tabloid: If I put the 16-35mm on my A65, what do i get.Im after the sweet spot.
If it was me, I'd go for the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8. It's tack shark across the frame wide open, and with the A65 you can use all the light you can get. Plus, it's 1/3rd the price!
Maff maff: Sadly they have left out IS. If they wouldn’t it would have increase the versatility in super low light even further and I know this is a wide angle with F1,4 maybe on a body which is good for ISO 3200.Having the possibility in the company’s to leave out IS on lenses is for me a deal breaker for body’s with no IBIS and the reason why I like systems which have this like Olympus some Sony and others. Here IS is guaranteed for all lenses and no option for the manufacturer to leave it out somewhere which will happen even on expensive primes like here.
You should get out and shoot more and talk less. Your opinions would make more sense if you actually ever picked up a camera. IS on an F1.4 24mm would only ever matter for video.
steelhead3: Really enjoyed the video especially Barney not afraid to mix it up. One thing stands out for me is that the portrait shots seem like P&S quality with little separation from the background even at 2.8. Easy to get everything focus though with such wide DOF.
Yeah, is that the best DOF m4/3s can do for action like this? I had been looking at getting one, but dang, that's really _not_ impressive.
Storky: The most critical issue with this lens is: does it autofocus correctly? That's why I (and many others) swapped the Sigma 35 1.4 for the Canon original. The Sigma may be somewhat sharper, but it just doesn't focus reliably. The USB dock is an admission of this, and represents a partial, duct-tapish solution. And being slightly off focus at 1.4 is much more detrimental to image quality than small difference in optical corrections.
They're both still clunky mirror box machines. Consumers are catching on to systems like the Sony A6000. The newbie at work that asked what to upgrade his Nikon to just switched after I suggested it. He dumped a Nikon D5100, which really isn't much different than the "new" 5500. Once more consumers figure out there's ZERO reason to buy these old clunkers, Canikon will be playing catch-up.
Reinhard136: The only genuine problem with the E system was lens availability - that is basically solved now. The gap is so big now to Canikon, they will have to do something very clever, very quickly or fight over second place.
You're partially correct. The Zeiss 24-70 F4 is a POS.
Edgar_in_Indy: I hope this camera finally starts to put pressure on Canon and Nikon to offer IBIS.
It's so obvious that not offering IBIS is just a way to get more money. I can't believe they've been able to get away with it for so long, but apparently their customers have been happy to double-dip, and to buy larger, heavier, more expensive, more complicated lenses, with more possible points of failure, and with compromised optics vs non-stabilized designs.
And the the fact that Sony's IBIS can be combined with optical stabilization is very exciting. I've been speculating for years about whether that would be possible, so I'm glad to see somebody implementing it. I can't wait to see how it performs.
Life of the IBIS? It's rated to last longer than the shutter. Sony has shipped IBIS in their bodies forever, nobody reports problems with it wearing out. If you think Canon and Nikon are avoiding IBIS for that reason, you're deluding yourself. It's all about making money on more expensive IS lenses.
ThePhilips: So Olympus has designed the IBIS for the Sony.
All what's left, is for Sony to persuade Olympus also to design Zuiko lenses for FE/E-mount,.
I think it was a joint effort. Sony has had IBIS for ages now. They could have done it on their own. They just didn't want to wait.
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.
It's quite simple really- these lenses take time, a _lot_ of time to design. The FE mount is the most challenging on the market atm - huge sensor, very short distance to sensor, small diameter mount. That being said, it's quite clear by the sales numbers the 3rd party lens makers will support this mount. From what I've seen, the majority of a7 bodies sold are replacing DSLR bodies. Once they release an FE body with the A6000 autofocus, that will accelerate that change even more. I know I can't wait to dump my Canon gear. I'm tired of lugging around so much heavy gear. Either Fuji or Sony will provide my upgrade path sometime soon.
Thorgrem: How does this compare to the much cheaper Panasonic GH4?
Peevee1 - you obviously haven't shot with both a FF vs. u4/3s lately. I have both a 6D and a GH3. While the GH3 is nice for video, it's is EASILY 4 stops behind the 6D, and that is old tech. Sony built this sensor specifically for low light and DR. Your statements assuming what it can do are ignorant.
peevee1: Would be a great camera had it had working OSPDAF and 11 fps with AF-C like Sony's own budget a6000. Sensor readout allows that, and Sony's own processor is able to do it in a6000 at twice the resolution so it is not a problem either. The pixels are 5 times the size so OSPDAF signal would be very clear, allowing focusing in more than 2 stops lower light than a6000. What is wrong with them?! Did they save a few bucks on a cheapass shutter module that cannot fire more than 5 times per second - but why they did not even design OSPDAF into the sensor? Holding the functionality for upcoming A9s I guess - market segmentation...
I expect the A7S was in the works as long if not longer than the A6000. You have to understand- these aren't the same development teams. If you look at the way these things work, typically a camera will debut with a certain feature, and then it will spread to the rest of the line in the 2nd generation. You see this across all vendors, not just Sony. When you try to combine multiple extremely new technologies in the same product, the risk multiplies exponentially one of them won't deliver or will hit problems and sink the project. That's simply the way R&D works, and you obviously don't understand that. Sony needed this camera with full-blown 4k. They're not going to risk the timeline by linking it to the new A6K focus array.
Pentax K30 ($490 via Amazon), Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 non-VC ($309 via digitalrev) = $799
Save the $200 and later add the Tamron 70-200 F2.8 non-VC ($769 via Amazon).
Add a Samyang 14mm if you need wide angle (~$350 via everywhere) and you've got everything covered with a constant F2.8.
Timbukto: Hmmm, every time there is a Canikon preview its usually done with crappy kit lens...and a Canikon fanboy usually asks why samples are always done with the crappy kit lenses, and the response is usually that it indicates what you will get out of the box for what you paid for. Yet for Pentax you get the baddest most expensive lenses (which have had a price hike). I think it is far more interesting to see how that 'newer' kit lenses performs and what people get out of the box for what is paid and not what you'll get when you buy lenses that cost 1.5x more than the entire kit...Please be consistent on the whole body/lens samples! I don't remember the last time I've seen a Rebel being shot with L primes.
Somebody's got a chip on their shoulder over that price hike. LOL
Also, you do realize this was a "first impressions" one-pager?
Intermittentoverexposure: What I'm really anxious to see is the low-light performance. I bought an a65 as an upgrade for my a33, but returned it because it's still sooo noisy. It didn't feel like an upgrade in IQ. The 16-50mm ssm I bought at the same time helped a lot. Even with that, compared to my brother's K-5, low-light performance is still lacking. I've been looking at the a580 the last week or so even though it's older and discontinued. For $180 more I can get the K-5 though. Hopefully this is the answer though...
Einstein- I don't know how you figure 801 dxomark in Sports / low light ISO to be top of the market. The K-5 comes in at 1162 and the discontinued a580 even comes in at 1121.
I suppose if you're taking pictures of statues in the dark, and you don't mind horrible noise, yes, the SLTs can do that. However you can't post-process to recover detail and sharpness that was lost due to poor ISO. The sample below at 6400 inspires one word: Yuck.
I take lots of action shots, and these camera suck at that. I understand why Sony has gone the route they have, but to ignore the customer base that wants great IQ seems short-sighted.
What I'm really anxious to see is the low-light performance. I bought an a65 as an upgrade for my a33, but returned it because it's still sooo noisy. It didn't feel like an upgrade in IQ. The 16-50mm ssm I bought at the same time helped a lot. Even with that, compared to my brother's K-5, low-light performance is still lacking. I've been looking at the a580 the last week or so even though it's older and discontinued. For $180 more I can get the K-5 though. Hopefully this is the answer though...