as a good thing. The A7 has very few native lenses, the few they do have are very expensive or not smaller than those from Nikon or Canon (e.g. 70-200/4). Do you guys really not see this as an issue for the majority of the people?
mpgxsvcd: I love it when they have a big press release to announce pricing and then just tell us it is “ABOUT” $1700.
Thom Hagon's view is that SONY announced the A7-II to prevent people from buying Nikon's D610/D600 and D750 for this holiday season. However, they seemed to forget that once it is announced in Japan, people in the whole world will now stop buying the original A7. They then tried to fix it by deciding to make it also available in the US, so they can a least sell some A7-II. They apparently did so in a hurry without fixing its price. The worse part is that people will now also stop buying A7R and A7S thinking that these will soon be also updated. The good news of course is that you may get the original A7 at a much lower price, if the improvements are important to you.
beavertown: When will Nikon release a close to professional grade DX format like 70D Mark II with at least a few decent prime lenses?
The prime lens that the DX needs are wide angle lens — there is nothing wider than 35 mm for now. Nikon wants the DX users to instead buy wide angle prime lenses that are designed for the FF so they are bigger and more expensive than needs be. This is the problem with Nikon's DX format — they are pushing people to go FF.
donahugh: No AF-ON - A neutered D700 but with the 24 Meg Sensor I want.
or the AF-L/AE-L button right next to the thumb.
Jogger: Would have even been better with the Df sensor.
" ... it has better color"
Is this true? DPreview said this in their review of the Df: "It has the same color response as we're used to seeing from other Nikon bodies." Not sure why color is a sensor-related issue but not a processing issue. Suffice to say that the color difference is slight for "most" people?