ottonis: It is remarkable how some people already bash the A7s and some others already praise it like the new holy grail.
We still don't have any serious review of this camera. What we have are some extremely promising specs that are of particular interest for those people whose main interest is in the low-light capabilities for stills/video.
We have the extraordinary specs and we have some stunning video/stills samples, but I would really wait for some serious and more detailed reviews and testing before making a conclusion about this camera.
Personally, if the A7s is at least one full stop better (with regards to SNR) compared with its A7/r siblings, then it would be of interest of me, as it would put it 2+ stops above the best APS-C cameras today.If on my Nex 5N ISO 800- was the maximum tolerable ISO with regards to IQ/noisefloor/SNR, then the A7s would allow to shoot at ISO 3200 at the same quality, which is just astonishing.
Apart from the first videos there have been no sanctioned samples. So I agree, the samples we've seen thus far have been terrible.
Seeing video though that was shot at full read out suggests the performance is really rather good.
Lux Painter: The price is not bad, although it should be less than 2k considering:
- extremly low frame rate- less than 16 MP- no internal 4k recording
The only interesting feature that's left is the superb ISO performance.But the first 3 points are a no go for me (even if it would be priced less than 2k)
The second point is the reason for the high ISO abilities, so you are really calling the same thing a pro and a con. It's funny how not so long ago people decried that 'we don't need more MP, just better ISO' someone gives it to us and we cry about not having more MP... People are weird. Think that as 24MP has become the 'norm' rather than the exception, it is suddenly no longer 'enough' to have less, it's suddenly weirdly a bad thing.
I say bring on more cameras like this!
1. Breaks compatibility with third party batteries.2. Breaks compatibility with third party lenses.3. Dangles some minor fix carrot to ensure users 'update' to 'take advantage' of features *1 and *2. 4. Fixes bug that allowed users to downgrade firmware to earlier versions.
There is a reason why I don't have any Nikon equipment any more.
Smokymtnhiker: The 16-35mm F4L should be awesome on the A7R. It would be the perfect do-all lens for backpacking trips. I hope Novoflex hurries up with their AF adapter. If so I will forget about getting the Sony 35mm 2.8.
Why do you need to wait for Novoflex? Use the Metabones or one of the other rip off adapters. I'm tempted by the Canon, but the similarly spec'd and likely priced Zeiss will be a better match.
The 10-18mm on the other hand is very interesting as a much cheaper Sony 10-18mm alternative, but slower.
ttnewton: Forget the IS for wide angle lenses, if it costs a stop or more. I just don't get that. In handheld low-light scenarios involving moving subjects (wedding, photojournalism) if the moving subjects are blurry, it hardly matters if the still background is nice and sharp. Might be worse, actually. The loss of a stop requires doubling the shutter time, all else equal, so low-light moving-subject situations are going to suffer with this lens.
But what if the subject is not moving? I can definitely see a place for handheld landscape/travel enthusiasts who want the best possible optical performance without having to lug a tripod. But still, why spend big bucks on the finest optics and then compromise your landscapes by leaving the tripod home?
What Canon REALLY needs to get around to is a good competitor to Nikon's amazing 14-24mm f/2.8. Now THAT is a lens I'd buy, IS or not!! :-)
@ ttnewton - Erm that's why they do a 16-35mm f2.8? As you say soft corners aren't a concern but f2.8 is, that's why they make one. You haven't 'lost' anything, this GIVES IS to the previous 17-40mm and sits in between in their range.
Lawrencew: A $299 launch price sounds a bit of a bargain for a UWA. That said, Canon's recent STM lenses like the 55-250mm have taken a long time to fall significantly in street price.
That's a pretty good starter line up now though from 10-250mm all IS and STM, if matches the decent (for their price) IQ of the 18-55 and 55-250 lenses.
It isn't clear how closely it matches, but the EF-M 11-22mm IS STM is an amazing lens, so that bodes well for the 10-18
It is also wider and cheaper than the 11-22mm by 25%.
DVT80111: Still nothing can compete with the Sigma 18-35/1.8
Well that is a 'normal' zoom, these are ultra wide angles and (for once) Sigma doesn't have anything as good.
These will both be awesome on E-Mount bodies, would definitely grab a 10-18mm for an a6000. 16-35mm might be of interest if the Zeiss isn't that great.
EDWARD ARTISTE: the 10-18 would be great on am eos M. heck, the existing 10-22 is well balanced on it.
IS? yes plesase. i wish the 22f2 had it
I agree with the above, hell I will probably be buying one to use on an a6000. Absolute bargain.
Impulses: Very aggressive pricing on that compact EF-S 10-18mm... The 10-22 is at least twice that much no? Is that like the cheapest UWA zoom around now?
@ srados - The current STM 18-55mm is actually pretty decent optically, though slow. The EF-M 18-55mm is also a very decent little lens and it's WA brother the 11-22mm @ $399 RRP was quite likely Canon's best UWA zoom, so there is nothing 'crap' about this lens, apart from.maybe the build.
Henrik Herranen: MTF for the EF-S 10-18:http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_s_10_18mm_f_4_5_5_6_is_stm
Are my eyes deceiving me or does the MTF look seriously impressive for a 300$ lens?
And although it was posted earlier, here's a reposted 16-35/4 IS link:http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_16_35mm_f_4l_is_usm
EF-M 11-22mm was already their best UWA zoom, so it is great to see they have an EF-S that is similar and slightly cheaper emerge.
Boss of Sony: In my experience, the overwhelming majority of people only use these UWA angle lenses at the extreme wide angle end (e.g. 10mm), and almost nobody uses them at the long end. Therefore, why doesn't the manufacturer just make a UWA prime (e.g. 10mm prime) and be done with it. It would be easier and cheaper to make, and would be faster and have better image quality.
Samyang make the small 12mm f2 for mirrorless. Personally I use the range as a useful PJ range. IS is handy as well.
There already is the 11-22mm EF-M with IS, better build, smaller etc
pew pew: looks like a great pocket camera, much better then the gx1 II for less $
Er how? With slow kit zoom it isn't in the same class. It is a typical mirrorless model with slow kit zoom. A NEX-3n from 2 years ago would be it's equal (minus WiFi).
JEROME NOLAS: Will somebody make a 24mm (36mm eqv.) f 1.8 (2.8) for APS-C DSLR instead? This is insane, it seems that all people are shooting at night or caring about the "creamy bokeh."
Sigma 18-35mm f1.8, easy. Plus you get 18mm f1.8 (28mm) and 35mm f1.8 lenses into the bargain without having to swap lenses. It is prime good and pretty cheap. DSLR manufacturers want to flog you FF lenses, the Sigma is a crop saviour.
Jogger: Interchangeable lenses for cameras with smaller than APSc sensors make no sense. You can get the upcoming Sony RX100m3 with 24-70/1.8-2.8 equiv. in a much smaller package.
And the XZ-2 / MX-1 is considerably bigger than the RX100...
I did prefer the feel of my MX-1 over the RX100 though.
@ Howaboutraw - and this Samsung has a faster lens does it? Their prime lens is two stops slower than the Sony with no IS... and a slow kit zoom. Fast 50mm is coming, but if rumours are true the Sony will be just as fast @ 50mm equiv.
Menneisyys: Given the miniscule size of the 24.3mm prime (and it being a cheap kit lens), pretty good IQ. Of course it's, in the corners (sharpness and CA) and WRT brightness, a far cry away from the Oly 12/2 but he latter is an order of magnitude more expensive and considerably bulkier.
Nevertheless, given that my (being just a vacation / walk / selfie / family shooter) fav FoV is 24mm and I very rarely go over it, the whole package seems to be very decent.
Or an EOS-M with 11-22mm, which is relatively inexpensive. Sony 16mm (which is a bit average, but rather cheap). Or my choice is the GR, not quite 24mm but astonishingly good and not terribly expensive (plus option of very decent 21mm for not a lot of money).
CanonKen: *checks RX100 price*
Very low ISO is good, but the camera with the 9-27mm is too big to be 'small', and not sure what I'd lose with a high-end P&S.
But you gain a faster and better ranging lens. Not 'everything' is about sensor. It seems to be out of favour to mention the RX100, but if you have a similar sensor bit get a much faster lens in a smaller package it's a bit hard to justify.
I have had a play with the NX mini with the 9mm prime... It's ok, but the screen isn't great, the controls are less than stellar and for a lens that is bigger than the built in lens on the compact (when retracted) it is awfully slow (aperture), in fact a full 2 stops slower than the RX100 AND has no IS.
On the plus side the 30mm f2 will make a decent little portrait lens and the 50mm equiv will round the set fairly well.
But the lack of viewfinder and fiddly controls mean a no for me. Could be interesting with the 55-200mm though which is quite inexpensive.