keeponkeepingon: I got the 19mm for my A6000 and it's totally meh. After using it as a walkaround lens for a week it now mostly collects dust on my lens shelf.
1. It's not much faster than the kit lens at 19mm2. The IQ of the kit lens improves quite a bit once you leave the extreme wide end so your not getting tons more resolution if any. 3. AF is only on the center. I thought this wouldn't be an issue as on my canons I use center point AF but once you get used to the A6000's wonderful tracking AF a lens without it feels really lacking.
The reviewer is gaga about the cost but is it really that great? Canon has the terrific 24mm F2.8 and 40mm F2.8 for $150, both fully functional with canon's AF and with wonderful IQ and if you are saying "but but mirrorless" there's the EF-M 22mm/F2 that outperforms the sigma 19mm in every way imagineable and sells for $100ish.
Jun2 I think you misunderstood. I'm not talking about "other bargains" as I don't think the 19mm is a bargain at all, it's overpriced for so so not great IQ and very little to distinguish it from the kit lens. photozone gives it 2 out of 5 stars for optical quality and the gimped AF really sets it apart as not-a-bargain. The canon examples were not "other bargains" they are examples of some real bargains. Great IQ for very little $$. The 24mm F2.8 gets 4 out of 5 stars for optical quaility from photozone.de, lists for 25% less than the sigma and has fully functional AF with canon DSLR and mirrorless cameras.
I got the 19mm for my A6000 and it's totally meh. After using it as a walkaround lens for a week it now mostly collects dust on my lens shelf.
Dheorl: If only they added in a decent healing brush, then I'd have no reason at all for photoshop.
piratejabez like you can add/remove with the adjustment brush?
Have you tried 5's? The spot removal tool is now a brush. It's OK and hopefully 6 is even better.
dtphoto: If no folders are permitted, does that mean I'm limited to 9,999 images...until my camera's counter rolls over?
Could you explain this in a bit more detail? I'm not sure I get what you are getting at. I thought DNGs were often smaller than the proprietary raw file (due to compression) and the addition of metadata should only add KB not MB. Thanks!
keeponkeepingon: I think the title, "a class of it owns" just goes to show how dorked up the DPREVIEW sensor size based camera classification system is.
With the kit lens this is almost a $3000 camera. It should be compared to other $3000 cameras regardless of sensor size.
Also I don't see how any camera that has problems focusing in low light could be given a gold?
If I want a quick sunny day camera, I'll use my iPhone thank you very much.
"How many other cameras are sold in kit with a f/2.0-2.8...."
Who cares? Give it ++ for a decent lens, what does that have to do with the contention that it should still be compared to cameras in the same price range. (plus ehanP99 gave you an example for 1/2 the price).
"All cameras to some extent have problems focusing in the low light."
This isn't two years ago and dpreview gives an example of a camera that sells for nearly $1000 less, shot side by side with the NX1 and doing fine in the same conditions.
I'm sure it's a fine camera but the cost is kind of glossed over, dpreview throws it in with cameras costing $1000+ less and goes gaga over it. Put it next to a similarly costing D750 or even a 7D MK 2 with a $1000 lens (to make the cost comparable) and then tell us what you think.
It is amazing the attention dpreveiw gave this camera while ignoring more affordable and in some ways just as capable alternatives. The extensive coverage feels like marketing, not reporting.
I think the title, "a class of it owns" just goes to show how dorked up the DPREVIEW sensor size based camera classification system is.
Regarding sidecar files, just convert to DNG. Problem solved? Right?
Damien Demolder: Do readers in the USA feel deprived that the EOS M3 isn't coming to America? Maybe you don't care either way, or aren't interested in CSC? Is this the camera you've been waiting for?
Plus as in plus size, no thank you! Once you go mirrorless it's hard to go back. Yes they get huge with the big zooms (You should see the beercan + adapter on my A6000 but you always have the option to through a pancake or kit lens on it for a jacketable compact walk around.
I don't feel deprived. I just froze my canon purchasing. Instead of expanding my EF-M lens collection I purchased an A6000 and am having a blast on the grass is always greener other side of the fence.
ttran88: Place your bets when this camera will be on sale for $250. I take Oct-Nov. before black Friday
"We don't have Black Friday in Europe:"
Amazon .de and others will have sales on blackfriday/cyber monday
EcoPix: Could someone inform whether any of these cameras can do simultaneous stills while videoing, like the Nikon V-cameras can, and some GH-cameras?
That is, a still capture or burst (pressing the shutter release) while videoing, with no effect on the video.
What is the point of a fusion of stills and vid if we can't do both at the same time? We are increasingly asked to do this by our customers/users.
If they can't, I'm wondering why not. Is there a technical constraint? Obviously SLRs can't, but a mirrorless with electronic shutter should be able to.
It seems such an obvious requirement of a stills/video hybrid camera.
Many thanks, and apologies if this has been covered. I've looked around without success.
Great question! Just about every point and shoot and my EOS-M do this but I was very surprised/disappointed that my A6000 won't let me take a picture while filimg
THis would be the perfect lens for my K01.
The 40mm kit is great but wow would be more flexible while still not being huge like the kit *ist DL lens I've been using when the 40mm won't cut the mustard.
(Now get working on that K-02 upgrade!)
I assume the K-02 will fix that? Sony fits and EVF into a smaller bodies so it's not impossible....
nikonson: Rich man's lens: FE 90mm/F2.8 = $1,500Poor man's lens 1: 85mm/F2.? = Maxxum 50mm/F1.7 + 1.7X converter + LAEA4Poor man's lens 2: 85mm/F2.? = Maxxum 50mm/F1.4 + 1.7X converter + LAEA4
"much better than clunky 50mm plus adapter". but but the alpha lens needs an adapter too?
But I guess I see the point. Instead of paying top $$ for these huge lens just get the adapter and an alpha lens for similar IQ?
It would be nice to see some comparisons
Does the alpha adapter affect focus speed? I'm pretty sure it does on my A6000 (no PDAF?).
tkbslc: If it's going to be the size of a D750 with the lenses included, then just get the D750!
But with the sony you can do make a nice compact full frame "walk around":http://camerasize.com/compact/#579.394,567.333,ha,t
Can't really do that with the D750.
Plus the view from above is a bit misleading (or was that the intent?)
Now if Nikon would get off their buts and make a decent pancake like canon's 40mm you might have a point.....
K-01 is not just shorter, it's also thinner. The smaller size makes it much more (jacket) pocketable than any DSLR, espeically with the "kit" 40mm pancake. It's bit more than "a few grams" lighter than the K-S2 (113g lighter). I'd assume a mythical K-02 would improve on all that.
Also dropping the mirror should make it cheaper to manufacture but really it comes down to personal preference and choices. Pentax chose to drop mirrorless so I chose to move over to sony (A6000).
From camerasize:Pentax K-S2 is 1% (1.5 mm) wider and 15% (12 mm) taller than Pentax K-01.Pentax K-S2 is 23% (13.5 mm) thicker than Pentax K-01.Pentax K-S2 [678 g] weights 21% (118 grams) more than Pentax K-01 [560 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card).
Dang I had hoped pricing/availability would be announced at CP+ instead of just another "teaser".
(I'm considering the 28mm for my A6000 as an alternative to the SEL35F18)
Thorgrem: Any sign for new EOS M lenses? No? Move on people, nothing to see here.
I think he meant that you can cover 11-200mm with canon EOS-M lenses.
But for the US market it's more like 18-55 unless you go 3rd party? Or did I miss a US lens release?
NAwlins Contrarian: The table on the first page comparing the GM1, GM5, and RX100 Mk. III is misleading in an important respect. For some purposes (weight, zoom range) the Panasonic M4/3s are listed with their kit lens, but for other purposes (depth), they're listed without it. As your pictures on page 2 show, put on the kit lens and the package becomes more like 3 inches (75mm) deep. An RX100 Mk. III is pocketable in most reasonable pants pockets; with the Panasonics and their kit lens, forget it unless you have cargo pockets.
Also, since we routinely list lenses with focal lengths as "35mm equivalent", can we please routinely do the same thing with apertures? For some purposes it's convenient to see that the 12-32mm kit lens is an f/7-11 equivalent and the RX100 Mk. III's lens is an f/4.9-7.6 equivalent. IOW, (1) the Sony can achieve shallower depth of field, and (2) in low light, its much brighter lens will tend to more than compensate for its somewhat smaller sensor.
Brainstorm: Someone should make photographer pants/jackets with a lint free camera pocket.....