Toni Salmonelli: @dpreview team: Did I miss something or is there still now review of this camera?
Please speed camera reviews and keep up the great work!
Sigma is just now announcing that it will be available in July. Some reviewers might get early production samples before that, but I wouldn't expect a review several weeks before the launch date.
BLongborough: Same old Sony, trying to keep back the tide like King Cnut. Remember when their cameras could only use *Sony* memory sticks?
Now it's FUD about bricking, viruses, ... Heard the story before.
I don't care how good the lenses, sensors, processors are, I'll never buy Sony -- they'rre just the Apple of cameras.
"Brick and Mortar shops stock Sony cameras on an effectively equal par with Canikon"
Doubtful, since they certainly don't sell as many of them. Canon and Nikon together hold ~75% of the ILC (DSLR and mirrorless) market, while Sony's share is less than 15%.
felix from the suburbs: Kind of sad to read all of those mocking comments. When I was starting out in armature photography Hasselblad was a premier brand and our "someday" camera should we ever win a lottery or inherit enough money from some unknown relative. I guess it's just another causality of the digital age. But I, for one, hope that they knock it out of the park and regain some of their lost glory - even though I likely wouldn't be able to afford it unless that unknown relative with money decides to write me into their will.
Well, Hasselblad is under new management now, I believe, and the CEO has stated that no more wooden Sony cameras will be made. Let's hope he's telling the truth.
miric: Yup. We already have a couple of game changers by 'Blad — Lunar and Stellar. So why don't we have third one?
Hadn't heard of the LUSSO, but it seems it was released in 2015, a year after the HV.
The Lunar was announced in 2012, the Stellar in 2013, and the HV and Stellar II in 2014. So a company that has been in the photographic industry for several decades releases a few rebranded and pimped up Sony cameras during the course of a couple of years, and that's what you mainly know them for?
They did release a third one, the HV, which was based on the Sony A99.
Kiril Karaatanasov: Latest Nikon cameras are full of false advertisement. The obscene high iso values are particularly misleading. While the products are excellent relative to competition they are very far from what Nikon claims
Every manufacturer of compact cameras uses the FF equivalent focal lengths in their marketing, but never the equivalent apertures. It's not unique to Nikon. This practice has been followed for fixed-lens cameras (but not interchangeable lenses) as long as digital cameras have been around. However, the actual physical focal lengths are always printed on the front of the lens.
ekaton: Why faster and faster, bigger and beefier? For dof control, for light gathering ability? But then put it on an Olympus EM1 and the combo weights and costs as much as one of the smaller FF bodies with a 24mm. Nikon 610 or Nikon DF & Nikor 24 f1.8, Sony A7II & 25mm f2 Batis. And file quality and dof control are of a different planet.
It's never a bad thing to provide more options for people who have already made their choice of system. The alternatives you mentioned might be interesting to someone who's choosing between systems, but a lot of people have made their choice and are just busy taking photos.
Halina123: A 24mm prime lens! I wonder how many will actually by it.A top of the range smartphone comes with a wide angle fast prime lens for free.
So what is the point of producing this lens in 2016.
The point of producing the lens is to give owners of a m43 camera one more lens to choose from. To my knowledge, the Galaxy S7 doesn't mount to a m43 camera, so bringing it up here is completely irrelevant.
bluevellet: I wonder what the Panasonic chip is for.
The camera makers that aren't also semiconductor/electronics companies probably make the same things they did back when cameras didn't have sensors, image processors or LCD screens. Most of them didn't make film, but were still regarded as camera makers.
maksa: The K-S2 is the predecessor, isn’t it?
No, Ricoh has stated that there's two parallel model lines. There's the regular DSLRs with the K-500 as budget entry-level, the K-50 as advanced entry-level, and the K-3 as enthusiast-level model, and then there's another line aimed at a different audience, with the K-S1 at the low end and the K-S2 as a more advanced option.
This is from an interview on Imaging Resource:
"So we have the K-series, and now the K-S series. [The K-S series], we have categorized as the innovation series. We are not [talking about it that way] outside [the company], but internally we think the K-series is for core lines like the K-3 -- the real blood or DNA of Pentax. And then the K-S1 or K-S2; with these models we wanted to attract the users who had not had interest in Pentax before, they're new."
It's doubtful if there's a need for two parallel lines of DSLRs, and maybe Ricoh now has decided to merge the two?
No, the K-50 is the predecessor. The K-S2 (and the K-S1 below it) is part of a parallell line of models targeted at a different customer.
jim bennett: "Now that the D5 has 20.8 megapixels a shutter speed of at least 1/2000th is needed to freeze most fast moving sport. What many people don’t realise is that the more megapixels you have the faster shutter speeds necessary to freeze the same action. "This is the first time I have heard this. I have always been under the impression that it was about having a high enough shutter speed in relation to the focal length of the lens, and taking into account any crop factor that changes the equivalent focal length, but needing a faster shutter with more megapixels is news to me.
It's nothing strange if you think about it. It's not that you get more motion blur because you have more megapixels, but the blur that you do get is more visible (at the pixel level) because it's covered by more pixels. It's the same reason why some lens aberrations are more visible on high res cameras, simply because there are more pixels to capture them.
David Kinston: In our family there are 3 different recent Nikon cameras, from the D7200 to the D750. Tamron, Sigma and Tokina lenses as well as Nikon. Never any issues.
Plainly CANON is the problem! They like making life difficult for their competitors - and we photographers are the ones suffering.
It's not just Canon. Nikon is notorious for changing communication protocols, and making life difficult for lens makers that rely on reverse engineering. It's a similar situation with third-party batteries.
However, no manufacturer is obliged to ensure that third-party products are compatible with its cameras, unless they have an official partnership. It's up to the companies doing the reverse engineering to keep up with any changes that may be made.
reptile9985: SilkyPix not only renders better raw developing with pixel shift on, but there's a huge difference even in normal mode compared to acr.I suggest you guys to re-do all the studio scene tests with SilkyPix as well both with and without pixel shift!
Yes, but many photographers aren't really interested in knowing which combination of camera and software produces the best results. They want to know which camera produces the best results within their current workflow, with the software they're already using. And for the majority of users (but far from all), that workflow is based around ACR.
Using different converters for different cameras doesn't really provide a more useful comparison than using the same converter for all. Ideally, a comparison should show the results from all the major raw converters (ACR, DxO, Capture One, etc.) as well as the software that comes bundled with the camera. But if only one is to be chosen, eg. because of time constraints or limited resources, then the one that has the most users is the logical choice.
Toccata47: Is this the third high end release that has either been recalled or required field service, in a row?
If I've understood this issue correctly, it's only when used in the D500 that the older version of the battery doesn't work according to specs. So it's not a question of lacking backwards compatibility, but rather a question of not being able to guarantee forwards compatibility.Why would you be eligible for a replacement if you don't own the camera model that causes the problem?
To a large degree, I agree. We are basically never comparing the cameras themselves, but the way their files are treated by the raw converter. However, by using different converters for different cameras, we're adding yet another variable, and we really don't have a common baseline at all. We simply don't know to what extent we're comparing cameras and to what extent we're comparing raw converters.
If the intention is to just show the best that a camera is capable of, rather than comparing the capabilities of different cameras (or sensors, which are what many gearheads really seem to be interested in), then your method is certainly preferable. But a meaningful comparison requires the elimination of as many variables as possible.
EcoR1: For god sake dpreview, stop using the name "FE-mount". Now! There is no FE-mount, there is only E-mount. These lenses mentioned in this article are full frame E-mount lenses, not FE-mount-lenses. By using the non-existent name, you give impression to people that these lenses are somehow incompatible with a smaller sensor E-mount cameras like a6300. If you go and read some cameraforums you can already see that some people think that there are two different mirrorless mounts made by Sony. Stop confusing people!
I agree with that. It's one mount, but two series of lenses made for different sensor sizes. It's just like the A-mount, and no one talks about that as if it's two different mounts. Same with Nikon's F-mount. Canon is the odd one out, with EF and EF-S, where the compatibility only goes one way.
"The bundled software is the baseline."
But how many people actually use the bundled software? And most people who own cameras from different brands probably prefer a common workflow for them all, rather than using different software for every camera.