dynaxx: "And for its full-frame range, Sony introduced a new lens class: G Master. "
Just in case this comment above is taken literally, the 3 new "G Master" lenses will work well with any "E "mount camera including the A6300.
@Dynaxx excerpt from the Digital Picture 5Ds review
"No longer is the 7D Mark II's pixel density an advantage for reach reasons – or for angle of view reasons."
Maybe a 24 MP camera has a slight advantage. If I know how to calculate pixel density on a sensor, I could make a stronger statement.
Still no histogram in Preview (or anywhere)? Maybe I am missing a setup item in preferences. Otherwise, this is bitterly disappointing.
@Thermidor, my original comment concerned the use of new and expensive GM lenses on an A6300. Everyone's experience with other combos is irrelevant if we stick to the strict rules of debate. I stupidly got drug into a discussion about a format I haven't used since 2005. I've thought about getting a crop camera for the "reach" but with 42/50 MP FF cameras in consideration, the "reach" advantage is minimal or non-existant.
So, why would anyone even consider an A6300 and its downgrade in IQ over FF? An unrealistic expectation of improved AF notwithstanding, cost mostly. Your savings would be quickly overcome from buying a FF lens for double the price of your camera that you'd only be using a part of. It's the whole crop camera ownership thought process that I don't understand.
Rick Knepper: In case someone hasn't mentioned it to DPR, the links to several of the RAW files pull the same image of the boxers.
The 24-70 GM looks very good based on the jpegs of the images I want to view. I'd like to see a landscape image with plenty of infinity in it. Let's see how the edge/corners stand up wide open.
You look and talk like a complete idiot.
Nimbifer: Cooked RAWs? Thanks for the information, DPR. That was all I needed to know.
I'll never ever consider purchase of such cameras or lenses. To me it is the exact equivalent of olympic athletes proven guilty of doping. No way, Sony. I do hope, DPR takes this into account in their reviews and will not hand out gold or silver awards to that stuff.
I am a little perplexed about the wording of the article. I would assume all of these helper features that are applied in-camera are embedded in the RAW for use in that camera's proprietary software. Third party software doesn't recognize those changes. I would have believed that ACR would be one such 3rd party software. I turned on all of these helper features in all of my cameras in case I decide for whatever reason I'd like to take advantage of them while believing ACR, my converter of choice, for 99.99% of my processing and conversions ignores them.
Tariag: Why dropping the Zeiss name for high end? Is the license too expensive? Or is the GM range under the CZ range (between G and CZ)?
Also I wonder how this lens compares to the A-mount CZ 24-70...
To Tasslenick & Zenetick: I derived my opinion from the many samples posted to DPR. Even at f8-11, the lens did not seem sharp to the edge/corners for landscape purposes. Actually, I coveted the A-mount CZ 24-70 for many years while I waited for an A900 successor (that would that camera's flaws). When the A7 series made a debut, I seriously looked at the IQ for the first time (yes, I just assumed the lens was fabulous because it had Zeiss on the barrel) and discovered its shortcomings.
Now it is possible, based on the comment about the E mount lens, that I have may been looking at samples from the lens instead of the A-mount version. Can either of you point me in the direction of serious landscape images shot with the A-mount lens that exploit the edges/corners without needing a crop?
And it's not like I haven't been called Ricky before. Address folks by their names like you are half way adult and you won't have to endure return zingers.
If I were shooting sports or any type of action, I would not be screwing around with a 7D2.
I think the GM range will be top of the line. You have to spend $4-5 grand to get Zeiss top of the line and those are primes.
The A-mount 24-70 CZ was mediocre which Is why Sony probably had to step in. Leave Zeiss to doing what they do well - primes.
In case someone hasn't mentioned it to DPR, the links to several of the RAW files pull the same image of the boxers.
Gee jack 0ff I doubt that.
Unlike Canon, Sony has a fairly wide selection of lenses for the E mount.
And yes, IMO, an L series lens is a waste on a Canon crop camera too. With the high resolution of current FF sensors, the reach factor of a crop cameras with 24 MP is mostly negated if you already own one of these high rez FFs.
Do any of you who only use APS-C cameras intend to buy to buy a GM lens?
I had pre-ordered the D500 and thought about cancelling that and buying the A6300 both of which would be for "reach" until I realized I wouldn't be getting much additional "reach" vs my 50 MPs cameras.
But would be a waste on an A6300.
Oh brother, que up the Startrek theme music.
Rick Knepper: Is it a Sony inside?
It matters to me. Why would I care what it wipes the floor with, much less a 7D2? Take your childish cr@p elsewhere.
Is it a Sony inside?
Rick Knepper: "A Leica rep expressed that anything over 24MP seemed excessive, and that the company put priority on the images and the experience, rather than the sensor resolution."
Tragically ignorant or dishonest, can't decide which.
I wasn't replying to you.
Why does this seem like a Sony-centric forum? Because of the easy adaptability, Canon users have been adapting many brands of lenses long before Sony released their first ILC.