SRHEdD: As an old Nikon guy, after my D600 flaked and D800 had white spots, I jumped ship. This is a great camera, and for a change I actually HAVE a camera that gets a great firmware upgrade! As good as it WAS, it is very noticeably faster now! You get so many creative hardware scenarios with Sony, and they have the lenses I need. Not as many as Canikon to be sure, but very nice lenses in my wheelhouse. The 16-50/2.8 is a great kit zoom, but a little heavy. And having an A6000 as a second kit, using the same flashes, microphones, etc. is very satisfying (I can even share lenses with a LA-EA4!). Even my Sony P/S uses the same basic menus and I can add a mic to its hotshoe on a windy day. That's three different formats/mounts using shared kit. THAT'S how to build a system. Great job Sony! I'm with you for the long haul! ...Now to get that new A7ii to fill out my bag!
@Karlwunsch: Sorry, my comment was not directed at you but instead to RedFox88. I should have labeled it as such. But since you opened the door, I'll respond to you:
The codec comment was in reference to the addition of the XAVC-S video codec, not AF.
As for the AF speed, the AF is already pretty great on the camera (I'm speaking from experience as an owner who previously owned an A77). Note that it doesn't say the AF speed is up to twice as as fast in all respects, but that AF speed as has been improved overall and up to 2.5x in low light conditions. This doesn't mean the original firmware was shoddy, just that they managed to squeeze out a little more juice from it. And 2.5x might sound like a lot, but when speaking in terms of something that is already fast the improvement could mean just fractions of an improvement. If the original firmware was shoddy, the AF would have been crap out the gate.
Says the person who probably has never used the A77II.
Firmware updates are not always for fixes, but can be for enhancements. Adding an additional codec is not a fix, it is an enhancement.
The AF was already fast to begin with, to eek out even more performance by making it even faster and perform even better in low light is not a fix, it is an enhancement. It would be a fix if it was slow as a dog and couldn't lock on in low light situations, but that was not the case.
Thunder123: I like how DPReview after removing the A77ii jpgs due to an error in noise reduction still hasn't replaced them
But looking at the Raw files clearly the A77ii is better in most areas.
Using a D7000 to compare the DR, really? DPR cooked the books on this review
Samuel Spencer, nice to see that you are upgrading the lens for the A77II tests and are going for the Zeiss 50mm F/1.4. When I saw the initial tests you did with the 50mm F/1.8, it was quite apparent that the budget lens was showing some weakness that did not do the A77II any favors. Once you got about half way out from center, the image started to soften up and distort a bit.
My thought is to throw the best lens you can on the cameras for testing so you are able to see the full potential of the camera. Putting a weaker lens on the camera doesn't do anybody or any camera any favors when it comes to testing and benchmarking. Since we are testing the camera, we want to see what it is capable of, not necessarily what the lens the photographer chooses can and can't do. For that, we have lens reviews. ;-)
Azzy: $1150 for 70-300 F4.5 – F5.6 ????? LOL!Rather get tamron 70-300 vc for 1/4 the price of Sony, hell you can get 70-200 2.8 vc for the price of 70-300 sony.
Sony makes really nice body recently but what's the point if you can't afford the lenses....
RichRMA, look up Kurt Munger. He did a review of both the older 70-300G and the Tamron version and did a comparison between the two.
From his tests, both lenses did well. Compared to each other the Tamron appeared to be sharper in the center wide open than the Sony from the 70-135mm range but the Sony did better in the mid sections and corners. By 300mm, the Sony was sharper in the center and mid sections while the corners had a slight advantage on the Tamron.
Optically, they appeared to be close but the Sony was more consistent in focusing. Plus, the Sony had a focus hold button and limiter which the Tamron lacked.
Based on Kurt's reviews, he suggested if you have the money to invest in the Sony. If you are on a budget, the Tamron won't disappoint.
ozturert: "Not dead yet" also means "dying" :)
Vscd, thanks for the link to the PDF. Your post proved my point.
If you look at the chart, you will see that the DSLR shipments to Europe have declined by around 29-33% from the previous year for January through June, and in June alone the decline is closer to a 50% drop.
Meanwhile, mirrorless showed a growth of around 28-56% for January through June and a 10% increase in the month of June alone in comparison to the previous year.
While DSLR still have a large number of shipments by volume, the drop in volume is still quite noticeable.
As for complaining about your English, I was not. I pointed it out because I thought it may have been used incorrectly and was curious if it was due to English not being your native language. I checked your profile first to find your country of origin, but saw nothing. Hence, why I asked to see if I was wrong.
And yes, I wouldn't doubt your German is better than mine. My family moved from Germany in the late 1800s, early 1900s by my current guess.
andy1331: Why did you mention the a77II body as bulky? Its almost identical and even lighter than a 70d or others in this clsss. And dont forget the advantages of the SLT concept like EVF, very fast AF even in LV, great Videi options... Lobe this one but dont understand why Sony doesnt come up with some smaller pendant. In this area they focus on e mount which is the worse mount I think for good fast glass...
Armadino, have you ever tried shooting sports in the dark at all, with either EVF or OVF?
The newer EVFs work fine, even in the dark. I can actually see better through my EVF in low light than I could through a good pentaprism OVF.
Also, in low light the EVF's refresh rate on the A77II doesn't slow down like it did on the A77, where really dark situations caused the EVF view to reduce frame rate. The EVF also does better in low light on the A7II than it did on the A77.
Lolopasstrail, sounds like you have never tried out the newer EVFs, especially the OLED EVFs.
By your description, it sounds like you are talking about the old field sequential EVFs that created a rainbow effect when your eye moved or the action moved quickly. That is not the case with these newer EVFs.
I don't experience rainbows, tearing, color shifts, etc. The response time is quick, .01ms or less, with a high refresh rate, and a large color gamut. The older EVF in the A77 covered at least 90% of NTSC, which has similar coverage to Adobe RGB, and the EVF in the A77II has been improved in almost every way on top of that.
As for being non-representational of real life, are you telling me the picture on your monitor is? How is it any different?
Also, as for size, the EVF on the A77II gives you a viewing size equivalent to some of the best full frame DSLR viewfinders out there. After looking at the A77II's EVF, any APS-C viewfinder you look through afterwards will feel small.
Maybe it's because they had such a hard time finding three cons to the A77II they had to scrounge up something to post. To complain about its bulk or system support was possibly all they could think of considering how great the camera is. ;-)
Vscd, worldwide as a whole.
As for your DSLR superiority claim, are you sure about that? Plus, I think you used superiority wrong. Maybe a language barrier?
Everything I have found so far shows that the DSLR market has remained anywhere from stagnant to it shrinking while the mirrorless market continues to grow. This also reflects Europe which, by the way, has a experienced a larger growth in the mirrorless than the Americas.
The countries with the fastest growing mirrorless adoption rate is Asia. The Americas are one of the slowest growing when it comes to mirrorless adoption. Europe shows a higher mirrorless adoption rate than the Americas.
And just because Canon still has the DSLR market lead doesn't mean it isn't losing ground to competitors and to the mirrorless market. It's been losing ground for a few years now.
VirtualMirage: DPR, I feel that was a poor choice of words to say that the A-mount is "Not Dead Yet". It labels the brand with a negative stigma, one I don't think is warranted. Your headline implies that A-mount is dying or will be dead instead of reassuring that A-mount is alive and the focus on the mount is on fewer models that is focusing on a higher end clientele.
As we have seen so far, their product release cycles have not been longer. The release between the A77 and A77II is far shorter than it was from the A700 to A77. We could assume it will be the same with the A99's successor too. When there are fewer products to release, there will naturally be fewer announcements.
Now it would be nice to see more lens or flash announcements. This latest announcement is a good sign.
Ozyxy, your perception versus what it really is don't seem to be matching. What you are saying, you should be able to say anything you want, whether it be lies, truths, or insults and no one has any say to call you out for it or disagree with their own opinions. That is very much a one way street and doesn't provide fairness nor true freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech may give you the right to speak your mind and say what you want, but that doesn't mean it frees you from any liabilities or responsibilities that result from what you say. Freedom is just as much a responsibility as it is a right, and one that should not be taken lightly.
As for journalists, if there was no code of ethics then what separates them from everyone else? What then allows what journalists report be deemed credible and reliable?
What you say journalists should be able to do is more akin to story tellers, op eds, and bloggers. That's a different kind of writing and one that doesn't demand credibility.
Ozyxy, you are so far off the mark spouting something that you are not fully comprehending in regards to this situation.
Ever hear of journalism ethics and standards? Look it up.
As for freedom of speech, that isn't being questioned here. What is being questioned is journalistic integrity. Journalists are supposed to hold themselves to a higher standard when it comes to reporting news.
And just because freedom of speech lets you say what you want, doesn't mean it frees you from the repercussions that your statements have created.
Jane79: Another old Minolta/Sony lens re-released with the exact same optical formula, a new badge and a higher price. If anything, this is proof of Sony squeezing the last drop of profit from Alpha shooters without making any significant investment.
RRccad, no I am look at the Sharpness Field Maps, more than just F/2.8, both FF and APS-C of sensors of equivalent or close pixel density. The overall DxO Scores and Mpix don't say much.
Yes, if you assumed as little from me, then you clearly did not read or understand everything I wrote.
And again, why use DxO when there is a clear discrepancy in their scoring?
You also don't stipulate if you are referencing just APS-C or FF. There is a big difference there too.
Nowhere in SLRGear's review do they mention poor corners. Read the review. Here is an excerpt: In summary, just exquisite performance for sharpness.
Photozone, look again. Yes, the Canon has the edge on the extreme border but the rest is very close. Both scored similarly too. But I have stopped following them when they decided to not update their review equipment and stopped reviewing lenses for A-mount. I keep waiting for their 24MP APS-C or A99 FF lens reviews to show up, and they never do
Puns, which doesn't risk uncalled for defamation of a brand or group, are one thing. "From Russia With Gloves", "Otter Devastation" are some examples of journalistic puns.
Wording that puts the subject at hand in negative light by leaving a biased impression on the audience without educating them otherwise is not a pun. It's used to gather attention, not spread facts. Leave that kind of dirt to the National Enquirer, Stars, sports columns, and page six news.
HowaboutRAW, I completely agree and that was one of my main points.
I do read the reviews and make note of them. But I scour across multiple reviews as well as user opinions. I also look at real world image examples too.
If I was blind to just reviews, I would have bought a Zeiss ignoring the price. But I didn't, I took everything in and compared it to my experience with my own Sigma 24-70mm HSM and determined that the best lens of the three, especially for the money, is the Tamron.
If I was to go only by DxO's results, I would have avoided the Tamron like the plague it tested so bad on the Sony mount.
Having just received the Tamron, I can definitely say it is a sharp lens wide open and even better than my Sigma (which is what I was looking for). Granted, I have to send the lens in to get calibrated since the focus during AF appears to be off, but that is fixable. Weak optical formula, unfortunately, is not fixable.
But I do love the Zeiss look, speaking from personal experience.
RRccad, reread my response. You seemed to have missed the rest of my post which explains everything.
How close did you look at the data? Did you really look closely at the SLRGear charts and data? Look again at the APS-C and FF charts and notice the difference is smaller than you think.
In a race, sure 1st, 2nd, and 3rd may make it seem there is a huge discrepancy between the racers performance but in reality the difference between 1st and 3rd could have been milliseconds. In reality, that means the difference is practically nill. Places are suited for competition but don't say much about performance. In case of performance, there's a smaller gap between the 3 than you would like to believe. And why does it matter since you can't use those lenses on each other to begin with. As I said before, it is the strongest 24-70 in its mount if you are lead to believe only DxO's scoring.
The discrepancy in 3rd party lens scoring across the mounts makes me question their results.
steelhead3: The lens is G rated...higher than the Zeisses.
Cheng Bao, are you sure about that?
I see no 85mm F/1.4 lenses released under the Sony name except for the Zeiss. Take a look at Dyxum, there are no Sony variants of the 85mm G listed.
The last 85mm F/1.4 G released was under the Minolta name back in 2001, which was a limited edition version of the same lens released a year earlier. Some state there were small improvements made, but that version only had 700 copies produced. So it is a rare lens. But it is no Sony.
It was a poor choice of words used to only attract views.
Change out Sony and A-mount with Canon or Nikon along with their corresponding mounts and the headline will still ring true. The DSLR market has been on the decline while mirrorless camera adoption has been growing.
But until the mirrorless market can do everything I want and be offered in an ergonomic package that fits me, I'll stick with my A-mount A77II. They are getting closer, but are not there yet.
To say the Zeiss is getting mopped is an exaggeration.
Yes, on FF, the newest Canon is a very nice and shows the improvements of updated glass. Nikon, aside from score, doesn't have an advantage to the Zeiss. On APS-C, the difference is even smaller with the Zeiss having the higher resolving power. Also note how I didn't say the Zeiss was the best, just that it is still a strong contender and the results show that.
It's hard to compare lenses across different mounts. You don't get identical results that can be interchanged. Just look at the Sigma and Tamron 24-70 tests across all three mounts. For being the "same" lenses, they seem to produce quite varying results. On Sony mount, the Zeiss is the best option if going by just DxO's results.
Could it be due to product quality variance? Maybe.
Could it be how well the optics match up to the sensor? That's another possibility.
We don't really know how many samples DxO tests to ensure that the results are representative of the product.
Yep, you are right about that. At least that is how Sony explains it. But at the same time, we haven't seen any G and Zeiss lenses in the same focal length to really cement this little detail. Both are built to professional tolerances and have a high standard for optics.
So the conundrum is, if a Zeiss 70-200 or G 24-70 were to ever be released, which one would be considered the superior model: the G or the Zeiss?
Wouldn't it seem natural to have a pairing of essential lenses in a pro kit to fit one or the other and be a matching set?
For example: shouldn't the 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200 all be Zeiss or G? As it is right now, the first two are Zeiss but the last is a G. Other than the 70-200 being based off of a Minolta, what is the reason behind that?
Sir Canon: wait why would you spend $1500 on a 70-300 f4.5-5.6. even if its build like a brick outhouse wouldnt you get a 70-200 2.8
The lens will be going for $1150, not $1500. Secondly, a first party 70-200 F/2.8 new goes for $3000. Now if considering third party lenses or the used market, that is a different story.