JDThomas: I like the fact that the lenses are starting to get bigger than the cameras. Everyone is always going on about how they want a light compact camera, but then they insist on having these enormous fast lenses. Where's you're weight savings gonna be when your lugging around a 90mm f/2?
And so continues the myth that people only switched to mirrorless because of weight...
Rob Sims: Two fast zoom's Sony's e-mount could really do with:1. 16-55/2.8.2. 50-140/2.8
...and two useful fast primes (one already available):1. 56/1.22. 90/2.0
I own both cropped (NEX-5n and A6000) and FF (A7) e-mount bodies and I'd rather use a good zoom on the former due to size. I owned the FE 24-70/4 but sold it on after 2 months after switching to the much lighter (and arguably better) Zeiss 16-70/4 for my A6000.
Yes, the 55/1.8 is a gem, which I'll be keeping... but you cannot argue that it's not several times larger than what an equivalent aps-c version would be. As I said, not everyone wants to go full frame. I just hope Sony finish what they've started with cropped e-mount before shifting all their resources to FE lenses.
Not everyone wants to go full frame... and anyway that would expose an even wider list of missing lenses.
Two fast zoom's Sony's e-mount could really do with:1. 16-55/2.8.2. 50-140/2.8
win39: Petzval lenses are the give away lenses included with the very cheapest telescopes.
I have an armchair and a computer, but I prefer vadims post...
Paul Kersey Photography: as someone not obsessed with having a camera stuffed in my pocket, the RX100 III fails to eclipse the a6000, even with the 16-50 mounted on it.
At the same cost(though there had recently been a $50 rebate) what's really a substantive edge for the RX over the a6000? I don't see one.
Size (just no comparison here)Video (full sensor readout, higher bit rates, 120fps mode)Lens (F1.8-2.8 vs. F3.5-5.6, and sharper than the 1650pz)Built in ND
...this is coming from someone who owns both an RX100m1 and an A6000.
saralecaire: Realized there are some interesting aspects regarding the lens prices here. I wonder how many would pay $849 for 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3, vs $897 for a 25-400mm F/2.8-4.0 for the FZ1000 which also comes with a 4K capable camera body as a back up.
Watch out, you may have just given an open invitation to the equivalence squad to come hijack this thread!
BillGarrett: I don't understand the effort put in to producing lenses like this for FF. Why (would a customer) spend all the money on FF and carry the weight and size of FF -- presumably all for the image quality of FF -- and then throw away so much of that IQ with the compromises inherent in a convenience lens?
Casual photographers who want an all-in-one lens should buy a well specified compact at 1/4 or 1/5 the price of a FF body + convenience lens. Or reevaluate the impressive IQ delivered by the latest generation of smartphones they may well already have in their pockets!
I'm in complete agreement with you, actually posted much the same somewhere below.
However, listening to the arguments that followed I am starting to believe that there are a group of people who think in a different way. And I guess there will always be some people who moved to FF on the belief that bigger is better, without actually thinking through the whole lens proposition. FF bodies (eg. Nikon D600 or Sony A7) can be had for not that much more than well spec'd aps-c anymore, so it's likely opened up a new category of buyers.
Ramius: Wish they made this for mirrorless full frame FE mount instead. Its annoying how breakthroughs like this lens is made for the camera technology of the past.
Badi has a point though, releasing a lens that doesn't have a competitor on a given system surely must have some merit. And given the rumours around other mirrorless FFs (Fujifilm?) around the corner, it's likely they will be able to adapt it easily for when they arrive...
...and given that this sector is likely to grow as new users switch to mirrorless, it can't hurt to have the first mover advantage.
Linerider: Why doesn't any manufacture make lenses this range for APC sensors?This would be a perfect range/focal length
Ah okay then.
Yeah, a zoom that started at 14mm would be awesome and probably allow me to carry one less lens. To be honest, it doesn't even need to have that much reach... even to 70mm would be fine for me as that would allow portrait. Basically the Zeiss 16-70/4.0 but with an extra 2mm on the wide end and I'd be as happy as Larry ;-)
14-150mm on m43 is 18-200mm on aps-c.
Every major APS-C manufacturing has an 18-200mm lens somewhere in their line-up - so I'll have to assume you were being sarcastic?
I'm slightly struggling to tell who this is aimed at. Cheaper superzooms lenses nearly always compromise on a speed and image quality... two of the main reasons why most users would have upgraded to FF for in the first place.
Is the 'beginner' FF-user category really large enough to warrant creating this lens? i'd have thought someone interested in this sort of lens would be better off with a superzoom attached to an m43 / aps-c sensor instead (just my 2ps worth).
EcoR1: "R LM OIS WR"... For god sake, these Japanese companies.
fyi - Canon is a Japanese company.
vscd: So, you buy a small (and nice) Fuji X-T1 to show all your friends that mirrorless cams are lightweight, small and able to beat fullframe sensors... and then attach this hump to your cam? Congratulations. You failed.
P.S. By the way, the Zoom rotates the wrong way, again ;)
P.S. The zooms on my Nikon D700 rotated in different directions. The Sigma went one way, the Nikkor went the other... which one was the right way?!
Size / weight are not the only reason why people may prefer a mirrorless camera over an SLR. Just look at the size of the M43 Olympus OMD-EM1 which appears to sell well despite being close in size to a small dSLR... or the Panasonic GH3.
2eyesee: The people shots tell me that 70mm is a bit too short for head and shoulders portraits. I'm not really sure I could live with that.
Interesting to see Barney commenting below that he found 70mm restricting for landscapes. Not being a landscape shooter myself, it's not really something I'd thought about - that not all landscapes are done at wide angle.
With the shot of the woman in the cafeteria (40 & 41), the JPEG (40) shows very heavy handed noise reduction resulting in the smudging of detail. The RAW conversion (41) is much better - just compare the detail in the jacket.
Can noise reduction be adjusted in camera for JPEG?
@2eyeseeI honestly think the RX10 is too large/heavy to be considered as a compact... I only suggested half in jest ;-)
Amazingly here in Singapore for the price of an RX10 (equiv to 24-200/7.5) you are only $100 away from the A6000 + Zeiss 16-70/4.0 OSS (equiv to 24-105/6.0) bundle. Weight wise they're pretty close, so not a completely invalid comparison. I think the RX10 should only really be considered if you 'must' have 24-200mm or are heavily into video.
Disclaimer: I own both the RX100m1 and the A6000 + Zeiss 16-70/4 ;-)
If the zoom range from a 24-70 seems restrictive, then there's always the RX100m2 or even the RX10. Of course if image quality is less of a concern, then there are a whole heap of 20x super zooms with 1/2.3" sensors that may be more suitable to you!
RichRMA: Certainly do better body-wise for $800.00. Olympus E-M10 is a much better built camera. Handle both, you'll see. Plastic bodies should be relegated to cameras in the sub-$600 range.
Handled both in the shop, and I felt the A6000 handled much better due to the larger grip, and rangefinder positioning of the EVF. The fact that RAW image quality is better, and that the Sony is cheaper than the Olympus is also pretty compelling.
IMHO 'feel' is just user preference, and should never be stated as fact. (eg. I don't have little hands, so will never be able to get along with the E-M5/E-M10).
luigibozi: I would like DPR to test and have it in the specs (for all cameras): if using a quick release plate for a tripod allows the screen to freely tilt. I had a Sony RX100 (very good camera!) and when I visited a Sony store here in Toronto and looked at a Sony RX10 (that looks better in hand than in the images) I was surprised to see that when I attached a quick release plate (a small Gitzo) the tilting screen was obstructed. I wonder if this (I would like to keep my quick release plate on the bottom of my camera) is a designed "feature" that has some reason behind?!
@Andy CroweFar too practical an answer, enough of that please!
cybergap: I have had the A6000 for two weeks now, and in general, really like it. The only issue is that I am having a hard time finding a lens that really brings out the sensor's capabilities. AngryCorgi pointed out below that the FE 55 1.8 is amazing, and it is. I was using the comparison tool with the Nikon 800e and I swear the A6000 is far more detailed with this lens on it. It's the only lens I have rented in the e mount line (Tried them all) that really makes good images, but it has no OSS and a 82ish focal length. Soooo. Great camera, EVF is fine, controls are excellent except for the movie button placement. Very fast on the draw which is fun shooting out the car window at 1/2000. You just have to pay for the FE55 and hope that Sigma and Zeiss port their best lenses to the mount soon. With OSS. At this price you really can't go wrong. Buy one if you can find it.
You might want to try the 35/1.8. Slightly easier focal distance to work with (equiv to 52mm). I found contrast and colour on that lens to be excellent, and it's also very light and compact.