PerL: So would this system enable Sony cameras to shot a low light indoor sports game with a 200 2.0 lens wide open at 10 fps with a higher number of keepers than a Canon 1Dx or a Nikon D4s, or is it just nerd stuff?
Why does everyone try and compare the A7r II to a D4s or 1Dx?
Most people who need a 1Dx will continue to use a 1Dx, because the A7r II doesn't fulfill their needs of high frame rate and super fast AF (not going to bring up dust and weather protection because 1Dx is not certified to any standard).
However, most 1Dx users have a second body to do things the 1Dx cannot. This is where the A7r II is going to be doing well, by replacing 5D series bodies for those folks.
Anyone shooting a 6D, 5D2 or 5D3 has got to seriously consider an A7r II before a 5Ds/r. Losing flash compatibility may be a knock, but getting in body IS and class leading DR and high megapixel is very tempting, along with EF lens compatibility with fast AF.
I'm guessing the Canon shooting marketshare is bigger than all other company's marketshare, except Nikon. Targeting Canon people with EF lens ability is a really smart move.
Lightcapture: I am getting tired of trying to find what equivalent 35mm focal length(s) of this contraption?
Reading is hard.
mjbauer: It is tempting, very tempting. I have a lot of Canon EF lenses I could use.
The two biggest downfalls for me are:
The appeal to me of these cameras is the form factor (small is nice) and adding the converter and the big lenses obviates that benefit to a great extent.
Second is the cost, I could add an additional nice Canon SLR body to my portfolio for less or slightly more.
Still, the Sony is very tempting and they do have an excellent track record....
Yes, Canon seemed to have placed their stake in the ground with cropped mirrorless by naming it "EF-M" and not "EFS-M" or somesuch, implying that mirrorless is by definition, cropped to 1.6x or smaller.
A 'nice' Canon SLR body still will not get you the better dynamic range at low ISO. Canon does not seem to be responding or willing to address this part of their sensor design.
No Canon SLR will give you in body image stabilization. The lens based units are too much of a cash cow for Canon to risk giving users the option of buying a cheaper non-IS lens.
If you already have a lot of EF lenses to use, I'd recommend buying the A7R II as an adjunct to your current Canon SLR so they could both use the same lens library.
Big lens with a convertor not being as small as it could be will not be made any smaller with a native Canon body anyhow since the flange distance cannot be altered without optical elements in between (generally undesirable).
Cost is not any different from a 5Ds so it's an either/or proposition for most people.
toughluck: Apple goes to new lengths in greed here.Normally, when you launch a new enterprise, you risk that it may fail and if it does, you're the only one to bear the brunt of it. But if you succeed, you're also the only one to benefit from it directly.Apple is launching a new service, and what they planned to do was reap all the benefits of revenue while dropping the burden of cost on somebody else.About those photographers' contracts: Don't you guys know how to shoot in bursts? Take 5-10 shots of the same scene, publish one picture, if there are interested buyers, sell the remaining 4-9. Technically, you're not breaking the contract. Or contact Swift's management to obtain a permission, like they're saying here.
This is the stupidest issue ever. Apple gave a higher royalty rate in anticipation of the first 3 months free. Also, it is *not* 3 months where no artist receives royalties, it is only the first 3 months of the launch of the service because every subscriber is new to the service. So it is only if you were a one hit wonder that didn't last 3 months during the service's launch that you'd be out. Pretty much an edge case, and if it was me and my song, I'd be pretty torqued.
However, once the first 3 months of launch has passed, only new subscribers would not be counted for the trial period, the mass of subscribers would definitely outweigh the non counting trial users for all bands.
Tempest in a teapot, that has blown up to encompass this photographer's complaint.
RealEyesRealizeRealLies: Should pros be wary of committing to Sony?
Canon releases their big sensor in a pro-centric body first.
Nikon releases their big sensor in a pro-centric body first.
Sony gives their best sensor to Nikon first, three versions, then releases their own plastic mount a7R with best sensor.
But pro Amount users are left out. Forced to change system just to keep up.
Not judging here... no opinion expressed. Just stating the facts.
Should pros be wary of committing to Sony?
Pros should be wary of committing to Sony because their infrastructure to support (photography) pros is not at the level of Canon or Nikon pro gear support. Just read the firmware update saga of the HVL-F60M to see that Sony is not quite there yet. Good to have a Sony system in your kit but as the only gear in your kit? Not quite yet. The rest of it looks like it is moving along nicely.
I would encourage Mr. Maki to stay the course that Sony is on. Sony has had periods of arrogance where they try to lock in customers with proprietary standards (Memory stick, minidiscs, betamax) and everyone I know has loathed buying Sony products in general.
However in the last 5 years Sony has earned by my friends' business by building some great cameras. Hopefully this trend continues.
I wasn't enthralled with the 5Ds/r so I withheld preordering and I was glad I did. I now have an A7R II on preorder and I'm hoping it will be the perfect partner to my 1Dx when in the field. Just add TTL Canon flash compatibility and I'll be all set.
A message to Canon: stop slicing your sausage so fine with different bodies that withhold functions from each other and get rid of the ancient sensor fab.
alatchin: These are very interesting products... For those who clearly need speed over range this seems a compelling option... However the whole purpose of a zoom is versatility.
What we have done here is reduce some versatility in the range... well quite a lot really... for a slightly better noise performance.
I would be curious how well this would sell.
You are not taking into consideration optical quality.
One of the reasons why someone would choose a prime over a traditional zoom is for better optical performance across the frame (potentially).
This lens kind of splits that difference. Slightly less zoom (about half) slightly less bright than a prime but you can potentially replace 3 primes with a single really good zoom.
Of course, whether this zoom lens can rival the primes it wants to replace has yet to be proven but Sigma has been on a roll lately.
Chris62: No possibility to change lens for such amount of money?No!It means:Camera damaged - fixed lens is also in trash - it is not economic and not ecologic.I won't buy such cameras.
Nikon 1 V* shold have an option for such lens.Why they do not design similar megazoom lens for N1?
Just because it is the same basic design doesn't mean that it is subjected to the same assembly protocols within a separate model. Show me complaints about the EOS M3 sensor like the T6 models, or else what you claim about defects is idle speculation. For all anyone knows, the T6 sensor defects were in a specific batch that didn't affect all T6 models or else Canon was identifying the batches and no EOS M3s were affected.
There have been no reports of sensor defects in the EOS M3.
dwill23: This is EXTREMELY similar to the EOS M 3 that I had to order from Japan (and had to fumble around in the menu to find English settings lol).
The lettering on the top, the size, the tilt out screen, the flash, the no EVF, etc etc.
However, I did get the kit that came with the removable EVF, so I didn't have to spend the $250 on one. And guess what? I NEVER USE IT!
This camera vs the EOS M 3Pros, zoom range, price, great sony sensorCons, less background blur, can't use any existing lenses, 20mp vs 24mp...not that big-a-deal.
I never use my EVF either. Sadly I rarely use my M3 too. For some odd reason the original EOS M seems more fun/accessible and the FZ1000 is more of a grab and go camera when I have a choice.
You are right, the G3X looks like it raided a whole load of parts from the EOS M3.
joelakeland: It had me until I read the $250 EVF. At $1250 I can buy the Olympus OMD E M5 with 14-42($499) plus the 40-150 ($99), 25 1.8($299), 45 1.8($299) and 9mm f8 cap lens($88). Well, $33 more...
You forgot the battery as part of the system. ;-)
grasscatcher: I'm curious what the AF speed will be at 600mm, or even 400mm. I have the FZ1000, and it focuses VERY fast at 400mm, same as high-end m43 MILC cameras. Another very handy feature in the FZ1000 is the extra-optical and extended tele-zoom; yes, it is a digital crop, but very handy for framing as well as focusing. Even the digital zoom is usable, and I believe helps with AF accuracy when shooting at 1200mm and beyond, vs cropping in post. If the Canon can offer similar features, it will be a worthy contender. If nothing else, it fills a void in the Canon camera shops to keep Canon fans from going elsewhere in this niche.
FZ1000 @400mm is the most I'd use. The extra zoom features are merely passable but it forces you to use jpeg. In my experience the extra tele modes of the in camera jpeg isn't as good as a post processed RAW file, cropped and zoomed.
Pic Man: I know someone who recently just bought a canon 700D for his girlfriend and he knew nothing about photography. He bought a canon DSLR because it's a brand he recognised and because it's a DSLR, so it must be good. Canon don't need to push the boat out with new features and better sensors because they have the brand. Having said that the 700D is still a good camera which will take excellent pictures. They have nice straight out of camera jpegs which is important to most. I also have to say that the 700d was one of the most comfortable cameras I've held. I'm sure it's the same with the 750/760D.
What a ridiculous analogy. Unless you are smashing SLR bodies against one another, comparing WW2 era tanks to cameras is quite odd. And yet the Russians (Allies) still won the war over the Nazis (Axis), so your tank analogy is even worse because the overwhelming strategy worked on this specious comparison.
topstuff: There is only ONE thing I want this camera to offer, as well as the terrific spec it already has:
Please please please, give us regular, proper, uncompressed, nil NR, industry standard 14 bit files. Don't mess around with them. Please.
Then my dreams are reality.
This is the only thing that has me concerned as well. Pretty much the only thing stopping me from adding an A7r2 to my Canon gear.
OpticsEngineer: The one thing I wish was improved over my RX10 would be a less sluggish zoom lens adjustment. Less time between when you started pressing the zoom lever as to when the lens actually starts to move. Once it gets going the speed is fine... it just takes too long to get started. Doesn't sound like there is an improvement on that.
I agree. The RX10 was rejected by my dad for feeling sluggish, and I also passed on the RX10 for the FZ1000.
JJ Rodin: A thought, if a camera were perfect & your lens pefect, you then would have no excuse to be here for this type of posting at least, but would you be out using that perfect camera/lens ?
What would you discuss or complain about then - the weather and the cost of traveling, no days off ?
Just a thought! ;)
Please don't put words in Roger's mouth. He did NOT say a high percentage at all. He said the opposite.
I will quote him directly:"I want to give credit to Canon for so quickly handling the problem we first reported with some T6 sensors. We announced the problem on April 30th, and within 10 days Canon had determined which cameras were affected (those with Serial Numbers beginning with "01 or "02") and issued a product alert.Let me add that most cameras in the affected SN range do NOT have the problem. Some cameras have a mark in the battery door that identifies them as not possibly affected.
Even if your camera does NOT have this mark, it still probably isn't affected. If you lock up the mirror for sensor cleaning you can look and see if you have one of 'those' sensors. If you aren't sure, Canon will check for you at no cost and correct the problem without charge, although it will take them a bit of time to get a solution ramped up."
It seems that it will have the best DR among EOS camera!!
That's like winning gold. At your regional track meet.
Will like to see what kind of 4k video output this thing has before making judgement. If the GH4, Black Magic, FZ1000 and NX1 are so perfect, then Canon shouldn't be able to sell any C300s and C500s at all.
Does the XC10 use the whole sensor or line skip under 4k? How much artifacting is there in the video output? Highlight and shadow headroom? Burning questions that don't always show up on a checklist spreadsheet, but Canon does seem to be slicing the sausage a little too thin these days. Too bad Zacuto doesn't do their massive camera shootout anymore.
Maybe I'm a sucker for loser formats, but I actually like my EOS M and Nikon AW1, every system/camera has its own charms and abilities outside of just megapickles and pixelsperduck.
Maybe I'll grab a Pentax Q system and have some fun shooting.
Richard Weisgrau: The simple answer is NO!
I became a Pro user of Aperture when it was first released. I have used it ever since. I do not like LR or other software.
Photos is a nice amateur product for making minor adjustments and feeding images to different applications. I could use it, if it allowed me to edit in Aperture and store in Photos. It does not.
I do not need Aperture to be improved. I just need it to not become obsolete because of OS changes.
You cannot lift adjustments and stamp them onto any number of arbitrary images, greatly automating tasks.
You cannot apply a second or third filter of the same kind onto an image. One adjustment type per image.
No external editor round tripping. No plugins.
Apple has replaced Albert Einstein with Fat Albert. Apple has never said what was so wrong with Aperture that it needed to be replaced with Photos. Apple could have made Aperture free, and assumed some iPhoto features to make a unified application, but somehow it wasn't good enough so once again Apple chucks out something that has worked very well and starts over again.