TN Args: If they don't mention the approx size and weight, nobody knows if they are something new and different that allows smaller, lighter old-frame ownership. OR.....NOT!
Leave it to just another canon shooter to state the absolutely obvious: A large sensor with a decent-aperture telephoto takes glass. Well done.
The only thing left is to state the entirely too repeated bs phrase "THIS SYSTEM MAKES NO SENSE! SMALLER MAKES NO SENSE!"
Zeisschen: Thank you Sony for letting us A7 users know what to expect! Keep on coming those FE lenses!
Is DPR your sole info site?
I can't think of a worse choice.
mpgxsvcd: That is a nice lens. If I was shooting full frame video that would be what I would chose. However, I can’t help but think that an M4/3 version of this lens could be F2.8 all the way through for the same size if not smaller.
They certainly could, but it would require f2 for comparable depth of field wouldn't it?
Would be fine much of the time, but let's not muddy the release of a fine apple of a lens to a hypothetical orange.
maxnimo: I believe I can afford this lens... if I sell my old car, my wife and my kids.
Maybe he's factoring in future costs against current value
HowaboutRAW: Cool, now about the compressed raws on the various Sony A7 camera bodies.
no, you literally said that
you: now about the compressed raws on the various Sony A7 camera bodies.
you: if you cared about good colour in digital files you'd care.
D1N0: The K-01* is a great camera. Just misunderstood :p
*DPReview writers wouldn't need an asterisk when they would just write accurate information in the first place.
Ah, the ol' rock solid argument of semantics.
If that made for a negative aspect anywhere someone would likely care.
steelhead3: Why do so many people misspell the over used word "whine"?
To troll whose who will wine about it
Scroll across the last set of DRO comparisons for entertaining timelapse!
ConanD: Don't cross the streams.
I'll remind you that the movie ended by very successfully crossing the streams.
Leandros S: What's a first-person video? Or, for that matter, a second-person or third-person video?
...and taught to the rest of us in the "options" section of video games. Pretty complicated stuff. Certainly nothing a not lazy person could just GOOGLE.
Biowizard: oh YUCK. While the city-scape bike rides looked smooth enough, the mountain climbing/hiking sequences seemed totally artificial. The way entire blocks of landscape morphed, or appeared suddenly in piecemeal fashion, reminded of all that is wrong with Microsoft Flight Simulator, when whole weather systems appear or vanish in a twinkling, completely destroying the immersive experience.
In short, there is still only one way to create decent time-lapse, and that involves tracks, servos, tripods and more, in a carefully planned fashion. Please keep this pseudo-realism away from me.
[Edited for a typo]
Guys, don't encourage the grayhairs.
Calvin Chann: Welcome to the internet where people are mostly anonymous and can do and say whatever they want with little chance of being caught out. Responsibility for ones words and actions goes out of the window.
I wasn't referring to business decisions, I was replying to calvin regarding being a dick on the internet.
Great, great, now could you turn your hand in just a bit?
I said could you turn your hand in toward your chin just a bit?
I SAID TURN YOUR HAND IN
Sounds like a great idea
Those with humility do so anonymously on the internet. Those without go into politics.
Jon Stern: My grandma didn't have glass balls. Not sure about my grandpa though.
He did. Then, due to Grandma, he didn't.
D 503: There is no need to compare sizes. You get the results you get no matter how big or small it is.
...said your very supportive significant other.
Dester Wallaboo: My biggest complaint with the Sony cams is that they are mirrorless.... yes.... I know the advantages, but the disadvantages outweigh the advantages in my book. Being at the mercy of a monitor to know what is coming through the lens is a not what I would call a great method for shooting. Yes, I use ML so I can get full histograms while shooting using a monitor. But at the end of the day the only real way to see what is coming through that lens, outside of long-exposure photography, is to look through the lens itself with your eye. Unless Sony has recently put in screens that can display full RAW dynamic range, which I'm certain they haven't, you are at the mercy of a monitor that cannot even display full sRGB, let alone ProPhotoRGB, and certainly not RAW.
If you've got the luxury of time and a still subject why does it matter either way? A camera with no viewfinder at all (read: mirrorless with manual focus assist) would be at least as suitable (I'd say more) to those circumstances as an optical viewfinder.
But turn that around and take away the luxury of a still subject and ample time and you're SOL if you completely miss exposure early.
Peter K Burian: Man it seems like a lot of work went into this test merely to show that a camera with ultra high ISO options is better than a camera without those options .....**IF you ever need to shoot at insanely high ISO.** Or am I misunderstanding what this is all about, Rishi?
I cannot recall *ever* needing to use an ISO higher than 6400. What the heck are people shooting at ISO 100,000? What needs are actually met by ISO 400,000+? Why not use a tripod or set the camera on something solid in night photography? (Or do people often shoot soccer/football night games at a 1/1500sec. shutter speed? How many people do so?)
(I'm sure a dozen guys will now attack me and say that they need ISO 100,000+ daily and that I know nothing about anything.)
A lot of work went into reaching this conclusion: ..So the bottom line is that the a7s is average at ISO 6400. (At more moderately high ISOs (6400 and below) ........... A7S will be similar to that of full-frame cameras of its generation.)..
No, it's not useful to my current photography, but then having the option would open up entirely new facets of photography to me. I can't take my Nex7 outside at a quarter moon and so much as hope to get photos of wildlife unless they're asleep. Sure I can use a flash and get 1 chance at a photo, not counting the subsequent photos of animal anuses as they head for the hills, or I can go ultra high ISO and completely silent shutter and take lots.
Dimly lit events? Concerts? No more need to push in PP to salvage a useable shutter speed. No need for an obtrusive flash.
Pretending that the option of shooting at extremely high ISO is useless to all only speaks to the ongoing trend of placing technical image quality over content and, if this site's comments are true, evidently over getting an image at all.
Give me a break. Anyone that had this capability on hand will absolutely find a way to use it.
KeeChiuPeng: How does this compare with Nikon DF, D4s, 1Dx, 6D?