suntek101: This seems to be a wonderful camera but I like to do low and high angle shooting and I have been waiting for Pentax to incorporate an articulated LCD screen into their next camera since the K10. Hopefully the "K1" will be released in a year or two and my wish will come true. Are you listening Ricoh/Pentax? Until then, I'll just dream of the K3 while making the most of my old K10!
The objections to a tilting LCD are bonkers in my opinion.
I own a Sony A77. It's weather sealed, the tilting LCD doesn't affect this nor does it add bulk. Just how thick do you think these things are?
The fact it can be turned round so the LCD screen faces the body protects it from damage when not in use. You can't do that with fixed LCD screen so it is actually better from a durability point of view than camera with fixed LCD's.
Why any digital camera doesn't have a tilting LCD I really do not understand. It is an option this modern technology brings to the table.
And as to the comment about Capa, do you not use things like auto focus or in-body stabilization? Please turn them off so you can enjoy the full photographic experience!
tkbslc: I'm not really sure this product is very relevant to the dpreview site or its users. I get including the Canon Cinema 1D cameras and NEX camcorder because they use camera lenses, but this has zero to do with photography.
No need to apologise as you were right the first time. They are not relevant to the majority of the sites users. Specialist video related sites would serve the minority who are interested better and leave this place uncluttered. Same goes for Smart Phone stuff.
dbateman: I find it interesting that the EM1 with a Panasonic sensor gets this feature.
Whereas the older models using a Sony sensor (know to have this feature) haven't got the update yet.
Either the update is coming or the Sony sensors sold to Olympus don't support this feature. Maybe somethings are better with Panasonic sensors, thus the shift in the high end pro model.
If the Sony sensors Olympus use don't support this feature I think you mean the ones Olympus chose to buy don't have it.
Sony won't sell sensors with deliberately reduced features. They would not have a market if they did.
Unimpressive. Lots of shots of the drone. Few if any of going where humans can't.
Zoron: no built-in stabilization....so no for me.
Arguments against stabilisation on short lenses are just silly.
I learned this years ago when I found how useful it was on my Minolta A1 which had an F2.8 lens at 28mm equivalent.
Shooting that in a museum at ridiculously low shutter speeds was all the convincing I needed.
A fast lens with stabilisation simply extends the usability envelope .Furthermore and a point everyone misses, with stabilisation you aren't forced to go wide open in dim light all the time. You can still exercise a degree of control over the aperture, stop it down a bit for d.o.f control or to sharpen things up as most lenses are at least a bit soft wide open.
Without stabilisation you have to use F1.7 like it or not.
It was the best thing Panasonic did adding in body IS to the GX7 for this reason.
Pantyhose Bandit: Oh... The Guardina - the company that can't even spell its own name right. What a bastion of journalistic integrity. I wouldn't trust anything the guardian scrawled on its pages.
The Guardian is a left of centre paper generally but supported the Liberal Democrats at the last election in the UK. Who now prop up a right wing government. At times it struggles to reconcile its support for the Lib Dems with what actually happened. So its credentials as a leftist paper are a bit tarnished.
More is the pity as "anything that even smells conservative" deserves all the trashing anyone can heap upon it. In my humble opinion of course.
alexisgreat: Once again Olympus shows how much brainier they are than other camera manufacturers- especially the "big name" conventional ones. Direct Live Histogram, Pixel Mapping, Supersonic Wave Filter, Live View, and now this!
"I guess that is a matter of opinion."
Olympus has always been innovative. I bought an OM4 film camera which had "multi-spot" metering where you could take several spot readings from different parts of the scene.
This is sort of doing the same except instead of averaging out the readings as the OM4 did this adjusts the exposure for each "spot" independently. An old idea taken to its logical conclusion given the capabilities digital allows.
Canon copied the "multi-spot" metering on the T90 (I think). Someone will copy this feature just the same.
Andrew Booth: Sigma's turnover last year was 33 billion yen - $320 million
This shouldn't concern them too much.
It is 15% of the profit on the sales of the six specific lenses.
From the article:
15% of the 10.1 billion JPY profit Sigma made on the lenses in question will go to Nikon.
So that is 1.5 billion JPY which is not a lot.
jackspra: Sales in the states keep these companies rolling so give the price etc. in American language.
The new 'Air' tripods will retail from £180-£334 ($301-$559)
3rd line down!
gskolenda: I don't get it! $6,500 bucks for a 16mp FF camera body, they don't need to sell very many of these to make a huge profit, regardless of the market conditions!
This is a big time Rip in my mine, I would take the D800-D800e any day over this camera.
"You are not the market for this camera GSK, but I am guessing you do not make $40k+ a year as a professional portrait/wedding/newswire photographer......"
I thought they all used iPhone's for that these days ;)
Daniel from Bavaria: Maybe its a bit slow for the one other thing, but therefore it is quite small and lightweight and it seems that optically it is very, very good. Therefore I do not really understand all the bashing here.
I am a Canon and Fuji X user and think that Sony is doing great for the whole camera industry - they are playing the pioneer in many areas. Only Olympus, Panasonic and Fuji are also in that ballpark, but FF only comes from Sony. Canon and Nikon are still waiting with their thumbs up in their - you know what - . If you like the handling of the Sony cameras or not is just a matter of preference, but technically they are doing really well. Very interesting times for all of us!
"Some people need to learn that not only fast lenses are "good" lenses. And so not only the fast lenses are expensive lenses."
What has that got to do with anything posted above? I certainly don't need to "learn" that this Sony is optically good. I used to use an Olympus Zuiko F2.8 35mm in my film days as my standard lens.
It was optically superb. It was also a lot cheaper than its faster F2 counterpart, which is the point.
I see no reason for this Sony lens to be priced as it is.
If it was F2 even at this price I think you would see far less complaints.
Sony seems to be shying away from fast lenses for this series of camera. The new 70-200 zoom is F4 but priced as an F2.8 ought to be (The A series F2.8 is also overpriced).
If they want to keep things compact by selling slower lenses fair enough but don't charge the same price as faster glass.
Lenses like the 8.5mm are what all the smaller formats lack. You have to go with a zoom in most cases as far as I am aware on m43 and aps-c with most primes being no wider than 14mm. (Unless you want a fisheye)
At F2.8 the lenses are not fast for the focal lengths they have so why not just stick a 19mm->50mm F2.8 zoom on and save the trouble if having three different cameras?
I am sure with zoom lens optical design being so good these days such a lens would offer excellent quality and they would sell a lot more cameras.
I feel sorry for Ian Rawcliffe. He has to try and convince the buying public that this camera is worth the premium over an A99.
He is probably more than aware no one believes a word he has written about it yet it is his job top try and sell this ridiculous camera.
Reading the press release about the virtues he attributes to it is painful.
samfan: Well if they can pull off a 16mm , why wouldn't they rather make a decent 16-100 or something?
All these superzooms are rather tiring. 'Either get a crappy megazoom or deal with prime lenses' seems to be a message of the day. What happened to good zooms with moderate range and moderate speed? Not pushing the envelope much lately.
I have a CZ 16-80 for my Sony A77 and it is a brilliant lens so I can see where people are coming from here but I would have loved this Tamron a few years ago when travelling for 9 months.
FriendlyWalkabout: @DpreviewDxo also reviewed this lens on nex-7. I don’t understand how it can get a phenomenal 29/36 mp resolution on the A7r while only getting 15/24 mp result on the Nex 7. I understand the nex 7 has anti aliasing filter, but it wouldn't make that big a difference would it? I see the very cheap canon eosm 22mm lens scores a relatively better 13/18 mp. Please help me understand.
I don't look at the dxo site much but if I recall correctly the same lens always gets a higher rating on full frame than on aps-c regardless of make. (justs checked and the Nikon 58mm f1.4 is has a higher rating on the 610 than on the 7100)
As to the Sony lens. Nice short portrait lens on aps-c but 55mm is too long for a standard lens on full frame for me personally. I never liked 50mm never mind 55mm when I shot film.
The very compact A7 is crying out for a 40mm F2 pancake style lens.
greypixelz: sad he had to reach this age in order to understand that suffering and horror is not 'photojournalism' or 'the public's right to be informed'.there is such a thing as human dignity and dying is part of it. photographing death or any kind of suffering for public display is undignified and disqualifies the photographer as a human being. man should be immortalized on the highest peaks, not the deepest of valleys. this whole culture of decay and death is satanic in nature and goes against what man really is. the spirit of humanity is about rising from the abyss, not falling in it.God bless you all!
greypixelz: "he and others like him, did NOTHING to help those people in need, just like the media is a propaganda machine for corporations looking for your sympathy and reaching for your wallets and ending up taking your souls."
You need to get a bit of perspective and equating what he did to corporate avarice and a society dominated by a plutocracy today ignores many things not least the time in history he operated and the effect his and other photos had on shaping attitudes to things like the Vietnam war.
You and I know there is plenty of suffering in the world. We still spend a fortune on our hobby, buy TV's, cars and everything else.
Iconic images like the famous photo of the badly burned Kim Phuc from the Vietnam war shape public opinion.
The photographer who took that image took her and others to hospital. Would you prefer the photo was not taken and they just ferried the injured to hospital?
sik_photos: It is almost universally acceptable to crop a photo. It is also historically accepted to dodge and burn a photo in the darkroom (or digitally)to enhance the quality of the image without changing the essence of the news, preserving the message of the image. In this case the removal of the camera in the corner of the image has zero to do with the communication of news events. All "reporting" ,including photography, involves a conscious editing of reality, what you choose to show and what you choose not to show, the context into which you place things, and more, and among such choices and all are subjective. To even choose which images to publish (or send to your publisher) are editing choices. All photographers and their employers know this.
It would be quite naive to believe that this type of editing, photoshop pixel manipulation, does not happen all the time; I suspect there is something else going on in the decision to end working with this photographer.
"It has everything to do with communication of news events. Now it is clear to me that this image was not taken in "the height of a battle" but it was staged. Like probably most pictures coming from that area."
I take your point but you would have been none the wiser had he been able to remove the camera by cropping were it in a different position in the frame and he would not have been sanctioned for doing that.
As to it being staged you may suggest that, but you don't know for sure. Photographers have been known to be right up there in the thick of the action so why there would not be a chance of a camera being caught in a photo in the thick of it I don't know.
What he should have done if the thought the camera spoiled the photo and it was not possible to crop it out is simply not submit the photo to AP.
As he did and AP concluded he had not done this on any other photo a warning would suffice IMO. Looks like AP wanted to make a point or use this an an excuse to ditch him
David0X: Why are people hung up about this "Oh, it must be Full Frame to be pro" crap?
35mm is totally arbitrary - based on the movie film , and remember, it used to Be called "miniature format" because it was so small. Roll film was small too. Quarter Plate was small before that... jeeze. Why was Half Plate called "Half Plate"? See if you can guess.
Unless you have an SLR (optical viewfinder limited by sensor size - no, not Fuji X) or a whole bunch of legacy glass (Nikon, Canon yes, Fuji X no) then there is no reason to bang on about "Full Frame" being pro.
Want a big sensor? Get a Phase One for goodness' sake.
"Seriously though, what point are you making? The bigger the sensor, the more light it collects. End of story. Full frame is an arbitrary point on the size scale, sure. So is APS-C or m4/3. If you're making out that size doesn't matter at all, just pop over to Connect and join everyone shooting with their cellphone."
The point is if an aps-c sensor gives good enough image quality that is all that matters. The fact smart phones don't does't mean aps-c cameras don't either.
One day we may end up with small sensors delivering all the image quality we ever need and making a full frame sensor using the same technology to get even better quality will be a waste of time. Are we at this point now? No but for some people aps-c is easily good enough and FF overkill already.