I don't get the cloning accusations.
If DPR hadn't mentioned it looked like a Canon lens would anyone have thought it wasn't just yet another independent maker producing a lens?
Many lens designs have been around for decades and Nikon and Canon in the early days used Zeiss and Schneider designs such as the Planar and Xenotar optical formulas to build their own lenses. Were they clones?
codethought: Thank you for FINALLY doing a review, DP...
Well I recall DPR posting something at some point about they were having to give a lot of consideration to the new AF features of the A77II and this was given as a reason for the delay.
However, whatever the reason, the review took too long.
"Bottom line here is that people are too critical of DPR here in general without knowing or considering the facts."
There have been numerous other in-depth reviews of several other DSRL's since the A77II came out. How is that for a fact? Why work on those non-trivial reviews and put the A77II one aside (as they most certainly did)?
It is obvious DPR chose to devote their resources to these reviews rather than complete the A77II review.
Well not unless you think some poor sole on the DPR staff has been reviewing it every week for over a year 40 hours a week.
QuarryCat: very expensive - even for Zeiss "Made in Asia".OLED is a clue - but why so boring focal length?1,8/22 mm Bastia1,8/95 mm Bastia
Boring focal length?
Zeiss have always made 25mm lenses and its a lot less boring than Sony with 28mm and those daft converter lenses.
85mm is a classic short portrait lens and if you want longer then 105mm is the next real step up.
No idea where your idea of 22mm came from. 21mm or 20mm yes but 22mm? never heard of such a focal length.
GRUBERND: does the oled DOF adjust to the intended print size? and how do we enter that? maybe some back-and-forth dialing on the focuswheel..
in my unhumble opinion DOF-scales - and also DOF buttons on D/SLRs with optical viewfinder - are pretty much a useless and totally overrated pseudofeature with effectively no reallife application. and i still have to find a single AF-lens where at least the focus-distance is displayed correct and can be used for focussing without any optical check.
Well I suppose if you are lazy and rely on automation all the time you won't have any use of such scales.
However with full frame lenses having less d.o.f using the hyperfocal distance technique to ensure maximum depth of field when you want it is still useful even on a wide lens like a 25mm.
Trying to judge it wit the lens stopped down is hard and EVF's which is the only VF you have on cameras this lens works with it is even harder (and I own a SOny camera with EVF so speak from experience).
ccclai: Equivalent to F2.8 in full frame?
"At f/0.95, this new Voightlander lens is just under two stops faster than the Nikon."
And that is its value over and above the Nikon.
We all know FF sensors are less noisy then 4/3 or aps-c. However if its low light and you are at 1/8 sec wide open on the Nikon you'd be at 1/30 on a 4/3 camera and given the focal length far more likely to get a sharp shot on 4/3.
And this is ignoring the IBIS of the Oly 4/3 cameras.
The equivalency thing for d.o.f works for me but for speed? No. There you are comparing sensors when you talk about that not lenses and this lens lets you shoot faster shutter speeds on 4/3 than on with the Nikon 1.8.
Jostian: no EVF........
"The casual shooter that wants a small convenient camera to take with them is not interested at all in an EVF."
And just how do you know that?
You can have a small convenient camera with an EVF you know.
"Why would it have an EVF?"
Because it's supposed to be a camera?
When digital cameras first came out you could just about excuse the lack of a viewfinder. Optical VF's didn't work very well with zooms and EVF's were poor or nonexistent.
Now we have excellent EVF's I just do not get why anyone wants to buy a camera you have to wave about in front of your face to operate.
Nikon are not the only culprits. Oly's PEN line is crying out for a built in evf like panasonic has on a lot of its cameras.
I am sure the 7200 will take great photos but most cameras with aps-c sensors do anyway.
So why not a more radical redesign of the body like the D750 with its tilting LCD to make the camera easier to use?
These days with live-view the absence of a tilting LCD is pretty inexcusable and Nikon clearly don't think the old (and ridiculous in my view ) excuse of it being a less robust camera as a result has any credence given they put one on the 750.
PazinBoise: I really dig my A7II. Better high ISO performance (compared to the competition) would have been nice however the overall package meets pretty much all the needs I had. For anyone who likes shooting on legacy glass the IBIS is killer!
The one thing I really wish this camera had is a touchscreen. It could make selecting AF points so much easier but alas, that feature will probably be coming on the A7III.
"Doesn't have better high ISO performance than the D750, and that's part of the competition."
That is what they said. You need to read what was written again.
"Better high ISO performance (compared to the competition) would have been nice"
is acknowledging it is worse than some of the competition.....
exapixel: For still photography, I'm not sure whether I understand how IBIS is better than using a faster shutter speed and a sensor with lower noise at high ISO.
IBIS (or optical lens stabilization) extends the capability of any camera (lens) that has it.
You can shoot several stops slower and even with FF cameras you can see noise at ISO 3200 so if you have IBIS why would you NOT shoot at ISO 800 to get an even cleaner image if you could?
I never really understand why people don't get the concept of image stabilisation. It's just another modern innovation like autofocus.
JimW-203: It strikes me that the belief that the "sensor is all" flies in the face of logic. If correct, that would lead to the conclusion that in pre-digital era cameras all one would have to do to get outstanding pictures would be to pick the right film.
You did. Put Kodachrome 25 in the cheapest Nikkormat slr and provided you used the same lens as on your Nikon F2AS, you would not be able to tell the shots apart.
As always getting outstanding pictures was/is more about the photographer but we both know that.
The sensor film analogy is more along the lines of you always restricted yourself to shooting with high speed film so ended up with more grainy results than someone who didn't.
Ross the Fidller: "Olympus's forthcoming 300mm F4 lens offers a focal length equivalent to 600mm. Although not as fast as a 600mm F4 would be for full-frame, it's highly portable by comparison."
Saying "Although not as fast as a 600mm F4 would be for full-frame" in the above is just nonsense!
"600mm F4 for full-frame would offer better light-gathering ability and better control over depth-of-field, so I don't see why it's "nonsense" to say it'd be faster."
Because the speed of a lens is dictated by is maximum aperture and always has been and d.o.f certainly is not a measure of a lens's speed.
What you refer to as a faster lens is really the better performance you get from larger sensors which has nothing to do with how fast a lens is. That is determined by one thing only, its maximum aperture.
If I mounted the same 600mm F4 lens on a modern low noise dslr compared a previous generation higher noise one (same sized sensors) would you start going on about equivalence there and tell me I really had a 600mm F8 or whatever?
No, you would just tell me sensor performance had improved over the years.
Equivalence in terms of lens speed just confuses sensor performance with the true speed of a lens which is a constant based on its aperture.
"No it isn't. Read this." Have you read it Barney?
"But surely F1.2=F1.2=F1.2? Yes it is." is what the article correctly says.
It then goes onto a discussion about how much light is gathered with larger and smaller sensors etc.
The article was very good and DPR is doing itself a disservice by posting "Although not as fast as a 600mm F4 would be for full-frame,.." It's a 300m F4 lens and F4 is F4 is F4 and so that is how fast it is.
The fact on 4/3 camera it gives a cropped view equivalent to a 600mm lens n FF has nothing to do with its speed.
The reason people and DPR go on about lenses not being as fast is because of the sensor size and the performance implications of that.
The lens is as fast as it is and a 300mm F4 is as fast as a 600mm F4.
What you mount them on sensor size-wise may dictate the ultimate performance but that caption is just wrong and doesn't make sense because what you are really referring to is sensor performance not lens speed.
Jylppy: 600mm/8f telephoto...
Nope. It's a 300mm F4 telephoto.
Angrymagpie: I'm trying to understand why a super sharp 35mm f/1.4 would be a good thing. A very sharp and fast standard FL prime like a 55mm is good versatile lens that could be used for portrait where details, sharpness, and subject-background separation are simultaneously important. A 35mm is not usually used as a portrait lens as far as I know. I'm not criticising the lens of course, I'm just trying to understand its purpose and the advantage of trading off compact size for superb image quality and f/1.4 in the context of a 35mm lens.
I used to use a 35mm as my standard lens when I had a film camera (Olympus OM2 and 4).
However that F1.4 is huge and expensive. The 35mm F2.8 alternative is overpriced for an F2.8. It should be quite cheap to buy with that spec and it isn't
The lens Sony will clearly never now build, a 35mm F2, priced the same as the overpriced F2.8 would in my opinion be far more appropriate for the A7's in terms of size.
The one stop from F1.4 to F2 is not so important these days with low noise FF sensors.
I know Zeiss make an F2 but it's manual focus.
As to the 28mm F2, well if you like 28mm OK but if you use 35mm as standard the difference is not enough. A 24mm would be much more useful if you have a 35mm.
And the converter lenses? Well that just says Sony will never make a 21mm or fisheye lens either.
The macro looks nice. The 24-240? a more compact and faster 24-105 F4 might have been a better bet.
arhmatic: Nikon, why in the work are you refusing to include GPS?
Every phone has it now. Please don't suggest I get the dongle, I will never get it.
"High speed USB 3 yes, wifi yes, gps - really want all that battery drain ? really ?"
The battery drain issue is a total myth.
I use an A77 whichhas GPS and its on all the time. Battery drain really isn't an issue. Some of those old add-on GPS units run forever on a small battery so I see no reason why a properly implemented GPS in a camera should cause excessive battery drain. It does not in mine.
All the suggested alternatives are a kludge after you have used built-in GPS. Turn GPS on in my phone and that does drain the small battery whereas the much larger camera battery takes it in its stride.
Using 3rd party dongles requires manual tagging in PP. use manufacturer supplied ones as Nikon sell and they cost too much and are cumbersome.
And you can always turn it off if you are needlessly paranoid about battery drain.
Interestingness: Sorry to hi-jack this post on what looks to be a wonderful mkII camera but this is relevant...
A recent post on Steve Huff's site will hopefully shut up some of these annoying Sony fanboi's. As a m4/3's user I'm really impressed with how the EM1 did and even as someone who will NEVER own a Sony branded cam, I have to say how disappointing the A7s did overall. If I dropped $2400.- (CDN pricing) on that thing I'd be rushing back for a full refund!
PS - The 1st person who comes up with a NOT-A-SONY sticker for my camera has a customer right here - shut up and take my money!
No idea why you are so anti-Sony (nor do I care) but clearly you are biased against them so why would anyone take note of what you have to say as regards anything they produce?
Anastigmat: Being a landscape camera, it should come with a built-in GPS, and that data can then be used to go back to the exact spot years later, even if one forgot where the photo was originally taken. A GPS unit would be less useful if one is shooting sports because the uniforms would inform you which team was playing and therefore where the photos were taken. It is a glaring omission that hopefully Canon can correct before launching the camera.
Joseph if there is an issue with the cameras GPS I'd get it repaired just as if the AF stopped working.
Updating the clock is useful if you travel across time zones and it means its one less thing to think about when the clocks go back or forward. It's called convenience.
As to GPS eating the battery alive this is completely false in my experience. I leave GPS on all the time on my A77 and battery life is excellent with no issues. Can't speak for other cameras but I never think to turn GPS off.
There is no issue with acquisition either because with the A77 if you plug it into your computer it updates the GPS data with satellite locations for tbe next month. This is similar to what Tom Tom sat navs do with their "quick gps fix" feature.
As to who cares if you trot over to the Sony forum there are plenty of people who own the A77 and other SOny cameras that had GPS who are not upgrading to the A77II because the latter lacks the GPS, me included.
AngryCorgi: Can't compete with Nikon and Pentax's entry-level IQ? No problem, we'll throw an LCD panel on it! That'll do the trick. :-P
"Amazing how that extra bit of DR at low ISO never produces a better image."
That is complete nonsense. Clipped highlights are far less of a problem with cameras with a wider DR. It is not al just about the shadows. Higher DR = more detail at the extremes.
To suggest otherwise is daft.
x-vision: Very good article, bringing some very interesting points.
Canon's ultimate goal here is stop discounting the premium models, IMO.
It has become a common practice in the past couple of years to introduce a camera at a certain price and discount it only a couple of months later. This is good for us, consumers, but I doubt it makes sense for manufacturers.
So, by having the 70D, T6s, and T6i spec'd and priced so closely, Canon is likely attempting to prevent price erosion of the 70D and T6s models, while still offering a lower price on the T6i.
Note that the intro price of the Rebel series in the US has been $850 for more than five years now - and the T6i is now introduced at $750.
"Canon's ultimate goal here is stop discounting the premium models, IMO."
It is a classic case of price segmentation. The 750 allows Canon to charge a higher price for the 760 and to maintain that price differential regardless of the actual costs involved in producing the 760 compared to the 750.
Whether this works or not depends on just what is on offer i.e. is the 760 good enough and well built enough to justify its price.
As to this filtering up the line helping maintain the price of higher end models such as the 70D or even the 7DII this also depends on the ultimate quality and value of these cameras.
This is because while these lower end cameras help you devise a price book with steadily increasing prices with each higher up the chain model attracting a price premium over the one down this all falls apart if people perceive a model as overpriced.
Personally I think the 7DII is overpriced already and price segmentation does not change that.