ttran88: Canon has proven it again that mirrorless is crap. People If you want good quality images get a real camera DSLR.
Mirrorless is not crap. The EOS-M3 is crap
RichRMA: Given the choice, would anyone really pay as much for that body as a Nikon D810? If you put the two side by side, you'd have to ask yourself, "Were did the money go, Sony?"
The A7SII can do 4K video and it is the king in low light for video. D810 cannot do that
bluevellet: So... Why did Zeiss approve the FE 24-70 f4 and the E 16-70 f4?
The Sony Zeiss 16-70 is good from technical point of view, ie, sharp across the frame but it does not match the IQ of SEL50F18 at F4. It is still better than DSLR lens like 18-105 F3.5-F5.6.
Do you actually own the 16-70 or just read online review? I own the 16-70f4. This is a good lens.
nemark: Knowing the (POOOR) quality of Sony lenses, I`ll wait some practical results, tests and comments to create my own opinion. Nice collection of focal lengths and apertures, but discussable q. (Don`t confuse Sony with Zeiss-for-Sony.)
Sony E lens are not all very poor. Only the 16mm is very poor. All others are pretty good. I have used my Nex5 with Nikon, Canon and Zeiss lens. I know Sony E lens is not as bad as some people say.
peevee1: 16-50 is OK. I guess depends on quality, E18-55 is incredibly bad for a modern lens.10-18 and 35 are somewhat overpriced compared to SLR competition (Sigma 10-20 lenses are $480, Tamron 10-24 are $450 etc).
The E18-55 is pretty good. I have used the nex5 with E18-55 and many Nikon, Canon lens. I do not see any difference between them. Only Nikon prime like 50mm f1.8 really impressed me but it is a prime lens.