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).
justmeMN: Mirrorless enthusiasts claim that the former is less expensive to manufacture than DSLRs, but that claim doesn't seem to be reflected in the price of most mirrorless cameras.
As to price, an A7II + 28-70 and 16-35 CZ costs £2928 in the UK. An OM-D E-M5 MkII with 12-40 Pro and 7-14 Pro is £2348.
That is £580 cheaper and for lenses that are constant F2.8 v the (less wide at the wide end) Sony 28-70 is a slow F5.6 at the long end and the 16-35 is F4.
If you put equally slow Oly lenses on your OMD the price difference is huge. You can knock £400 off if you went for the 12-50 and another £550 comes off if you went for the 9-18.
That is about £1500 cheaper!
This 2 stops worse thing is just silly. It's "worse" only because the theory says the smaller sensor requires more light to achieve a similar noise performance.
In practice this is irrelevant since F2.8 is F2.8 so if you have a certain luminance the EV will be what it is.
A scene in bright light that corresponds to EV13 means you will be setting 1/125 at F8 regardless of the size of the sensor.
Just because you have an m43 camera you won't be setting it to F4 instead.
Will the FF camera deliver less noise than m43 for this amount of light? Maybe but you would be hard pressed to tell the difference with this much light available.
You will see a difference as the light decreases and you need higher ISO's but as sensor technology improves the PRACTICAL differences diminish.
In a blind test I doubt you could tell the difference between a photo taken in a Nikon D7200 v a Nikon D750 at ISO 100. And maybe you'd have to go past ISO 800 for a significant difference to show.
SmilerGrogan: I don't understand the monomaniacal fixation on dynamic range as the be-all and end-all of a camera's image quality.
The staff at DPR has already proven that you can get gorgeous images out of the new 5D and pros and amateurs will be taking jaw-dropping photos with them for years to come despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth on the internet, so could we please move on?
"I don't understand the monomaniacal fixation on dynamic range as the be-all and end-all of a camera's image quality."
Maybe it's because this is one area digital still lags behind film? Kodak Porta negative film has a 19 stop dynamic range. Even the worst negative film is around 12 stops.
If you ever saw the results from medium format photos shot on negative film you's probably understand more why DR is important.
This article alludes to it when it says the Nikon has an almost medium format look about it. It is a quality that makes shots lacking in DR look hard and ones that have it gain a quality that is almost ethereal.
You may think digital shots with a DR of 11 or less are fine but then what you have never had, you never miss.
rockclimber87: All those that constantly complain about the subscription model. Isn't it about time you gave up? You are like an ex partner that won't move on. If you are so sure Adobe is the devil why do you keep it on your mind? Move onto different software and be happy with your lives again. You don't need to scream at Adobe, they are not going to change because a minority group, yes minority, look at their sale reports are dissatisfied with someone elses product. Go on, shoo!
Said by someone who doesn't even use Lightroom lol. C1P all the way
"also since you seem so desperate to get new features but want to stay stand alone you must love giving away money because it is cheaper to be on subscription than it is to upgrade stand alone each year (back in the CS days). "
Only because Photoshop was the most ridiculously overpriced bit of software on the planet.
Mike Cialowicz: It's nice to see that Nikon is giving the DX lens lineup a bit more love. This is the lens that I was waiting for back when I still used DX. However, as good as the optics will likely be, the price seems a bit crazy. I think Nikon took a hint from Sony with their expensive E-mount pricetags... this new 16-80mm f/2.8-4 is just a bit more expensive than the Zeiss 16-70mm f/4 OSS, and only ~$200 USD less than the equivalent FX lens (24-120mm f/4). Hmmm...
Sony also sell the Zeiss 16-80 in the a-mount.
In the UK it sells for £489 and for comparison sake the Sigma 17-70 is £329.
I own the Zeiss and it is brilliant lens. From memory I am not sure the Sigma comes close.
If the Nikon 16-80 is as good optically as the Zeiss Nikon aps-c shooters will have a great addition to their lineup available.
The price does seem rather insane though. From the $ price it's going to be least double the price of the Zeiss in the UK.
Adrian Harris: RX100 Mk4 appears far noisier than my Mk1, which is a great disappointment as I was hoping the new sensor was going to be a leap forward :o( I would like an EVF but am not prepared to accept worse photo quality!
Looking at the DPR studio test scene the Mk II, Mk III and Mk IV are all virtually identical noise-wise with the Mk I better than them all.
If Sony were listening to their customers there would be an A99II.
Also when Sony took over Minolta they ceased production of some of the lens lineup such as the 24mm F2.8, 35mm F2, 24-105 and (eventually) the 500mm AF mirror (and others).
They did introduce some new lenses but that included several different standard zooms for example, not plugging the obvious gaps.
So when Sony says their F4 lineup is complete for E series how do they come to that conclusion when there is no 24/28-105? Also don't expect a native fisheye now they have a 28mm+converter.
Sony's lens "roadmap" has always seemed illogical to me. They bring out MkII versions of existing lenses rather than plug gaps or bring out several standard zooms (16-80 and 16-105 for example on aps-c a-mount).
I have managed to build a very nice lens lineup on a-series but I could not replicate it on e-series and given Sony's past performance I'd not have the confidence they ever would plug the gaps.
I don't understand this article appearing on DPR.
Why is there an article that speculates about the dynamic range possibly being greater and that BSI may well be appropriate despite the larger sensor etc?
Why not just wait until you have reviewed it and tell us the facts?
Seems rather pointless to me.
Paul Petersen: I think I would get better results with a Sigma 18-35 on my D7200 and have some flexibility all the way around. Leica's 24mp FF seems to be a bit of dog in sensor performance. But I would look so cool with one to those that actually know what a Leica is.
"Even SigmaArt lenses, which are plenty good, don't compete for optical quality with good Leica lenses."
When anyone posts something like this I am reminded of something that happened in UK decades ago long before the internet.
There was a Leica postal photo group were members posted round prints for critique.
Comments usually included some remarks similar to "typical Summicron characteristics on show" or whatever going on about the quality of the Lecia lenses.
Pity someone infiltrated the club and sent a load shots around taken with a Nikon that got all the same comments!
Nuno Souto: So pretty please, Sony: can we now have IBIS as well on all mirrorless cameras?About time that demented mirror disappeared from cameras and we got IS for ALL lenses!Leave it on for one or two models for the idiots who think it's a great way to take photos and who are willing to pay to duplicate IS in all their lenses. Meanwhile, just get on with the job of making truly MODERN cameras instead of copies of 50 year old film designs!
Did DxOMark switch the IBIS off on the A7II test to see if that affected DR?
If not that is poor unscientific testing and you can't conclude the lower DR is due to IBIS.
Also IBIS has been around since before Sony acquired Minolta. There have been no overheating issues. It is not new technology and I think you are basically making this over heating issue up.
It's been working fine in the full frame A850/A900 an A99 so there is absolutely nothing to suggest there is a new issue here because Sony applied IBIS to a larger sensor. They have been doing it for years already.
Tommygun45: Granted, since the A6000 there were limitations to what mirrorless could do. Now there are no more excuses. Whatever comes after the A6000 will officially be a superior camera in almost all regards to any non-FF DSLR that Nikon, Canon, or Pentax has to offer. Oh, and alot cheaper. It will have better IQ, likely better AF, better tracking, better FPS, and probably a better buffer than all but the 7d2 which has crap IQ. Weather sealing, build quality, and battery life will be about the only things that high end DSLRs will still have an advantage in, and the majority of people, (about 95% of non pros) don't really care about those things. With lenses, what's needed is basically already covered for most.
Before you know it the pro who uses a dslr is going to be like the journalist who still uses a typewriter. People sort of respect him, but most just think he's crazy.
What makes you think Sony will build a better A6000 that will be as good as you describe?
If they did they would be competing with themselves and could impact sales of the A7 series.
There is always plenty of speculation Sony will release an A7000 as a successor to the twin-dialed Nex 7 but I can't see it.
I think deliberate market differentiation will mean the A6000 is as good as it gets in the Sony APS-C world for quite some time.
They may update it in a year or so but I doubt they will introduce a camera as capable as you suggest.
veroman: Until one actually owns a Leica digital, one is really in no position to judge its worth or its capabilities. It's so very easy to denigrate the brand based on price alone and even easier to conclude that other cameras are just as good at a fraction of the price. One poster here says, "Is it better built? Probably." Probably? There's no probably about it. The precision that goes into the design and manufacture of Leica products is unequalled. You need only hold one in your hands and give it one click. Look at the seams, i.e. where a latch door meets the body. The seam is practically invisible. Most of you will own 10 or 15 different cameras by the time a single Leica needs servicing, if it does at all.
I have no reason to doubt your assertions as regards the build quality of the Leica and the fact it won't need servicing for years but I have two observation about that.
1. The build quality won't prevent the camera becoming obsolete any less quickly any more than it does any other digital camera as sensor technology progresses. So it is a moot point if you need the thing to be built that well.
2. These days there are a lot less moving parts to any camera with no need to handle film. The cameras are effectively computers not mechanical devices and so I don't see why a Leica's circuit board is necessarily going to be any more immune to wear and tear any more then any other high-end camera that is built to be robust (Canikon pro cameras).
That said there is nothing like owning a nice bit of precision engineering for its own sake and in my view that us best justification of the lot.
From a longevity point of view interchangeable sensors would justify building to last more.
Dave Oddie: "For the majority of people who shoot film and who like to process it themselves, working in black and white will be the norm. And while all film cameras have the potential to shoot in color as well as in black and white it's not unreasonable to assume that the majority of those still in use are employed almost solely in the business of recording the world in shades of grey."
That is a ridiculous statement to make. I used to process my own colour slide film (E4 and E6 films) and it was easier than B&W because you didn't need an enlarger!
All you did was transfer the film onto a development tank spiral inside a light-proof bag. Put that in the tank, close the lid, remove it from the bag and then pour in the chemicals in a set order at the right temperature.
For me and for many others shooting colour film whether processing it ourselves or not was the norm and B&W the exception.
If color film had been invented first I doubt B&W film would have ever existed.
It was pretty easy with E4 solutions. E6 was more temperature critical and required higher temperatures but you could buy development tanks that handled that side of it.
It was really very easy.
I used to by slide film in bulk on 30 meter rolls and use a film loader to load 35mm film cassettes.
If you did that and did your own developing it made for a dramatic reduction in cost.
Don051348: Leica products are targeted for the uber rich, much like Rolex, Ferrari, etc. Are they well made? Probably. Will they take better photos than most any other modern digital camera? Probably not (certainly not $9000 better). Will a Rolex keep better time than a Timex? Will a Ferrari really perform that much better than an American Corvette or even a Shelby Mustang? Certainly not that much better to justify the 4 to five times price difference. The uber rich need to spend thier money on something. That's why these companies exist. You are buying mystique, tradition, cachet at these price levels.
"Will they take better photos than most any other modern digital camera? Probably not (certainly not $9000 better)."
Well the argument for the 246 is it will take better photos than ALL other modern digital cameras when the other cameras are taking B&W photos. It is the only logical reason for it to exist.
The question is, is that true? Will one of the new 50mp Canon's not do just as well despite having the drawbacks of not being optimised for B&W like the 246? Will you be able to tell the difference in a large print when viewed at the correct distance?
I don't know but the theory is the 246 will be better.
As to the $9000 price well I am absolutely certain if the theory is proved and a monochrome sensor really is better for B&W another manufacturer could do the same and equal or better it for possibly even just a fifth of the price.
Monochrome Sony A7 anyone?
"For the majority of people who shoot film and who like to process it themselves, working in black and white will be the norm. And while all film cameras have the potential to shoot in color as well as in black and white it's not unreasonable to assume that the majority of those still in use are employed almost solely in the business of recording the world in shades of grey."
km25: Sorry DP not much of a preview. If the camera came in about 2/3 to 1/2 this cost. I may buy it. It is just over priced. Prehaps Leica should make this camera in an other country. they did with their 35mm SLR. Just too much $$$.
"Perhaps Leica is doing everything right as evidenced by their popularity, reputation and number of people who will buy this camera at exactly this price."
This seems very strange logic to me. It is bound to be the case they sell fewer units given the price and you have no idea how many more they would shift if they could lower the price.