Chaitanya S: I thought whole purpose of mirrorless system was to have lenses that were smaller and lighter. That 90mm macro is bigger and heavier than Tamron 90mm VC lens designed for slrs. These mirrorless systems are mainly a marketing gimmic and they have a diminishing returns based on sensor size to lenses. APS-C and micro 4/3 format seem to be right choice for those people who want to travel light and still want to take good quality photos.
Actually, that's not the point of mirrorless systems.
That's the point of a mirrorless system TO YOU.
princecody: Steve Huff just posted a quick video on the *new Sony Distagon T* FE 35mm f/1.4 ZA Lens. Said it was better than Leica & Best E mount lens to date for IQ. BHPHOTO seems they a had in stock that have now sold out. I'm interested in this lens & obviously Sony's *new macro lens & how it compares to the Olympus 60mm macro lens :)
Steve Huff is terrible though. He's a terrible photographer, and I don't like his reviews. He's just a bit better than Ken Rockwell, but that isn't really a compliment to Steve Huff.
lighthunter80: For $1,600 the 35/1.4 has to be better than any other 35 fr9m Canikon or Sigma.
The 28/2.0 seems to be priced fair.
But the only fair price comparison for the Sony 35 mm would be with Canon and Nikon producing lenses for their own mount.
I know that Zeiss produces/designs theirs (probably?), but they're pretty much just working for Sony on their lenses at this point.
Sigma doesn't work like that. They don't work closely with anyone, and part of their strategy is to offer better value for money.
Angrymagpie: I'm trying to understand why a super sharp 35mm f/1.4 would be a good thing. A very sharp and fast standard FL prime like a 55mm is good versatile lens that could be used for portrait where details, sharpness, and subject-background separation are simultaneously important. A 35mm is not usually used as a portrait lens as far as I know. I'm not criticising the lens of course, I'm just trying to understand its purpose and the advantage of trading off compact size for superb image quality and f/1.4 in the context of a 35mm lens.
Huh? Why would you want an incredibly sharp lens for portraits? It wouldn't be a flattering lens.
I understand that sharper is usuallyconsidered to be better, and you can always make a photo less sharp later in post, but generally speaking, when you're talking strictly about portraiture, I don't think sharpness is a huge factor when choosing a lens.
Which then leads me on to say that I disagree. A very 35 mm f/1.4 would be a GREAT lens to own, because it's not expected to be a portrait lens (not full time, anyway), and so you probably want as much detail as possible.
Calvin Chann: Of the three, the only one that doesn't interest me is the 28. I've never really gelled with 28mm, much preferring 24mm. Look forward to seeing how they perform.
I feel the same, but of all the FE lenses, the 28 mm is the one I'd want the most, followed by the 50-something prime.
"Congratulations on winning a Hasselblad Lunar!"
Meh, no thanks.
nofumble: Bigger sensor = need more light = larger hole.
If you ask for a FF, then don't complain of big ars lenses. Otherwise, stay with APSC.
Size isn't the only issue. There's also optical quality.
There are big and small versions of many different lenses, such as 35 mm lenses. This new Sony 35 mm FE looks huge to me, but so is the Sigma 35 mm, which also happens to be fantastic. They used to make a smaller 35 mm lens, but it wasn't as good. The Nikon 35 mm is also big.
Perhaps it's impossible to create a small 35 mm FF lens, with AF, that's as sharp and well-corrected as these lenses?
There are always tradeoffs.
Marty4650: Except for that 28mm prime, those are some really big lenses!
They probably are pretty good lenses, but it defeats the purpose of buying the "smallest FF body" when you need to attach a big honking lens to it.
Of course, everything is relative. I'd say these kits are still a lot more compact than any Nikon D810 with similar lenses....
At this point, the purpose of the A7 cameras isn't to reduce weight, or to sell the smallest FF body. They got rid of the mirror, and it just so happens to be the smallest FF body because nobody else bothered trying to compete with Sony on that front.
These lenses are big, but no bigger than standard DSLR FF lenses. There are exceptions, of course, but it also depends on how good they are optically. The Sigma 35 mm f/1.4 isn't small either, but it's amazing optically, so photographers understand why it has to be this way.
ecube: I am from the old school. No pixel peeping, just simple tool to remove dust or small unwanted distractions from the photo.iPhoto, Picasa, Nikon ViewNX2 more than meet my needs. Otherwise, PhotoShop 7 if I really want to pixel peep.
Back in my day, I had to sketch everything.
KariP: I really feel like an idiot...I have used Aperture for 4 years - and now it will become slowly useless. Aperture is not updated or serviced...XX000 images... WHY did i buy it?
Now i have to start a migration to some other system - not sure if it will be Lightroom or something else. Something from a reputable company. I hope. Something that professionals use, but not made by Apple - because there is none.
Anyway, it will mean a lot of work and probably some losses. Luckily i'm not a professional !!! In the future i will NOT buy any important hobbyist software from Apple. "Photos" and its functions look like a toy ... and everything stored in iCloud. Really? 500G of photos in the iCloud ....This fantastic development makes me feel like an idiot and a fool - obviously Apple guys agree.
Capture One Pro 8 is great. If I were to start from scratch, I'd go with C1 over Lightroom. I'm pretty sure they provide a pretty good Aperture to C1-Pro migration tool.
Unfortunately, I'm already a Lightroom user. It's.....OK. Everything is great except the image quality after processing RAWs. Yes, I know how bad that sounds, but C1-Pro does a better job.
D 503: Dynamic range is irrelevant in a time when no one prints. This is a digital camera for the digital age. I have never printed with digital.
Do you mean pixel count is irrelevant, because if so, I sort of agree.
Dynamic range is still important though, whether you print or not.
En Trance: 5D IV would be the equivalent of Canon running back home with its tail between its legs. No turning back now. UNLESS you think one 5D at 50MP and one 5D at 22MP is somehow REASONABLE and not INSANITY!
Canon is making a 5D-4. This isn't meant to replace it.
That's why they didn't call it the 5D Mk-IV. ;)
And this is why I don't understand the complaints and disappointment.
photoclassestampa: What a disappointment. I was hoping the new iteration of the 5D (I have the MK III) would be higher resolution (yep), with wi-fi, even higher expandable ISO, more FPS and 4k or better video. So disappointed! I thought the 7D MKII was a hand down meaning the new 5D would kick. But nuttin'. I am a photojournalist and need a camera that keeps up with the latest technology, not one that can deliver more pixels than I could ever use. C'mon Canon. You used to be better than this.
Then just wait for the 5D-4. This doesn't replace it.
I don't know why you're disappointed. I don't get disappointed by camera releases that clearly weren't aimed for me.
Mike FL: I like "The wheel around the shutter release... can be used as a fully rotating control wheel".
It is not a bad ideal, and hopefully other mfc will follow.
No thanks. I'd rather the on/off switch be wrapped around the shutter button. Besides, I wouldn't want to rotate a dial around in circles using my index finger. It would feel unnatural to move it that way.
SW Anderson: The design looks well thought out and the size decent. Should have built-in EVF or a very affordable add on EVF.
I wonder why Canon is shunning the U.S. market when it comes to its lone mirrorless model. Competition too tough? Stung by less-than-stellar reviews of the first model? Afraid of cannibalizing DSLR sales? Seems as though U.S. photography enthusiasts deserve the courtesy of an explanation, at least.
Actually, in Japan, Canon doesn't get slammed by Fuji. Canon's earlier mirrorless cameras were, very surprisingly, more popular than Fuji's sales. Makes no sense to me, except perhaps brand loyalty is much stronger there. That, and EOS-M are cheap ways to get into mirrorless while using existing Canon DSLR lenses.
Jonathan F/2: What's with the tie at first place? They only award prizes like that to little elementary school kids. It would of been entertaining hearing all the gear heads cry like babies (on the forums) wondering why their prized camera didn't win!
While all the real photographers just shrug their shoulders waiting for these guys to sell their current cameras on the cheap when next new shiny gadget gets released!
"What's with the tie at first place? They only award prizes like that to little elementary school kids."
Because it was a tie after a vote? If you read Chapter 1 of any statistics textbook, you'd know DPR has a strong case against awarding a winner when the difference in votes was just a few. Statistically, it is a tie.
I would have been happy if DPR awarded only one winner, even if the difference in votes was negligible. However, ranking a #1 and #2 based on a handful of votes simply exacerbates the difference between the #1 and #2 voted cameras, because people look at them and assume that people really thought #1 was better than #2, when statistically, considering standard deviations, that's not really true.
RichRMA: Canon and Nikon were idle as Sony got a respectable foothold in the DSLR and mirrorless markets. Canon and Nikon have nothing comparable to this revolutionary Samsung. Once Samsung gets its lens inventory going, it will be a force to be reckoned with. Canon and Nikon still dominate by virtue of their names, but this will not last.
You've never heard of photozone.de, but you actually think people should think your self-tests are good with no factual data to back it up?
Where are your references, son?
Talk about a bunch of crap.
Quite frankly, your tests could be total crap. Nobody knows how you test them, or if you know what you're doing. I'll look at 3rd party test websites like photozone.de rather than a guy who, from the top of his head, can tell me what's good and what's not.
ThePhilips: "Panasonic's JPEG high ISO noise reduction continues to disappoint us."
Hehe. A trait typical to female writing: "I like it" but "it disappoints us". For positive or neutral opinion - "I", but for the (esp strong) negative one - "we". :)
Considering that it is your only slip on the whole "Shooting Experience" page, I think it highlights the biggest disappointment with the little camera you had.
Yes, it's sexist because if the writer were male, nobody would have commented on the writing style being, "typical male response".
kpaddler: "Not built for extended use in cold conditions"
As usual, DP doesn't disappoint with its useless points raised.
The camera lasts in cold weather longer than the people who carry it.
@Richard Murdey: She was making an observation based on her own usage.
If she had tested the camera in hot weather, she would, very understandably, have missed that point about the cold weather. However, if she observed something that may be of interest to people, why not report it?
It's not part of the objective testing procedure, but personal experiences do matter, and add value to reviews.