SirSeth: Why the cost? Just curious. It seems like a good lens but I thought Ricoh was trying to bring affordable medium format to morals.
Well the 25mm is about the same price and this adds a more flexible range and IS. Also the WA's are pretty expensive for MF, but the rest of the range is relatively low cost.
Daft question... Is there actually a photo of the camera + lens combo?
Also, does the NX mini (or lenses) have any kind of physical shutter?
Joriarty: 20MP, 1/2.3" CCD ("for beautifully detailed images", according to Sony!) with a f/3.5 to f/6.5 lens and 0.52 fps continuous shooting (DPReview generously rounded that one up). Oh dear. If that's the same sensor as the HX200, it's horrendous.
A second hand Canon S90 can be had for less than the W810. No contest there.
Bonus trivia: Amazon's pre-order page says: "Due to high demand we anticipate being unable to fulfill all customer orders with our first allocation."
Uhm, prepare to cough up that nut! It's a CCD sensor, not found in Xperia smartphones...
nerd2: Why they are still making long-flange (mirrored) version of their camera instead of going full mirrorless?
Sorry Rishi, are you saying you can't compare focus tracking until you get a 24mm ~f1 lens to compare to a 35mm f1.4 on the 1DX? Because I don't think that is really going to happen very soon.
Maybe a more appropriate 'test' would be to test the same two actual FL lenses, preferably from the same manufacturer (say Sigma 35mm f1.4), at the same distance. While framing won't be the same most else will be.
Otherwise, using something like the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 should be 'fairly' close to a 24mm f1.4 on the same camera (if a f1.4 is what you are waiting for?). The difference in DoF between a 24mm f1.4 and f1.8 is rather minor to be honest. Besides when viewing at 1:1 (to pixel peep the tracking effectiveness) you are essentially reducing the circle of confusion to the point of being rather tiny, which is a punishing test for any camera, even at f1.8.
abortabort: I don't get it. The SX400 is 'only' 30x with a tiny sensor. When you can get a much smaller 'pocketable' camera with more or less the same small sensor and zoom range, why would people buy this? I mean for the market that buys a super zoom like this, holiday snappers, would they really want a big chunker like this? Lens isn't faster, nor longer... Seems 'cheap' is the only thing potentially going for it, but then it is so cut price in so many other areas as well.
True on both counts, but I suspect that the majority of this target market probably prefer the smaller size no?
I don't get it. The SX400 is 'only' 30x with a tiny sensor. When you can get a much smaller 'pocketable' camera with more or less the same small sensor and zoom range, why would people buy this? I mean for the market that buys a super zoom like this, holiday snappers, would they really want a big chunker like this? Lens isn't faster, nor longer... Seems 'cheap' is the only thing potentially going for it, but then it is so cut price in so many other areas as well.
BPD7: This is one reason I chose Fuji over Sony and am leaving Canon
Because they have equivalent lenses coming in the future that Sony already have?
HowaboutRAW: What are the rumored dimensions of this 22MP sensor? If it were flat how many millimeters would it measure on a side?
16GB of internal storage seems small, if the camera shoots raw and is 22MP, unless that's separate dedicated storage.
2/3" according to other rumours. Though this is at odds with the lens' supposed spec, which given it's FL and 'equiv' FL seems more towards a 1" sensor size, possibly slightly bigger.
Also there will be tele conversion lenses (which can now be seen in photos apparently).
beavertown: Another piece of junk.
Who wants to buy a tiny sensor super noisy blurry zoom toy camera nowadays?
All super zoom cameras should move on to 1" sensor like RX10 etc.
Yes and it will really have 1250mm equiv lens for $250...
abortabort: So where were the 'equivalence' charts when reviewing the A7/R cameras? putting down the lens range compared to m43's... which if converted to m43's 'equivalence' would make a supposedly very poor lineup look like the most amazing lineup ever assembled in the mirrorless space... But since that didn't happen, here is the lineup again in m43's equivalent:
17.5mm f1.427.5mm f0.912-35mm f2 14-35mm f1.7-2.835-100mm f2
Yes, DSLRs have fuller systems and look even better in pure numbers, but the point of this is comparing a supposedly very average mirrorless system with another supposedly very full and rich system... According to your review.
Yes, when it comes to criticisms compared to FF DSLRs they are probably more apt, especially when comparing to the lens ranges and likely AF (especially tracking). But DPRs review focussed mostly on comparing to m43's and Fuji X - Not once did equivalence come up when talking lens lineups.
What is to say that the market for FF mirrorless is really any different to m43's? These are clearly not aimed to match DSLRs. In terms of size, body wise they are about the same as other high end mirrorless and lens wise they are are similar or smaller than their equivalent counterparts (not that any really exist).
I don't mind which way they do it, it's irrelevant when talking in terms of equivalence... that is after all the whole point ;)
My point is if they are going to compare to other mirrorless systems rather specifically (it is after all more in that camp than anything else) then equivalence should have played a part, especially when talking about available lens lineups (or announced lineups). They do it for fixed lens cameras that are otherwise competing in the same market space, why not interchangeable lens cameras? Again especially when 'knocking' the lens lineup speaking directly of the mirrorless competition.
Also, apologies to all for the crazy amounts of reposts, this seems to be a bug that hitting 'post' on my phone doesn't return to the comments section.
Sorry, but a) this is not how the review was stated (nor tested) and b) the camera was directly compared against other mirrorless systems, including m43's. When taken on equivalence the small number of lenses is already incredibly healthy and not one of those is available in m43's native AF lenses.
Just a Photographer: If DP Review wants to talk about equivalence, then do away with terms like, Full Frame, APS, APS-C, Four/Thirds etc. As these terms are actually very confusing.
Especially surrounding APS and APS-C as many of the manufacturers have slightly different sensor sizes they put into their camera's, but all call them APS or APS-C.
Better talk about 'sensor diagonal size' just like we compare TV screens to each other.
FF (24x36mm) has a sensor diagonal of 43.27mmFuji APS-C (23.6x15.6mm) has a sensor diagonal of 28.29mmCanon APS-C (14.9x22.3) has a sensor diagonal of 26.82mmNikon APS-C (23.5 x 15.6 mm) has a sensor diagonal of 27.38mm
Taking the diagonal size of the sensor would be fairer to compare sensors then based upon their naming which is dictated by marketing.
They almost always state the crop factor, whether it be Canon at 1.6x, Nikon/Sony/Pentax/Fujifilm at 1.5x, Micro Four Thirds (and Four Thirds) at 2x, Nikon 1 at 2.7x and even Pentax Q at 5.3x and 4.5x(?).
So where were the 'equivalence' charts when reviewing the A7/R cameras? putting down the lens range compared to m43's... which if converted to m43's 'equivalence' would make a supposedly very poor lineup look like the most amazing lineup ever assembled in the mirrorless space... But since that didn't happen, here is the lineup again in m43's equivalent:
thx1138: Ain't competition grand. Alas the Canikon duopoly have no qualms charging extortionate prices, especially on lenses. We've seen the Yen plummet in the last 18 months and yet prices are still rising.
Good on you Panasonic for shaming Sony into action.
Now tell me again how much that Nikon V3 was selling for?
Because as long as lens and sensor 'specs' are comparable then everything should be the same price?
abortabort: Typical DPR 'we hate sony because they aren't fun', but this time with no actual explanation... Because there just really isn't one. So you praise Fuji for more direct controls, like aperture rings around the lens, exp comp dials and e-dials... But when Sony do it it's 'less fun' than a Panasonic with one miserable dial... Righto! Maybe it's the selfie screen that makes it more 'funerer'?
Ugh, but the RX10 has zoom and yes primes can be fun as well. I have never ever read DPR say that a camera is more fun because it has more zoom...
I don't hear DPR commenters banging on about how great super zoom lenses are for DSLRs because they are more fun because they have more zoom.
So again this is really really clutching at straws.
'zoom' does not make something more or less fun to shoot, sorry but that holds no water. DPR believe the X100/S are fun to shoot (I happen to agree) and it has no zoom.
A better grip makes it more fun to shoot? Come on, clutching at straws, again take X100/S, which has no grip...
I'd say that having direct and constant controls over Aperture, Shutter, Exp Comp and ISO that are always available, make something far more enjoyable to shoot than a slightly better grip and one control dial for everything.