dlkeller: B&H doesn't list VC as one of the features in the Sony version. If this is true Sony A mount users are being screwed again. Hope it isn't true as it looks like a lens I would buy--but not if VC is left of my version.
Sony's legacy A bodies have VC built-in but they seem to be abandoning A mount. Their NEX E bodies do not. I couldn't find whether the new A7 E body has IBIS or not but I assume it does. So why not make all future E lenses with VC to work on all E bodies? Since the Tameron design already has VC, why take it out?
With the A7 it sounds like Sony has abandoned the A mount that Tamron is planning to put on this lens in favor of the E mount. Shouldn't Tameron be selling E mount and to market a lens for E mount, shouldn't it have image stabilization to use on NEX cameras? I would assume that if you had both body and lens stab, you would just shut one off.
Meyricke: I don't currently use Photoshop - I use a version of Corel Photopaint that is a few years old. My concern is that if Adobe are going down this path - as Microsoft also appear to be trying with the new version of MS Office - how long will it be before the other main software houses follow suit?
Like many others, I wish to own the software that I use so that I know exactly what I own and how much it costs.
I think if you read the fine print you will find you don't own any of your software, you have just bought a perpetual lease on a license to use it.
Is DPR actively helping Adobe with damage control?
It seems like they are trying to provide Adobe with some feedback on how to make their marketing change more acceptable to DPR's readers. Is that a bad thing?
tesilab: I've read the camera guide discussing the different types, and was astonished that so much of the information about mirrorless systems is out and out false!
What is with this list of disadvantages?
* "Fewer models / brands to choose from" -- Fewer brands? Panny,Oly,Sony,Canon,Nikon,Pentax,Samsung is fewer?* "Limited continuous ('burst') shooting capabilities" -- is 10 fps limited? This implies bad burst speeds to the uninformed* "Electronic viewfinders cannot match the clarity of a good optical finder"-- this may be still marginally true, but there is no mention of the exposure/effect preview benefits of EVFs to counter this"Current models offer relatively poor low-light performance"-- this isn't defensible given comparable results for the same sensor sizes on DSLRs.
Also, I realize RX1 is new, but the flat out statement that FF is only available in DSLR format, is just not the case. Is this recycled text from years ago?
Agreed, and to that I would add:
"the 1.5 / 2X crop factors of mirrorless ILCs offer less control over depth of field than full-frame DSLRs" While true, this is a function of the sensor size and not the mirrorless format. The same could be said about some of the most popular DSLR models (with mirrors) from all the major manufacturers. It isn't a mirrorless disadvantage.
JesperMP: I am in the camp of "dont care about beautiful or ugly as long as it takes pictures".
Now after thinking about it, I think that Nikon missed out on one opportunity.The big viewfinder hump (which seems to be what people dislike so much) is big enough that it could have been tiltable ! And since it would be integrated into the body it would be much more rugged than the add-on VFs some other mirrorless offers as options.Now THAT would have been a distinct advantage no other current camera has.
My old Minolta A2 from 2004 managed to pack in a tiltable viewfinder, tiltable view screen, auto screen/view switching, popup flash, and a standard hotshoe. Plus it had a PC synch socket. Still waiting for a modern small camera to match those features. The V2 manages only the popup flash.
Everyone has their favorite elements in the existing test screen. I often use the detail in the globe someone mentioned earlier. Also, it's amazing how many cameras, including some pro and semi-pro gear, have trouble resolving the double tic marks on the hours in the watch at the lower right.
marike6: Why not just carry something like a CF Benro Travel Angel or if you just want a stable platform for a P&S, a Joby GorillaPod? The Travel Angel is more than sturdy enough for my D800, yet extremely lightweight, making it not at all a burden to carry.
The Travel Angel weighs three times the Zipshop weight and sells for eight times the price. These may be reasons "why not?" for some people.
Gunnlaugur Gudmundsson: I live in Iceland, I'm an Icelander... may I go against the grain, i.e. be a bit critical
and comment on my country... as a native
these pictures are not Iceland... they are over-processed ... the Barbie-Ken version of Iceland /photography... if you like...
very good technically.... but they don't portrait Iceland as Iceland is...
what I'm trying to say is this, the pictures are excellent, but Iceland is something else...
a windy place,,, light, dark... and very moody,
these pristine and excellent photos capture a dream.. 1% of Iceland,, the 2 week tourist selection of best photos...
Undoubtedly true, but I don't think it was the author's intent to create a documentary. He tried, and I believe succeeded, in creating beautiful images, gleaned from a harsh environment, that are unusual to those of us from lower latitudes. (and from what you say, may be unusual for Icelanders too!).
Not many readers are likely to think he just stepped out of his hotel and snapped these shots. The fact that they required significant planning, effort, and talent just add to their uniqueness. I appreciate that he included some details, technical and otherwise, to help us learn.
Overprocessed? Again, he said he was creating art. Also, until cameras can capture a scene as we see it, or imagine we would like to see it in our mind's eye, some processing will be necessary.
Sounds like a bit of a disconnect between engineering and marketing...
"the EOS M - is unashamedly targeted to [compact-camera upgraders]"
"Targeting an enthusiast buyer, the camera plus 22mm pancake will be available from speciality photo stores only for $799"
choochoo22: Shot with identical settings, the new sensor is visibly brighter. It will be interesting to see what other differences might exist.
SHood I think you're right, they do seem to darken as they scroll up the screen.
Shot with identical settings, the new sensor is visibly brighter. It will be interesting to see what other differences might exist.
Thanks. I read reviews with images on my big screen PC but I check the "what's new" list and scan articles for interest daily on my Droid. This is a BIG improvement.
choochoo22: Could someone who would actually consider buying one please help me understand why a professional photographer would put up with cameras the size and weight of a D4? Is it really just "mine is bigger than yours"? Unless you are using them to club your way through crowds it can't possibly be an advantage to wield a 4lb (guessing) camera the size of a shoebox. There's nothing in there that isn't in a D5100, just a slightly bigger sensor and more computing power. I would think Nikon, or any competent camera company, could build something like this half this size if the market demanded it. So why aren't people demanding it?
Back in the 70's the OM-1 showed the world an SLR didn't need to be so big and heavy and in a few years all the companies were making smaller models. It seems way past time for a similar revolution in DSLRs.
Sounds like a little bit each of:
a) You don't believe the electronics can be shrunk. (the physical elements already exist in smaller cameras which, themselves, should probably be shrunk) I think anything electronic can be shrunk.
b) You like having the vertical grip built in vs removable.
c) You like mine-is-bigger-than-yours.
Thank you, now I think I understand
DimiExter-- I think you may have missed my point. I'm not suggesting you don't need the features of a D4 or that a D5100 is in any way just as good. I'm just suggesting that the D4 functionality could/should be in a smaller and lighter package. Wouldn't those sports and conflict shots be easier to capture with a more agile camera, particularly in crowded situations? Not to mention transportability.
cjep1- Balance seems like a valid concern but when you are shooting hand-held, don't you generally support the lens-camera with the left hand and control with the right hand. I don't quite see how a lighter camera would be a disadvantage. Weight aside, it would seem the bulk of a D4 would be a hindrance in any hand-held situation.
aaaja: "mirrorless"? what an unword! - why not "coffeeless" or maybe "tireless"??
So please guys stop that please..i beg
Revenant-- I agree with your line of thought but the water is muddy.
The SLT designs generally are included in "mirrorless" discussions for good reason, even though they do have mirrors, and the new Canon G1-X and Fuji X100 will doubtless be compared to this group because of their sensor size although they aren't "system" cameras.
Could someone who would actually consider buying one please help me understand why a professional photographer would put up with cameras the size and weight of a D4? Is it really just "mine is bigger than yours"? Unless you are using them to club your way through crowds it can't possibly be an advantage to wield a 4lb (guessing) camera the size of a shoebox. There's nothing in there that isn't in a D5100, just a slightly bigger sensor and more computing power. I would think Nikon, or any competent camera company, could build something like this half this size if the market demanded it. So why aren't people demanding it?
Where's the filter thread?
Am I the only one who thinks a camera in this class needs to accept threaded filters?
Defines the category by what it is not. The entire boatload of compact cameras could be called mirrorless.
Unfortunately, a better term has yet to achieve general acceptance and we all seem to know what is meant by "mirrorless" so it will likely be hard to get rid of.
leicaman: Sorry Canon. Too little too late. The market for enthusiasts has moved on to APC format interchangable lens bodies with OLED mirrorless TTL viewfinders.Fuji, SONY and probably even Nikon will own the market. This goes for professional level DSLRs as well.The DSLR is dead, Long Live the mirrorless TTL.
I think you guys are shortsighted. Perhaps no one has gotten the "mirrorless" formula right yet but even the few valid criticisms will either be fixed in a couple of years by Moore's law, or by experience and feedback. After all, SLRs have been around for what, 60 years? Vs maybe 3yrs for mirrorless.
My prediction; by 2020 you will still be able to buy a new camera with a flipping mirror but not many people will, like film cameras today. By 2030 single-lens-reflexes will sit on collectors shelves next to twin-lens-reflexes, regardless of film or digital sensor.