ms18: If they can focus on focusing as well they will win..
'am currently a Fuji guy...
They'll drop systems on the fly and if you have invested into one of their systems you will never know how long Sony will support that system.
To me Sony is not a trustworthy company.'
Fuji abandoned F mount. Fuji system abandonment 1, Sony 0. Logic is clearly not a strong suit of yours.
photominion: I was expecting to read: "Sony reportedly dumping FE lens mount in 2016"
And what sound reasoning would make you think that?
Just a Photographer: In Sony's own words: "Hope it will stick for them"
Otherwise they will be abandoning another format again and again leaving their customers in the cold.
Sony forgets that you buy yourself into a system instead of buying a 'new' camera. If you drop system after system as Sony does, then that leaves their customers with regret and anger. The same customers that seem to be happy now with the camera they have now, until their system also gets dropped....
Oh this one is always hilarious and usually comes from the committed m43's or Fuji or whatever fanboys who 'read on the Internet' that Sony dumps a new system every quarter.
Here are some interesting facts for those playing at home:
Since the introduction of digital Sony have 'dropped' exactly 0 systems.
Fuji, Samsung, Panasonic and Olympus have all 'dropped' their first digital mounts. Completely and utterly left those markets.
Olympus have made one vague attempt at backwards compatibility on one model, nearly 4 years after they stopped making four thirds gear. Fuji, Panasonic and Samsung have never bothered.
IF Sony do eventually 'drop' A-Mount they have been catering to A-Mount adaption for years before that occurred with the best backwards compatibility around, long before any major change.
But hey let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story shall we?
ozturert: So now I'm expecting a 300-600mm f8 VR lens from Nikon, or maybe a 500-1000 f11 VR?Note: Canon's 100-400mm is 1570 grams and it has 4,5-5,6 aperture. What does Nikon use in their lenses, concrete? Oh yes Nikon goes to 500mm but that 50% more weight?
400mm f5.6 is only 63% of the area of 500mm f5.6.
WACONimages: 24-70mm $2399 In what world is Nikon living, on Mars maybe ;-)
Yet even the article states that reliability with the Nikon has had a spotty past, nothing is immune to failure.
Antony John: Lots of negative comments but:1) Nikon has provided probably a better performing 24-70 for professionals (albeit at a higher price, size and mass - but if that's what's required for IQ/usability improvement then so be it).2) Nikon have again replaced ageing prime optics with (assumed once more) a better quality solution at an affordable price and F1.8 (c.f. Nikon 24 F2.8 AF-D)3) Nikon have developed a new 200-500 lens at an affordable price. If it has similar IQ to the 70-200 F4 then it'll be a winner. Perhaps not as good at 200 & 500 as the Tamron/Sigma lenses, but if one only needs 250 - 450 then my guess it will be equivalent if not slightly better (based on the premise that the extremes of the focal lengths are always the weakest) than the other 2.It's taken some time but hopefully Nikon have nailed it with these lenses at their respective price points.
One advantage the Nikon has is being 'only' a 2.5x zoom range, this usually means higher IQ and less compromises... One would hope at least.
Seems like an incredibly sensible lens, fixed aperture, short zoom range, relatively low cost.
Beckler8: A general comment about new zoom lenses - why don't they have power (motorized) zoom? They do realize their SLR's shoot video now, right? Several mirrorless camera lenses like Sony, Panasonic, have power zoom - what, they have some special use that calls for it? No, rather it's needed for all video and would be useful for stills too if there was a control on the body because it would mean you don't have to fiddle with lens controls if you don't want. Yes, I know you don't want to zoom constantly during video. I've said this before here and the objections are generally nonsense. Anyway, think of it this way: every video camera/camcorder ever made has power zoom; DSLR's are video cameras too.
'every video camera/camcorder ever made has power zoom; DSLR's are video cameras too.'
So do point and shoot cameras, which is what you are referring to with 'camcorders'. Most cine lenses do not have power zoom. Many SLR manufacturers tried power zoom lenses in the 80's only to dump them shortly after. Mechanical zoom and power zoom don't usually go together, it is one or the other and most seem to prefer a mechanical zoom still.
John Swenson: I just received the Sigma 24-105 f4 lens that is on back order just about everywhere. I've wanted it for months and it finally arrived today. I'll use it on my Nikon D800.
I'm sure a lot of photographers (me included) want to know if the Sigma 24-35mm is significantly better (or any better) at f4 and above in the 24-35mm range than the Sigma 24-105.
Yes I suspect this will be better stopped down two stops over the 24-105mm wide open. Probably significantly so. Less so at say f8 but there may still be 'some' difference, as one would expect when comparing a 1x prime or 1.5x zoom to a 5x zoom.
Serious Sam: Lens is often loved or hated. As far as I can remember, hated many lens…..2.8 FF zoom for its weight, Sony Zeiss prims for its price, etc….. I had never question a lens fundamental existence until this one comes along. The exact reaction is HELLO!! YOU SERIOUS??
For its price, I can get a Nikon 35 1.8G, on the wide get a Tokina 2.8 UW zoom/ Sigma 24 1.8. This combination is much more flexible.
At such a short focal variation and only F2, what is Sigma thinking??
Walking 10m in a crowded room where people will get in the way and or the way of the shot OR changing lenses, either way means missing the moment.
There is a big difference between 24mm and 35mm.
wassim al malak: Except the 1 f/stop light and DoF between f2.8 and f2 , how can that sigma be compared to tamron 15-30 f2.8 vc ?please correct me in my conclusions , if i'm wrong :1- 15 is very wider than 24 .2- 30 is near the 35 .3- VC can help collect light in some cases .4- the main drawback is the instant 1 f/stop and the DoF and the filter thread at the sigma .
That IS the difference. If you feel 9mm is more important than double the light then the Tamron is the obvious choice... Ah choice isn't it nice?
pannyuser: So interesting that this came out today as I dropped my fz200 3 days ago. I had previously been very happy with it I love the versitility - minus the ability to get shallow depth of field blurred backgrounds - as well I would like a slight bump in IQ.
Now I need a replacement. - I do not use my camera for video much at all. I want the versatility and focal length. I loved the 2.8 for that reason. I'd be willing to give up some zoom as a trade of for IQ - should I go for:
FZ300FZ1000orSony RX10or Sony RX10 IIor Olympus Stylus 1
I say the FZ1000, the extra resolution (MP) and likely resolving power should compensate for the extra telephoto of the FZ300 and the extra stop at the long end. The FZ300 has some kind of weather resistance though, but other than that, price not being a concern, the FZ1000 would be a decent upgrade. RX10 is nice too and I think it would be worth at least trying both, I personally prefer the direct controls of the RX10 and the mag alloy body, but thats a much more personal preference.
TZ Photo: The best what you can do is buy the GX7 while still available, at least as long as you want this camera for the same reasons I do. I wanted a camera for back to basics photography, mostly with used with a prime, for city breaks, some street photography, a personal camera that you can have with you most of the time. A camera that is stylish, that can be used in social situations and doesn't scream 'professional'. A Leica M of some sort for 1/10 the price.So I bought the GX7 a month ago knowing perfectly that the GX8 is going to come soon. I feared that the successor might be not better but worse than the predecessor and I think I was right. I dont need ISO 25600, IBIS etc. I want constrains like prime lenses only, ISO up to 3200 etc. I want use creativity instead.
Primes only, a Leica M of some sort, no IBIS..: should have just bought a M8.
The Panasonic is not a Leica, not even similar apart from something similar in the shape (but on closer inspection not much there either). X100 is closer or a X-Pro1.
raydream: somehow I wished for a1) Olympus interface2) Panasonic 4k video3) GX8 body style4) Olympus EM style folding LCD5) Olympus 5 axis IBIS
Why would anyone wish for Olympus interface? The rest seems to be pretty much there, more or less.
They put the aperture ring on the wrong one!
abortabort: Yes the old model had been discounted as it was, wait for it, old. At launch the GR was $800 so now this is $100 cheaper than the old version. Doesn't add that much, sure, but neither do lots of updates. The RAW preview thing would be enough to upgrade and if the WiFi is decent is a nice addition. Not amazing, but heck the original GR has already had significant updates via FW over the course of its life that made it quite a bit better again. The extra raw buffer etc is welcome and not so different from say:
D4 to D4SM to M-PX-A1 to X-A2650D to 750DNEX-5R to NEX-5TEOS-M to M2X100S to X100T
Etc etc etc.
Also the 1/4000th shutter speed being available while wide open is a huge plus, really wish my old one and X100S did that.
Yes the old model had been discounted as it was, wait for it, old. At launch the GR was $800 so now this is $100 cheaper than the old version. Doesn't add that much, sure, but neither do lots of updates. The RAW preview thing would be enough to upgrade and if the WiFi is decent is a nice addition. Not amazing, but heck the original GR has already had significant updates via FW over the course of its life that made it quite a bit better again. The extra raw buffer etc is welcome and not so different from say:
ogl: List of changes Wireless connectivityWireless flash supportRaw file burst depth White BalanceAutofocus during movie captureExposure compensation during movie captureCreative effects during movie captureTop shutter speed wide-openMore effects modesInterval Composite shootingIn-camera raw processingBetter image review for raw filesPlayback startupPixel mappingImproved battery life: The Ricoh GR II's battery life is CIPA-rated to 320 shots on a charge, up from 290 shots from its predecessor with the same DB-65 lithium-ion battery pack. That's about a 10% improvement, though we suspect that's without Wi-Fi enabled.
'Fuji would just release a firmware update (or two, or three...), and wouldn't bother with re-badging the camera.'
Wow I find this insanely hilarious! Fuji really have done a marketing number with their FW updates. Ricoh have been quietly doing this for years and doing it better.
While this is a new and slightly modified camera it does have hardware changes, but the 'great Fuji' would never do that! *cough* X-A2 *cough* and *cough* pretty much every camera they have brought out in the last two years is a repackaging of the same camera *cough*.
I guess it is really easy to make firmware updates on a regular basis when all your cameras are exactly the same in a different shell.
ArtAlt: Thank you for your honesty (the "drawbacks" section). This is RARE in reviews of Sony cameras, which are often extremely misleading.
I've gotten badly burned twice by misleading reviews trumpeting the blazing fast AF of the a6000 (without mentioning the low light problems) and the amazing quality video (without mentioning overheating).
As a result, as much as I love my a6000 I don't trust Sony or most of the reviewers. When it comes to Sony I am in "show me" mode.
Under what conditions and settings did you find you had issues with the A6000 in low light? Unfortunately people just assume a DSLR approach to them and this doesn't always work.
nametaken: Are you going to test to see if the camera will focus wide open with A-mount and 3rd party lenses when shooting continuous bursts instead of focusing stopped down to whatever the aperture is set to like all E-mount cameras to date do with E-mount lenses?
Focussing at the taking aperture has an advantage with focus shift issues, obviously stopping down reduces focus shift, but you have to stop down a fair bit, it is in those middle ranges where focus shift becomes an issue... otherwise it was never an issue.
The other advantage is that the aperture doesn't have to reset after each shot, this is what causes very fast DSLRs to only operate at those speeds when standing on one leg while eating a ham during summer solstice to actually achieve those speeds.
This is also an advantage for video where AF works regardless of aperture setting, unlike say SLT where the aperture has to be fixed.
Lastly, from my understanding is if you put the camera into 'settings effect' mode into 'off' it should stay wide open until taking the shot.
njlarsen: I question the choice of lenses for this test. Short lenses are always going to be easier to track than long ones. When you get the actual samples for a real review, please make appropriate tests using a long lens (400 mm at least for a full frame). Don't do the easy part of telling us how it works with a standard lens -- all systems are perfect with that type of test.
Depends what kind of tracking really, but due to compression objects moving toward or away from the camera 'appear' to do so more slowly than a short FL lens at a much closer distance. Add that the DoF for this much shorter distance is less (especially with faster lenses available) and the range of being 'out' is very very small.
Yes tracking like this is often used at longer FL's but to suggest it is more taxing on the system is just wrong. Maintaining the subject is easier and maintaining an appropriate focus plane is easier at longer FL's. Also lens elements have to move much less in this scenario as well to maintain focus.