munro harrap: Very uneven resolution, at the borders scarcely ever lifting above 1500lpm- This is LESS than an 8MP sensor. OK, at f5.6 in the middle its OK, but as the sensor resolves 4000lpm, and this is an f2.8 lens it is a disappointing one. Compare to Samyang 35/f1.4...We buy wides to get more in at closer distances and to grasp situations. Now, I don't know about you, but if I had to display prints from an A7R I would be very unhappy to with this lens, since only the central area will be sharp until at least F8. Not only that, but the step down into mush at wider apertures outside the central area renders it useless as a wide-angle prime. It is under-designed- it should be equally sharp allover at this stage in optical history- it is a 78rpm in the age of Blu-ray, and there are many sharper consumer f3.5-4.5-5.6 zooms at a fraction of the price.And check the Sigma 35mm f1.4
How many of those consumer zooms can natively fit the Sony A7/A7r mount?
Daniel from Bavaria: Maybe its a bit slow for the one other thing, but therefore it is quite small and lightweight and it seems that optically it is very, very good. Therefore I do not really understand all the bashing here.
I am a Canon and Fuji X user and think that Sony is doing great for the whole camera industry - they are playing the pioneer in many areas. Only Olympus, Panasonic and Fuji are also in that ballpark, but FF only comes from Sony. Canon and Nikon are still waiting with their thumbs up in their - you know what - . If you like the handling of the Sony cameras or not is just a matter of preference, but technically they are doing really well. Very interesting times for all of us!
@Dave - perhaps you don't see the reason because there are no other lenses (native autofocus lenses to the camera itself) available currently made by other manufacturers.. Sigma, Tamron, or Samyang have not (or have not) made any lenses for this new Sony mount yet. So, this lens sits on its own and, ergo, Sony can charge whatever they want for it. There is no stipulation that you (or anyone for that matter) has to buy it though.
This does not surprise me.When I had my D700 & my SB-900 was "malfunctioning" (would misfire/not fire/fire when I hadn't even tripped the shutter) while on camera I decided to do some research. Not only had this happened to my close friend but also many other photographers online. It was a common problem that may have been due to carrying the camera with flash attached in a sling strap thereby having the camera & flash hang upside down. The flash is heavy & the contacts b/w the flash / hotshoe were weakened by the method of carry. All I had to do was point Nikon to the various Google search terms / results and Nikon fixed the out of warranty D700 for "free" - yes I had to speak to someone above the tech but it was rather "matter of fact". Nikon, however refused to admit any issues with either the flash or hotshoe.
I don't know why Nikon can't admit they made a mistake & just allow the return / exchange - it would build far better relationships b/w Nikon & their customer base.
I'm not a "fanboy" (or "fanboi" as some are want to spell it). I own a Nikon D600 (w/o the oil issue) and a Leica M7 and a Rolleiflex T and the Sony A7. I usually don't get hung up on reviews - I just do my own - if it's good enough for me, then I'm happy with the product/camera/item.
But as a photographer with about 35 years experience I'm behooved to understand how 1/60 shutter speed can result in "blurry photos". I'm more apt to believe this isn't the shutter speed's problem so much as the shaky hands of the photographer in question (or the fact that you're using 1/60 to shoot F1 race cars - people walking 3mph are not blurry @ 1/60s). Mind you, this issue occurs with Auto-ISO, according to the review, on the Sony - a feature which I don't use (either on my Nikon nor on the Sony) - perhaps it's due to my film days and how I was taught photography. I simply set the ISO for my conditions and work accordingly. Conditions change, and I change the ISO. Not difficult really.
Meh.. I personally don't care what a reviewer has to say about it right now - I'm having too much fun shooting my Leica M-mount lenses on this camera. I've heard all sorts of detractors and potential issues with it and have yet to really feel "this sucks" or "boy that's horrible". But then again, I shoot with a manual focus M7 for a lot of my own shooting.
AF is AF.. anyone can shoot it - and that's great - but the beauty of this camera is the ability to take those MF lenses and USE THEM with all this newer technology. That opens up a different world altogether. I believe that is what is lost on some folks. It's not for everyone but if you grew up with manual focus/manual exposure/film then once you learn to use the Sony effectively, you'll be happy as a pig in "you know what" :)
beholder3: So you get "silver" awards and 84% for:- unreliable autofocus (" no way of persuading the lens to focus accurately at all")- poor sharpness at the aperture it is mainly selling for("anything but sharp wide open, giving rather soft, low-contrast images")- overpriced / poor value for the money ("Very expensive")?
The three key factors suck. Not even mediocre.
Makes me think the "silver" is the silver dollars offered by Nikon / the Amazon gear shop to smoothen these review results for allowing good sales figures.
Hmmm.. . The review leads me to suspect a couple things (as I own a copy of this lens and have since mid-late October):1) They have a bad copy2) Their test cameras must be a bit "off"
I have never had a problem with the AF on this lens and the copy I have, on my D600, functions perfectly and is far more sharp wide open (at the focus point) than my previous 50mm f1.4 G ever was.
My suggestion to the lot of you who want to pass judgment on the lens without trying it out first... go and try it out on your own camera and see for yourself. It's worth it imho.
As someone who had no intent of purchasing this lens; but upon testing it out on the D600 I did end up buying it, sharpness was but one factor. To my eye (and in comparison to my current 50mm f1.4 G) this new 58mm was far sharper at the focus point at f1.4. The out of focus areas were rendered quite nicely and the way the photo is drawn by the lens is what attracted me. I rarely read MTF charts because, what/how I shoot, I often don't care or worry about the corners.
This lens has replaced my 50mm (I sold it the same day) and I will be happy to keep the 58mm and 35mm as my main shooting lenses. Heck, the 58mm may even replace the 85mm f1.4 D I still own.
DaveCS: Maybe it's me but the title of the DPReview post:NYT offers a look 'hometown' across the U.S. through the eyes of teens
Makes absolutely no sense. It needs, at the very least, an "at" nestled in there between "look" and " 'hometown' ". Sorry but while the photos are great title read not well when missing word thing (catch the drift?).
= You can "look there" and understand, without being told "look at there" or "look over there." Army drill sergeants bark "Eyes right!" =
Yes, that's correct, a person can say "Look there" or "Eyes right" as a command, and be understood. However, the last time I checked, in reading DPReview (or any other online publication for that matter) I am reading and not dealing with a person directly, hence the difference and the reason why the original headline did not make sense.
Maybe it's me but the title of the DPReview post:NYT offers a look 'hometown' across the U.S. through the eyes of teens
This would be interesting BUT, currently, SnapSeed has all I need from a mobile perspective. I honestly tried that mobile version of Photoshop and it was far too cumbersome. SnapSeed is a breeze in comparison.
DaveCS: Don't know if it's been mentioned before or not - I haven't seen it in the comments yet:
FYI - if you want a charger (external) it's going to cost you an extra $48 (plus any applicable taxes/shipping) since the GR, unfortunately, doesn't come with one :(
Mr Butler (thank you BTW for your continued reviews and work on this site :) )
The preview states the following:"The camera is charged via the USB socket, though it comes with a fast-charging 1A adapter."
That to me is "sort of clear" - as people may assume that "fast charging 1A adapter" = external charger
Again, please check the B&H site under "Whats In The Box" - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/965424-REG/ricoh_175743_gr_digital_camera.html
Compare that to the GRD IV "Whats In The Box" - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/822129-REG/Ricoh_175723_GR_DIGITAL_IV_Digital.html
An external charger is not included with the new GR.
Based on what I've seen via B&H the camera does not come with an external charger - unless there's an error on B&H's site. Based on "What's In The Box" - the camera is charged via USB - therefore you have to have the battery in the camera and the camera plugged into the USB adapter to charge the battery. There is/are external chargers available (both Ricoh and third party) but they will add cost to the camera. Just an FYI - not dissing the camera.
Don't know if it's been mentioned before or not - I haven't seen it in the comments yet:
ogl: The lens of Ricoh kills Nikon Coolpix A.
We'll see how it all turns out in the end. I have loved, so far, what the A can do - and specifically once you pop on a Nikon flash which is one thing Ricoh won't be able to handle with ease (Nikon's flash exposures are the best I've seen - it made me switch from Canon about 3-4 years ago). Good to have Ricoh back in the game - I wonder how long a review will take :D Cheers,Dave
Thanks for pointing this out Marike6 - this is very interesting - this is only a "Preview" as per DPReview's titling suggests so I wonder if something in their testing needs to be tweaked OR perhaps they have a poor Coolpix A copy.
I too loved the GR II and III (owned both) but I've since moved to the Coolpix A for my "carry everywhere" P&S - yes it was pricey but I'm pleased with the High ISO and IQ out of the camera. I too will await more testing before figuring out what to do because the one thing that will trump the Nikon is the Ricoh's ergonomics.
I have played with the camera at my local shop and, to be honest, I liked how it felt in the hand. I've been waiting for a "replacement" to the Ricoh GRD series (yes there's talk of a GRD V with an APSC sensor but I've seen no proof nor any firm confirmation from Pentax/Ricoh). I honestly thought Nikon was dumb for bringing this camera out - I've since changed my mind.
This camera has a lot going for it - not just great IQ as many have stated - the ergonomics (which is what led me to the GRD series in the first place) are ALMOST as good as Ricoh - I would say that the Coolpix A is second only to the GRD in terms of ergonomics. The sensor is ridiculously good and so is the lens on the A - yes it costs more but compare it to the Sigma DP Merills. This camera fits into my pocket has better IQ than my Samsung smartphone and I would enjoy using it. Those are 3 winning reasons right there to look at this seriously.
While Barbara Ann could have been more restrained and professional in her email exchange it is still theft. It is still wrong. Many people seem to feel that it is somehow "less wrong" because the image is online and "out there on the web" or "there wasn't any copyright attached to the image". There is no "less wrong" about theft. It is wrong period. My only question I had to Barb in her original post was this: If you are not interested in this contest because you felt it cheapens marriage and you don't want your brand associated with it - how did you come upon the presentation? (especially if what the radio exec claims as truth - that it only went out to aprox 10 clients)
Konica-Minolta called and they want their 2001 body design specs back . . . .
DaveCS: The sensor is the unknown variable here.CMOSIS has only been in the game since late 2007-early 2008.
Right now, I wouldn't touch this camera with a 10 foot pole.
I would wait to see some results out of that sensor before even considering that camera for my lenses.
I've owned, in the past (mid-late 2008) an M8 and it had to travel, after a week of playing with it, to Germany to get the sensor replaced - granted these where the old Kodak sensors that were just plain crappy. But it's that experience that kept me from buying an M9 and it may still keep me from this camera until Leica can prove to me that they've got their "act" together.
I currently love my film Leicas (two M7s) and their lenses but they have to produce something spectacular at a "fair" (relatively speaking of course) price for me to look at them for digital again.