I want to like this thing.
Didn't read the ad; anybody got any decent motorsport shots with this? It's all about AF tracking.
Stefan M: Sorry. Can't hear it anymore. There is no such thing as equivalent to APS/FF/m43...whatever. Hence this lens is exclusively for APS it's even more absurd talking about any FF equivalency. A 18-35mm F1.8 lens will always be a 18-35mm F1.8 lens.
I guess a lot of people will enjoy this lens.
Stefan M is exactly correct.
forpetessake: "it offers a 28-54mm equivalent zoom range, and promises similar depth of field control to an F2.8 zoom on full frame" -- It offers everything the same as 28-54/2.8 lens on full frame, not only FOV and DOF -- why is that difficult for the DPR staff to say the whole truth out loud?Another thing they should have mentioned. The lens and most APS-C DSLRs it supports are just as large and heavy as an equivalent 24-70/2.8 lens + FF camera. But the latter offers better range, better resolution, etc. That's an important point if somebody considers acquiring this lens.
Ive not worked with anyone that cares about equivalency ramblings. FF fans: Don't buy the lens. Simple. Kthnxbye.
I don't like hauling lenses around and especially short focal lengths. This would be useful. The AF comments have cast serious doubt though. Maybe an update?
For that kind of money if I were to somehow ignore the truly terrible customer (non)service and insist on buying Samsung for some reason, I'd look at the RS261 refrigerator.
It doesn't take pictures and the ice maker is a poor design, but then again Samsung are no more a photo company than they are customer-oriented.
Only the Sigma Merrill fans are as deluded as the Samsung ladies.
Even today $1600 USD is a lot of money for a Samsung.
Toodles, bye bye now! XOXO
BorisAkunin: Dear Ricoh,
you didn't have to go to the trouble of designing that piece of sh*t just for our sake.
I don't see the parallel.
"Street" photographers are creepy and represent the black sheep of the hobbyist sector.
Ricoh, OTOH, isn't creepy; they suffer from poor advertising, poor marketing, poor support, and poor distribution.
I can't recall when I last saw a Ricoh in the wild in the US. It can't have been this decade. It may not have been this century. Distribution isn't their strong suit in the US. It sounds like you can find them in Europe more easily. That's a shame.
Mirrorless _ user: I DONT UNDERSTAND. What I see is a cheap chance to get a camera that take GOOD pictures. NOT ? I start taking photographs with a used Panasonic G10, and it was at no point the best camera (distant of that) but I was fun taking my first shots of my baby and learning in the process. Now I have a G5, that is a good camera, but (like all cameras) have low points (SLOW and inaccurate continuos AF, not superb in low light or super high Iso.. just to say some) Again, it's a good camera, but I not paid a fortune for it, just $400 one month ago.I applaud SONY for give us a chance to get a cheap camera WITH A VIEWFINDER that take VERY GOOD pictures, even better than many other more expensive cameras !!!!!!!!NOT all the cameras have that it will be expensive !!!!!!SUPERB !!!!!!!!!
I have to agree.
I don't see why so many people are so negative.
This looks like a great product that will only get cheaper with time.
Basalite: The problem with many forums today is that they are run and moderated by too many people that are politically correct lunatics that are biased, petty and immature. They like to portray themselves as liberal, fair and openminded but in fact they are the opposite of that. DPreview is guilty of that.
Read the fine print regarding intellectual property (hint: the short answer is "no.").
That said, as far as I can work out if a post or if an entire article generates clicks, the party's on. Content is secondary or even tertiary as long as people see it -- and buy stuff.
David zzzzzzzzzz: Buyer beware, this model will be replaced by another in 12 months. Sony has a way of making something "new" obsolete in no time at all.
Isn't that even more good news though? Won't it mean this model will be even more affordable then?
This model wins.
JWilkinson Studios: why would anyone want this? For the price I could go get a mirrorless and take way better pictures.
Clearly the bias affects editorial content. However the irony is that the comments section is usually more useful than the reviews. The comments have point-counterpoint discussion, whereas the reviews are (sensu stricto...) infotainment monologues.
The comments are the helpful part. The actual info is frequently in the comments.
IMG_0211 is useful and not disappointing at all actually.
I'd have liked to see more aircraft in motion.
You like comments because they generate hits.
In fact you like comments so much that you still allow them even though you sometimes don't like their content.
Hits are crucial to you. The only thing that matters more is sales.
In fact you like comments so much that you post them even if the content offends you, and then you resort to offensive language, calling your readers "trolls" above.
Your critics are trolls? Really? If you reviewed cameras more quickly and didn't sell your site out to a sales site, neither of the above criticisms would have any foundation.
Today, however, both criticisms sometimes are founded. Reviews sometimes never show up at all (G5?) and since ownership structure of the website means bias is inherent -- denial won't fix this; only a restructuring that severs commercial ties will.
Your readers may not be trolls for pointing all that out; they may simply be awake.
RichRMA: Ad agencies kill me. Their ideas about "20-somethings" are all the same. Bearded, always breaking out the acoustic guitar, impromptu jam sessions, some trendy, formerly intolerable beer on hand...
Incidentally, "hate" is hyperbole. Perhaps you're using it to add some sort of gravity to your argument; since there is little logic to what you've attempted to express I can't say for sure.
Do you purport to speak for George Zimmerman?
The reference to Caucasians is profoundly racialist and has lowered the level of the discussion. Pity.
My interpretation agrees with that of exifnotfound above.
It's not a misplaced sentiment I don't think.
Maybe early 80s I suppose.
The Polaroid might depict their tour guide, whom they have lost. If you have any spare change, drop it into the hat and they can eventually buy return tickets home.
It does bring back memories of 4th-tier tourists.
Here the agency have outdone themselves.
The people actually "look" smelly.
I don't think this synaesthesia is the message or effect they had in mind when they were putting their brilliant campaign together.
steelhead3: I have to say nice snaps; can we challenge the camera a bit; this is a very expensive camera. It probably is best camera for IQ of all and I want to see pitfalls, but an acknowledgment of its quality.is important to buyers.
The Leica is not an autofocus FF camera.
It is therefore not relevant.
The question is, HOW WELL does this Sony AUTOFOCUS camera focus?
Say hi to your friends.
They made a film camera that looks like a film camera, and used a guy with the ubiquitous "douchenozzle" look to advertise it. Wow.