I'd have preferred if they had simply added a DC motor to the existing 55-300. It's a much faster lens and has good optics.
bobfonte: I agree: Great Review! It's not hate. But unrequited love. I'm rooting soon Sony has a range of good quality and affordable lenses. Then I'll be in the front row defending it and hoping for success.
Like what, say, Canon and Nikon offer. Or Olympus. Or Panasonic. As opposed to luxuriously priced Sony and Ziess lenses? Maybe? Perhaps? But it's a nice body to go with whatever lenses you want to spend heaps of money on.
bluevellet: That 18-50 compact sounds intriguing. I would like the mechanical shutter to be faster, but I understand this is a common limitation with those cameras.
I agree. Unique. The 18-50mm is an extremely interesting camera. Nice thinking, Nikon. Sounds like the perfect hiking and travel camera for those who like wide angle. Or a slick little star gazing camera. I'm still glad I got a 4/3rds with 18-36mm equiv lens, because then I can switch to a telephoto or bright prime. But the Nikon is compelling.
Babka08: Nice sounding camera. However. This is the incongruity of the Sony system. Lenses........ The lenses are either limited in availability (55-210 forever remains the only e-mount tele lens). Or they are ridiculously expensive (you get way more value out of Canon lenses for example). Or you are mounting some full-frame behemoth on to it with the additional size and weight of an adapter. People call them 'bulky' dslrs. When you add an adapter to a mirrorless they aren't bulky as well? It's the lens thing that doesn't add up here.
Sony is absolutely the most flexible with all of their adapters. In terms of their own lenses, less so, and expensive, and not small. Sony have had several years to offer another apsc e-mount tele. That's a long time, like, forever. They've obviously chosen not to. I think that's an oversight. I'm mainly pushing back against all of the fuss about Sony mirrorless being a "smaller" system and these dslr's so "bulky". It just isn't so when you piece it all together. All of this said, while I still have a Canon 6D and 20mm and 40mm pancakes, I've gotten into 4/3rds with an Olympus EM10-II and four teeny tiny lenses that were very good value for high quality. Each lenses is between 1-3 oreo cookies in size and a small measure heavier if the cookies are submerged in milk. Now that's a "smaller" mirrorless system by a long shot.
Nice sounding camera. However. This is the incongruity of the Sony system. Lenses........ The lenses are either limited in availability (55-210 forever remains the only e-mount tele lens). Or they are ridiculously expensive (you get way more value out of Canon lenses for example). Or you are mounting some full-frame behemoth on to it with the additional size and weight of an adapter. People call them 'bulky' dslrs. When you add an adapter to a mirrorless they aren't bulky as well? It's the lens thing that doesn't add up here.
agaoo: Any video features?
Don't count Pentax on being much for video.
Canon releases the M10 (four years late), and Sony is evolving its Leica killer already. Canon owns the lens market for sure, but Sony is the innovator in cameras.
Dheorl: I sure hope that viewfinder is considerably better than the one in the RX100.
The mark IV evf is quite nice already.
Photato: Would love to see this baby scaled down for 1" sensor.
Isn't the RX100IV already an f2 at 35mm? And isn't there a market of like three people for what you're suggesting? I think the Fuji apsc and Panasonic 4/3 has answered that question for everyone. And on the lower, ubiquitous end, Apple and Samsung phones.
Mathias Japri: why would sony design a "wart" viewfinder like that... is it just me? :(
Yes, you. The viewfinder on the RX100IV is very effective.
Anastigmat: Many Pentax users have moved on, tired of waiting for a Pentax FF. Not sure if they will return. It is one of the biggest blunders in Pentax history to have refused to release a FF until the DSLR market took a downturn.
Agreed. Hoya was a blunder. Ricoh has really been pushing things forward.
DukeCC: If this lens played better with Canikon they would sell a bunch of them--assuming the price comes down to a reasonable point.When you pay a lot for a lens you want to be able to say, 'Look at this great picture!' That will never happen with a superzoom.Nobody buys a DSLR to compromise it with a $650 mediocre-image-quality lens.
You can take amazing shots with this lens. You can take amazing shots with your iPhone. Or not. Up to you.
Bram de Mooij: Out of curiosity and as a reaction to some reviews I bought this lens, but I returned it the same week I bought it. Some talk here about elitism, but in my opinion you are better off with some of the compact cameras that cost us much as this lens. For instance the Stylus 1. Sharpness was not there and the purple fringing was the worst I have ever seen. Maybe I had a bad copy, but this was really the last APS-C or FF superzoom lens that I tried.
I immediately wondered if a Sony RX10 or Panasonic FZ1000 wouldn't be a much better idea in this category. You almost get the same depth of focus as well with f/2.8 or 4.
Anastigmat: That is long overdue. Manufacturers have been profiteering from artificially high prices on FF DSLR cameras, refusing to lower the prices even though the sensors do not cost all that much to make. The old excuse made about 10-12 years ago was the FF sensors were prohibitively expensive. Sony has in fact successfully made even larger medium format CMOS sensors so economically that most manufacturers have switched to them. It takes a slump in the DSLR camera business for manufacturers to finally reduce prices on FF models, but only at the low end, and we are given plastic bodied low end FF models as punishment for not spending more money on more expensive FF models. FF cameras need to come way down in price, and APS-C cameras should be phased out completely. There is no reason for APS-C models since most DSLR cameras are large enough to accommodate FF sensors.
I actually think the proliferation of apsc in the digital age is great. The lenses and bodies are in fact smaller. Take the brilliant Canon SL1 and their very light but high quality 10-18mm STM. That whole combo is lighter than either the camera or the lens in equivalent full-frame (including Sony mirrorless!). The viewfinder is a big difference when compared, but depending on the photographer, the apsc is more than sufficient in quality and image dynamics.
Mike FL: If SONY can start all over again, there will be NO "Translucent Mirror Digital SLR".
They were an interim step that they had to take. It's actually quite amazing that they have kept making them this long. I think they still see the huge market share of the DSLR and aren't willing to give that up. They would also disenfranchise a huge part of their customer base who might go to Canon Nikon. At the end of the day, the Canon Nikon lens selection is so vastly diverse and superior, and everyone forgets that lenses drive the detached lens camera market. Just look at lens value after 18 months vs the disposable computer technology of camera bodies. The death of the DSLR is a LONG way off. An a7 with a lens adapter basically mitigates any size disadvantage of a mirror box. The a7 weighs almost as much as a Canon 6D, and then the Sony lenses are all $1000-2000 and still quite large. I'll take the Canon 24-70 or 70-200 f4 is any day over the Sony.
mark power: Let's admit it, Sony engineers are brilliant - too brilliant. They apparently race one another to see how many features they can cram into a tiny space. So many picture options undermines the confidence of the photographer because who has time to test them all before deciding to make a photo? There's usually the nagging feeling, "if only I had..." let's have a stripped down version of the A7s. No video, few picture and scene effects, no auto cropping, face finders and so on. Just keep the essential features for good responsive intuitive photography. They could call it the A7pro. We'll never go back to film but the best film cameras just gave you what you need and didn't burden the machine with a lot of engineering hubris.
He's not saying he wants an a900. He's saying don't make the a7 the Microsoft Word of cameras. And I agree. Apple proved this with "it's what you leave out that's most important".
I'm a stills shooter who sometimes does a bit of video. And I hike. And shoot slowly. And I like good quality primes. Sounds like a winner to me.
Randy Veeman: We've known this since the A7 was released. Sony said they are only focusing on Full Frame lenses. At the A77ii release Sony kept talking about the FE line up.Take away FE sales and I bet Sony ILCs despite high unit sales are losing money (just like the p&s models did for so many years).
I think the RX100 p&s model is doing pretty ok.
Suave: Lenses, they have to make the leses first. More and cheaper.
I can buy a Canon 50mm 1.8 STM for 150 bucks. I have to shell out SIX times that to get ANY 50mm Sony full-frame lens. OR I use an adapter, which makes the camera bigger and heavier, and it's not a total connection with fast AF, etc. I can buy a Canon 40mm STM which rocks and is like it's not there. The closest Sony is a million dollar totally basic 35/2.8 that is bigger and heavier. The 24-70 Sony isn't as good by any stretch as the Canon version. Guess which one I get to pay more for? I don't shoot video. I prefer the instant, real view of an OVF. Where is the mirrorless advantage again?
lumigraphics: I had an A850 and loved it. But the shift to EVF killed it for me. Not even considering going back unless they bring back an OVF.
Whatever they may "do", EVFs don't "look" as good as an OVF, period. And it's the looking glass you look through. It's not about doing, it's about looking. Not there yet, sorry.