This suffers from the usual Sony problem: nice camera, shame about the bulky, narrow range of lenses. I find it frustrating that interchangeable lens cameras are reviewed as if they are products in isolation, while they are only half of the equation in reality, and that other half should be given more weight in reviews.
And what's with the headline?
alatchin: Every time I read equivalence pop in such as the f 3.5 comment about the fisheye, you should always add "which in turn makes the ff biddy own like a m43s body. Otherwise you are just being misleading with only half the information... The half that makes a ff Ensor like a cure all for less light... Which is only true if you have a large physical aperture, not an equivalent aperture.
Yep - very disappointing to see DPReview buy into the equivalency BS. BJL's statement is absolutely correct, which means that you've lost all the advantages of the extra bulk and expense of FF. Larger formats only have an advantage in non-equivalent situations.
Nice camera, shame about the system. Really, I often find it frustrating how most photography review sites seem to forget that a camera needs a lens to work - it doesn't really matter how great this camera is (or how great Sony's mirrorless cameras are, for example) if you can't get the right lenses for it. The only mirrorless system with a decent selection of lenses is Micro 4/3rds, but this critical fact is largely ignored by reviews.
LiSkynden: Just asked my wife "do you know what Surface is" ... she satrted to explain what surface means in our language, lol. So I asked "do you know what Microsoft Surface is" ... she said "no i dont".
I Would say Microsoft did their Surface commercing really badly.
What an idiotic response! LiSkynden's talking about how well the Surface has been *marketed* - which means his question is very relevant - while your response is totally irrelevant.
Tommygun45: I remember being a young forum member and posing innocent questions about why a 2.8 lens had to be so bulky and why couldn't it be smaller or this or that and boy. If I had a nickel for every scientific expert who claimed that "PHYSICS MORON" was the answer I would have like 7 dollars. My general response was that "PHYSICS" hasn't figured out how gravity works yet, so there is hope for a compact bright zoom yet!
Ah yes of course - thanks for the clarification wombat661. I guess the old adage still applies: if it looks too good to be true, it probably is.
BobORama: If you look CAREFULLY at the R, G, and B ray path images provided, you see the problem immediately. While the lens is achromatic for in focus subjects, the OOF image areas are not. And they cannot be. "Show me the bokeh." I expect it to be an incredible melange of badness.
Bokeh is overrated IMHO - compactness is far more important to me, and I suspect most other people too.
In theory, less elements should equal greater light transmission. This could indeed be a breakthrough technology, finally making FF practical for those of us who don't frequent the gym, or (say) 4/3rds super zoom cameras the size of current compacts. Awesome!
Juck: That slow zoom had better be a hell of a performer for $1000.
Forpetessake: I defy you to prove a single thing I said wrong - I chose my words very carefully, unlike you when you said your hypothetical M43 lens was *fully* equivalent to this lens. For a FULLY equivalent exposure between both systems, you also need to quadruple the ISO on FF, in which case you've completely lost your noise advantage. That's TRUE equivalence - equivalence simpletons like you only take one part of the equation.
God equivalence simpletons are tiresome. It is NOT fully equivalent to an M43 12-120mm f/1.75-3.15 - it is ONLY equivalent to such a lens in terms of DoF. F-numbers have the same light intensity across all platforms, so in the most critical sense, it is ONLY equivalent to an M43 12-120mm with the same F-numbers.
And this is why full frame mirrorless is utterly pointless - the lenses still have to be huge.
Suave: Dude, you are insane - I would love me a modern 35-105/3.5 now that I am on FF, and I used a 50 way more when I was shooting crop. As for the middle ground - of course there's one - it's owning both. And don't get me started on not buying FF lenses - most of my FF lenses now cost more than I originally paid for them (24-105 being the sole exception), the only crop lens I owned lost half its value by the time I sold it.
PS. I don't understand why everyone talks about DOF when it's features like AF that's above and beyond what absolute majority of crop can offer and much more advanced UI that really matter.
You've kind of proved his point: the lenses you have worked well for you on crop, but not on FF (the fact that it would be the other way around for him personally is beside the main point).
One of the most sensible articles on photography I've ever read - no surprise that the equivalence trolls hate it.
pdelux: Another nail in the coffin of the M4/3 format. Not long now before this Format dies as the experts have predicted. How can anyone survive with so many brands using it, too many lenses to choose from, too much competition.
Whats next Kodak back from the dead with M4/3 mount?
Come on people, isn't it obvious pdelux is being sarcastic? And yes, BarnEt, he does know about the Kodak, which is exactly why he threw that sentence in, which I'm sure he thought would make his sarcasm obvious. I guess you can never be obvious enough on the net.
AliRoust: This computer's LCD only displays about 67% of the Adobe RGB color space. And, you can only see 8 bit color!! For this price tag it's simply ridiculous. For those photographers and graphic designers that have worked in a 10 bit color space and have high end monitors ( such as NEC, EIZO, Lacie) displaying 98% of Adobe RGB, this is a major downgrade... By that I mean, going from about 1 billion colors to 16.7 million. All that "Retina" labeling sounds good but definitely doesn't look good...Apple makes no LCD, laptop or computer that can accommodate that!? Yet their prices are up there...Unfortunately for those of us who have seen 10 bit images, there is no going back.See my detailed review under comment section on Amazonhttp://www.amazon.com/Apple-MacBook-ME294LL-15-4-Inch-Display/product-reviews/B0096VD85I/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_2?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addTwoStar&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending
We're talking about *laptops* here, not high end desktop monitors! Can any *laptop* reproduce AdobeRGB? None that I know of. So how can that be a knock against the Air?
Greg VdB: There's several alternatives by now with ultra-high resolution screens, some not weighing more than a Mac Book Air.(for instance: http://blog.laptopmag.com/top-retina-macbook-pro-alternatives?slide=1 )This in itself doesn't make the article uninteresting (I'm all for little glimpses into a professional's workflow), but somehow we never see other brands than Apple mentioned on these kind of articles on DPR... (correct me if I'm wrong)
Your article cites alternatives to the MacBook *Pro*, which is far heavier than the Air. Apple bashers would have a lot more credibility if they got their basic facts straight.
Such a limited lens at such an inflated price - with AF problems and at an odd focal length to boot - and it gets a silver award? I understand that it has some specialist appeal (particularly as a portrait lens, but arguably at the wrong focal length), but shouldn't it be a whole lot more of an all-round good performer to get an award?
Am I the only one who thinks the original unmodified shot is superior? Indeed, I find I almost always think that when I see these Photoshop tutorials - fake, hyped colour can never look as good as the real thing IMHO.
This is proof of how much colour adds to a photo. The current trend in PP of "black and white equals art" is massively overused, and usually detracts more than it adds.
IMHO, the amount of post processing on so many photos these days means they *are* more like paintings than photos. The only image I would consider to be a true photo here is the house one, and possibly the first one (if so this *is* a remarkable illusion). We need a new term for these sorts of images - they may be based on photos, but have been taken far from them.