luxor2: This lens is about the same size and weight as the Tamron 24 to 70 f2.8.The Tamron will cost several hundred more, but will have a more versatile range, longer and wider.
Used with a D610 or other compact full frame, Tamron gives a system not much heavier than the Sigma with D7100 body. Consider alternatives before getting this lens.
All well and good if you are looking to buy from scratch, but if you have a D7100 which is going to be more useful?
Trollshavethebestcandy: Slap this on the Oly EM1 via adapter and you have something interesting.
What is up with all the E-M1 trolls seriously?
This lens will work like a great big bag of crap on an E-M1. If you want a fast zoom, why not have a look at Oly's own 14-35mm f2?
Who would be comparing those two as well? Are you, as an E-M1 user (assuming) going to be considering buying and adapting the Sigma? Considering AF speed is supposedly one of the biggest strength of the E-M1 I tend to doubt it.
Kodachrome200: its a great lens. but the gushing about as if a 1.8 zoom creates unprecedented capabilities. it does not. you get the same low light capabilities and dof that full frame f/2.8 zooms do minus some image quality and a more useful zoom range. Now of course this plus an apc camera is cheaper. and its a fine lens great quality. but the capability is not unprecedented, just the f stop
This is true, but as the article points out, many have been lumped with FF leftovers if you want a fast lens for the most popular interchangeable lens format (not mount) in the digital age. This lens fills a sizeable gap, one that is in every mount from every manufacturer of APS-C DSLRs.
All smaller sensors have an advantage in being able to design smaller and faster lenses for it, but noone until now seems to have been willing to do so for crop DSLRs.
This lens is a stunning achievement in breaking down barriers imposed by the OEMs. Is it like an f2.8 zoom on a FF? Yes. Is it like no other lens we've ever seen for an APS-C DSLR? Yes!
Polytropia: Leica D Summilux 25mm 1,4 on the E-M1... you'll forget about anything else...
Assuming you like a 50mm equiv FoV and are prepared to spend $2k to get it. Personally I think that's a massive waste of money.
HappyVan: OP has expressed a personal preference. That's fine.
Just got to remember that the majority of DPR regulars are enthusiasts, not opportunistic snapshooters.
Versatility over portability. Depth versus weight.
While I agree wholeheartedly, the thing is DSLRS have been well and truly 'good' for quite a long time now. Do they get better? Sure. But they are usually just a further refinement of an existing design.
These cameras are interesting because they bring something new to the table.
Does this make them the outright best performing product? No. Does it make them the best IQ? No. But it does rank them pretty high on 'products that innovate within the market'.
Jogger: Given the type of shooting DPR staffers do, i suspect all of the DPR Camera of the Year will be these types of street-shooting, hipster type cameras. If they asked the same of SI shooters or wedding photogs, I doubt something like the GM1 would make the cut.
@ Marike6 - No you aren't, you are trying to enforce your own opinions of what this website is and the content within it. You aren't 'trying to see what the fuss is about', you've already decided that it isn't for you, therefore shouldn't be for anyone else. This is NOT your column. Disagree all you like, but don't sit there and try to sway the writers that they shouldn't have written this - that isn't your place to say.
Looking at the rest of the comments here, it is pretty clear to me that you are in a minority of one.
I'm NOT telling you to go, I'm telling you that if you don't like what DPR do (and you NEVER do) AND constantly threaten to go elsewhere, why not actually go through with it? Your empty 'threats' are becoming more and more meaningless every time.
Mattersburger: Interesting grip - from where?
That's the official one. It seems kind of on the pricey side though.
D1N0: Panasonic Lumix dmc-gm1. Me at camerastore.
I want a panasonic.
which one sir?
ehm.. lumix something
ehm d something.
the one they like at dpreview!
what's that sir?
Hehe this gave me a giggle :)
Though seriously, what's one sexy camera name out there? Where's the stills equiv of 'RED Scarlet' or 'RED Epic', even 'Alexa' or 'Phantom'... nope we get DMC-GM1, D800E, OM-D E-M5
Leica's new naming scheme might come close, in a slightly boring German way.
@ Marike6 - I can't count the number of times the readers of DPR have politely, then not so politely asked you to go away and not return. You do not represent them, in any way, nor will you ever.
Every single time your points are proven wrong you find some other little hole to spout your arguments against the writers of this website.
For the last time, stop saying you are going elsewhere and go!
Northgrove: A bit surprising choice, given that most of the m4/3 lineup is already compact enough for jacket pockets, while not even this one and a decent lens compact enough for jeans pockets. So then why get this one and unusually many compromises for a camera of its class?
A camera is more than its body alone and the m4/3 format puts limits on how small you can go. While you can keep trying to go smaller, the lenses won't. The lens in the photo is not even long, but still too long to make it pocketable. A very small body will also easier get front heavy early, even earlier than with a tele zoom lens on it.
I would understand an RX100/II better than this choice. It's truly pocketable, comes with a tiltable LCD, a hotshoe, and a lens to suit the body, all unlike this one. And about $100 cheaper when including a kit lens.
I kind of agree.
Last years E-PM2 was a really capable m43's body which I felt embodied the spirit of m43's by being one of the smallest around, which with a pancake prime wasn't much bigger than a Ricoh GR, but with faster AF and can take an EVF when you want it to. Also had IBIS and best of all was relatively cheap when m43's seem to be going more and more premium. But it was universally rubbished as being the 'P&S users m43's' or 'poor man's m43's', people just didn't see the size as important. Panasonic bring out the GM1 which is slightly smaller and basically rips off the Fuji XF1 design and people are going ga-ga over it. Sure it IS smaller, but it isn't small enough to make a difference from the E-PM2.
JEROME NOLAS: I hope Ricoh have already a slimer version of this camera (drawing board) with fixed zoom 24-50mm, 2.8-4.0.
Why would it have to be a LOT bigger? The Canon 22mm is just as tiny as m43's smallest f2 or faster primes. 24-50mm is only 2x zoom, on a fixed and retractable design this is entirely possible to be relatively small. Only f2.8-4. Yeah we see lots of stupid requests on the Internet about super fast long ranging zooms, but this one would be quite achievable. Oh and have a look at the Canon G1X to get a bit of an idea - covering a sensor between 4/3's and APS-C, about the same speed but higher zoom ratio. See, not so hard :)
rtogog: This camera looks very good. It will be very special if the lenses also small. The kit lens is small but still looks not proportional against the body. Give me some pancake lenses to represent classic focal lens as 24, 28, 35, 50, 105. It will be a killer for traveller.
12-32mm + 20mm + 45mm - all suitably small for the GM1 and together make a great little kit.
marike6: Another camera choice for "Gear of the Year" based mostly on convenience for walking around?
This new DPR theme of staff exaggerating DSLR size and the amount of effort it takes to shoot a DSLR is getting a bit old.
When you consider all the great cameras released this past year to have an untested, unreviewed camera that is Pentax Q tiny, and really TOO SMALL for even average sized hands is truly puzzling. Add the fact that it has no eye level viewfinder or the possibility to add one, makes this "Best of the Year" choice suspect at best.
If convenience for walking around and size/weight have become the new criterion for judging "the best of the best" cameras on DPR, I'll be inclined to seek out other review sites more focused on actual photography and less focused on ease of use and portability.
And we will glad to finally see the back of you. It's a good camera and these are personal (from each staff member) opinion pieces. The MOST interesting cameras to a bunch of camera reviewers are always going to be the ones that are a bit different, that AREN'T a big black slab that represent the latest, rather dull, evolutionary step in DSLRS with x more megapickles and y more focus points.
These are the cameras that are actually doing something interesting. They are also the category of cameras with the most flaws or poorly conceived designs, because they aren't made of years of honing the same slab into a better slab.
Go look at some DSLR test charts, you'll feel better.
njkdo: I am not against innovation, and this digital viewfinder is really great and impressive, but why don't give an option with optical viewfinder too? For this I will not buy this camera, I really need to see through true glass.I had in past with my first digital camera a Sony R1, wonderful camera, but...
X-Pro1 does this.
cxsparc: Strange review. Sounds to me like a general negative attitude towards the A7s. Example: "initial disappointment over twodeck custom menu", or "EVF as means to an end". Then, I also noticed that the A7 shots (example bearded man shot from right side at Jack Daniels) were badly focussed. But in that case, I also noticed that the shot was done with the kit at maximum zoom = 70 mm and 1/60 or similar, so probably simply shaken. And if I would notice such a problem, I'd make a to b tests with the same lens and check out what is going on.
@ Vlad3D - and that should make a difference because?
RichRMA: Sony, Sony, Sony; the one camera that screamed out for in-body stabilization and you didn't provide it. Why?
Yes noone ever took a good photo without IBIS. If any camera is 'screaming out' for IBIS it's m43's.
Vizio Virtù: HighISO is disappointing. At least 2 stops worst than 7 years old Nikon D3. Portrait sample has strange plain of focus. Right eye somehow blurry - maybe because of decentered optics.
@ bluevellet - Here I have a camera for you, it has a 135 format sensor with 1 pixel. Exhibits no noise, at any ISO up to 6 million. It's so great. Don't worry that it only has one pixel, when you zoom in 1:1 it will be way cleaner than any camera ever.
the-dude-75: here are so many people writing without having a clue1. sony has not 4 to 4 mounts, they have two, one for the dslr line, the old minolta one and one for the mirrorless, the e-mount. and guess what. all other habe the same amount of mounts, canon has even more, one for full frame, one for crop and one for mirrorless. 2. sony is not stopping the nex line, there will,be new nex coming next year, in aps-c size3. yes you can use leica lenses and all othere lenses. no other FF can do this4. there is a roadmap for lenses untill 2015
@ technic? So erm how is that wrong?
Sony FE lenses and E-Mount lenses are the same mount, period. Get it? They cover a different image circle, like EVERY APS-C specific lens.
Their other mount is A-Mount. Which is the traditional SLR mount dating back to the first Autofocus Minolta SLRS.
So they have ONE mount for mirrorless and one for DSLRS. All A-Mount lenses fit on all A-Mount cameras. All E-Mount lenses fit on all E-Mount cameras.
Canon on the other hand have 3 mounts:
EF - Can take EF mount lensesEF-S - Can take EF and EF-S mount lensesEF-M - Can take EF-M mount lenses
In both Sony and Canon both of their mirrorless mounts can be adapted for their SLR lenses.
I am a bit tired of all the crying about how Existing E-Mount lenses won't cover the full image circle - well duh! They are crop lenses. EF-S and EF-M lenses don't cover the full image circle either. DT and DX lenses don't either.
bluevellet: Detail is impressive. High ISO is not so much; barely a stop better than APS-C and M43. I would have liked to check the A7 IQ too to see if the lesser pixel density/MP make a difference in high ISO.
But man, that Phase One image quality is completely in another league. :D
Because total detail captured is the point, not what you see at 1:1 pixel size, when you view an entire image, not just it's pixels. Yes at 1:1 it would be around 1 stop better than the 16MP m43's because it roughly equates to 16MP APS-C. Taking those whole 36MP to make an image and loads more information is retained.
This is why the 36MP rates about the same as the 24MP Sony sensor and even better than the Canon 20MP sensor found in the 6D, but when at 1:1 the later two look much cleaner at 1:1. The Canon looking even cleaner at 1:1. Also why the Sony 24MP APS-C rates pretty equally to the Sony 16MP APS-C, however when viewed at 1:1 the 24MP is considerably noisier.
Yes because the amount of visible noise at 1:1 is the only comparison one should make when comparing sensors right?