FodgeandDurn: I'm not sure this is news to many people following Sony. I've long wanted to get a new APS-C E body but it's looking increasingly like a dead system. Sony have a habit of neglecting mounts, and this new jump in focus doesn't really do much to persuade me the new focus of the month/year is going to last. Nikon and Canon commit to a system for at least a decade, Sony could do with giving their other ranges some love, God knows they're making the money.
If I got it on credit I might be able to afford an A7ii, but I'd have to sell my organs to get more than one or two non Zeiss lenses.
Soon I'll have to sell my E mount kit and look elsewhere, their full frame 'upgrade path' just doesn't work for me, and I'm not going to pretend I'm not slightly bitter about the experience and dead-end investment.
Ttran, as a young person living in one of the most expensive cities in the world with a side passion for photography I have to see a mount as an investment. I'm happy to replace the camera body every three years, I can't afford to replace the camera body AND all my lenses every three years.
At the moment, if I want to keep shooting with modern cameras I might have to ditch Sony E soon. My NEX-6 is OK but I'd really use more cropping pixels and dynamic range. I'd happily give Sony £1000 tomorrow for a new body that worked with my £2000 of lenses. I'm not giving them £2000 for a body and one lens.
tietheknot: This is hardly news for anyone who follows Sony. Sony's focus has been on full frame since the first A7(r) was released. It's not to say they got rid of their APS-C bodies altogether.
As a user of an APS-C E-mount body, am I concerned about their shift in focus? Not really, other than that it means my current APS-C lenses lose much more resale value than I would've liked.
Does it mean that there are fewer lenses to for me to use? NO. Remember (especially to those moaning about lenses) that FE lenses can still be used on APS-C bodies. And they work great. Love my newly acquired FE 28 and FE 70-200 on my NEX 5R.
Why are people so negative? Have no clue. Misinformed fanboys maybe?
There's very little point in putting FE lenses on an apsc body, you're paying for a lot of extra glass and the original A7 can be found very cheap online nowadays. I won't put FE glass on my NEX for the same reason I won't buy an A7: way way too big and I can't afford it. So far the 28mm is the only exception, and I wouldn't bet the farm on there being many more exceptions.
A plastic apsc body with a giant expensive Zeiss lens catalogue it's just silly.
Chillbert: Ironically I just bought a new Sony lens (35/1.8) for my trusty NEX 5N on the same day as this announcement. I have been assuming that Sony was bound to produce a great next-generation "back" such as the alleged a7000... The article doesn't go so far as to say they will stop innovating in the APS-C line, but it does give me pause. Maybe I'll switch to Fuji after all, for the long haul.
Absolutely my thoughts too. The XT-1 line offers a lot of what I like about the A7 series without the giant lenses, although they're not hugely cheaper. Fuji does seem to have made more of a long term commitment to their system though.
Incidentally the 35 1.8 is a lovely lens. My issue is that with lack of choice it's all that sits on my Nex-6, making it quite a bulky fixed lens point and shoot. Had hoped that would change but hey.
At the moment they aren't making affordable glass that competes with Zeiss focal lengths, and that's a huge problem. The fast Zeiss primes aren't just expensive, they're also huge. The Sony 28mm is exactly the sort of lens aps-c users might see themselves upgrading with, but it's not much use if they won't release more fast compact focal lengths because a giant expensive Zeiss is already camping there.
I'm sure Sony would say they've already got a compact 35, but it is 2.8 and costs as much as some used cars. If they worried less about overlap and just made affordable Sony branded compact-ish 35 / 55 / 90 F1.8/2 non stabilised range I'd stop moaning about their abandonment of aps-c and buy an A7.
In their aps-c lineup Zeiss released a big expensive 24mm, Sony never released a more reasonable compact 24 to compliment their excellent and relatively affordable (the 55 at least) 35 and 55 1.8's leaving a big gap in the range if you didn't want to buy premium glass. Which sucked.
Apparently Zeiss can make 3 35mms for the same system but Sony won't touch it. Disappointing.
tkbslc: Sony seems to change focus every 3 years, doesn't it?
Clearly if you want to be technologically nimble it's the correct approach. What they need to do is commit to a mount and throw the same degree of innovation at bodies. After buying 6 APSC E mount lenses I'm loath to give Sony more money. Fuji don't have such impressive tech, but I trust them to make a body for my expensive primes in a few years.
I'm not sure this is news to many people following Sony. I've long wanted to get a new APS-C E body but it's looking increasingly like a dead system. Sony have a habit of neglecting mounts, and this new jump in focus doesn't really do much to persuade me the new focus of the month/year is going to last. Nikon and Canon commit to a system for at least a decade, Sony could do with giving their other ranges some love, God knows they're making the money.
The fact that so many people on this forum, a place full of people who know more about photography equipment than maybe 90% of amateur consumers, can be so full of people arguing about exactly WHAT this product does....
...IS A BAD SIGN for their marketing department!
It shouldn't be this hard for people here to work out what this thing does!
abe4652: I didn't think that folks in England cared that much about politics. I guess their hatred of republicans and conservatism is such that they'll use some photos to show how bad these folks are. As proof, the fact that they had food on tables. The unmitigated gall. How dare leaders in America have food on tables around the time of 9/11.
Please. Even the brains-dead liberals posting here on Dpreview are not stupid enough to be so obvious in their bias.
Francis Carver, it often disappoints Americans to learn that the Brits really don't care about the War of Independence, and actually most are entirely ignorant of it since British schools don't routinely teach it. I find that regrettable, but certainly it does mean the accusation that we're all salty about it doesn't hold water.
A tiny glance at history will also show that many of the great British thinkers of the day, and almost the entire Whig opposition in parliament strongly opposed the war in America, and welcomed the idea of granting them independence. Funny how many Americans are often happy to forget THAT.
Marty4650: "Somewhat banal" is a sign of competence. People who know what they are doing put their heads down and go to work when a crisis happens. It actually should be business as usual.
Odds are, they were not discussing amnesty for the terrorists, or any attempt to reach out to help understand the radicals. They were probably busy planning "what should we do next" to prevent similar attacks.
The fact it's I really don't want to know any of your political alignments because it's so divisive and this site is already enough of an argumentative ****fest at the best of times.
These comments are so disappointing.
For better or worse it's a glimpse into an epoch defining moment in history, something we sometimes forget photography can do while worrying about F stop conversions.
I'm sure I wouldn't agree with half if you about the reasons for 9/11 or the decisions that followed the aftermath, but I'm not going to argue with any of you about it on here.
higrob24: Some slightly creepy photos in this challenge.
I'd like to see the ven diagram of people who know enough about photography to want a retro MF lens, but don't realize that there are a wealth of 'soap bubble' lenses available far cheaper. Maybe David Beckham got one for his Hasselblad?
I'm not knocking the photos, some people will love that for marketing material, student projects, instagram etc.. But I'm stunned they managed to get so many backers for something so expensive, although when you consider that the bulk of money raised are early sales which may represent the entire lifetime market demand, perhaps it isn't so crazy.
BeaniePic: Oh all please shut up about 4K in this type of camera.... It will be in all cameras when needed and not before, with all the expected changes to video over the coming years having the current for of 4K will be like having Blu-Ray in your PC, useless.
Agreed the FZ1000 is great on paper,
Holding it in stores felt a lot like a cheap entry DSLR, although I wouldn't say as good as say a Nikon D3300. In the plastic I thought it looked a bit awkward, with the bulky screen housing very low in the body.
I'd like to like it, but in practice it's too bulky and could do with a build quality/design over-haul. No doubt it has an impressive spec/price and takes good pictures though.
BeaniePic: Waiting for some creative photographers to show the world that View Finders in any format restrict your photography. Wait for the rain of Viewfinder lovers to go on now... Every counter argument can be dismissed, that's all I'm saying...
I don't think posting here saying "I know what you are all going to say and you're all wrong so don't bother" is exactly participating in a 'discussion'..
I'm not here to rain on your Canon parade. What I am saying is that each of us has the right to voice an opinion in the comments, and if the majority of posters agree on one thing (i.e. EVF) then we're going to get a lot of similar posts. That is a useful measure of consensus and I think posting asking others with a certain opinion to stop, or pre-emting them is entirely in the wrong spirit.
Hadn't even mentioned the camera yet.
I took a G9 on a trip with me and I have very fond memories of it. Ever since I've wanted a compact Canon to live up to that promise. When I was choosing a new ILC I kept coming back to the G1 because it seemed to be what I was looking for, but kept stepping back because of seemingly mediocre or crippled aspects. I don't like the form factor of Sony's RX100's so I was looking forward to a G16 form with the same sensor. Unfortunately I can't shoot in the snow up a mountain with just a screen. Even the most basic $25 superzoom EVF would do me. That IS valid.
GabrielZ: It's nice enough, but seems to be another case of Canon's too little too late policy. The Sony and the Panasonic leave it trailing spec wise.
It's also much less bulky. However I can't see the 600mm end being very usable, so frankly I'd take the G7X if someone offered me both.
I don't think anyone is being criticized for liking anything per-se. Your initial comment was rather inflammatory, and you've stirred up a response.
Why does the b***ing bother you so much? We're all on a tech forum talking about cameras, but you want to make it clear to some people they should just be quiet?
I'm sorry but I strongly disagree with that entire approach. By all means tell us why you love a camera and don't care about a feature. Starting a post by admonishing people for expressing a valid opinion is unpleasant and unnecessary.
Some of us like viewfinders. I don't know why you need to pre-empt an 'argument'. Canon don't need anyone white knighting for them on DPreview, but I can tell you I was initially interested in this camera and now I'm not.
I disagree with your assessment on the viewfinder, and I'd have found this camera very appealing if it had had one. There. I'm not going to fight you about it though for heavens sakes...
@NowHearThis I'm afraid I find people who come on a camera tech message board and tell people not to express their opinion on x camera they like completely insufferable. Either skip the comments or go find a friendlier forum, because you're clearly in the wrong place.
VENTURE-STAR: I don't doubt this is a superb camera and I wouldn't mind owning one. However, the price tag puts the instrument way out of my reach and carrying it around and using it in public places would be a liability from the point of theft and accidental damage.
The question is - would it actually improve my photography and the answer has to be no.
You know Brixton is basically very well off white kids who went to public school now? I used to get on the bus in the morning and go 'wtf'. Read an anthropology paper recently about how privileged kids seek out areas that used to be risky but are now sanitized, to imagine there's still an 'edge'. John Major lived there in the 70's, incidentally.
Wouldn't flash a Leica in Croydon.. But that's changing. You can't live in this city without money nowadays so go figure