Joed700: The first picture was a disappointment when looking at 100% magnification. Hardly any sharpness even at f/4. My Nikon 50mm f/1.4g @ f/1.4 has better sharpness than that; mind you the the Nikon 50mm f/1.4g is known for producing soft images; too soft for some...The 4th pix at the dinning table is practically useless at f/2; image making a large print...
I agree that he is missing the point. The lens isn't about maximum sharpness and 100% crops. It is about rendering which is something that is hard to quantify.
beavertown: D750 scored 90 and this scored 83?
Resolution isn't everything in the real world.
Raymond Bradlau: Just like any law its only going to affect the honest safe people... the reckless and unsafe flyers wont register. One more law to fix a fake problem started by the media.
I don't think it is a fake problem at all. Many airports have reported issues and it is not inconceivable that a drone could cause a major incident with an aircraft. We also saw an example last year of aerial fire fighting operations being hampered by a drone and an example of one landing on the White House lawn.
Given the explosion in popularity of the devices, I think the FAA is right to try to get out in front of this problem before it gets worse.
Will it stop all unsafe flyers? No. But you could make the same argument about mandatory car regestration and licenses. Sure some people still drive unregistered cars and drive without licenses but the number who do is much lower than it would be were there not criminal penalities.
The light is wonderful.
Lassoni: Never understood these super zooms. Very bad imo
I don't use one but for travel where you never know which shots I'll prst themselves they make a lot of sense. Hauling around a lot of lenses is a pain and if you have traveling companions it can be rude to them to stop every ten feet to change lenses.
Wubslin: Another disappointment from Sony that proves yet again that they are not ready for the pro market.
Maybe they should stick to games consoles and rootkits.
Sony produces excellent cameras that work well for a lot of uses and produce images worthy of the cover of any magazine or of any gallery. I'd imagine this camera is exceptional for many uses though clearly according to the article it is compromised for fast action.
LukeDuciel: Even as someone pro-big-lens, I still have to say, this is a failed design.
How can you say that without seeing output?
No thanks. The Sigma Art series is good but far too heavy for me. I like primes because they are light. Nikon's 20mm 1.8 is an awesome lens that is 357 grams. This monster is 950 grams. That is more than most pro 24-70 zooms. Going from f 1.8 to f 1.4 is not enough reason for me to carry a lens that is 145 grams heavier than a Canon 24-70 2.8!
ProfessorLarry: As a professional, I am concerned not just with the time it takes to switch lenses, but with the consequences. Every time you switch lenses in the field, you inevitable add dust to the sensor and to rear elements of lenses; it's a fact of life. If I can go through a day of shooting (as I did recently at the Writers' Police Academy at Fox River Technical College ) without having to change lenses , that's huge. The Tamron is a perfect choice for these situations.
--Larry Constantine (pen name, Lior Samson)
There is still a huge IQ difference between a ultrazoom compact and a good SLR with a superzoom. Particularly in lower light.
I would imagine that this sort of lens would be excellent for a journalist in applications that do not require good low light capability. For instance if you are taking photos outside for print in a local newspaper the sharpness and bokeh advantages of a high quality "pro" 24-70 type lens wouldn't make that big of a difference compared to lighter weight and greater range.
Great video. Thank you for posting this. That camera looks excellent.
Personally I have no interest in anything beyond 20-24 megapixels. That is more than enough for me to print at any size I want to print, to crop heavily, and for use on screen. Anything beyond that is just wasting precious storage space. Honestly I used to get quality 20x30 prints out of my 12mp Sony A700.
High ISO performance, DR, and AF speed make much more of a difference for me than more megapixels.
I used to haul a lot of gear with me on hikes. Were I still younger and hiking a lot, I think i'd go M43. Maybe I'd even just stick with something like my RX100 for most hikes.
Excellent work from my favorite country. Thank you for sharing.
wjr2000: Changing to full frame mirrorless is a good move, but why change the lens mount? Sony, please continue to produce cameras with the a-mount as promised when you purchased Minolta. Yes, you can use an adaptor with a notoceable delay in auto-focus - up to 9secs according to the Sony website, and a decrease in aperture size.
It has been clear for at least five years that Sony does not care about the A-mount and is not invested in it. I used to use Sony but left for Nikon because I did not want to invest anymore in a system that was so obviously not a priority and was so clearly a dead-end system.
These are some wonderful shots of my favorite country on earth.
My Sony 16-80 was optically brilliant but the build quality was poor. The first copy literally fell apart
Androole: Sony continues to add really impressive features to the RX100, but I feel like it's beginning to lose some of the appeal of the original camera.
There are 3 sizes of cameras:
1) Cameras that fit in my pants pocket.2) Cameras that fit in my jacket pocket.3) Cameras that fit in a bag.
The original RX100 was essentially in the 1) category, at least if you had reasonably large pockets. Just under 36mm thick.
The current M3 and M4 are now 41mm thick. 1.6 inches. That 5mm matters as it pushes the limits of what you realistically want in a pocket.
That's a stack of 6 iPhones in your pocket.
I'm sure there are some people that will be happy to jam it in there...but for me, even this camera now needs a belt pouch or a jacket pocket. Something larger but thinner like the Ricoh GR fits much, much better in a normal pocket.
My RX 100 M3 easily fits in a pocket.
Excellent work. The first shots is especially good.
I shoot Nikon FX now because of Sonys neglect of the alpha mount but have always had a soft spot for Sony cameras. My A700 was better than my Nikon D200, my RX 100 is amazing for a camera that's fits in my pocket, and the Nex camera it replaced was good too.