jwkphoto: I'd love to see some lower priced good quality lenses for my A6000. The 16-50 kit lens copy I have is not bad, I've already made sharp 16X20 prints with it.
These lenses look like they are standard Alpha lenses with an extended rear case to make for the longer FL. Why not make E mount lens cases shorter for the shorter body depth, something like my 16-30 is now. It would reduce weight, cost and increase lens quality .
It seems to me, Sony is trying to get rid of it's Minolta heritage, the best flash foot design ever, the best auto fill flash, in body stabilization among other things.
The thing that bothers me about the Sony lens map is that there is so little for the A6000. The crop-sensor E-mount cameras are great cameras for the money, but the lens selection is terrible.
Let's say you get tired of the 35mm 1.8 and want a fast zoom...
I wish Sony would make some new lenses along these lines for the A6000. Comparable ASPC lenses would be smaller, and might even be cheaper.
Anyone who buys a thousand-dollar FF Sony lens and then puts it on their A6000 will be disappointed.
The lenses are too big, too expensive, and sometimes too slow to be useful on the A6000.
The little A6000 is a great camera for the money, but it is not an upgrade path for the A7. You can buy the A6000 plus the 35mm 1.8 for about $1000, and spend many happy years shooting with it.
Alternately, you could spend an extra $1400 on the full-frame 24mm F2 to do the same job without OSS, and carry around an extra pound of lens.
You could emulate the same "upgrade path" by carrying around a big rock in your camera bag next to your APSC.
veroman: In the 15+ years I've been shooting digitally, I've shot with nearly every species of digital camera, from 2MP full frame to 2MP point and shoot; from 24MP APS-C to 24MP full frame, etc. I've also shot with a very wide variety of lenses, including full frame lenses on cropped sensor bodies.
Bottom line: if highest image quality is the goal, then full frame or medium format are the routes to take, no question of it. As good as my micro four thirds gear is, my full frame Sony A850 is significantly better. No contest.
As far as full frame lenses on crop bodies goes, the writer left out the important fact that full frame lenses on APS-C bodies provide superior sharpness and clarity at the edges of the frame. After all, you're only using the center to mid-edges of the full frame glass while, with a dedicated APS-C lens, you're using the whole glass, edge-to-edge.
There are other aspects of this topic that weren't touched on in this article. I'm sure other posters will mention them.
Kodak 315 had a 2MP CCD. I thik the 420 had the same.
I hope they sell a bunch of them. Maybe they will convince Sony that this is a valid lens choice.
Limbsjones: There is very little difference in image quality going from M4/3 to APS-C...i don't see why people are flocking to fuji...fuji have a larger uglier bulkier system with lenses that are just growing in size, and they are trying to match the speed and quality to what Olympus and Panasonic are putting out...it's insane really...go full frame or go m4/3...aps-c is still this awkward middle.
When shooting in low light, I can see a difference between m4/3 an APSC. I can see another difference in the jump from APSC to full frame.
I shoot APSC, even though it is a compromise. But every camera is a compromise in some way. Everyone should shoot with whatever camera makes them happy.
Ruy Penalva: I don't understand why Zeiss insist on doing MF lens. Wake up Zeiss!
Clearly, these lenses weren't made for me.
It wouldn't be a problem except that they don't make any lenses for me. I suppose I could buy their A-mount 135mm and a converter, but alternately, they could just make an e-mount, maybe?
Comments on DP Review crack me up sometimes. When someone posts a stunning image, about half the comments are about the camera. When someone posts an image to illustrate a camera feature, we write in with questions about the subject.
When someone posts a photo that simply could not be taken (at all) with traditional cameras, someone will write in to claim it could have been taken with their camera phone.
Indoor sports pics are about the most demanding thing you can do with a camera, unless you are using it to hammer in your tent stakes. The need to focus fast in low light reduces most cameras to tears. Freezing the action (or shooting handheld) with a boatload of pixels leaves the tears blurry and black-and-white..
Delta 3200 (35mm) film used to have a nice gritty look to it. You could push it to 6400, and it wasn't great, but still had more texture and "feel" than almost any digital. Not so any more. The high ISO files you published had a lot more to work with than even high-ISO film.
Now I want an 810. It is out of my price range for an "armature" photographer, but nice to know it can jump through hoops when needed. Thanks for the article.
I don't even understand how camera companies are able to lose money. The markup is huge, and they come out with new products every 20 days or so.
Canon and Nikon make a pretty reliable profit even in a down market, but everyone else breaks even. I don't get it. It costs them a couple of hundred dollars to make a product that they are selling for a thousand.
Where is all the money going? Those commercials with Ashton Kutcher must cost a lot more than I thought.
I hope DPR will do a complete review of this soon. If the tracking AF really is good enough for sports, then Fuji nailed this one.
JWest: Great to see Samsung getting the recognition they deserve. Their NX system ticks all the major boxes - a great quality APS-C sensor, fantastic ergonomics, and a remarkable range of glass. It's always been mystifying to me that they don't get a lot more attention.
Samsung has the manufacturing and technical ability to dig into the market share of Nikon and Canon if they want to. As it is, they are putting big sensors in small packages, which is a pretty good start, but hurts Sony and Oly more than Canon and Nikon.
The problem so far is that they don't make any revolutionary cameras. Each model (so far) is basically a Sony with a few improvements.
I am looking forward to seeing how the NX30 matches up with the next round of Sony cameras. It sounds like the NX30 might be the camera to beat this year.
Bjorn_L: How is this the first weather resistant superzoom? The Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 has been out for 4 months and is also sealed.
I think Fuji has discovered over the years that it is better to make a marketing claim that is not technically true than to let others make the claim.
If you do a Google search for "world's fastest autoocus" (for example), it turns up a bunch of Fuji marketing claims. People who read the footnotes discover it is only for certain lighting conditions, with certain features turned off. But many people never read the footnotes.
Similarly, Fuji can make the claim that they made the first weatherproof superzoom, knowing that they can argue over the definition of "super" easier than they can admit that Sony beat them to the market. And if the customer ends up happy with the camera, then it won't matter.
Still, I wish DP Review would at least make an attempt to comment on press releases, rather than just running them word-for-word. If Fuji made a claim like "better picture quality than Canon", odds are that DP Review would not publish the press release.
If Fuji said "first APSC fixed lens compact", odds are that DP Review would correct the error.
It is unclear to me if this claim is technically true. It would be helpful if the experts would shed some light on it.
All of them take good pictures. The differences come down to usability, depth of field, autofocus and so on. I carry around a Sony RX100 because I like the size and autofocus speed, and am willing to give up the rest.
It would be interesting to see a comparison of autofocus speed and accuracy. I am told the X100S is blazing fast and that the Ricoh is not too shabby. The Sony gets good reviews, but some people claim it gets distrated too easily. As far as the other cameras in the class, I couldn't even start to guess.
Nothing is worse than carrying a pocket camera around all day and coming home with 100 pictures that focused on the trees behind your subject.
Munene: I need some straight advice, please: GX7 or XE2?
Background: I used to shoot with my Leica M6. I do mostly street photography. I love my GF1, but am ready to upgrade. Two issues: I do not like the way the light meter reads in GF1 (or I use it wrong), why not a match like the old days (needle, diodes)? I don't know if the exposure is correct until I press the shutter? Again, this could be me. The XE2 has a shutter dial on the camera, but how does this affect reading the light meter inside the viewfinder? THIS IS A BIG ISSUE.
So, GX7 or XE2? I am not too concerned with video or wifi or whatever, just good images. Does the fuji sensor trump the 4/3, end of conversation? I sometimes enlarge to 20X24. My old Leica (and Canon FTb), I have prints 4' X 6'! Both are awesome (not really planning more, I used to print at a lab).
Unfortunately I cannot find a store that carries both for me to look at (or even one of them, where I live).
Here is what I shoot: www.visualquotations.comThank you!
If you are going to shoot with the kit lens, you might like the Fuji better. The kit lens is faster, and has better color. If you hate the Fuji color (I can't tell the difference, but some people can), or if you are going to be using fast primes for most of your work, you might like the Panny better. The Panasonic 25mm 1.4, in particular, is an amazing lens, and easily stands up to the Fuji 35mm 1.4. (Maybe beats it.)
The Panasonic touchscreen is also very good, and there are some features (like interval shooting) that show up on the Panasonic (I think) that are not available on the Fuji without quite a bit of tinkering.
Unless I am mistaken, I think the Panasonic is also something like $500 cheaper. So you could save your money and spend it on that lens. This might seem like an odd compromise, but it really isn't: A good lens will still be a good lens ten years from now, while a 2013 camera will be sold, replaced, broken, or trashed within five years (on average).
Although digital camera life spans are getting longer, very few people are still using the same camera they were in 2008.
groucher: This is a classic compromise - a fully featured camera (except for video) in a retro body. A shrink wrapped but cluttered D4. I'm hoping that this is the first in a series of Dfs and that eventually we'll have a Dfm with no rear screen, no PAS and no wired or wireless connectivity - a true uncluttered digital FM (or FE).
Underneath all the controls, thumbwheels and displays the Fd looks pretty good.
Or I could just buy an FE.
Toccata47: The only point that matters is autofocus speed...I may have missed it, but I didn't see any commentary on this.
@brownie314: I have the same situation. I have a very low rate of keepers for a variety of reasons, but usually it is because the camera (my NEX5, for example) failed to focus. Almost any kid can give you a low "hit" rate, but special needs kids even more so.
All cameras are a compromise, and I frequently have to wait for the reviews to let me know how much AF speed I am giving up to gain a weight advantage.
rdz: tautological??? WOW! DP REVIEW Vocab class is now in session. Bueller? Bueller? Not only do we get the absolute pinnacle of camera reviewing expertise we also get the word for the day. My dictionary is smokin'.
Ha. I live in Florida. Using big words here is like showing a card trick to a dog.
jhinkey: At first glance this seems silly, but upon thinking what I use an AW camera for it makes some sense. My current AW camera is a Panasonic TS3 which has already failed me on vacation one time (after using it twice) and was replaced under warranty (second vacation it worked fine). In general it makes just OK pictures and the battery life sucks, especially if using video at all. Nikon equivalent is no better.
So having a large-ish sensored Nikon system that I can take kayaking, snorkeling, canoeing, swimming, etc. and not have to worry about it seems great. Just not sure of the cost - especially since the lenses are not stabilized which seems like a real requirement when bobbing up and down in the surf or in a kayak or . . . .
HA Raw: I looked up some samples from the DP review of each, and the D800 completely buries the V1 at every ISO.
The color is similar at 6400, but only in JPG. In Raw, the chroma noise on the V1 is overwhelming. The resolution on the D800 is outstanding, even at 6400, while the V1 is only usable for telephone-size screens.
I admit that a lot of people are obsessed with sharpness, and miss out on the artistic look that can be obtained from the V1. In addition, the V1 might deliver better images for hacks like me, because of the blazing fast AF. (Also, since it is smaller, I might actually have it with me, if I bought one.)
But for sharpness, dynamic range, color, and low-light capability, the D800 is hard to beat. If your V1 works better, then there is a chance that your D800 needs service.
AS far as HA RAW claiming the ISO 6400 will be better than the D800, I can't imagine that will be true. (No matter how much you like grain...)
I have not used either, so I can't say for sure, but there are some laws of physics to deal with. Also, about a hundred thousand camera reviews from people who know a lot about image quality.
Faster AF, maybe.
I think your comment was exactly right. This is a great camera for people who occasionally drop their camera. I, for one, never plan to drop the camera, so I rarely have the waterproof housing on when it happens.