AngularJS: Another day - another Sony A7r2 post!
I think AngularJS may be alluding to the fact you are drip feeding the review a bit at time rather than just doing the review and publishing the completed work.
That is something I have pointed out before and Barney had a go at me for!
xpanded: Sony should hire Shakin' Stevens as a poster boy for the A7-line:
"You just have to shake fast to counter the shutter shock".
Fortunately Sony will probably soon change mount again.
"Moreover new E mount brings a lot of improvements, and Alpha mount users are provided with efficient adapters to use their A-glass on E-bodies. "
There is nothing "efficient" about having to faff about and use an adapter to mount a lens on any camera.
It is half baked and unacceptable solution.
If Sony thinks by providing adapters this IS an acceptable solution and they will retain all their A mount customers they need to wake up.
I wouldn't touch Sony with a barge pole if they cease to support the A-mount. The last camera system I would buy into would be another Sony one.
Rooru S: 599.99 USD? Why not buy a Sony RX100? You get a zoom lens, probably the same sensor and better handling. Better yet, you get a nice little flash with bouncing capability.
Am I missing something? Would like to see a size comparison against the RX100 and see if it's still worth the price tag. Probably not.
The RX100 weighs 240g (inc battery).
When you add the iPhone the weight of the DXO and iPhone 6 is 108g+129g, 237g.
And when you stop to take pictures you will be doing so a lot longer than you would with a camera as you fiddle to mount the DXO and then unmount it again.
I know, you are going to say but an iPhone +DXO can make phone calls for its 237g whereas the 240g of the RX100 can't but what sort of phone signal do you get in the mountains?
Cane: I assume these are manual focus only?
I own the Samyang Fisheye for Sony A mount aps-c and its great but I am not sure I'd buy any of their other lenses.
Manual focus I can cope with but not manual aperture.
On the fisheye you can forget about it. Set to F5.6 or F8 and just about the entire world is sharp so that is where it tends to stay.
On lenses like these where you are not going to want to shoot at F1.4 all the time, manually having to stop down having focused wide open is a step back in time too far for me.
KAMBIC: I hope you guys have all been practicing your MF skills. F1.2 MF only? Hahaha
Well assuming focus peaking and the AF conformation light work the camera will tell you when you have hit focus so I don't see your point.
You can rely on the camera's "MF skills", not your own.
Dave Oddie: Good article but the problem with the Sony is not performance but price.
Even in less demanding situations that Nikon combo will outperform it image quality-wise.
In the UK a Sony A77ii and Tamron 16-300 is a tad cheaper (street prices) than an RX10II.
I am sure the lens is good on the RX10II but it needs to be cheaper to buy by about 50% to justify its existence in my opinion. That Nikon + lens is not a large combo to lug about.
I'd like to see the same comparison with the Panasonic FZ1000. That has the added value of a much longer zoom so may justify itself better.
I am not sure you are right re the Panasonic FZ1000 as regards resolving power which also has a 1 inch sensor. I have not looked but I suspect it resolves just as well as the Sony in the same range.
As to the RX10 it's still not cheap at about £590.
If I want 4K video why buy a "camera" at all and why pay £1179 (UK price) for this?
Most people who come here are not into video anyway but still-photography which is why the test done in the article is valid and no doubt why it was done. The RX10 is supposed to be a camera as well, not just a video camera.
I have no interest in video but if I did, am I really going to be looking at the RX10II at that price for 4K video?
Good article but the problem with the Sony is not performance but price.
Gionni Dorelli: Everybody happy now?
"Even when battery, dual card slot and this is addressed, "
Adding a bigger battery and a dual card slot to an existing camera via a firmware update is going to be a neat trick.
TimT999: The reviewer keeps saying that the lens is soft at the long end. But looking at the sharpness chart, it's in the 1300-1400 range even at 50mm -- in other words for over 3/4 of the zoom range. Sharpness only improves slightly if you go to f-8. By contrast, Tamron, Canon or Nikon 70-200 lenses come in at between 2000-2500 lines of resolution (at the same f-stop). And their 24-70 lenses all hit that same range. That's a significant difference in IQ. For stuff you'll be showing on a web site, the softness isn't a problem. But if your images will be sold or printed, this lens just won't work.
"If DP Review had said the lens is only for casual use, I wouldn't have added my 2 cents. "
Come off it. He didn't say it was suitable for pro use either. Everyone knows what these sort of lenses are for and criticising it for something it was never intended to be used for is a bit silly in my opinion.
The criticism of DPR about not defining where it fits is also very weak because I am sure they don't feel they have to spell it out. And just because they didn't, that doesn't justify your original criticism of the lens not being for pro use.
I don't own one but can see the logic in such lenses for non-critical work having just lugged my full outfit inc 16-80 and 70-300 on a holiday to the USA.
"But if your images will be sold or printed, this lens just won't work."
No one in their right mind would buy this lens for professional work so why make this pointless observation?
It's going to be bought for holiday snapshots when travelling as an alternative to things like the Panasonic FZ1000 which is also not a "go to" for professional work.
marc petzold: Such Soup Zooms are in IQ terms useless, i'd consider a RX10 Mk. I or FZ-1000 for that superzoom task, because of better IQ. On APS-C/DX & FF, a smaller Zoom Range gives much better IQ. 24-70 or 24-105 focal length is standart here for Zooms.
In the focal length range the RX10 covers this lens seems pretty sharp and in my view you would have to be nuts to pay the price of an RX10 if you already own an aps-c dslr now this lens is available.
In the UK the RX10 is £589 compared to £399 for the Tamron. The RX10 MkII is a stupid £1179.
For Panasonic the FZ1000 is going for £599.
Given there are compromises with the RX10 and FZ1000 due to the smaller sensor I can see this lens being a popular alternative to those cameras for d-slr owners.
Whichever way they go they will get poorer performance than with their d-slr and separate shorter range zooms or primes but they know that already.
So if they are looking for a long range one lens camera they can either pay around £200 more for one of the 1 inch sensor camera or buy the Tamron instead.
I doubt any are going to be buying either for critical work.
The pricing of the RX10 II is stupid.
Street prices the UK (source Camera Price Buster).
RX10 II £1179
A77 II body £739 + Tamron 16-300 PZD (giving a larger 24-450 range), £399 = £1138.
Yes the Tamron is slower but it would be interesting to know what the aperture is at around 135mm which is the 200mm full frame equivalent on the APS-C sized sensor. If it is F5.6 then you get the same d.o.f as the RX10 II at its longest focal length with the aperture at F2.8.
Given the size of the RX10 II I am not sure why anyone would buy it over the A77II/Tamron combo as a travel all-in-one solution.
Rod McD: Am I the only person here yawning? More choice in 35mm and a 45mm, both with enough feature acronyms for alphabet soup and both rather substantial? Good they might be but excited I'm not. With all the CAD design technology available, surely it's not beyond manufacturers to offer smaller lenses with high IQ? That would offer some real choice that's more than a difference in brand name on a large lens. I'd be happy to use moderate apertures to get smaller lenses, but the world seems to have been overtaken by fast lens religion.
Hi Rod, I can see where you are coming from. In my film days I was an Oly shooter who used a Zuiko 35mm F2.8 as my standard lens. 49mm filter. Very small lens. Their 35mm F2 was 55mm filter thread.
For me the fact the Tamron isn't as huge as the Sigma is a plus point.
If I were a Canon shooter I'd be very happy with the size of their 35mm F2. It has stabilization whereas Pentax does not have to provide it due to IBIS.
On the other hand the Sony 35mm F2.8 for the E-mount A7 series is too slow for me though you might like the size.
You pays your money and you take your choice.
" I'd be happy to use moderate apertures to get smaller lenses, but the world seems to have been overtaken by fast lens religion."
The 35mm isn't that big.
For comparison the Nikon 35mm F1.8 is 2.81 inches long, The Tamron 3.1 inches while the Sigma 35mm F1.4 is 3.7 inches long.
The smallest comparable lens is the Canon 35mm F2 at around 2.5 inches long.
If you were talking about the F1.4 35mm lenses, I'd agree with you but the F1.8/F2 lenses seem OK size-wise to me.
noflashplease: Looking at the Batis line, rumors of the Zeiss lenses being Tamron designed suddenly make sense. We can only hope that Sony/Zeiss allows Tamron to release an 85mm F/1.8 VC in Canon and Nikon mounts? At this point, the A-mount doesn't matter and you really have to wonder why Tamron still supports it, unless they're obliged to contractually as part of some agreement?
As far as Batis 25mm, that's an odd focal length. Perhaps it made sense to Tamron as part of a 25/35/45 model range?
Personally, I really want an image stabilized 85mm and I won't pay the premium for the Zeiss name, or take the risk of Sony allowing the FE-mount line-up to stagnate like the E-mount, or wither away like the Maxxum/A-mount?
25mm is not an odd focal length for Zeiss.
They have been making 25mm lenses for decades. In the 1970's they had one for the Rollie SL35 camera and made one in the Contax/Yashica mount. 25mm Distagon F2.8.
For all I know they may have made 25mm lenses before that.
They have had manual focus 25mm lenses in Nikon and Canon mounts for years as well ZE for Canon EF mount and ZF for Nikon currently available. These are 25mm F2 Distagon lenses.
So the fact they have a 25mm Batis should be no surprise.
Here is an idea, why doesn't DPR just do a review of the camera and be done with it?
Instead we have extensive discussions of the technology of this particular camera and "reviews" of other cameras that fall far short content-wise of what Phil Askey used to put out years ago.
Paul Boddie: What? No Vulcan? ;-)
Paul, you have my sympathies.
jonikon: Yes, there are some excellent Zeiss lenses still being made, but unfortunately Zeiss dirtied it's brand years ago when they signed a contract with Sony allowing them to brand any lens Sony chose as a Zeiss Tessar lens. The Zeiss quality assurance of Sony/Zeiss lenses is a joke and is all just marketing. Some Sony /Zeiss branded lenses such as the Carl-Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm f/4 ZA OSS are junk on the inside. Photozone only gives it one an one half stars out of a possible five, optically. Unfortunately many Sony users are being duped into paying premium prices for the the blue label Zeiss on the outside, but only getting questionable Sony optical and mechanical quality on the inside.
So jonikon, you didn't read the article then? As a Sony user myself I own one CZ branded lens. The CZ 16-80. A brilliant lens which is very, very sharp. I don't care who designed it or who made it. It is for me a great lens.
My other lens that falls into the great category of a Sony 70-300 G lens. Maybe if they had asked Zeiss to certify it, it would have cost more? Not exactly cheap to start with but who cares?
So apart from that 16-70 e mount lens, which other Sony mount lenses in either A mount or E mount are crap? I bet you can't name one and if your username is a giveaway to you being a Nikon user you are well aware Nikon produce duds on a regular basis.
As a bit of photojournalism the first one showing the twin towers on the TV is interesting but the rest?
The DPR editorial says:
"The contrast between the well-known and horrifying imagery from Ground Zero and these somewhat banal photos is fascinating."
Err, no. The rest are just a set of nondescript photos. There is nothing to link them the event that I can see. Even being told they were taken that day when he was moved to a bunker doesn't really make them interesting.
chj: Was there any mention of weather sealing? For me, that's the most significant improvement.
"Sony A7 II with its kit lens is weather resistent and cheaper than GX8....."
A7II plus kit lens cheaper than a GX8? What absolute nonsense.
The A7II + kit lens is about £500 more expensive in the UK and that is comparing the best price for A7II to the pre-launch full price of the GX8 which will inevitably drop.
And of course if you buy an A7II aside from the kit lens and the 28mm F2, welcome to a world of VERY expensive lenses if you want to add to your kit.
Park Cameras are advertising the GX8 at £1149 for pre-order. The Sony A7II plus 28-70 is £1544 - if you shop around for camera and lens bought separately. The body on its own is £1244. (For some bizarre reason buy them as a kit and it will cost you more at £1639).