QuantumPhysics: Can I post twice? I neglected to mention that all the lenses identified in my comment are without image stabilization. But for digital work with the A7 II they are now stabilized on three axes--you just dial in the focal length. The Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L is a zoom, but using the metabones adapter, focal length is communicated to the body.
The point I am making here is quite important. Low light performance is improved by three or four stops by image stabilization, compared to Canon and Nikon, so you can work at lower ISO levels in the first place. I think the images are just sumptuous using lenses I never thought suitable for digital cameras. (Have you checked the price on a sub-645 Hasselblad digital back lately?)
@HFLM: But it does help if you don't need a minimum shutter speed to freeze the action.
Francis Carver: Sony should be getting out of the lens business fast -- they are simply awful at it. Stick with what you know -- making cameras. Leave the lens business to the companies who make lenses for a living.
This all-in-one travel zoom might be a reasonably easy sell at $300 -- but an impossible sell at around the indicated USD $1,000 price point.
They messed it up badly with the entry-level 7-blade aperture, the lack of witness markings on the barrels, and particularly the darker than the Black Hole of Calcutta iris specs. F3.5 at 24mm???? Going all the way down to F6.3?
Has Sony gone raving mad, finally? Apparently. This thing is totally useless for videography, and a bit large and cumbersome as an easy to cart about travel companion. So, who is it made for exactly?
@Francis Carver: The price is indeed too high. However, you will not find a full-frame superzoom lens for $300 (new). If you know a similar first party FULL FRAME autofocus zoom lens that is near a 10x zoom for that $300 price, please reply with it. Failing that, we will know you are asking Sony to provide something that nobody else even provides. I think that $600-700 is reasonable.
Also, for long zoom lenses, f/3.5-f/6.3 is absolutely normal. This lens doesn't stand out, but it is no worse than the norm. APS-C kit lenses are f/3.5-f/5.6 usually, and longer zooms go down to f/6.3. That's the way it is. Sorry. Do you want a 24-240mm f/2.8 constant? Please list any maker who has such a lens. I'll be waiting.
Finally, do you realize that those autofocus "Zeiss" lenses exclusively for Sony are actually made by Sony but just have the Zeiss name on them? Maybe you should do research before you make claims that are false and ask for things that no other company even provides.
ThatCamFan: If the people arent working fast enough to keep up in the industry, perhaps some should be let go.
@Jahled: I guess Microsoft said the same thing back in 2009 with Internet Explorer.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Usage_share_of_web_browsers_(Source_StatCounter).svg
Come to think of it, I bet Nokia thought the same thing.http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/.a/6a00e0097e337c8833017ee7da0bed970d-pi
Canon's slide (if it does not innovate as much as its competitors) will be less rapid (mostly due to people with large lens collections and newbies who only know the "Canon" name), but I would definitely not shrug off the threat like both you and Mr. Maeda seem to be doing.
Remember...Nokia stayed on a steady course. Sometimes, you need to veer from that steady course to embrace the future.
If the past few years have not convinced people that Canon is out of touch, this interview must have. I don't know if Mr. Maeda doesn't know what's going on, or simply doesn't care. He offered really no information (which is common anyway in these interviews), but made some comments that are definitely worrying.
He did not know that it had been 7 years with 22 megapixel Canon cameras. Then, he said that Canon achieved better pixel-level image quality AND more megapixels...yet the maximum ISO is much lower, and despite what he says, that means the pixel-level image quality is worse.
Mr. Maeda has learned "nothing" from Nikon or Sony. He has not done any research into what mirrorless cameras would sell well in America. "Nothing" frightens him about possibly the largest existential threat to Canon. He talks about an "8K" future, but can't bring 4K to current cameras, but he is investigating "mainly to satisfy the needs of news media".
Canon had better worry.
enenzo: Perfect! Can't wait to buy this one. Just what I was waiting for.
I just love my A7 and Sony I love you... and yes! I'm really a 100% fan boy. Who can be anything else at this moment in time. Love it! :-)
Sony is just making so many fantastic products. And are truly the leader in innovation and future thinking. After years teaming up with Canon I'm now in love with my A7 the 4 of my Sony cameras (RX-100, NEX-6, A6000 and A7).
What a ride the last 4 years has been. Keep it coming Sony! I'm yours 100% ;-)
@enenzo: I have also become a fan of Sony cameras! They are really innovating, and they have been for quite a while now. DSLRs (DSLTs) with good quality electronic viewfinders (which I prefer) and phase detection autofocus with live view always on, APS-C and then full-frame sized sensors in mirrorless cameras, a one-inch sensor compact camera (which was revolutionary a few years ago), and now in-body image-stabilization (IBIS) in the A7II. That is a lot! Sony wins my award for best innovators in photography. (Panasonic wins it for video, but I'm more into still photography than video at this point.)
bmwzimmer: With such a wide focal range, don't expect this lens to be very sharp. According to dxomark, the only half decent FE mount zoom available is the 70-200 f/4. It resolves a whopping 23 perceivable pixels when mounted to a 36mp A7R. Sony's Zeiss 24-70 f/4 OSS high end general purpose zoom only resolves 15/36 pixels. This one will likely receive a score of about 9 or 10. To put this in perspective, Canon's best general purpose zooms, the 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 mk ii's resolve 18mp and 21mp out of a 22 mp sensor respectively. The $2000 Canon 28-300 resolves 13mp/22 and the cheaper Tamron 28-300 resolves 10/22. I've said it many times before that I think putting these large zooms on a small mirrorless camera defeats the whole purpose of mirrorless. The Tamron zoom weighs 555g and is almost an inch shorter in length than this new lens which kills the advantage of mirrorless. That said, props to Sony for at least pushing out more lens options and being an innovator.
@bmwzimmer: I think anyone expecting a lens of this immense range to be as sharp as a prime or short-range zoom does not know much about optics in the first place. In other words, it goes without saying. However, a somewhat less sharp picture is better than no picture when something happens and you are fumbling to get the right lens in your bag. Also, a moderately less sharp picture is better than a picture with lots of dots from dust due to having to expose your sensor when changing lenses so much. Of course those wanting to get the sharpest image possible at the widest aperture possible will look to a prime lens. But imagine you are going on a day trip and are not shooting portraits and don't want to carry multiple lenses. In that case, this is perfect. Your last sentence is probably the most important. Sony has put out many other lenses, and this one is just yet another choice we have...for those who think that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
ozturert: If only these lower level cameras had AF microadjustment... Pentax K500 has it. Even 60D did not have it (and 50D had had).
Yes, Canon has used the same sensor in 7D, 550D, 600D, 650D, 700D, 100D and EOSM, but so have the others:
16MP APSC: Nikon D7000, Nikon D5100, Pentax K5, Pentax K5II, Pentax K5IIs, Pentax K-01, Pentax K30, Pentax K500, Pentax K50, Sony NEX5n, Sony NEX3n, Sony NEXF3, Sony NEX5r, Sony NEX5t, Sony NEX6, Sony A35, Sony A55, Ricoh GR, Nikon Coolpix A, Some Leicas etc.. (Missed any?)
24MP APSC: Nikon D3200, Nikon D3300, Nikon D5200, Nikon D5300, Nikon D5500, Sony NEX7, Sony A5100, Sony A6000, Sony A65, Sony A77, Sony A77II, Pentax K3.Some removed AA filter, some added phase-detection pixels, some tweaked it but these are basically the same sensors.
@ozturert: I don't think all of those use the same sensors. I believe there are different generations of sensors that you combine. For example, the Sony A77II has image quality (especially higher ISO) that it quite a lot better than the previous A77. I think the technologies are similar but improved with some. Then again, with others, it is exactly the same. Probably the easiest way to tell is to go to DXOMark.com and look for many sensors clumped together with similar scores. Those that have very similar properties are probably the same.
Hold my beer - I got this: 760D vs 70D vs A77 ii vs GH4 vs (Feel free to throw in whatever)
for a new guy who is about to build his arsenal and is aiming to shoot video - shortfilms
First thing is that the 760D and 70D have APS-C (crop) sensors. This is smaller than the full-frame sensor in the A77ii, and larger than the sensor in the GH4. For videos, the GH4 is probably the best choice, due to numerous video options, including 4K. For image quality, the A77ii is by far the best. That leaves the 760D and 70D as the other cheaper alternatives to the other two. The 760D and 70D would be fine for most photography, but for video, they would not match the other two cameras.
matthiasbasler: Se we've seen both the D5500 and the EOS750/760D released now. To be blunt, neither of them makes me want to have them.
I had an EOS 400D, a Nikon D5000 and now the EOS 650D. I just love flip-out displays and the touch screen of the EOS 650D. I also liked the very good image quality compared to compact cameras at their time. What I disliked were focus issues (like the camera usually focusing on the background instead on an animal, happened often with D5000), and the loud "click", especially when doing timelapse photography in quiet environment.
What has changed since then?1. Ridiculous resolutions (I usually still shoot 8MP and created excellent looking posters from them.) Why 24 or 28MP?2. Compact cameras offer almost equal image quality under daylight and cost far less.3. ILC cameras offer 4K video, two times the burst rate, often smaller bodies, faster focus in "live view mode", no loud clicks. (See Panasonic GH4 or Samsung NX500. The GH4 even has built in time lapse mode.)
Personally, I like (high-quality) electronic viewfinders better. They show what the final picture will look like (as opposed to just having to set it to EV-0 and hoping for the best). Most electronic viewfinders also have focus magnification, peaking, histograms, levels, zebras, and more (and you can usually pick which you want to see at any given time). I'm sure you know all of this and still like looking through an optical viewfinder to see the scene as the eye (not sensor) sees it...and that's fine. But I think that more people will start to realize the benefits of electronic viewfinders in the future...and for the rest, there are still DSLRs, and again, that's fine.
I don't really care so much, because I wouldn't buy the M3 anyway, but I wonder how hard it is to just release something in another country. I mean, I am 100% sure that in the Japanese versions there is an English menu option (along with French, German, Korean, Chinese, etc). Why is it so hard to just bring it over? I understand that stores only have so much shelf-space, and Canon might want to reserve that space for its other cameras, but how about online sales? It is exceedingly strange that Canon isn't even trying anymore in the mirrorless category.
armandino: Got to love 1 year camera iterations if so. Perfect way to keep the business up and your money worth down
@armandino: "What is in this camera that could not be included in the first iteration or by a free firmware upgrade?"
Um...maybe 5-axis image stabilization? And if you say that surely they had the ability to do it the first time around, maybe you should ask yourself why there is absolutely NO competition in this front (full-frame cameras with IS) from ANY other companies. I will be shooting a wedding this Saturday, but I will take your word for it that real "professionals" want stagnated technology so they can be happy that the gear they bought in 2008 is still the best their company of choice has to offer. Get with it!!
Svetoslav Popov: Wow, what happened to modern ergonomic design? This is not only one ugly body, i bet it hurts in the hands. Great functionality though.
@bluevellet: Some might consider quezra's "stalking" to instead be "correcting wildly inaccurate statements".
Tom Caldwell: So I am quite peeved. As one of those that saw the awkwardness of the A7 series controls from day one and then watched as Sony proceeded to issue two more camera bodies with the identical control layout before finally deciding that they were not going to change anything and dong dang stupidly bought one.
This was reinforced by getting a hiding over daring to say that the camera was great but the controls needed a makeover. So many thought that the controls on the A7 series were just fine (?) I suppose they will now rush and apologise to me and confirm that my suggestions were quite correct and that Sony should listen. Well apparently they have listened to what should have been the bleeding obvious and much cheering is apparent !
But the only ones that should be cheering are those who have wisely held off buying an A7 so far. For the rest Sony has just instantly devalued your MkI shutter squeeze by a huge amount.
@abortabort: Well put!
Cameras do 1080p do we still need 1080p camcorders: as much as this is drool worthy.I want to see a few review now that there are a few 60+ mega zoom cameras that are comming out
forgot exact model name but - Panasonic has one with f2.8/f5.9 60x zoom 24-1440mm- Sony H600 with 63x zoom 1550mm
can someone tell me how is it that canon have 65x zoom and "only" up to 1365mm?
which should I go by as farthest optical zoom: the x zoom or the mm numbers?
would love a comparison on image quaity and zoom strength of all these new mega mega zooms before slopping down $550 for a new camera.
btw: i got the SX50 and love it the SX60 some imprvoement I'm hoping for- higher zoom (you can not get enough :)- 1080p 60fps - new processor- higher resolution viewfinder and EVF- wifi- seems to be same size so I might be be able to reuse all my existing accessories, batteries, lens hood, screen protector, hot shoe flash
Personally, I'd care about the zoom factor more than the farthest it can zoom to. For example, a 24-360mm lens has a 15x zoom, but a 28-400mm lens has a 14.2x zoom. I'd prefer the former for the longer total range and because when things get wide-angle, each extra millimeter is MUCH more apparent. When you are zoomed in very far, then each millimeter difference isn't as important.
vesa1tahti: No specs...
We shouldn't have to go to Canon USA, though. You'd think that they'd have at least the main specs here, without having to squint at photos or go to other websites. I'm not disparaging this site. My guess is that Canon just didn't have the specs in its announcement that it gave to this site. I'd like to see them in the future, though.
Pentax is the king of new, radically different ideas...that suck.
As evidence for that, take the Pentax Q. Wow!...a DSLR style camera that is only as large as a point-and-shoot!...but oh, the sensor is only the same size as that in a point-and-shoot so that negates 90% of the benefits. (And with that image quality, it's better to simply get a compact camera with a very versatile zoom lens rather than have to buy and then change lenses.)
Next, let's look at the K-01. It really has a space-age design! Unfortunately, we must remember that the space age was 50 years ago, and the K-01's design is probably the worst that anybody has seen over the past 100 years. But hey, it's mirrorless...and only works with a very slow contrast detection that is in any other Pentax camera, but at least those cameras also have viewfinders and the ability to use phase detect autofocus, too.
Now this. Revolutionary design...and is hard to handle and use, with battery-draining useless lights.
audiobomber: The photographer should have explained perspective to the apes when he handed over the camera. The wide angle closeups make them look silly.
Wikipedia should not hide behind the law. They are not subject to any one country's laws, so they should be guided by ethics. The photographer owns the photos. It was his camera, he brought the photos to the world, he owns them.
That perspective is part of the charm of the photo in this case.
Also, the crested black macaque took the photos, so the crested black macaque is the photographer and the author of these photos. It doesn't matter who "brought the photos to the world". If you didn't take them, you do not own the copyright (unless you use a time-lapse function or something, setting beforehand a definite schedule by which the photos will be taken).
Lights: Ok. I was once a doubter of the Equivalence thinking (as I think were many). But it is more than thinking. As a simple proof. Take a Legacy (I don't like that term so I usually say manual) lens. Put it on an APS-C or M43 camera, but with a Metabpnes Speed Booster and presto you gain an F-Stop or so. Why is that? Go figure. There are other reasons to use certain cameras, ergonomics, live view functionality, blah, blah. Lots of reasons one person may like one, and another another. But why do you gain an F stop, putting a 35mm lens on a smaller format with a Speed booster?...it ain't magic. (and yes you are changing the FOV to more so, but not quite represent the 35mm lens field of view) At least that's how I think about it.Wow this is an active topic ;-)
Look at Page 2: Equivalence of Total Light. Look at that first graphic. It shows the light cones of full frame and APS-C. Move your cursor over the box below the graphic that says APS-C. Do you see how the light cone is smaller? What the Speed Booster does is shrink that light cone from the full frame one into the light cone of the APS-C one, thus giving the smaller sensor as much light as the full frame one would get.
harvestmedia1: Can anyone help me to find a suitable lens for my Nikon camera? I use the camera mainly for video and looking for a wide angle lens which is good in low light with VR option and also which can cover wide area in focus. I already have a 18-105 lens.Thanks in advance.
I don't own a Nikon DSLR, and I've only done a bit of research. But this might be one idea. It is the "AF-S DX NIKKOR16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR". That will get you wider than the 18mm you currently have, while still being able to zoom in quite a bit. Its aperture is nothing special, but I wasn't able to find anything better from Nikon. Tamron might have something, though.
A lens that I will probably get is the yet-to-be-released Tamron 16-300mm lens, which will get you wider and more telephoto. It should also have vibration reduction.
If you don't mind starting at 18mm (like your current lens) and have a short zoom range and no VR, but instead have a wide constant aperture, then the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 ART lens might be good.
FujLiver: Sony is leading the pack, no doubtand I say that as a Nikon shooter (although the sensor heart is Sony somewhat ;)
@HowaboutRAW: FujLiver didn't say what camera he had, so if he says that its "sensor heart is Sony", I'd take him at his word, unless he says he has a camera that doesn't have a Sony sensor, in which case only then I would correct him. So far, there is nothing to correct. And saying that his comment "ignores the fact" of such and such also doesn't make sense, because that is readily apparent. It's like if someone says, "I have a tattoo on my right arm." and you say, "That ignores the fact that you have another arm and two legs that don't have tattoos." Basically, you are commenting for no reason and have no real point at all.