Horshack: Welcome to iteration city, population you.
There's are exits marked Olympus, Sony, Panasonic and Fujifilm to name a few ;-)
Naveed Akhtar: how's the live view auto focus performance .. any improvements ((
@Der SteppenwolfLive view is for assessing correct exposure, white balance, DoF and being able to nail focus, not just for "holding camera at an arms length".
Arguably live view IS for the enthusiast who cares about the end photo.
Russell Evans: "Some of us have been around long enough to remember the last time Pentax announced a full-frame DSLR, way back in 2001."
And some of us are smart enough to know isn't the same company making this announcement.
The point is, if you are nitpicking someone else, you must expect the same treatment back... and as far as I'm aware (please correct me if I'm wrong), being legally blind shouldn't stop you from seeing the irony.
If you're claiming to be smarter than the DPReview staff, at least start by getting all the words down correctly in that sentence.
/Just my tuppenceworth.
Richard Murdey: "If autofocus, low light performance or resolution are higher priorities than size, then I'd encourage you to look at the GM5's highly capable APS-C peers."
What does autofocus have to do with sensor size?
...But earlier in the text from the same page the APS-C Sony A6000 was mentioned as a potential peer to the GM5. Given that the Sony does indeed have faster autofocus, better low light performance and higher resolution I'd assume that's what the reviewer was referring to when he wrote "APS-C Peers".
Rishi Sanyal: Were all the slides shot on a Nikon D750? Cuz I see flare & banding at the upper left of every slide.
I love that DPReview editors have a healthy sense of humour ;-)
All worthy winners, although with Sony top for two categories, and runner up for a third, I'm curious how this comments section will pan out.
Just imagine the shock horror if the Sony/Zeiss 55/1.8 had made it into the lens list, the interwebs could have exploded (thankfully that was a 2013 lens!)
Rob Sims: DPReview Staff - possible suggestion:When you do these in future, could you also take the same photo with a standard high-end stock camera (eg. Nikon D810 / Canon 5D m3) so we can have something to compare it to? It surely wouldn't double the workload as you're already there taking the photo, but would kill half the negative comments that seem to appear after each of these real-world samples are published.
Disclaimer: This was already mentioned somewhere below, but I think the original comment was meant in jest, despite it actually being a good suggestion.
1. Even if Canikon is not the "standard" (which I believe they still are, and will be for practical purposes for a while), we still all know what their output is.
I'd argue it doesn't matter what camera was used along side it, so long as it was a camera that had already been available on the market and received a full review.
2. All the better for DPReview's stats ;-)
3. What's the point of sample pictures if not for comparison? I hardly think those interested in a new camera would not already have an existing camera and want to know the difference.
DPReview Staff - possible suggestion:When you do these in future, could you also take the same photo with a standard high-end stock camera (eg. Nikon D810 / Canon 5D m3) so we can have something to compare it to? It surely wouldn't double the workload as you're already there taking the photo, but would kill half the negative comments that seem to appear after each of these real-world samples are published.
HGFGKM: I would have liked to have seen some with the kit lens (Sony FE 28-70). After all, this is what most people who buy it will start using it with.
Really? When the A7/A7R were released last year in Singapore, the A7 w/o kit lens was sold out, also the A7R... many people bought the A7 w/kit lens and then subsequently sold it off as they had little interest in it.
Don't know where you got your facts from, perhaps link your source?
steelhead3: It is neat that the minor players are upping their game...fuji is showing innovation slowly but surely.
@Just a PhotographerI owned the Zeiss 24-70/4 and it was excellent, only decided to sell it to fund the Zeiss 16-70/4 for use on an APS-C body. Colour and micro-contrast were excellent on my A7... noticeably better image quality than the 24-70 I used to use on my Nikon D700... despite be half the weight.
Don't believe everything you read on the internet. Actually try using some of these lenses yourself.
Rob Sims: One of the missing lenses for Sony e-mount... sigh.
(Disclaimer, I own the 16-70/4 and love it, but sometimes it'd be good to get a little more subject isolation from an F2.8)
I'd say a fast constant F2.8 zoom would definitely be a welcome lens for e-mount (both APS-C and FF). Olympus and Panasonic have m43 versions (although with the reduced DoF that the half-frame gives you), Nikon and Canon have them for both APS-C and FF, and now so does Fujifilm for APS-C.
As I'm already heavily invested in e-mount, I'm less interested in which lenses are 'missing' in other systems. Not sure what the 16-70/4.0 has to do with this, I own this lens and it's great but F4.0 is not F2.8.
Josh152: About the name,
Nikon is probably trying make the naming so it's more simplified and clear what the current generation cameras are and it will end up being D3500,D5500,D7500,D750,D850,D5 That is less confusing and looks better than D3400,D5400,D7200,D750,D820,D5. If Nikon kept the naming going as it was the D7xxx and D8xx would always seem a couple generations behind. If they do the naming of future models like I think they will than it will be a lot easier to tell what cameras are the current model.
@joshOkay, then explain to me where the D400 is...
/I kid ;-)
Sure, but there's a huge jump in cost of lenses when moving from aps-c to FF... well, in the Sony/Zeiss world that is!
Disclaimer: I also own an A7 ;-)
@Josh152You make a good point, but I stand by my point. Out here in Singapore I hear the argument against using 4 all the time from my Chinese colleagues. It's taken as seriously as the auspicious number 8.
I'd argue that the professional end of the market (D1, D2...etc) is less concerned with such superstition than the mass market.
One of the missing lenses for Sony e-mount... sigh.
Or more likely they are just skipping the number 4 which sounds like death in Chinese and Japanese, and is considered unlucky (like 13 in some western cultures). Most Japanese manufacturers skip number 4 in model sequences: Eg. Panasonic GF1,2,3,5,6,7. LX1,2,3,5,7, Sony NEX 3,5,6,7. Olympus EPL1,2,3,5,6,7 ...etc ...etc
riman: There is a setting Exposure Preview in Live View whereby you can see exactly what the sensor sees..isnt that pretty much the same as Mirrorless?
@NowHereThisYou're just given two extremely rude replies. Genuine nasty and snide remarks. Welcome to another ignore list.
@RimanYes, basically. Mirrorless cameras effectively 'run live view' all the time. The big disadvantage of dSLR live view previously was that the AF was painfully slow when not using the PDAF box (that requires the mirror down), so the live view mode could only really be used on static subjects/ or where the focal range didn't change (studio work). This is starting to change, but they're still far behind the latest mirrorless cameras (strange, because Nikon's own 1-series has lightning quick on-sensor PDAF autofocus).
HowaboutRAW: Cool there’s hope for users of CS6.
Anybody know if there’s an Adobe DNG Converter 8.7.1?
And still this Sony A7II doesn’t compete with the D750 for high ISOs, 16,000 is a mess with raws I shot with the A7II. I was hoping there would be a jump in high ISO performance versus the old A7.
Sony needs to fix the sensitivity of the EVF “eye sensor” in the A7II, unlike other A7 models this sensor turns off the rear screen if you’re holding the camera anywhere near say your hip and your pants/skirt aren’t a bright pale colour. This alone would be a reason I’d skip buying the camera. And no, there is only an on/off feature, no sensitivity adjustments. (Bet firmware could fix it.)
Did Sony once sell you a duff Walkman in 1986 or something?
Pritzl: So much for "you get what you pay for" eh?
Why do you assume I haven't used, or don't still use a rangefinder? Did I say that somewhere?
Perhaps better for you not to make such quick assumptions.