jimbodoc: Seeing these lenses, I feel happy to have ditched my A7. The body was lovely, ergonomics acceptable and performance good. However, the (native) lens selection was poor and now, it becomes clear that there is no point in such small lovely bodies when carrying such priapic lenses. A D750 and zoom is smaller. Sorry Sony- nice body, shame about the lenses. Optics will, of course be fine to brilliant but they are all HUUUUGE, even the primes. Such a pity. Now I see why the original 35 was only an f 2.8, current technology does not allow a sensible sized lens for the body. Even the 55 1.8 is a serious piece of real estate.
A D750 and which zoom is smaller, and which Sony lens are you comparing to?
FrankApollonio: Ill buy the 35mm 1.4 as long as the threading for filters/hood is well constructed... I bought the 55mm 1.8 FE which I love for Image quality, But i put a lee universal hood/filter on it and it broke the retaining ring because sony chose to make it out of plastic... Which is a real let down because that was a $1000 lens not some toy... Its at the sony repair shop now and I'm requesting them to put a professional metal ring... NOT PLASTIC... I wonder if the 35mm 1.4 will be up there in image quality
Where do you think Sony will conjure up a metal filter thread from? It is unlikely to be on their spare parts list.
Rooru S: DPReview Team. Did you ask Sony about any future plans for A-mount? Or can I start selling my equipment now?
Nothing "on record", Barney? Does that mean they told you something off record?
"Why ‘cancel out' the effect of the 5DS R's AA filter rather than omit it entirely?"
Maybe it's because Canon would be accused of charging more for taking something away.
Shiranai: They want to rival $5000 DSLRs? Well thats a lot of confidence putting their small APS-C against fullframe. Especially considering their less than optimal lens-range which still lacks a 50mm 1.4 or a 300mm zoom.
And yes, there is something that DSLRs do better - its that their viewfinder has no lag at all. Because even if its 5 milliseconds it can be the moment you miss.And talking about small sized, the NX1 isn't really small sized, they intentionally made it this big to attract DSLR owners, so thats complete marketing-bull.
Now you have to add the shutter lag caused by the fact a DSLR has to lift its mirror before it can capture the image. EVF lag is a non-issue in comparison. What was that about missing a moment?
No DSLR can rival a mirrorless camera with electronic front curtain shutter.
"From a design standpoint, the biggest changes are the grip - which is larger - and the addition of a front dial."
The A7 always had a front dial. It has just been moved.
D1N0: Great Job Canon. Now stick in a Sony sensor.
Terrible? Examples please, BeaniePic.
Lab D: First I read this and then I saw the new Samsung. I don't know anyone who buys Samsung, but it seems to beat the 7D in every spec.For example 10 FPS is not exciting when others are offering 11,12 and 15 FPS. "Full HD" video is boring when other shoot 4K.I just hope the 7D does use the same technology in this new sensor as found in the Rebel T2i.
Karl, they are already competing. Nokia used to be a big gun... so were Kodak.
The Davinator: Another body? Lenses...how about the lenses?
Your comment is 2 years late. Try to keep up.
Reilly Diefenbach: I guess I just don't get the point of an expensive, heavy, bulky 1.4 lens if the bokeh is as hideous as what I'm seeing on these DPR sample shots. The chap with the bridge behind him is a truly ugly, discombobulated looking shot, to single out one.
"Just some lenses are generally better for bokeh (nikon 58/1.4, canon 50/1.2)".
I don't get the Canon 50/1.2. It isn't sharp and its bokeh is pretty ugly in many situations - especially that nasty swirly stuff.
RuneStenseth: Would it not be better to test those kind of lenses on a Nikon D800e rather than a 22mp Canon? More resolution, dynamic range and no diffusor in front of the bayer array?
That would be a problem with many FF cameras on the market.
Perhaps you can elaborate on the "bit more than that".
I've never been unable to use my A7 - perhaps you photograph libraries?
You'd think the net would be awash with evidence of the poor colour reproduction of the A7(R), but I just can't find it.
They're not really that loud. The A7R has a double shutter sound, which may add to the overall volume, but I find the A7 quite satisfying actually.
Got any links showing this "not great" colour?
Well I haven't personally seen any problems with the RAWs in real world shooting, so I'm not sure how much that alone will be impacting sales.
What A7 shutter noise problem are you referring to? The A7R has apparent issues with shutter shock in certain conditions and circumstances, but the A7 is unaffected as it has electronic first curtain.
"@The Otus Eater"
I see what you did there.
Sharpness is of course not the only important quality, but the FE 55 is no slouch in other areas either.
reginalddwight: Congratulations to Sigma for hitting another home run with this latest addition to the Art series.
For me, I cannot justify the price of the Zeiss Otus 55mm/1.4, which has superb optics reportedly matched or even surpassed by the Sigma 50mm/1.4.
I can't wait to get my hands on a copy.
Coudet, I tend to find that those claiming the Sony FE 55/1.8 is overpriced have not actually used it.
With regards to Sigma releasing Nikon mount versions for testing, I wonder if Sigma are worried that it is not as much as an Otus killer as has been hyped.
The Sony Zeiss FE 55/1.8 is incredibly sharp, and results were off the charts when tested on the A7R. I wonder if the Sigma can even compete with that lens, never mind the Otus.
The Lotus Eater: Assuming I have done the maths correctly (and I am very average at maths), this camera offers DOF at least as shallow as the Sony E 16-50mm lens on NEX/Axxxx cameras.
Moreover, as the RX100 III's lens is faster then the 16-50mm by 2 stops, that should compensate for any ISO performance disadvantages against APS-C sensors.
Am I missing something? This seems almost too good to be true.
Looking a bit deeper at DXO, the RX100 III may not be far off the A7/28-70 combo when it comes to light gathering ability. Its sensor's ISO performance is just over 2 stops worse, but its lens is 2 stops faster. It's pretty stunning when you think about it.
Are you sure it's that bad, Daniel?
If you trust DXO's measurements, the SNR is much higher on the RX100 II at ISO 400 than the A6000 at ISO3200 (32.5dB vs 27.3dB). That is also higher than the A6000 at ISO 1600 (30.3dB). The difference is significantly less than 2 stops.
With the RX100 III's lens being 2 stops faster, would it not be at an advantage? That was the point I was trying to make.