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.
I'm not into phones that much a photographic tool just using my Nexus 5 when I have forgotten the camera.
The one thing that would tempt me to charge my phone is one with a higher capacity battery. My phone is fine for day to day use when I am in work where I can plug it into the laptop to charge but i'ts not much use if I can't find a power source at some point if I have been using GPS etc.
So whenever I see a phone with a larger battery that grabs my attention. The trouble is they all seen to be phablet sized.
Why can't manufacturers put a top spec phone together that isn't a phablet more often?
sunjester: How utterly sad. Not sure what's worse. Olympus one of the bottom feeders of the camera world striking out like a petulant child. Or dpreview helping with the poop throwing again.
You clearly have no sense of humour.
Prairie Pal: It was a good try 'cept the acting was ho-hum and they dragged it out too long.I think the main point was that the film was shot on an E-M5.
I agree that it went on too long. A bit of humour but they didn't know when to stop.
Less is more when you adopt this type of humour.
Cheezr: Barney, since I see you used the 16-55F2.8, how did that lens feel on the camera? does it hang over the bottom? E.g., on my e-m10 a few of the bigger lenses hang over the bottom edge of the camera.
"How is it annoying - Photographers have done for over hundred years without autofocus, not to say its not in any Nikon or Canon camera either."
I think he meant there is no stabilisation on the 16-55 zoom. Fuji brought out a standard zoom without OIS recently so I presume he is referring to this lens.
These days doesn't every Canikon standard zoom have OIS?
And just because photographers have managed without AF for 100 years doesn't mean they want camera without it and the same applies to lenses without OIS and camera without IBIS.
It's a modern innovation that helps you take better photos. I really don't know why when people regret it not being present we get comments like the above. OIS in lenses or IBIS (in Oly, Sony and Pentax land) is expected these days and why not?
Canon are evening putting OIS in wide angle primes like the 35mm F2.
forpetessake: When will DPR stop publishing misleading numbers? It's NOT "a mind-blowing F2.8-6.5 24-2000mm equivalent zoom".
You either provide conversion for both f-stop and focal length, which are mind-blowing F14.6-33.8 24-2000mm FF equivalent. Or provide the physical parameters, which are F2.8-6.5 4.6-385mm.
It's hard to believe DPR continues making honest mistakes -- writing a F14.6-33.8 4.6-385mm would have been an honest mistake, and I've never seen that.
"Please refrain from the silly f2.8 is f2.8 comments. It's good to know the subject before commenting and embarrassing oneself."
I am afraid forpetessake the only one "embarrassing oneself" here is you.
The aperture of a lens is the ratio of the lens's focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil. And that is it.
What the implications are of sticking an F2.8 lens on a small sensors v a full frame one are what they are but they do not alter the lenses aperture.
Always liked Pentax cameras but they have "done a Sony" here. Added some new stuff which is good and removed some old stuff which is useful.
As a Sony A77 shooter I was annoyed Sony removed the GPS from the A77II so was interested to see it added to this new Pentax. GPS is a feature I find genuinely useful.
Then I noticed they removed the built in flash. While no one ought to use those as the main flash they are very useful for providing fill-in on a sunny day even if only for holiday snapshots.
I also have Metz ring flash which uses the built in flash as a controller in wireless mode that that would not work with this camera.
Why do Japanese camera manufacturers give with one hand and take with the other?
Why can't improved models be just that? All the good stuff in the old one with additional features/improvements without removing other features?
Dave Oddie: 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?
Well you totally missed the point.
It's not a knock off.
A third party lens maker has made a 35mm F2 lens that fits a Canon camera. Wow.
It doesn't even look like the Canon lens which has its focusing ring in the middle of the lens barrel whereas this one has it on the front. And it has a different number of aperture blades
If Sigma made a 35mm F2 lens with 7 elements in five groups is that going to be classed as a knock off as well?
I don't get the cloning accusations.
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.