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.
That is almost as stupid as the gilded toilet (yes they actually one through their website!) that I saw advertised on Lowes.com today.
Canon EOS 60D: This sensor was developed for "Automotive use" and not photography. Camera geeks/nerds stop complaining. You're barking at the wrong tree. LOL
It might be now but I'd imagine what they learn from this will trickle down to cameras.
lacikuss: Amazing how much faster and longer this Canon lens than Sony's RX100M3.
I thought Sony was bragging about their advanced glued lens design. Well they are just an electronics company.
Lenses are very hard things to judge based on specs. Wait to see actual results.
vladimir314: Im sorry and disappointed, but a camera without external flash possibility is no enthusiatic level camera for me and I would never buy it. May G8 X? :-)
Why would you want to put an external flash on a compact? It seems to me if you want to haul around the bulk of a flash you might as well bring a better but larger camera too.
Mariano Pacifico: Cellcams are light years ahead in features. iPhone, Samsung and HTC trounces Sony and Canon.
What is more important than features on a checklist is image quality and no phone can touch it when it comes to that.
george2013: Finally an articulating viewfinder. A touchscreen. But no hotshoe. That is a no no. Or in other words. My money stays in my wallet.
Why would you need a hotshoe on a pocketable camera that is designed for portability? Flashes are large and cumbersome. If you are going to be hauling one around you might as well bring a DSLR with a much larger sensor since you won't be traveling light anymore.
Pete peterson: I'm only interested in cameras with dials as I hate getting into menus for every change, but even if this camera's IQ is as good as the Sony RX100III, I wouldn't buy it cos it has no EVF. To me no EVF means putting on my reading glasses every time I take a picture then take my reading glass off so that I can see the rest of the world in focus, then put the on again to take or inspect the next picture - totally inconvenient. I bet most of the geeks developing this camera wear glasses, did they not think of us long sighted people?
The EVF in the RX100 III is awesome. It really does make a huge difference in the user expierence.
SaltLakeGuy: It's just sad Nikon didn't have the balls to come out with something a bit more groundbreaking than this. The real knife in the back for a camera that even pretends to be considered a professional tool, they neutered it with a 1/4000th sec shutter speed? Truly now what were they drinking...er I mean thinking. other than the flippy screen it brings virtually NOTHING new to the table. Not sure why they bothered. If they had half a brain they would have not crippled the shutter speed AND they would have allowed it to shoot at least 8fps. Oh well just wait another 2 years an just maybe they'll get it right. But probably not.
I think its rather silly to focus so much on one line from the spec sheet on a camera with a high level of specification in virtually all categories and a world class sensor. 1/4000th could be limiting in some circumstances but for the overwhelming majority of uses and photographers it will not make a real difference. There are a dozen lines on a spec sheet that make far more difference for most people in the real world so its really silly and myopic to use a word like "nuetered" to describe what for most people is a really minor thing that will make little or no difference on their results.
munro harrap: I have basic objections, general ones applicable to other manufacturers too.The screen cannot turn to face the body for protection against damage.I was angry enough when I found my D7100 lacked a screen cover.Yet another very expensive vertical grip. It is years since you could move a grip onto a new model body. This is a backward step as it still has low-pass filtration. After the D7100 and D810 dropped it (10 years later than everyone should've!) Nikon goes back in time to force us to use more noise reduction as we again have to sharpen the image- but never get it as good as a straight filterless dody.Which would have Sigma-like image quality.So at base ISO, my D7100 will give better results than a D600, D610 or D750-sorry but it's true.As to the focussing, the ability to move groups of focus points around the screen using the rear dial (which was designed for this in the first place), is lacking, so you cannot focus that way yourself, even manually.so why the D750
"So at base ISO, my D7100 will give better results than a D600, D610 or D750-sorry but it's true.:
That isn't remotely true and no tester who has compared both would say that the D7100 sensor beats the other cameras in any setting when it comes to image quality.
yesman12: WITH THE SIGMA 18-35 PROVIDING GREAT IMAGE QUALITY AND CONSTANT 1.8, AT A SIMILAR PRICE, WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THIS LENS OTHER THAN SIZE
I'd agree with you on APS-C but the Sigma will not work on a full frame camera. I'd imagine that very few APS-C shooters will pick this over the Sigma but this looks very promising for full frame shooters.
I've been really impressed by Nikon's 1.8 G primes. The 85 is especially excellent. I am glad they are adding this to their lineup.
CMurdock: The Sigma Merrill cameras have the best image quality of any pocketable camera, but DPR won't review them. I wouldn't dream of buying a camera (like this one) that has aggressive sharpening of JPGs that can't be turned off.
I used to be a RAW shooter but I've switched mostly to JPEGs now and I'm happy for that. What draws me to photography is the process of going out and taking photos. I enjoy the framing, the composition, the finding angles, the finding subjects, the engaging with subjects, etc. Thats what draws me in. Good modern cameras configured properly can produce fantastic JPEGS that are worthy of the gallery of any art museum or the cover of any magazine and I'd rather not spend time inside sitting at a computer processing raw files.
R Thornton: I cannot for the life of me understand why it is possible to build in GPS and WiFi in cameras, and not RF flash trigger. For GPS and WiFi - or even a hotshue - I do not care, but if the camera had an RF wireless flash trigger built in Sony could, rather sooner than later, also sell me an appropriate speedlight or two... to fully make use of this function.
brownie314: you gotta be kidding right? 2.5 fps - on the FAST model. 1.5 fps on the high MP model. I get it - these were not built for speed - but still - this is 2014! I would expect no less than 5 fps w/autofocus on the A7r and at least 8 fps on the A7 w/ autofocus. For me - this camera is a non-started just based on this. I can't justify $2k for a camera that is by far slower than my D7000. I have been looking at going FF - and was considering this camera - but no way - not at those speeds. D610 will have to do.
I'm a Nikon user but I really understand the appeal of this. To me the weight is a number that matters far more than the FPS. I almost never do anything but single shot.