halfwaythere: Lack of stabilization is still baffling.
For C and N users at least. For Pentax owners with IBIS it would be a perfect match... if only Sigma made it for K-mount. :-(
fatdeeman: Strange that they call it contemporary when the F/2.8 E mount lenses (while excellent) are clearly of a lower spec but badged as Art lenses.
Good point with the weather sealing. I wonder why e.g. the 18-35mm is not weather-sealed, since it zooms and focuses internally, so there is not much to seal. For example Pentax can make weather sealed zooms that extend quite a lot when zooming (which is much more complicated to seal). And I believe it is even less complicated to weather-seal a prime (with less moving parts).
Yes, from the pics it is obvious why Sigma didn´t give it the Art badge. However it surprises me that barrel distortion affects also standard focal length; I thought it was typical for wideangle lenses like 18mm and wider. As far as I remember the cheap 35mm prime I had (Pentax 35mm/2,4) made lines as straight as a ruler.
johnsmith404: Looks like a very nice general purpose lens, albeit one can say the same about the 30 2.8 that I already own. And probably the f2.8 is better for landscapes because it distorts less. For me personally, this lens is hard to justify.
I'm still hoping for an Art series standard zoom lens for APS-C but I guess that won't happen because such a lens would be awkward to use on m43.
Good point, I forgot the 24-105. And also this mirrorless prime shows taht fast aperture does not necessarily mean Art lens. So I hope a successor to the 17-50/2,8 will be an Art series lens (although a 16-50 would be even better).
I have been waiting for a standard Art lens for APSC DSLR. And with standard I mean really usual standard focal length like 16-50mm and f2,8. I have the 18-35mm and while I am happy with the optical performance (especially sharpness), I would trade it for something both wider and longer (albeit slower), of course keeping the high Art lens standard. Now I have to keep two standard zooms: 18-35 for ultimate performance, indoor and low light shooting and 17-70 for outdoors and travelling. I wish a mixture of both: a bit wider and longer than the 18-35 (and also smaller and lighter), but a bit faster than the 17-70. But it seems for Sigma a usual f2,8 zoom is not worth the Art badge.
DPhotoWriter: I knew you guys only went because of the drinks and food :)
You mean those taking selfie with a DSLR? ;-)
BarnET: Hey guys,
This means Sony E-mount finally has a good standard zoom.
17-70mm F2.8-4C OS with the adapter.
Exactly. 650 USD for the 17-70/2,8-4 + adapter is still way cheaper than the 16-70/4 (1000 USD). And as you say the Sigma is optically superior and faster.Btw. I own the Sigma 17-70 and it is a good walkaround lens (and considering the price it actually is great).
Steve Sanacore: As sensor size gets larger, (for better image quality), lenses will follow. You can't have a tiny long fast AF lens on a 1" sensor without changing the laws of physics. IMO you still can't beat M4/3 systems for the best compromise of size vs.image quality.
You may be true. But there are a lot of people using M4/3 cameras as a "better point-n-shoot" and never change the kit zoom (the same applies to entry-level DSLRs). For example my father has a M4/3 camera and uses only the 14-42mm kit lens (I wonder whether he would be able to detach the lens). And from what I have seen the majority of small mirrorless cameras (Oly PEN series, Pana GF/GM series etc.) has kit lens attached.
iudex: I wonder why are compact camera buyers so obsessed with looooong zoom. Once I had a pocketable compact (Canon S100) and despite it had only 120mm at tele end, I was hardly able to get a picture anytime but in bright sunny day because of luminosity f5,9 at tele end. I know a good OIS can do a lot but usability of a camera at 720mm eq. and f6,3 seems very limited to me.Like many of us I am often asked to advise a camera and the demands are always the same: small, pocketable, with good image quality AND with long zoom. I tend to recommend enthusiast compacts like RX100 et al, but many people reject it because of short zoom. However people who took my advise were very satisfied with the outcome and didn´t regret it (and to their surprise they didn´t miss the huge zoom).
Pedro: I take your standpoint, everyone has different demands. But for my city trips I hardly need more then 150mm eq. I am going to Iceland im May and the only case I think I will need a long lens is whale watching. I will have to manage it with 100mm prime (150mm eq).
Nice trip and some nice pictures and especially video. The only thing I would be worry about is lack of weather sealing, I would be very cautious taking such camera on a boat etc. Btw. the cenotes are fantastic, if I get to Mexico they are definitely a must see.
??? I don´t know what are you reacting at (I was comparing 1" with M4/3 zooms and you give comparison of M4/3 and APSC with primes).
That´s questionable. An 1" sensor camera with 24-100mm f1,8-2,8 lens is actually better choice than f3,5-5,6 lens on M4/3 camera and even on APSC. F1,8-2,8 on 1" sensor equals to f4,9-7,6 on FFF3,5-5,6 on 4/3" sensor equals to f7-11,2 on FFF3,5-5,6 on APSC sensor equals to f5,3-8,4 on FF.Of course bigger sensor has better DR, lower noise, handler high ISO better etc., however with bright lens you don´t need to get your ISO high. So a 1" sensor compact with bright lens (like the RX100 or DL24-85) is a better option than M4/3 CSC with kit lens. To get more out of 4/3 sensor you need a fast lens, but in this case it´s no longer small or pocketable.
Morten Rasmussen: That's amazing!
quote: "The RX100 III and IV meet the size and EVF requirements but are just too limited in terms of zoom."
and along comes the "fill gap" model from Nikon, hooray!!!!
But wait the zoomrange is even smaller than the RX100 iii and iv!!!!
Why on earth does the RX100 not qualify then?? I don't get it. I knov the Nikon Compact has some features in terms of wifi/bluetooth, that is nifty, but that's has got nothing to do with the camera as a mean to take pictures!
This is another example of Dpreview being so Canon and Nikon-centric, which again and again reminds me that their reviews are biased in a way, that makes it unusable.
just my 2 c.
The G7x was pathetically slow (2 fps?), but the Mark II can shoot RAW at 8 fps, so it should compete nicely now.While below I wonder about general demand for long zoom, I also think 70mm eq.(RX100 III/IV) is pretty short. My universal walkaround lens is 17-70mm (25-105mm eq.), anything shorter is a bit too limiting. However when I had the Canon S100, it´s 24-120mm range was completely OK (this equals to 16-80mm on APSC, which is an ideal allrounder).Just my 2c.
The Squire: The death of 1/2.3" (in anything but camera phones) cannot come too soon.
Now the 1" sensor is well established in big/medium-sized compacts, I'd love to see more products with 1/1.8" 2/3" sensors, for truly small cameras.
I love the size of my aging Sony TX5 - I'm sure Sony could cram a 1/1.8" sensor in there, add RAW and 4K video.
1/1,8" sensor wouldn´t make much of a difference compared to 1/2,3" sensor in smartphones (like Xperia Z5). The common standard n enthusiast compacts has been the 1/1,7" sensor which allowed really tiny cameras (see Canon´s S-series) and that is being abandoned now. I can see the point of pocketable ultrazoom with 1/1,7" sensor with bright and long lens, e.g. 25-250mm f1,8-2,8. However now when there is Panasonic TZ100 with similar specs, a lot larger sensor (despite having slower lens), I don´t believe it would sell well.
sbansban: The biggest problems I still have with the current crop of zoom compacts (whether those with 1" or sightly smaller sensors) are their slow lenses that struggle to freeze subject motion especially in less than ideal light. I am hoping we will soon see (within just a few more years) cameras the size of ZS100 that have 10X or higher zoom and F1.4-F2.0 lenses. Is that too much to ask?
sbansban: what cameras do you mean? Since the majority of recent enthusiast compacts has really fast lenses (typically f1,8-2,8).But if you mean an 1" sensor ultrazoom with 10x or bigger zoom and expect luminosity of f1,4, well, that really is a problem. Not that it was impossible, but the camera (lens) would be huge. Remember, f-number = focal length/diameter of entrance pupil.
I wonder why are compact camera buyers so obsessed with looooong zoom. Once I had a pocketable compact (Canon S100) and despite it had only 120mm at tele end, I was hardly able to get a picture anytime but in bright sunny day because of luminosity f5,9 at tele end. I know a good OIS can do a lot but usability of a camera at 720mm eq. and f6,3 seems very limited to me.Like many of us I am often asked to advise a camera and the demands are always the same: small, pocketable, with good image quality AND with long zoom. I tend to recommend enthusiast compacts like RX100 et al, but many people reject it because of short zoom. However people who took my advise were very satisfied with the outcome and didn´t regret it (and to their surprise they didn´t miss the huge zoom).
HowaboutRAW: So where's the Sigma Quattro SD and SD-H announcement?
Two new Foveon mirrorless cameras from Sigma, one with a new APSC-H sensor:
Sure, an EVF would have helped K-01 a little. But would it have been enough to turn a flop into success story? I don´t think so. People bashed K-01 for its design, weight and size and that it had to use big DSLR lenses. And all those caveats are here with these Sigmas. So an EVF is nice to have (for me an inevitable thing in every camera above 200 euros), but it won´t help.
Steve Photographer: Always nice to hear of MFT lens additions. But what I really need from panasonic is a fast aperture, wide prime that is image stabilised. 12mm or 10.5mm would be great. Image stabilisation in this type of lens would not only allow handheld stills in lower light (or lower ISO), while also permitting indoor video on the hoof - without the faf of a rig. Of course IBIS is the holy grail but this isn't available in Panasonic cameras yet, at least for 4K shooting.
How about the GX8, doesn´t it have IBIS?
ozturert: Nice. If it's optically better than Oly 12-50mm, then it's a better option.
Well maybe for someone (me for instance) the gain at wide end is worth more than the loss at tele end. 28mm eq. is far too limiting.Btw. I do not believe that a 10x zoom lens will be optically better than a 5x zoom.
Given the current standard zooms for M4/3 this one is definitely the most interesting. The old 14-42 kit lenses are not wide enough and optically mediocre (well, a kit lens). The 12-32mm is wide, however too short. The 12-50mm is both sufficiently wide and long, but too slow. This one is wider than the kit zoom and longer than other two, so definitely the most interesting cheap zoom (well, cheap in comparison to Pro 12-40mm lens). So basically a counterpart to popular DLSR zooms like 15-85/16-85mm from N/C/P. However I cannot get rid of a feeling that Pana could have used the advantage of smaller sensor and make a bit faster lens, e.g. a constant f4. This would fit nicely between f2,8 zooms (12-35, 12-40) and slow variable aperture kit lenses.