gregbartgis: I think the best question is Rich's. Why on Earth would a lens with such great reach not be optimized for the longest FL? This makes no sense, since anyone buying it is generally buying the 600mm lens with the capability of having shorter FL's if needed. If they at least optimized it at, say, 400mm, then overall performance would be at least acceptable.
The Sony 70-400, Nikon 80-400, and other similarly expensive long/slow zooms are better than the Tamron here while covering a wide focal length range.But those lenses have a lower max focal length, and cost about twice as much. For a more aggressive long zoom that sells at half the price, it's hard to fault the Tamron.
That being said, I wouldn't buy any of those lenses. Using f/5.6 at long focal lengths is an absolute nightmare with low light/fast action. Even a 300/2.8 (I have a Nikon 300/2.8 AF-I for about $2000) has enough trouble, requiring ISO 6400 more often than not.
I think it's just very hard to optimize for long focal lengths when covering a very large focal length range. The vast majority of telephoto zooms don't do that well at their longest focal lengths, or are at least weaker there than at shorter focal lengths. The ones that do turn in a convincing performance at their longest focal length tend to be really expensive zooms covering short zoom ratios (i.e., the constant f/2.8 ones)
The best Fuji lenses are optically better than anything from Canikon.
Also drop the f/1.8 thing. For an APSC system this is f/1.2 lens.
Firstly, it's not equivalent to a 85/1.2. It's closer to a 85/1.8 on FF in every way, including subject isolation and low light performance (since FF sensors are larger and at least a stop ahead on those fronts).Secondly, I agree that resolution is not everything. However, Nikon/Canon 85/1.8 lenses offer good bokeh characteristics, distortion control, and build quality for quite a bit less. What other characteristics do you have in mind?We've all spent quite a bit of time using our cameras/lenses, and quite a bit of time looking at the results. Being vague and making the (usually false) assumption that others here don't use cameras/lenses often doesn't achieve anything.
OceanFroggie: Nice camera wrong mount. If the non canikon also rans produced stunning cameras like this with either the Canon or Nikon mount they would sell more bodies.
To me, Canon's winning right now for three reasons: excellent video capability, a very solid repair/servicing department, and a large existing user base (which helps them make money off lenses and get new users more easily).Canon's not winning because of still image-related features. In fact, some Canon users I talked to said they would have gone with Nikon if stills were their only focus.
Horshack: With the advent of very fast CDAF (and CDAF/PDAF hybrid designs) plus 11fps such as on the A6000 I wonder if this technology can be acceptably replicated by using an automated focus-bracket mechanism, where the camera's processor identifies different focus subjects in the scene and brackets to each. The user can later select one of the photos for selective focus on a particular subject or the camera can create a focus-stacked composite for when deep DOF is desired.
The problem is that you can't take bracket for fast moving subjects, because even at 11 fps, each frame will be slightly different.
RichRMA: Why do they list (above) "kits" containing third-rate, slow SD cards, junk tripod, ridiculous (you REALLY going to put one of those on a 24mp DSLR???!) tele/wide adapters and no-name camera cases? The SD card alone is a disservice to a modern, fast DSLR.
I agree about the tele/wide adapters.However, slow SD cards don't matter if you aren't shooting sports (because you won't be shooting bursts). And even flimsy looking tripods can be made to work if you don't extend them and use a light lens (which most people will do anyways - few people take landscape or group pictures with a 300/2.8).
driftnomore: sony ,flourishing the market with a new camera almost every month.//>,.,)(**&&^%%@$%??//???? STRUGGLING?
They are still interesting ideas. This one in particular is interesting for video. The only other option for really high sensitivity video without dropping $5000 is a used D3s, but that only does 720P.Really wish Sony had put this in a traditional DSLR, though. Then it'd really fill a gap (i.e., D700...)
peevee1: Doesn't GH2 require UHS-II for 4k video? UHS-II has extra set of contacts, it is not just about speed.
The Sandisk Extreme Pro 95 MB/s are actually marked as class 10 (10 MB/s) cards, but obviously perform far above that in a camera/card reader that supports UHS-1. The same probably applies to those Transcend cards.
Wing Wong: Hmm... "Class 3" UHS-I = 95MB/sec read and 85MB/sec write? Sandisk Extreme Pro UHS-I cards have been at that that performance level for a few years now. That, and I'm sorry, but have had too many crappy Transcend cards crap out on me. Sandisk all the way.
32GB Sandisk Extreme Pro cards for my camera. (95MB/sec read/write)128GB Sandisk Extreme Plus card for my laptop/camera (80MB/sec read/write)
All of the Sandisk Extreme cards are rated against harsh environments as well. Have yet to have one fail on me.
I'm pretty sure that 95 MB/s figure applies to read only. I benchmarked one (95 MB/s 8 GB Sandisk Extreme Pro) in my laptop SD card reader. While the read speed is pretty close to 95 MB/s, the write speed averages around 50 MB/s if I remember correctly. It'll be interesting to see whether the Transcend cards can sustain 85 MB/s when writing....
Ray Chen: Love it that I can compare it directly to its primary competitor, the Canon 1D X, NOT!
What makes you think the Canon sensor isn't as good? The 1D X also has a good reputation when it comes to image quality (especially high ISO performance).
The image of the K-3 is really nice.
On which modern full frame camera would there be a noticeable difference between ISO 100 and 320?
AbrasiveReducer: I hope Roger will do a dictionary of cliches as well, starting with "built like a tank". Is there any photo equipment that isn't built like a tank? Didn't think so.
I don't think there is any photo equipment that is built like a tank (or exceptionally durable). Anything made entirely out of plastic is not built like a tank because holding it won't give you frostbite when it's below freezing outside.Anything with metal is not built like a tank because it doesn't bounce when dropped (and dents are bad).
bossa: The K-3 smokes the D7100 in any comparison apart from maybe focus tracking. This comparison is a travesty for the following reasons: A. The sensor shake reduction mechanism can do (i) amazing star tracking when combined with the O-GPS, (ii) horizon correction (iii) sensor shift (shift lens anyone?) (iv) sensor shake based AA filter
B. The new hi-res exposure system C. the silky shutter D. 25 cross point AFE. f2.8 AF system that works way down low (in the dark almost)F. Huge buffer for 23 RAW shots at 8 fps G. superior ergonomics (ISO right where you need it and DOF Preview on the shutter button lever etc etc)H. The Green Button and numerous exposure modes Nikon never heard of.
The K-3 is a no brainer when compared to the D7100.
PS: The new AF system also uses the new hi-res exposure system to differentiate and track.
I'm not picking a favorite here, but to be fair:-Your points about the sensor shift system are valid.-"hi-res exposure system" - metering sensor resolution has little to do with metering accuracy. -silky shutter - Nikon's APS-C shuttersare quiet too-25 cross point - Nikon off-center non-cross points are still extremely good, and will pick up even the tiniest bit of detail in the right direction. I often forget that they're not cross points.-f/2.8 AF system - why does that matter? Nikon's AF is extremely accurate, even with f/1.4 lenses. I don't think it'd benefit much from having dedicated f/2.8 sensors.-buffer: fair point-superior ergonomics - that's debatable. I agree about ISO, but prefer Nikon's dedicated switch for turning on LCD backlight. -exposure modes - "TAv"? Nikon has that too. Just set manual mode and auto ISO to get exactly the same thing.Also, when you take lenses into account, Pentax is really lacking some high end telephoto lenses.
Looks ok, although it seems like some detail is lost to noise reduction even in the base ISO shots. Moving up the ISO scale, it still seems like the JPG engine should be doing a better job (because modern full frame sensors are so good that anything below ISO 800 is basically considered low).
It would be more interesting to look at processed raw files without noise reduction applied.
Yanko Kitanov: This sample's aim is to that the AF is not accurate or it shows that someone had hard-time focusing?
Yes, the nose/glasses rim is in slightly better focus than the eyes, but absolutely no one cares. You have to pixel peep and stare pretty hard to see, and you really can't blame AF or the photographer's focusing capability when it's that close and there's time pressure to take the shot quickly. Also, the shutter speed isn't high enough to guarantee a perfectly sharp image (people move, and 1/50 doesn't give much confidence), so focus being millimeters off isn't too relevant.
Axibis: Is DSLR going to die soon?
Mirrorless cameras are more portable, but still can't match the AF tracking capability of DSLRs at the same price point, and have short battery life. That's two pretty big shortcomings.
Well, having a continuous quiet mode is a bonus, but I really hope there are more changes under the hood than a new shutter mechanism and tiny framerate boost.
Graham Hill: Wow, this lens is soft. What is the point??
Given that you can get a used, autofocusing 80-200/2.8 for $600 (or less if you're willing to compromise on AF speed), this lens is a stop and a half slower than what you could get for that price.
Mr Fartleberry: I want to believe ... but the fact is no one is abandoning their Canikony lense in any class to use the Sigma. Unless they're a shill like I've seen in the Canadian photo press.
Nothing against Sigma but your past history follows you around. It's just not a simple case of throwing your shittty underwear in the wash with a sheet of Bounce and think you'll come out smelling like .... mountain meadow.
"past history follows you around"....I think Sigma right now is an excellent example of how a company can turn around from a bad reputation by doing an exceptional job. They're not just making lower quality, cheaper versions of common lenses anymore. Recently, they've put out:-18-35/1.8: no other manufacturer has a f/1.8 zoom-35/1.4: as good as (or better than) first party versions for a lower price-USB dock: adjust lenses without having to ship them offAnd that adds to their already strong portfolio with lenses like the 120-300/2.8 (no one else has a 300/2.8 that zooms back)In terms of lenses, Sigma right now is on track to beating first party manufacturers at their own game. If they continue to play it right, Sigma could come out smelling like mountain meadow.