YSP: Once again, ditto: Canon, Nikon, & other camera manufacturers:
Bring out a compact, lightweight (Please notice the 1st two keywords here are "compact"--not full size camera bodies, & "lightweight"--vs: full/large-size & HEAVY DSLR body-types), full-frame, weather-sealed, interchangeable lens format, digital-image camera, etc, then let the fair comparisons begin. (*Remember the "Mack semi vs the Ford pickup truck scenario" I referred to earlier; they're both vehicles mind-you but, different categories altogether. The same can be said here, digital full-frame camera's (vehicles) yes but, different categories altogether: "compact/lightweight vs full-size/heavier bodies").
Also like others here have said, Sony has been known (like other camera makers) to update/improve their cameras via downloadable hardware updates to fix issues from slow-startup speeds to jpeg compression/processing ratios - meaning problems cited in the "DPR jpeg issues realm." Just wait for the improvements to come
I like the idea of small compact full frame cameras. It would be nice to also have affordable compact lenses to go with them. I have had great fun with the inexpensive Canon EOS M because it is so small and easy to carry around and have bought all the available lenses for it. I have tried full size L lenses like the 24-105 and it works fantastic but now the lens is twice as big as the camera and weighs twice as much.
The scenes above are great! Good composition. Imagine how much better they would have been with a equally compact large sensor mirrorless.
mayurgogoi: Odd camera with less features--1st) heavy weight 760g 2nd)only 1/4000sec 3rd)no auto focus assist lamp 4th)no flash built in 5th)no tillable lcd(in this model we should not expect!) 5th)high price
My thoughts as well. Retro style is fine, especially if the dials make some features easily accessible and not buried deep inside a menu system but to dumb down common features or remove them and charge a premium. That would be a no.
Roland Karlsson: Strange comparison. Comparing the size of the fix focus, fix focal length experimental lens to a commercial Zoom lens. A zoom lens that is for an SLR camera with large flange distance, i.e. a retro focus lens. A zoom lens that can both focus and change aperture.
And then say it is 10 times smaller. 10 times smaller in what dimension? Length, width, lens front area, volume?
Uh, the test lens is pictured next to the wide angle lens for comparison. (to the left)
AngryCorgi: Meh...I have seen very, very few complaints on DPR of people getting bad results from adapters, and I swear the pickiest people on Earth use this website. In practice, its just not a real issue.
Exactly, if someone is greatly bothered by the very possibility of losing a microscopic degree of performance on their lenses with an adapter, then just don't use them. The rest of us will enjoy them.
There is no such thing as a perfect lens, or adapter. This is the equivalent of a pixel peeper review of lens performance. Taken at minutia, it is just AWFUL, but taken as a whole or with a grain of salt, it will never limit your creativity. An adapter is a fantastic tool to expand your creative potential and the only thing it can introduce is perhaps a slight but negligible miss alignment or difference in lens distance that may or may not show off the quality of performance of the edges of the lens. So be it. Other then that, there is no extra glass in between your lens and the sensor to change anything else.
Biological_Viewfinder: We are at a turning point in photography history:
The truth is that technology is making leaps and bounds. We now have a smart phone with more MP than any consumer camera currently made. The truth is that smaller is better. And in the future children will grow up to mock us and our backpacks of camera gear, as if we were Bill Cosby walking to school in 3 feet of snow, uphill, both ways.
The truth is that it just no longer makes sense for the average consumer to go out and buy a dSLR. Once shutter-delay is resolved, there won't really be any reason at all for an average consumer to buy anything big and bulky, ever again.
It is all relative I suppose because I remember my first DSLR of 10 years ago a Canon Rebel, like 6 Megapixels. I still have images from that camera and they still look amazing. There is no current smartphone that can match the quality of those pictures.
Don't forget, smartphone cameras are now hitting 10 to 13 megapixels and people think that just because their smartphone can hit high megapixels that it makes their smartphone camera as good as a regular camera so why bother buying a PS, let alone a DSLR. The only smartphone manufacture bucking the trend is HTC. I bought their HTC One which is a beautiful and fast all metal feature packed wonder but only 4 megapixel camera with a sensor that is bigger than most any other smartphone, image stabilizing and F2 lens. It isn't fantastic in all conditions and could use a few more megapixels but low light capabilities are pretty impressive. Some phone companies are catching on and are just eating the camera companies for lunch. The best thing they could do is find a phone vendor and design like a Canon or Nikon labeled phone with good camera feature set at a reasonable price.
jjl: This is pretty simple, actually... the DSLR market is saturated. The new DSLRs are "better" than the previous generation, but not significantly better for existing DSLR owners to spend the $2-3K for an upgrade.
It used to be that each generation of new DSLR was a "must have". Not any more. You can take amazing images with a 4-5 year old DSLR.
I bought my 5D MKII during the boom and quite frankly, there is no real need to upgrade beyond that for a long time. I have plenty of headroom to do whatever I please and the newer models don't justify the cost over an existing good camera.
Tee1up: I think the non-enthusiast market is sticking completely with their smart phones. They are willing to mash and smash away with whatever their Samsung/iPhone gives them and spank it up on Facebook.
At our last family reunion, out of 50 people, I was the only one using a DSLR and only one other person was shooting with a P&S. Everyone else...smart phone.
With few exceptions, their photography is breathtakingly bad - and none of them really care. The moment was captured...guddenough....
Makes me sad really.
I have to agree. I was at a car show a couple of weekends ago with my Canon 5D MKII just doing some shooting and everywhere I look there are cell phones clicking and worse, this one woman with her Apple Tablet?!!! in the bright sunlight where she couldn't even see the screen trying to take pictures like she was cool or something. It was painful and sad to see at the same time.
I was about to say the moon looked a bit faux, the crater pattern doesn't match real moon, otherwise it is a stunning image. I imagine there was some noise as it looks smoothed out.
I'll trade you one of them for my well taken care of 40D?.
the pixel peeper in me says, nice...
Paul Farace: all graphic arts have devolved in exactly this same fashion once they reached the end of their technical maturity cycle. Look at painting... once artists achieved near photographic reality, they devolved first into the IMPRESSIONISTS and then into CUBISM and sadly we ended up with blobs of paint and urine splattered on a canvas. Same holds true for sculpting... once you achived the near reality phase (Michaelangelo's DAVID), you slid down into a lump of marble with a stick in it. Photography is no different. With the millions of dollars spent on achieving the sharpest, best imaging system and digital convenience, you had the natural movement to make pinhole cameras and light-leak effects. It's the end of the world, I tell you!
We have a long way to go before we reach the holy grail of perfect focus, perfect dynamic range photography. If we are lucky and work hard to stack, push and cojole dymanic range out of a picture it is more likely to end up looking fake and soulless. I don't like using flashes or extra lights because I to like to capture the natural atmosphere of the moment but it is rare when the camera has the range to do so. I want sharp buttery smooth detail that oozes in dynamic range in a handheld snap with no extra lighting. Someday my dream will come true but not yet.
looks like it would have been easier to smart copy the dog and kite on a second layer, smart blur the bottom layer and lay your dog back down with some minor touchup.
pretty shot, funny you can always tell a crop because the left side is sharper, less distorted while the right side (better content), is more distorted, and lots more chromo and distortion. If it was a straight shot, both left and right, top,bottom would be equally balanced in regards to distortion and chromo.
Zeis: Most of the people complaining here are terrible photographers. Hacks, hobbiest, debbie digital & uncle bob and some sad, sad pro's who can't take a decent images to save their life.
Who cares what the technical abilities of these new Nikon and Canon cameras are if you can't use them. Theses camera are better than the last round of new releases and people back in the day (so so long ago) and people were creating amazing images with such outdated gear.
My suggestion is to learn how to push the camera you already have and not worry about all this bull people are slinging here in these forums.
hey, hey, I resemble that remark!!! sir!
Okay, the main reason I bought the MKII was for low light performance and FF. Now..., how much can I expect to sell my MKII for, body only?
jurci: Would love to see a Mirror 500/8 (or 6.3 even!) for Canon full sized sensor 5D MII. Minolta used to have one!
Funny mine came in this weekend (the one clubstylz mentions) but I got mine from Overstock. Works well even came with an aluminum 2x multiplier and T-mount.
Roland Karlsson: To me enthusiast lenses are lenses that enthusiasts buy, i.e. lenses with exceptional qualities or other extreme properties. To me a "roundup" is a rather complete summary of something. Neither of those objectives are met by this article IMHO.
Fun reading nevertheless.
I completely agree, and would probably take it even further in considering a true enthusiast would not be using a crop sensor system anyway except for maybe as a backup. The title of this article is misleading.