Clint Dunn: Much ado about nothing IMO. It's really pretty simple....Full frame will ultimately give you better image quality.A) Can you afford itB) Are you a good enough photographer to exploit the quality afforded by larger format cameras.
Or, do you want to futz with it? A pain in the ass camera is more likely to be left behind, and we all know the best camera is the one you have with you.
I can certainly agree that Full frame is not always the ultimate end point to aspire to. I thought it was and bought only FF lenses and such. Then I got tired of carrying so much crap, and invested in mirrorless APSC stuff, and could not be happier. I would say the same could be said for fast glass. 2.8 or wider is not always the best lens for a job. This is the same as saying the largest and fastest car is always the best. I would counter that downtown where speed is restricted and parking a large car is troublesome is a case where this is not true.
I will say that buying full frame lenses in anticipation of going (or maybe going) full frame in itself is not a problem. But people need to be aware that they will need to shift their expectations.
mosc: I actually think the reverse upgrade path makes more sense. There's no reason FF cameras can't utilize APS-C glass effectively. The 36 MP D810 functions very nicely as a 16mp APS-C camera and you get every bit of use out of the lens it was built for.
Think about it. The FF lens on an APS-C body is overly expensive, large, and poorly placed for focal distance. The APS-C glass on the FF body has all the capabilities of the lens including appropriate focal distances, still saves on weight and cost, and the FF body's usability advantages are all still there. In fact, it's a wonder more FF guys don't use more APS-C glass! That Sigma 18-35 f1.8 works very comparably on a D810 to a 24-70 f2.8 FF lens. So too does the APS-C telephoto cheapys offering quite a bit of reach for a lot less money than a cheap FF tele lens with a teleconverter.
If you have two formats to juggle, clearly you want to prefer APS-C glass not FF glass.
You cant put a Canon EFs lens on a EF camera. This only works with Nikon and Sony. Also, some APS lenses will still cover FF image sensors, though I am sure it is a bother figuring out which do and at what focal lengths.
KavehNik: I just purchased a new a5100 kit and i was so excited to use the RAW mode capabilities on Aperture. However, i was disappointed to discover that my .arw file format was not recognized by aperture. So, I went on a wild goose chase trying to figure this out and realized that Apple has recognized .arw files for a5000 and a6000 but not a5100. so I am wondering how could the .arw file be any different shot on a a5100 than the others. This could be a major factor in keeping or returning the camera for me. Am I missing something here? How long before Apple recognizes a5100 and add to that list? Does anyone have a similar experience and found a solution?Thank you
Does apple support the DNG format? The arw format can be converted to DNG and used as a raw file.
And yes, this happens to every new released camera, regardless of brand or editing software.
exdeejjjaaaa: and Sony w/ its stupid hot shoes was left behind
However, I would like to see compatibility with older minolta flashes, like the 4000AF. This compatability can possibly carried forward to the F60M, given the right adapter.
You dont know that the new Sony compatible receiver wont also have the connectors for the other brands as well. There is no reason a remote cant have both.
mosc: when was the last announcement of an A mount lens before this?
last year in Novemberhttp://www.dpreview.com/products/timeline?year=2013&category=lenses
Edgar_in_Indy: I hope this camera finally starts to put pressure on Canon and Nikon to offer IBIS.
It's so obvious that not offering IBIS is just a way to get more money. I can't believe they've been able to get away with it for so long, but apparently their customers have been happy to double-dip, and to buy larger, heavier, more expensive, more complicated lenses, with more possible points of failure, and with compromised optics vs non-stabilized designs.
And the the fact that Sony's IBIS can be combined with optical stabilization is very exciting. I've been speculating for years about whether that would be possible, so I'm glad to see somebody implementing it. I can't wait to see how it performs.
Also, these ratings are just the median time before failure. This means half die before and half die after this stated time. So at 250K shutter actuations, one out of every two shutters have died. This could have been spread evenly from 1-249,999 actuations, or it could be centered around 90K actuations with only a few taking the figure up to the 250K. So this figure is not as telling as many make it out to be. Even if the stabilization mechanism was somewhat less robust than the shutter, it does not add much (if anything) to the cost of the camera, and 1-2 repairs are cheaper than stabilization on even a few lenses, even if you had to rent a camera while one was being serviced.
NumberOne: PART 1:Although this is good news regarding stabilization and «Sony» upcoming cameras in general, I still wonder about the one year old - and some soon to be released - «OSS» FE lenses, which don't make sense anymore, ie, prematurely obsolete after one year of life only, or from birth; in all honesty, I don't buy the idea that the new A7SII can take advantage of both systems at the same time... :)As for the grip, although it's deeper and certainly will improve holding - something I was asking for a while - its shorter height implies less comfort and/or putting one's pinkie below it; not saying it's not better, but have to try to come to a verdict... :)Another Custom Button seems fine also, but only if one can choose whatever the available options from all the menus... ;)"Kudos" for the all-metal E-mount - from the A7S I suppose - something that all A7 cameras should have had since their launch!
To be Continued...
No, if true, it would not be redundancy. The benefit would be additive, meaning you are getting MORE benefit.
Also, if false, making one camera that is not available with IBIS does not make all other lenses obsolete, as there are 15-20 emount cameras without stabilization.
piratejabez: In slide 3, the upper fourth or so of the image is blurred (look at the mountain top)... assuming this is post-processing?
No, it is blurred. This maybe in camera effects, post production, or maybe even the lens is wet. DoF would not change visibly from the base of the mountain to the top. Also, the trees on the left do the same.
I see impossible.
chida: In the last several years, so much of technology has happened. Photographers should learn to make optimum use of the available technology, instead of blindly hankering for more and more!
You know, I would do wet plate processing in my bathroom, but it is SOOOO hard to make an outhouse light tight.
halc: Why so slow lenses?
Where is the old Minolta optical-mechanical prowess?
And this is why the A mount still exists. A 70-200 2.8 or 24-70 2.8 are going to be the same size on a mirrorless camera as they are on a traditional DSLR. If this is most important, then go with A mount, because you would not be saving any weight or size.
In reality, good photography is beyond one stop of noise or one stop of DoF.
kevin_r: I'm just getting this definite impression that Amazon/Dpreview is at loggerheads with Sony.They seem to be sending a message that Sony will be treated with scorn and contempt unless Sony ponies up some moolla somewhere.Why do I say this?Look at the treatment the Sony A77 mark II is getting even though it has been out on the market since August already.Then, this specific article is clearly sending the message - "Oh, sorry, we didn't see you there - your cubicle was so small and unnoticeable....!"
Great way to go, guys. Keep it up. Sony will soon cave in and spend some moolla as required.
Some of the Sonys did use CF card, but still a "normal" format. Also, the Memory stick predates SD cards, and was offered as a smaller alternative to CF cards, without bendy pins, IOW, all the good stuff that SD offers. The Sony A100 battery is not forward compatible, but the A700 et al battery is backwards compatible. Beta tape was a superior format, which is why it was used by professionals in the video world. Blu Ray won the DVD replacement war. Innovations sometimes win and sometimes lose. What has NIKON or Canon actually innovated?
Did you read the article. They are showing a 1.4, a 2, and a 2.8 lens. The last is a super zoom, which is inherently slow. Also, slower lenses tend to be smaller and lighter, the basis of the mirrorless design. Higher ISO's make up for the loss of light gathering.
tripodfan: Why is the cover photo upside down?
mmmmm. Seems doubtful. Definitely firmware.
Retzius: Its funny that everyone gets mad at Canon if they make anything now without a touchscreen but somehow Nikon seems to get a free pass at putting a touchscreen on one single dlsr.
Why does a DSLR need a touch screen? It has buttons and dials.
Obviously, Canon sent the Australian version firmware installed to DPR in Washington State.
xpanded: What is the logic of posting a stand report of Fujifilm before posting news of all the goodies Leica announced today?
I would demand a refund if I were you! Double it!
Bjorn_L: Seems like a lovely pocket camera. Something to finally trump the Sony RX100 series. However the "multi-aspect" cropping modes is just stupid. How about using the entire sensor and letting us choose how to crop it ourself? Tossing out 25% of the pixels (or more) by doing what anyone with any photo editing software can do better on their own? It doesn't change the fact that this is the camera with the largest sensor in class (ignoring the APS-C bulky things). But all anyone who wants to trump this camera has to do is make a clone of it without these modes and they can legitimately claim to have a 25% effective larger sensor and a higher resolution as well.Dumbest feature ever.
If the lens can cover all aspects at any given time, then why not allow the whole sensor to be used at once, then crop later? You retain the maxium width for the 16:9 post crops, and all other crops. I would bet this is because the corners are a little too dark, and this is a way to camouflage that.
Dem boys is cheatin'.