AbrasiveReducer: To summarize, Tamron has discovered its easier to make a really good fixed focal length lens than it is to make a decent zoom.
But they are successful at both.
The Tamron 15-30mm zoom is pretty amazing. It would have been incredible without vibration control--better in many respects than the Nikon 14-24mm. With the addition of the VC, it is astonishing
King of Song: Did Sony just do the impossible?Yes.... Sony has just kicked Canon and Nikon in the teeth. And if Sony should decide to not sell this new sensor, or any other new sensors to Nikon. Nikon may well go out of business. Canon is doing a good job of putting themselves out of business.
"Sony is the number one sensor seller, Canon at this time don't have to sell their's."
And that's a good thing because there would be few buyers!
Now if Canon would sell their amazing glass for use with other vendor's bodies, that would be a good thing.
If the reviews of this Sony body are consistent with the promises, I will likely be a buyer of one + a MB adapter to finally mate my Canon lenses with one of these superb Sony sensors.
However, I will likely wait to see if they can work out the issues with compression.
Kevin RAR: To be honest, this result is far beyond my imagination. The resolution widget on the right shows huge difference. D810 blurs lines since the mark of 46, and 5Dsr maintains very clear line structure till the end, which should be the mark of 52.
Is that possible any test errors? I still can't imagine such a big resolution improvement in 35mm DSLRs.
Ah, you must be looking at the jpegs. I tend to look first at RAW and the low-light tests at high-ISO.
Okay, if I look at the "lighted" series in RAW at base-ISO, there is a resolution difference between the new Canon and the D810, but it's not substantial. It's, perhaps, in line with what can be expected from a modest increase in resolution.
I'm not disappointed by these results--I do like the quality of noise at high-ISO--, but they're not conclusive enough for me to place a order. I'm looking forward to seeing DR tests. Perhaps by Monday?
nekrosoft13: interesting interview, but pathetic Canon point of view. they act like their the best in everything, nothing scares them, yet every company out there is making better gear then them.
True, but how much of their lead is due to their amazing lens offerings? I tried to make the switch to Nikon but found that there were too many lenses that Nikon either didn't have (e.g., 70-300L) or Canon's offerings were simply better (e.g., the 24-70L II and 100-400L II). With the 11-24L, Canon has successfully addressed the last (major) category of Nikon lens superiority. I find that I end up shooting both brands: Canon for the lenses and Nikon for it's superior sensor.
stevevelvia50: How did distortion compare with the two lenses at the tested focal lengths, perhaps I missed that. I know that the nikon 14-24 2.8 is known for it's very well corrected distortion. If distortion had to be corrected to match the lenses at tested focal lengths, wouldn't this also have implications on corner sharpness comparisons?
Cameralabs.com has released their tests results, which include a Tamron/Nikon comparison. Their data shows the Tamron controling distortion at least as well as the Nikon at every focal lengths.
chipmaster: Looks like Tamron did a good job, between this review and Roger's they got something here! Looks like their holy trinity is out there with only the need of time to build the legacy of support and build.
I don't shoot much wide anymore and sold my 14-24, as in some ways my favorite lense but not used often.
Nikon should feel some heat, they've had the market to themselves for almost a decade and now someone comes out with something really as good and with some additional features! They had to invest in new design, tooling and price at something they will still make a profit ( Tamron that is ). Nikon has almost a decade to make back investment, hard to believe they can't sell their lense at Tamron prices and still make a profit.
I know if I go super wide again on FX the tamron would be get me a long look give its performance, VC and longer end flexiblity over a used 14-24. I am actually also thinking of replacing my 24-70 with the Tamron as VC is just nice to have too!
Dustin Abbott also asserts that the Zeiss 15mm has a 110 deg FOV, so perhaps the Zeiss was Tamron's target for FOV.
I tried the Sigma 12-24 and was very disappointed with it's IQ. The Canon 11-24 is exciting but the $3000 price tag is a no go.
Hopefully, Sigma reworks its 12-24 lens to bring it in line with its Art series, but I'm not optimistic.
I have the Samyang, and it is satisfactory for the few times that I actually need to go really wide.
rustdream: Budget at $1200? You must be joking.
Also considering that the new Canon 11-24mm L f/4 lens is $3000, a $1200 full-frame lens with this level of performance is indeed a budget lens and a bargain to boot.
From a quick websearch I found these max FX FOV figures:
Nikon 16-35 mm 107 degCanon 16-35 mm 108 degTamron 15-30 mm 110 degNikon 14-24 mm 114 degSamyang 14 mm 115.7 deg
Thus, if these measures are true, then the Nikon 16-35 really doesn't approach the 15mm FOV that the Tamron offers.
Studor13: These "tests" make me laugh.
Try doing this regularly over an entire European winter nights:Leave the lenses on a tripod and shoot 1 to 2 hour long exposures. Make sure you have a few days where you are certain to get some serious condensation coming down onto the lenses.
After 3 winters my 14-24 is still going strong without any problems. I also have the 16-35mm f4 but I don't dare risk this lens because I am fairly certain that it would die a very sudden death.
There is far more to a lens than some apparent sharpness in the corners when viewed at 100% on a D810!
And BTW, 1mm is not insignificant on an extreme wide angled lens.
Your point is well taken and is of critical importance to certain types of photographers. But there are many of us who are hobbyist, and don't throw our kit in the back of pickup trucks traveling down dirt roads and don't shoot in dust storms. For those like us, does it make sense to pay and extra $600 for a more robust instrument that has no-to-marginally better IQ? I for one don't think so (spoken as a former owner of the 14-24 who admired its output but couldn't justify keeping it for my limited purposes).
blakevanderbilt: This shootout is a little confusing to me.. Based on the review on LensRental, the results actually favoured the Nikkor slightly more, unlike this test, where even though you're suspecting a decentered copy of the Tamron, it still outperforms (slightly) the Nikon.
The lenses are very close at 15mm. At 24mm, the Tamron pulls away. The result is also consistent with the LensRental test.
Gnaeus48: I enjoy reading user opinions especially professionals, however, I would not expect a sports photographer to select an APS-C camera for their work since isolation of the subject and depth of field is very important to them. Also when you consider that shooting at higher ISO goes along with the fast shutter speed they need to stop action the APS-C sensor generally does not produce low noise at high ISOs. But, for those of us who shot landscapes, still life and portraits, the 7D II is a super camera. If you check out the high ISO noise on the Nikon D7100 you will see significant noise in both the highlights and shadows as well. From the sample photos I have viewed at DPReview taken with the 7DII, I like the high ISO performance of the 7D II over the D7100.
No, I prefer my D800E for those purposes. However, for sports, wildlife, and BIF, I'm pretty optimistic that the 7D2 will be the best camera under $5000 especially when paired with superb Canon lenses.
I tend to agree. Looking at RAW files from IR, the 7D II does have cleaner files at high ISO. Part of the difference may be due to the software use (Canon's latest versus LR), but it looks very promising.
CurtM: I am a bit confused as to how this camera fits in the line up. I have a Eos70d -- bought because I am rather new to photography and it was great at video too. If I were to upgrade one day (if I ever get to the point where I am not the limiting factor but rather the camera is -- and I am not yet at that point), why would one consider this cropped frame camera over the Eos 6D or 5D with full frame? The price difference seems to be rather marginal.
The sensor is only one reason to consider this camera. This camera has most of the features and performance of Canon's flagship professional body, 1DX, which goes for $5-$6k. This camera is designed primarily for sports/action/wildlife where fast and accurate AF is at a premium. And if the camera can maintain this high degree of performance while shooting more than 7fps (the fastest current Canikon body under $5000 tops off at 6.5fps) all the better. This bad boy does 10fps while maintaining accurate tracking AF.
On top of that, aps-c provides more "reach" than any full frame camera. The pixel density is greater than any full frame camera, which means images taken will provide you with more pixels to work with. This feature can be very useful whether you crop or not. By contrast a FF cropped down to the same size provides fewer pixels to work with. Thus, many "birders" strongly prefer aps-c cameras and have no desire to upgrade to full-frame.
Studor13: What a great day.
Finally, all those Nikon D300/D7100 shooters waiting for the D400 can now finally switch over to Canon and shut the F up.
Congratulations Canon. Now you will have to put up with their continual moans and whines.
I shoot both Canon and Nikon, and IQ is only part of the equation. For action and wildlife, performance matters as much or more. For this reason, I'm considering the 7D2, but not anything Nikon offers.
photolando: I rarely hear anyone boast about GPS. Who cares? But they put GPS in the 7DII and no Wi-Fi?? IN TODAY'S world!?? I need wi-fi A LOT more than I will EVER need GPS. I don't ever need GPS. I switched from Nikon to Canon years ago because of cmos v ccd. I may go back now. FF 24 MB, tilting monitor, and wi-fi for $500 more with the new 750? Convince me to stay with Canon.
This is ironic; I'm considering the 7DMII because the D750 doesn't meet my needs. For action photography, I want 8fps minimum. Nikon requires purchase of the expensive D4s to get that level of performance.
If the 7D2 has acceptable IQ through ISO 3200, it will likely be my next action and wildlife camera.
(unknown member): OK: the first one that will post a high ISO picture (at 6400, say...) from the new 7D II will get a beer from me, as I am curious if this is the 70D, or something else.
Agree. It's aps-c, and I haven't seen any aps-c sensor regardless of make that provides acceptable IQ beyond ISO3200 (and that's pushing it). Hopefully, this one is an improvement over the first 7D, which was weak at ISO1600 and had noticeable noise at base ISO.
nikonman2004: I can't wait for Sigma to re do their 85 1:4
Wow. I've seen a direct comparison--sorry, I don't have the link on hand--between the two Sigmas and the new 50 definitely has better bokeh than the earlier version. So, excuse me if I find your conclusion especially since you do not claim to have conducted a side-by-side comparison.
qwertyasdf: To be very honest, a 50mm lens, no matter the performance, doesn't excite me.
There are more superb 50mm lens out there than there are superb photographers.
I'm more inclined to see some unseen lenses, 20mm F1.4, anyone?
Hmm, I'd like that lens as well, but I suspect that it would be massively large.
I'd be more than happy to settle for an awesome 18 or 20mm f/1.8 or f/2.0 prime with AF.
jcburke: Does the SL1 use the non-STM line of Canon APS-C lenses? I shoot with a 7D and have several very expensive Canon "L" USM lenses, and I'm not going to buy a Canon camera that requires I buy another set of glass.
The SL1 is compatible with an EF (which includes "L" lenses) and EF-S lenses.
Thus, unless you have some very old lenses (30+ years or more), the SL1 can use it.
Kelton Sweet: The 610 seems to add some striations (vertical stripes) on the wall and also on the back of that painting (sitting on the easel).
I'm looking at the original cropped area of the image... with the family admiring a painting.
I noticed that as well. Add the D800 and you see the same striations. There also seems to be a lot of color artifacts (moiré?) in the walls, so I suspect that the Nikons are resolving greater detail.
So are they artifacts, or is the D610 picking up additional detail.?