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.
That sounds like a gamechanger.
peterharvey: Should I jump into the EVF mirrorless bandwagon now while the EVF is only XGA resolution @ 1024 x 768 & 0.8 MP, hence a pixelated view?Or should I wait till EVF resolutions improve to full HD @ 1920 x 1080 & 2 MP, and Canikon offers a mirrorless FF body compatible with their huge range of lenses?Presently, I'm holding off, because I know that history has proven that technology will definitely develop.For example, during WWII, the two way radio was back pack size!By 1983, Motorola released the world's first brick sized mobile phone called the Motorola Dynatac.By the 1990's, the mobile phone got down to TV remote control size.By the 2000's, the mobile phones became credit card sized!Today, the mobile phones have increased in size to become 5" smart phones etc.Hence, I'm holding off for a bit longer, before I move into EVF mirrorless...
I have one with that EVF. Itis a pitiful substitute for a real viewfinder in bright light.
FamlilyPhotographer: The optical quality is awesome...but the weight is damn heavy....i cant travel w 35 art and 50 art anymore :((make it lighter plzzzz
I also found the weight of those new Sigma primes to be a major turnoff.
munro harrap: An interesting tour, well photographed, thankyou.
Did you discover why the lens mounts and zooming and focussing directions remain, even in the "Art" series, incompatible with the way you use Nikon and Canon cameras?
I miss too the essential packaging being held up to examination. Nobody in Japan actually bothers to ensure we get the goods in one piecee now, which does invalidate the entire process. If you're not a website getting specially selected and protected gear for review, or extremely lucky.
You must have the worst luck of anyone on this forum. I've never had to return a body or lens because of it coming in defective condition and I've been buying cameras and equipment for years.
Guidenet: I think "Travel Lens" really is a contradiction. For many, they travel on holiday or vacation and that's the time they might use their camera the most and the time where they may see things most worth photographing. Why on earth would those folks then choose to trade off IQ for convenience? I would think a good travel lens would be the very best optics you can afford, not some super ratio zoom, unless photography is not that serious.
I think people use travel as an excuse to buy such a lens because they might should have purchased a bridge or super zoom compact in the first place. All zoom lenses compromise optics to a degree, but the better 2x and 3x models begin to rival prime lenses. A 10x lens just increases those optical compromises too much, IMO.
I get the super zoom to some extent. In my earlier days I'd pack multiple bodies and lenses for every trip and make photography the central component of my trip. Now that I am married with several small children, I can appreciate the use for a smaller setup that trades some ultimate IQ for portability and convenience. Nobody wants to wait for dad to stop and change lenses for the tenth time that morning and I certaintly don't want to be hauling a big camera bag around in addition to everything else I now bring with me. So now my Nikon FX gear generally stays home on family trips (though gets far more use than anythingn in my stable overall) and either a Sony Nex or RX100 comes with me. I've got to say that I really don't miss the weight and hassle of a big setup. Were I still 28 and traveling alone I'd still probably bring more gear.
tom1234567: You pay for the name always the same Sony is one camera I would never buy
Sony makes some of the most innovative and capable cameras on the market.
People can hate on a camera like this all they want for missing this feature or that feature or not being groundbreaking but the fact is that cameras like this nowadays are capable of incredible results that could feature on the cover of any magazine or hang on the walls of any gallery. Not to mention they are capable of higher image quality than bodies that cost thousands more a few years ago. We are living in a golden age for photography.
LDBOK: Nine people already own a lens that isn't yet available and two have owned it and sold it! Amazing!
It is on sale in other markets.