Weia: Interesting. that '1000 times less light than on earth' is something one doesn't realise.
Nevermind, I thought your calculation was off but it wasn't.
Neil-H: I half expect a DPR article soon about going even further back in time. This time it's manual everything that frees the artist, next it's finger painting bringing us back to Louis & Clark and the Louisiana purchase....
Ah the good ole' days, why are we even using these clunky machines anyway... Is it just me or is this all backwards? Why are we celebrating getting less for our money? If I want to shoot manual everything, I can, I simply turn off AF and shoot in Manual with a lens with an aperture ring. But to pay these prices for lenses that can't AF if it's really needed, that's just odd.
@Neil-H: you were bashing this Voigtlander which were made for mirrorless systems and suggesting that there are alternatives which offer both good manual and auto focus. I asked for some examples but you couldn't find any. That's because there is zero lens in the mirrorless world which offer both classic manual focusing and fast AF. There are lenses like that in the SLR world, but we are talking about mirrorless systems here, are we not? Those SLR AF lens wouldn't AF so well when adapted to mirrorless bodies.
What are these good lens with real focus gear you're speaking of? I'm not aware of any such lens for E-mount, perhaps they are in other mirrorless systems?
Because the focus-by-wire, which you would get if you turn on MF mode in mirrorless camera bodies, is terrible compared to the real manual focusing on classic MF-only lens with their mechanical direct coupling and long focus throw.
gordon lafleur: Sony don't get it. The whole point of mirror-less cameras is compact size. These huge clunkers are ridiculous.
So who gets it? Every mirrorless system out there has both large and small lens (compared to the body size) to give you the choice between quality/functionality vs compactness. If you don't like the huge Zeiss 35/1.4 then use the small Sony 35/2.8 or this new 28/2.0.
BBViet: You can put sharks in a positive light all you want but they are still dangerous and should be known as such. Bears are often put in a positive light, but if you don't teach your kids that they are dangerous, bad things will happen the next time they see one and think of the cuddly ones in cartoons and toy shops.
Don't let the shark fanatics lead you to believe sharks are safe to be around even when you're not a professional.
Dogs, not supposedly but definitely, have 1000x more exposure to humans so they can't be compared. Sharks are all over the place but it doesn't mean they are in close proximity to humans often. They are dangerous creatures and that's unquestionable. What humans do to them or how are they portrayed in the movies is a different matter.
Statistics are often manipulated to further an agenda. In this instance, people often cite the low number fatal shark attacks but conveniently leave out how infrequently humans come near them. But since you're talking about statistics, I'm sure bears kill far less than 10 people a year in North America so I guess by your logic they are safe to be around. And if you surf around the web you'll see that the number of fatal crocodile attacks in Australia aren't high either :)
By the way, bees are dangerous, lions are dangerous, wild animals are dangerous. Now let's stop throwing out red herrings.
With a lens that big you can probably get 10 shots off before the AF motor sucks all the juice out of the battery.
You can put sharks in a positive light all you want but they are still dangerous and should be known as such. Bears are often put in a positive light, but if you don't teach your kids that they are dangerous, bad things will happen the next time they see one and think of the cuddly ones in cartoons and toy shops.
BBViet: Thanks for the review. Could you please comment on the performance of the stabilization in stills mode compared to previous version?
Thanks a lot!
Thanks for the review. Could you please comment on the performance of the stabilization in stills mode compared to previous version?
RichRMA: These ISO 409,600 ISO claims by Sony and Nikon are ridiculous. The images at that ISO look like a P&S camera, shot at 6400 ISO, underexposed 2 stops and pushed.
@HowaboutRAW: do you feel that insecured because of the A7s that you have to go on a crusade to diss the camera and put down every comment that is positive towards it? I suggest you grow up a bit.
tabloid: There is a thing in law called 'common sense'
The 'youth' either took pictures of himself (which we all know he did).
Or the 'youth' sold it to another' youth' who knew it was a hot phone, as there was no proof of ownership from the seller. (common sense)
If the thief was going to sell it to legitimate phone purchasing company, he would have to have given them a specific code number inside the phone. (common practice), which would not be a good idea from the thief's point of view, as it would have come up as 'stolen'.
So he has 2 alternatives.Keep the phone, or sell it to another 'youth' without any proof of ownership.The buyer will of course know that that if he is sold a mobile phone on the cheap from a dodgy looking youth...lol, then unless he is a total moron he will know that its stolen.
I rest my case
You ruined your argument with the first sentence. If we enforce laws based on common sense then we don't need facts, evidences and witnesses to put someone in jail, we just find the most probable culprit based on common sense and put him away.By the way, do you ask for proof of ownership of every item you buy or make sure the thing was ethically made?
By the way, how does one know the guy in the picture is the owner of the phone? My phones normally don't have pictures and videos of myself, just of my friends and family. Were there any pictures of the "selfies" type?
Paul Brown UK: Whilst it is likely that these are images of the thief, you should hold in the back of your mind that these could simply be images of an unsuspecting buyer of a secondhand phone, sold to him by the thief..........
Really? Do you assume any seller who refuses to let you take their photo a crook? Even if he lets you take his photo this does not mean the phone was not stolen either. You can't prove anything this way.Besides, the guy you're buying from may not be the thief but the first, second, third owner of the phone since it was stolen.The only way to prove a phone was not stolen is by asking the seller to show the originial receipt or contract/warranty card with the phone's IMEI or serial numbers on it. If you go this far to buy a clean phone I hope you trace every product you intend to buy back to its factory in whatver country it is made in and check if the working conditions meet your ethical standards.
ryansholl: The complaining here is just getting unbearable.
If you don't think it's worth the money when you're faced with the need for lenses of a different mount, go ahead and search ebay, risk getting an item not as described (because that never happens to anyone, right) pay your shipping costs, pay the 4% or whatever to ebay and 4% to paypal from the sale of your own lens, and move on with your life.
When you know you've got a great lens, could it just maybe be that $80-$250 to not F around with all the potential perils of ebay might just be worth it?
You are assuming that:1/ The lens returned by Sigma is the same one you sent in.2/ The conversion process does not have any impact on the performance of the lens. Just because it performed great with the previous mount does not mean it will do the same with the new mount. A mount that is off axis just slightly can turn a great lens into an average one.3/ Ebay is the only place to buy lens.
This seems pointless. At the price they quoted it should almost always be cheaper to just sell the version you own and buy a used copy of the version you want.
Besides, what I got from the article above is that if your lens has like 2 years left of warranty and you send it in for conversion, that 2-year warranty becomes 6-month. So that is another limitation.