JohnEwing: I can't imagine a serious photog tarting up his kit with this sort of thing, but if Fuji can milk the decadent to keep the company producing superb cameras, more power to them. It's not as if they were producing pearl-handled rosewood-gripped hyperuglified models of someone else's cameras.
An artist who cares about aesthetics? What's next? People hanging pictures on their wall because they look nice? People spending money on photos which are only good to look at? Crazy!
Langusta: 2 strips of cheap, self adhesive plastic priced 99-149£...Fuji please, don't hasselblad yourself.
You're paying for the entire infrastructure to customize your camera: the people taking and managing orders, the people doing the work, etc.
In other news, buying food in restaurants is more expensive than buying your own food and doing it yourself... Likewise, you're just not paying for the food.
dynaxx: "re-imagine" ? I know language has to adapt to new concepts but this mish-mash of mediocre attempts at tromp l'oeil doesn't deserve a new word nor our wasted time in looking at them
Nothing is being misused. They looked at the potholes, they re-imagined them as something else, and then they tried to recreate those mental images on film.
zodiacfml: Hmm.....very subtle update. I was hoping better so that S4 and other phones would drop in price.
People say a lot of things. I have an S4, it doesn't crash, freeze, nor overheat. Its a fantastic phone as determined by the vast number of positive reviews. The only people who could possibly say this was a "botched" phone are brand trolls.
RStyga: The 16MP MFT sensors have been refined since first announced but I remain skeptical of the MFT as a system. I own and use MFT cameras and find this system very flexible and efficient. However, I'm not sure that Olympus and Panasonic will manage to keep a steady progress indefinitely given the physical limitations of the MFT sensor.
Er... if somebody makes a magic cell phone that takes as good pictures as a FF Canon or Nikon with an integrated 14-200mm F/1.4 zoom lens, that will be the death of all camera divisions, not just Canon and Nikon. Nobody is going to buy a MFT camera when their phone takes better pictures... But I am personally not holding my breath.
Cane: Complaining that Zeis lenses are expensive is like complaining that Mercedes are expensive and that you can get an equally well made car for cheaper. To that Zeis will reply, "Yeah, so"
The Zeiss Otus is a Zeiss lens. Regardless of whether its manufactured at a Zeiss plant, its sold under the Zeiss name.
The *Sony* FE 35mm F1.4 Carl Zeiss is a Sony lens (hence the "Sony" at the front). It's like taking a Honda Civic and releasing a "Enzo Ferrari Edition". Honda might pay Ferrari to use the logo, but it'd still be a Honda.
And I'm not saying that to knock the lens, I don't care either way because the value of lens isn't determined by the branding. I would happily pay more for a Sony lens that meets my needs over a similarly priced Zeiss lens that does not. Its just that calling this a Zeiss 35/2.8 is incorrect.
balios: I'm seeing a lot of people saying "all metal construction". But I read reviews on the Sony Store (and some other sites) and people are saying a metal/plastic construction with plastic filter threads. Which is it?
Thank you. I was questioning why plastic threads wouldn't be mentioned, but if its just the hood, that's pretty reasonable.
Heaven is for real: People who are complaining about the price of this awesome premium lens should find a new hobby, passion or business...
People who get defensive over a lens should probably look at their priorities in life.
I'm seeing a lot of people saying "all metal construction". But I read reviews on the Sony Store (and some other sites) and people are saying a metal/plastic construction with plastic filter threads. Which is it?
RobertSigmund: An overpriced piece of glass. There are better and cheaper alternatives (Sigma and Canon are mentioned), just not for Sony E mount!
Whether its a different tool depends on the user, which I'm sure is the reason you compared to a Nikon 35/1.4G on a D800e.
This Sony looks like a great lens, but if you're shooting Canon or Nikon, then the Sigma is just as sharp (if not sharper) and is F1.4.
Lawrencew: Here in the UK it is interesting to note that the pre-order prices of the Sony A6000 (£729) and the Olympus OM-D E10 (£599) with kit lenses are both lower than the G1 X II (£749). And that is before you even add the price of the EVF to the G1 X II making it £949.You can argue they are in different segments, but for anyone just about to spend circa £700 on a new compact camera (i.e. none DSLR) the Sony and Olympus offer fantastic VMF for the feature set they offer in comparison.
To me, that's kind of how Walmart shoppers buy a camera. They look at overall generalities about the kit rather than looking at whether it gives them what they will need. So one camera has an EVF+lens for $800 and another just has the lens for $800, so option 1 must be better....
For somebody looking to buy a compact camera with a single lens, with a good zoom range starting at 24mm, with a fast aperture over that range, and with a fast sync speed for easy fill with basic flashes.... then perhaps the G1X Mark II will be their camera. The fact that the E10 includes an EVF may be of little value to them, or the fact they have to shell out an extra $300 for the EVF may be worth it. Others will disagree and perhaps the E10 will be what they want/need.
Having more is always great, but if its not what you actually need then the actual value of those features is low. If it comes at the cost of features you do actually want, then those extra features are utterly meaningless.
Does it have a flip screen, because I need that for selfies of me holding my Lunar.
digiart: All photos on the first page of the gallery are taken @ ISO 400 or higher. The nighttime photos I can understand why, but why use noisier ISO 400 and high shutter speed on so many photos in daytime when you are using a fast lens?
I think that for real life jpg shooting, its exactly what I'd use, as I'm not a pixel peeper and the blown highlights will be far more noticeable than a tiny amount of ISO 400 noise.
Markol: It started a month before Christmas, now we're 6 weeks past the event and still awards, awards, awards....I know they look great on the product page and help sell, but this site is still called digital photography Review.Just saying.
Polls like this keep the gear heads happy, as many people come here to have their gear vindicated. For example, most of the people wanting the K3 review don't actually want a review (because they already own one or otherwise know everything about it), they just want to DPR to validate their purchase. It seems that photography is now about "winning".
FriendlyWalkabout: @DpreviewDxo also reviewed this lens on nex-7. I don’t understand how it can get a phenomenal 29/36 mp resolution on the A7r while only getting 15/24 mp result on the Nex 7. I understand the nex 7 has anti aliasing filter, but it wouldn't make that big a difference would it? I see the very cheap canon eosm 22mm lens scores a relatively better 13/18 mp. Please help me understand.
If this Zeiss is resolving 29mp on the A7r (36mp, no AA filter), then the lens is the limiting factor at 29mp on FF sensors. If you put that 29mp-sharp FF lens on a APSC camera, then it can't resolve more than about 15mp. Even though the sensor is 24mp, that extra detail won't be sharp
15mp is very good for an APSC camera, that's about equal to the Sigma 35mm Art lens which everyone is raving about. Its better than all my Canon L lenses on crop sensor (but not on FF).
What this means is that having an APSC sensor with more than 16mp has diminishing returns. If you want to resolve more than 16mp, you should really look at getting a FF camera. To make full use of 16mp+ APSC sensors, you need to start looking at expensive lenses like the Zeiss 50mm Otus (21mp on 24mp ASPC, $4k) or the Zeiss 135mm APO (20mp on 24mp APSC, $2k).
I would say that for $1k, you are getting a very good lens.
Considering that 36mp cropped to APSC is something like 16mp, the fact that it gets 29mp on FF and 15mp on ASPC seems to make sense. It's about half for both cases, which is what you'd expect if you cropped your 29mp-sharp FF image to APSC size.
The "circle of confusion" of any lens aberrations are the same on both sensors, but the FF sensor has pixels that are spread out more with fewer pixels falling into those circles. Lenses are therefore sharper on FF, at least in the common central portion of the image.
Astrophotographer 10: A surprisnigly negative review. The reviewer clearly is biased against Sony. The excellent manual focusing ability of this camera - the best out there - is suddenly no good.Not my experience at all.Who tests an A7/r with junk legacy lense as well???How about the beautiful Zeiss, Contax g, Contax Yashica, Canon FD, Nikon AIS, Leica R lenses. The images posted from these are stunning.
Noone in their right mind is going to use a 17mm Vivitar which is a lens unsuited to this camera which the reviewer obviously does not know.A hatchet job of reviewing.
@ Tone Row
No its not anything like that. He's not talking about the optical performance of the lens / sensor combo. He's talking about the ease of use of manual lenses on the A7. The sharpness of the lens doesn't effect those aspects. For the people who didn't read or understand his article (and it appears many have not) he addressed four points:- auto-exposure modes with manual lenses- magnified view as a focus tool- focus peaking as focus tool- ergonomics (button/dial layout)
Had he switched his $10 Vivitar lens for a $4000 Zeiss 50/1.4 Otus, none of the issues he was addressing would have changed.
If his article is a hatchet job, why don't you (or the original poster) read the article again and pick a particular issue he addressed and explain why exactly he is wrong. You could also explain how a better lens would have solved that issue. That's a lot easier and more productive than making car analogies.
RAW processing on my phone/tablet for a single payment of $9?
vs $99 per year to rent similar software from Adobe?
And the winner is....
Der Steppenwolf: 150 bucks for something that costs tops 30 bucks to make including materials, now that's a nice margin !
The margin is not so nice because Fuji is still losing money selling cameras. Evidently there's a lot of overhead in bringing a camera system to market besides raw material cost.
I guess the need to be profitable makes Fuji (and other OEMs) an easy target for people criticizing them for crazy prices. I guess its easier to be a third party Chinese manufacturer who just has to worry about the accessories for established brands, which enables them to undercut such prices substantially. But ultimately they'll be out of business as well if companies like Fuji can't turn a profit.