D1N0: Are you sure you used the right jpeg settings? four stars I believe.
Exactly, 3 stars on lower models (same had my K-30) and 4 stars on higher positioned models (K-5 II, K-3).
No big changes really. Considering it is basically a last year´s camera the price is a bit too high. The concept is great: small, pocketable compact ultrazoom with slightly bigger sensor and excellent EVF. However the question is how much better it is compared to 1/2,3" sensor cameras, e.g. the Pana FZ200 (398 USD) and also whether the size difference (which is noticeable) is a sufficient reason to choose this camera over the excellent Pana FZ1000 (costing nearly the same - 728 USD) with much bigger sensor, bigger zoom and better image quality.
Stephen McDonald: The "1/1.7-inch" sensor isn't much larger than those in most superzoom models, but yet this one gives only a 300mm reach. They should have either given it more lens power or an even larger sensor size, to have an appeal to different segments of its potential buyers. It also doesn't have 60p video and at a $700. price, I don't think it will sell very well.
The Panasonic FZ1000 costs only $200. more and has a "1-inch" sensor and 400mm of reach, 60p video and 4K.
Just to put things right: the Pana FZ1000 doesn´t cost 200 USD more, it´s only 29 bucks more (728 USD on amazon).
Beckler8: Consider this a poor man's RX10. Constant f/2.8 is nice. But personally I can't consider larger cameras like this that don't have 4K - something that will very soon be as standard as 1080p.
However 700 USD is not a pricetag for a poor man. ;-) You can get a Panasonic FZ1000 for this money.
Hugo808: Jolly impressive, but is it the lens or the camera? I'm looking forward to seeing a mix of glass used for the full review...
Hugo: but that´s basically a collapsible lens. There are already some collapsible zooms for DSLRs, the Pentax DA 18-50 RE being the best example. However such collapsible design has it´s downsides, most importantly in optical quality (from first reviews of Pentax 18-50 it seems the new zoom is slightly worse than regular 18-55 kit zoom).
Maybe one day manufacturers will create a 16-55mm f1,8 zoom lens, but even if they did it (which seems impossible now), people would complain how big and heavy it is and that it is still fairly short. ;-)I own this Sigma and of course I wish it was a bit longer, but we cannot have all. I gave up a standard 17-50mm f2,8 zoom and switched to 18-35mm for the speed (and much better optical quality overall). I simply try to look at it as a substitute for 3 fast primes (e.g. 18, 27 and 35mm) with the convenience of having a single lens.
ttran88: They could have possibly reused d7100 samples and call it a day.
io_bg: I didn´t know that, I thought the sensor stayed untouched (and even Nikon did not mention new sensor upon introduction). So now it should be the same sensor that is in Pentax K-3?
lem12: Such nice performance by Sigma 18-35mm f1.8, wow! It would be fair if all other brand same-group DSLR's be tested with the same lens. Thanks!
Exactly. Shooting with any Sigma Art-series lens helps a lot and it is a bit unfair to some cameras with kit lenses.
That´s maybe because the sensor stays the same. ;-)The changes refer more to usage of the camera (bigger buffer, AF in lower light) that quality of the pictures.
intruder61: images that could have been taken by any camera....nothing special.
Exactly as retro76 wrote: it´s all about light and that was not good, so you cannot do any better.
Horshack: Yamaki-san for Prime Minister!
Well the most important was that they made the 18-35/1,8 for K-mount. There are meny great primes from Pentax, but no zooms like this Sigma.Maybe Pentax will be more attractive for Sigma after bringing the fullframe to the market.
The Squire: I always imagined Richard was more of a pop-to-the-cafe-for-a-latte-on-my-singlespeed sorta guy.
Well Richard does not even has that hipster image, there are other guys in DPR stuff whose image could make you think so. ;-)
iudex: I see no reason for critisizing the photographer; the pictures are OK given the light situation. Shooting RAW is also desirable, since OOC JPEGs can hide a lot of flaws and I want to see exactly how the lens performs, not showing the most pleasing pictures I can get out of the cameraMaybe if I desired something it would be more portraits at maximum FL and f2,8.Anyhow the performance of the lens seems fine, but not extraordinary, just slightly above the average. And I think we can expect more from a lens of this cathegory (a lot of glass and high-end features), especially considering the high pricetag. Costing 50% more than the Sigma 18-35 Art it should also perform better, but according to these pics it does not. But I am considering only few real world shots, so I better wait for judgement for regular studio test.
One good example: X-E1 with 50-150mm: http://www.lenstip.com/upload2/125204_fuj50-140_wstep.jpgDefinitely not an ideal combo.
piratejabez: Beautiful location! Where were you?
I like it too. Very exotic locations for us, Central Europeans.
Marc: no doubt about that. Obviously the smaller, rangefinder-styled bodies are not that suitable for these new fast zooms, they are better off with primer or smaller zooms.
FamlilyPhotographer: hahaa....my sigma 35 art has smaller filter size :D
What is here to wonder? Obviously a single focal length lens (especially normal FL) will have smaller filter thread than a zoom starting at wideangle. It´s more about focal range and the start of it than about speed. My Sigma 18-35 with f1,8 has 72mm thread, the same as Pentax 16-85 with slow f3,5-5,6.
I see no reason for critisizing the photographer; the pictures are OK given the light situation. Shooting RAW is also desirable, since OOC JPEGs can hide a lot of flaws and I want to see exactly how the lens performs, not showing the most pleasing pictures I can get out of the cameraMaybe if I desired something it would be more portraits at maximum FL and f2,8.Anyhow the performance of the lens seems fine, but not extraordinary, just slightly above the average. And I think we can expect more from a lens of this cathegory (a lot of glass and high-end features), especially considering the high pricetag. Costing 50% more than the Sigma 18-35 Art it should also perform better, but according to these pics it does not. But I am considering only few real world shots, so I better wait for judgement for regular studio test.
Poweruser: Another demonstration of how little "bokeh" is going on in a 2.8 midrange zoom on APS-C. Which is why most people should be happier with either a slower, cheaper, lighter standard zoom or a set of fast primes.
This could have been a winner if as fast as Sigmas 18-35.
If it was f1,8 like the Sigma, it would weigh cca. 2 kg. ;-) I own the Sigma and it is pretty heavy already with it´s mere 1,94 zoom. As regards the bokeh: the Sigma has appealing f1,8 and you might think that makes perfect bokeh, but it is actually no different from 50mm at f2,8. Out-of-focus blur is influenced not only by luminosity, but also by focal length and the longer FL compensates for slower speed. I think DPR made a comparison of Sigma 18-35 and came to the conclusion that 35mm at f1,8 makes similar background blur as 50mm at f2,8.
Here is a picture comparing the FF prototype with existing K-S2: http://www.pentaxforums.com/content/uploads/files/1/p1522/_IGP6275.JPGIt is obvious the FF is bigger, but not by much and considering the K-S2 is one of the smallest APSC DSLRs it is clear the FF will be no beast (what is a good newws for me, since I have no interest in FF Behemoth like the D800).