chriscotec: I love the drama in this shot and really appreciate the work that went into it, but that is nothing compared to the amazing short film about Danny MacAskill, that you can see from the blog link above the picture. To my mind he is one of the most talented athletes on the planet. The great thing is he works with an equally talented film maker. I was blown away by "The Ridge". Please trust me, follow the story above.
Agreed. It's the most amazing sports film ever.
TomFid: Cool shot. The trouble is, for every technical tour de force like this, ten people have done it in Photoshop (or will), so the impact is much diluted.
That is troubling and speaks of a contrived world of perception that we live in.
cgarrard: Might be nice to see a few budget primes for this lineup too, get people into the system with less outlay.
An aggressive announcement regardless, and showing strength for the FE system.
They are totally not getting the word compact here. They need to go to school at Pentax. To me, the mirrorless body form factor needs small lenses to make sense. Pentax totally gets this. Their cheapest body has a full pentaprism viewfinder too. Anyhow, I'll stick with my Canon 6D and 40stm and voigtlander 20.
This is a really badly written article. It seems like it was written using Google translate from another language. Sorry but it's just really poor. The overall topic is I suppose interesting from a marketing standpoint. Otherwise, like, whatever. And yes, weak move, Canon.
Well stated article. The one thing I think that almost every comment overlooks in comparing mirrorless to dslr is......... the viewfinder. For too many people, including myself, EVF's simply suck. Even on the a7. It's like breathing canned air in a building vs going outside in the woods for fresh air. (Yeah, yeah, I know all about the evf information read outs and all that jazz. But.) When the viewfinders and AF find parity, then game over for the dslr. That gap is closing but is still wide. Sony continues to overwhelmingly lead the game forward regardless of market share.
Sony FE and Fuji X both seem to be chasing Leica with their compact systems by offering mainly beefy, metal, expensive lenses. I think you have to look to E-mount or 4/3 for the cheap systems, folks. But Sony is also chasing video market. Who knows. But the choices seem endless, and filled with compromises. Pick and regret or pick and just go with it.
papa natas: Mockups?Sony is making a mockery of themselves ever since Panasonic sent them to the corner.What happened to the Cybershot Department?No RX10 II?No new A7000?No 4K?How can I be a better photographer without some new Sony beefed up models for 2015?
I see no sarcasm in those comments. None at all.
iAPX: Impressive new additions to Sony Alpha 7 lenses, they are incredibly capable with awesome sensors and they deserve the best in terme of lenses.
The sad point is that their smaller size/weight being mirrorless will be offset by the lens size and weight, I don't see the point to go mirrorless if at the end of the day, your bag is the same size, as heavy and as expensive than a full frame slr?!?
The Canon 40mm 2.8 STM is smaller and lighter than the Sony 35mm. And it's less than a quarter the price. So there are production cost and size considerations against the Sony system too.
sportyaccordy: APS-C sensors of today have pretty much surpassed the last generation of full frame sensors (i.e. D7100 > D700). Any measure- QE, read noise, DR, color depth, whatever. 30dB S/N ISO is kind of a useless measure as larger sensors need higher sensitivities to maintain exposure for a given depth of field and shutter speed.
Where larger sensors are superior is in glass. For all intents and purposes the practical limit for modern lens speed is F/1.4, and lenses that fast have high trade-offs. In the context of APS-C vs FF, an F/2.0 lens for FF will be the same size/weight/price as an APS-C F/1.4 lens. The sensitivity issue is a wash, and in low light situations the loss of DOF is generally not a big deal, especially at the wide FLs where FF has a lens availability advantage. If there were more fast wide APS-C lenses for mainstream mounts I think a lot of folks would be less apt to jump on the FF train. I realized this researching the jump from Sony E to FE.
That's exactly what Fuji X mount is thinking. 56 f/1.2 etc. They're making it moot to need full frame for any reason at all. As long as you like EVFs! (which I do not... yet) On the other hand, the new apsc Fuji 16-55/2.8 is bigger, heavier and more expensive than the full-frame Canon 24-70 f/4 I just got. They'll have the same depth of focus, and the 6D's high iso mitigates the faster 2.8 of the fuji. So which body do you prefer? Little one with evf and smaller frame? Or the bigger one with optical viewfinder etc. But the gap is indeed closing. I'm not sure the manufacturers know what to do because of it.
Hubertus Bigend: What a stupid, trivial article. Photography is an individual matter. Of course the "upgrade path" plan is not a good plan for everyone, but of course for some people it indeed is. Case closed.
What a stupid, pissy comment. It's a great article on a website that is used by thousands of photo enthusiasts... focussed on gear! And what gear is best. Having gone from apsc to full frame and back again, and now back again, it's trade-offs everytime. There are only compromises due to physics. You want big quality or bokeh, but then you get big gear. You want small gear, you inevitablly shrink your gear's quality. Because it's about how light enters lenses and passes through glass and all that. There is much evidence that too many people are on a full-frame holy grail hunt, and this article dispels the myth. Precisely because photography is an individual matter, this article matters. And it's very non-partisan. It says: you can take good or lousy photos with both. Careful what you wish for. Here are some considerations. At the end of the day, pick them up and try them! Makes all the difference.
Everyone's tooting about how small the Sony bodies are. But look at the FE lenses. The 70-200/f4 is larger, heavier, requiring larger filters, and more expensive than the stellar Canon version. The 16-35 is a tad smaller, but not much. There are no pancake lenses that might befit such a small form body. For example, the sony 35/f2.8 goes for $800 and is way larger than the tiny Canon 40/2.8 which goes for $150, and image quality is really a wash between the two. Even the 35/f2is Canon is both faster, includes is and goes for less money. And at the end of it all, you have to want to look through an electronic viewfinder. I do not. Sony is clearly the most innovative. I take nothing away from that, and Canon seems to be lagging within this current 12 month period. But there is a lot of merit, for example, to the Canon 6D and it's array of lenses when you look at it from a system perspective.
This seems to really render some of the Fuji fixed-lens offerings a bit moot, no?
I still think the smaller RX100 series is a better second/portable camera for a dslr user. But as a stand-alone, this seems really compelling.
Finally, I think the "highest rating ever" is tipped over by its video prowess. Something that isn't a huge deal for all of us.
How much did Panasonic pay for this article anyway?
In fact Pentax were selling their 50-135/2.8 for a mere $750 last November in the US. Great lens. I wanted the 60-250/f4 to work but it sucked at f/4, and Pentax claimed it was operating as it should. So it was liquidated. But the 50-135 is great. Sigma needs to make theirs an Art or Contemporary lens and clean up the AF reliability then they'd get noticed more. They have a lot of momentum going with their new lenses. The small size factor is why I now carry a 70-200/f4 for my Canon 6D. Same focal length equiv and depth of focus as the apsc 2.8 and just as 'fast' considering the high ISO capabilities of the full-frame camera. 750g is great because it's balanced to the typically 600-800g weight of enthusiast bodies.
iae aa eia: I hope Fujifilm feels they have proved to their consumers and to themselves they could do a heck of a corrected lens, a heck of a sensor,... a heck of a very good camera that can deliver a heck of good image quality from this stupid little sensor (not stupid in a phone, though) and launch its successor with 1" sensors. Please, Fujifilm, satisfy yourself with this 2/3" once for all, will you? Or, just get into the phone industry!
But this camera is so very large for what's inside it. If they dropped its size to say... 2/3 of what it is, it would start to make more sense. And its zoom range is comparatively small too. I'm not sure what its advantages are especially now that the optical viewfinder (last of the species) is gone. Anyhow, sales will tell all.
When the KS-10 comes out (K50 replacement) with weather sealing etc, the enthusiasts here will have what they're looking for. This thing will dro-o-o-p in price significantly (not as much as K-01 but lots), and so if the grip works for you it'll be a great deal on a great camera with built in runway strip. You really have to hand it to Pentax for their big viewfinders in small bodies. This is so sorely overlooked by DPR and most other reviewers.
It's considerably larger than the Sony RX100. With a smaller sensor, but no faster a lens. And it's lost the one unique attribute of an optical viewfinder (probably the last non-dslr to have one). I don't think they upgraded properly here to interest the marketplace very much. I predict disinterest from buyers. I really like the ergonomics of the X10/20 and bought one for my mother in law for the OVF mainly. But for its size it could have a larger sensor for sure.
Paul Kersey Photography: This camera, with a 28mm 2.8(or faster) fixed lens would be fine for me, even if priced as high as $599
It's called an RX100. F/1.8 in fact. And it's less than $599.
Equivalence of total light is moot because sensor quality, pixel density, etc have much more to do with "clean" images these days. You can certainly generalize that a full-frame camera will have less noise. But my Sony a850 had as much noise at iso1600 as my Sony RX100 (well, not quite, but...).Your explanations of depth of focus are helpful, and the more basic understanding of sensor crop. But other than that, you just confuse and cloud the issues.
Lee Jay: So, as usual, Sony gets the optics and sensor right, and messes up the user interface and JPEG engine.
They've had the very same problem for a decade now. I bought a Canon S3IS (look it up) when it was new over the Sony competitor (I can't even remember the model number now) for the very same two reasons.
You'd think they'd eventually get with it in these two areas.
Agree with Miwok. Had both an a700/a850 and quick navi was great. Have a Canon 6D and they have essentially copied Sony. I don't like the smooth turning lens ring of my RX100 either. Other than that, the UI is fine.