Kiril Karaatanasov: Did not Tamron notice that A7 Sony cameras except the A7 m2 lack built in stabilization ......there are not so many a99s floating around relative to the number of A7 cameras
Price and specs are very attractive. I would wait for a test or two to show up before buying. Seems a cheap affordable compromise lens rather than outstanding lens by the price tag.
Plastek I think you will find with Sigma some of the Sigma lenses that have stabilisation also offer it in A-mount but not all of them.
I can't remember which lens it was but I am sure a fairly recent release from Sigma had OSS disabled, unlike my Sigma 105mm which has it.
The focal length range is very useful. On APS-C i use a Sony 11-18 which is similar. Usefully wider then the 16mm on my CZ 16-80.
The problem with the Tamron though is with it being a FF lens is size and weight.
I can't help thinking if I was a FF user I'd be happier with a 24-105 zoom complimented by a 17mm prime lens for the wide angle forgoing the flexibility of the zoom.
Does anyone make a 17mm FF prime these days? It all seems to be zooms which are large and expensive.
Every third party lens for Sony is not unstabilized. The latest Sigma 105mm macro lens has OSS in Sony mount.
I know, I own one and use it on my A77.
You have a choice and can either use the OSS in the lens or the IBIS in the body but you do have to remember not to use both at once.
Mind you I have never tried both on at once. Maybe I should to see what happens!
Some Sony users get very annoyed with Tamron who do remove OSS from all their Sony mount lenses. It doesn't bother me as IBIS works very well.
One of the arguments in favour of OSS lenses is you get a stabilized image through the viewfinder. On the latest A77MkII it can even give you a stabilized view in the EVF when you use IBIS so even that advantage has gone.
munro harrap: Very disturbing article and comments, since all machines should be identical. If there is variation in even the placement of the AF module, in a thing you have had to pay £1700 for! the flare will be worse and the autofocus all the time will be inaccurate- return it for a FULL REFUND anytime within the two year warranty period: you are entitled to your money back as it does not work as it should because, among other things, it has not even been put together properly.
One wonders how many D800 owners complaining about autofocussing problems may have incorrect camera construction as a reason.
Very disturbing too that Dpreview aren't bothered......
@Rishi Sanyal I think you are arguing over semantics here regarding the use of the word identical.
If some 750's don't flare, then when don't they all behave like that? That is identically in that respect. Flare free.
It is obviously possible to make a camera without the flare issue (D4S) and if some 750's do flare and others do not, how can you be confident in your purchase?
If varying module placement does exist in other cameras that means other cameras are equally bad. Ir does not excuse Nikon or anyone else from building and selling a camera that may flare.
Two converter lenses required to extend the range? Doesn't his defeat the object of this type of camera?
Akpinxit: D750 seems like a very good camera , and now , as the issue apparently to be fixable it will hit the charts .
It might not hit the charts unless Nikon can convince potential buyers the issue is fixed in all new cameras.
No one wants to buy a camera this expensive and then have to ship it to Nikon for an update.
Have they recalled all units shipped to retailers not yet sold?
If not, why not?
Dave Oddie: Fallacy 2 is spot on. I particularly liked the "And don't get me started on the neither-one-thing-nor-another no-man's-land of 50mm lenses on APS-C." comment.
I have always felt the same was totally bemused when Sony brought out a 50mm aps-c only lens! Why not a proper (equivalent) portrait focal length of 58, 60 or 70mm for aps-c?
It is also spot on to say your aps-c lenses won't offer you the same functionality on full frame. I have a 16-80 lens on my Sony and find it so useful I'd be looking for a 24-120 on FF so that is more upgrade expense not to mention the extra weight of the FF lens.
My aps-c lens outfit has taken a long time to save up for and assemble and it has been bought because ranging from Fisheye, then 11 through to 500 mm it works as it does - and it would not on FF.
"I am not talking about APS-C versus 35 mm here. "
Then why are you "talking" at all? The whole article is not about Sony or any other maker but about the formats on offer.
The fact you think " the Sony E/EF-mount lens system sucks overall" is a complete irrelevance to the original article.
As it is as an A mount user myself I think Sony made a mistake introducing the e/ef mount but I can separate my opinion on that from a general discussion of aps-c or FF.
northwizard: First Panasonic removing the GPS module of it's travelzoom compact, now Nikon! Why?
"In short: Battery life"
In short, it is a non-issue. I leave GPS on all the time and it really, really is not an issue.
In any case you can actually turn it off if you are paranoid but there really is no need to.
Sorry but what on earth are you on about? If I was a Canon, Nikon or Pentax aps-c user I would have assembled a similar lens connection to I have now. So to get the same coverage on FF I'd have to buy new lenses.
I treated myself to a Samyang fisheye for Christmas. It is an aps-c lens. If I went full frame it is useless and I'd need a FF equivalent. I could have purchased the same lens for Nikon or Canon on aps-c and it would be equally useless on a Nikon or Canon FF.
This has got nothing to do with Sony being an electronics company at all. It applies across the board.
valdazis: Dear Richard, what is wrong with using 50mm lens on aps-c...? Could you elaborate, please.
@Plastek. I agree. Many years ago my first film SLR came as they did with a 50mm lens and I soon found it neither one thing nor the other. For a while I moved to 35mm as a standard until I got a 35-105 zoom.
I also agree with Richard about 50mm on aps-c as well. As he says, too short for head-and-shoulder portraiture, too long for walk-around use.
There were a ton of cheap 50's around when DSLR's came out (the first of which were nearly all aps-c) so they sort of got press ganged into service on that format but I have never had any use for them.
A focal length analysis I ran using a free program a while ago showed the vast majority of my shots were around 40mm (FF equivalent) with another group around 100mm (FF equivalent) when using my 16-80 zoom.
Fallacy 2 is spot on. I particularly liked the "And don't get me started on the neither-one-thing-nor-another no-man's-land of 50mm lenses on APS-C." comment.
Photomonkey: OK, so people who were never going to even lay a finger on this lens have spoken out.1. No OIS, wah,wah,wah.2. Big and heavy. Physics and metal construction at work.3. F2.8 is not the same as something else that I also don't own.
Hooray, we have heard you. Now hurry off to FB and gloat about how you set us straight.
You protest too much.
You post looks very like unintended reverse psychology to me. Despite the protestations (or rather because of) I reckon you are really hacked off there is no OIS! :)
km25: On paper, the Samsung and Fuji look very close. The Samsung loses F2 at 18mm,per the little video. They both have 3 Asph lens and two EDs and MC. OIS on a wide to medium tele is not that useful. For long tele I would what it. But some how IQ must suffer from it. They both look look like nice lens. I think Fuji has abetter over all range of lens and cameras....also the Trans-X sensor with no AA creates very sharp images. And the new X-PRO / X-T are on their way. I like prime less, owned the 24-70 Canon, great lens, sold it, I like primes. So, if you like having only one lens, this may be it for Fuji owners. Knowing the history of Fuji opitics, it will please their owners. So forget the f2.8 is not really F2.8 and it is too big or someone else makes a better. If you own Fuji, you know better.
" OIS on a wide to medium tele is not that useful."
I beg to differ. OIS (or IBIS) is always useful regardless of focal length (kudos to Canon for adding it to some wide angle primes recently) and means you always have a more capable bit of kit than someone without.
I am very surprised this lens does not have it and were I a Fuji user I would not buy it as a result nor would this lens be (part of) the reason to switch to Fuji
I agree. Why?
Sony did it on the A77II. As an A77 Mk1 user I value the feature a lot. If you travel it not only records your location but automatically adjusts the cameras clock for you.
Program like Lightroom have map modules where you can see the location of your shots and if users get used to this feature (as I have) they get annoyed when "upgraded" cameras do not have it.
It seems only Canon is using GPS seriously with it built into several recent dslr releases (and so no need of an external unit as Nikon does).
The logic (or lack of it) from japanese camera designers baffles me at times. "Upgraded" models missing useful features of the previous model.
Dave Oddie: Seems to me this camera is all about the pro level tank-like build quality, fast AF and the 10fps.
Very useful for a pro sports photographer with the crop sensor giving more reach but outside that market it is pretty disappointing. Not many amateurs need the tank-like build and even my "old" A77 is faster at 12fps.
If you are a typical amateur who shoots a variety of subjects it doesn't seem compelling at all due to the sensor limitations, especially given the price.
Canon cameras always handle really well with well thought out ergonomics but this and tank like build are not enough anymore.
@allkar I am not sure of the point you are trying to make but modern Ferrari's are not pigs to drive anymore. They can pootle about in town as well as rip it up on the open road or track.
No need to compromise the performance in one area to get the best in another, if that is the analogy you were trying to make.
@ginerbaker, its not about pulling up shadows, its general DR which is just not good enough. Did you not read page 13 of the review? The sensor limitations are obvious.
"Furthermore, the additional dynamic range of a camera like the Nikon D7000 over the Canon EOS 7D Mark II not only provides greater tolerance for sub-optimal exposure, it also means that the camera will be able to do a better job when confronted with an even wider dynamic range scene than this one. Which we can assure you landscape photographers encounter often."
Quite. For a camera of this generation and of this price its DR should simply be much better than it is.
Seems to me this camera is all about the pro level tank-like build quality, fast AF and the 10fps.
Catalin Stavaru: I really really wanted to like this camera...but when I look at the sample pictures I see the same horrible color rendition that made me sell my Sony cameras. But in this particular gallery it's like the blandest set ever, color-wise. Not one picture makes me say "wow" and this is a full-frame camera. Something is really wrong with Sony, they are simply neglecting this area and then they wonder why people don't budge from Canon and Nikon.
" Here is what Ken Rockwell said about colors...."
Well that will be wrong then!
DistantView: I've been an enthusiastic photographer for more years than I care to remember & admit to having the camera but consider the omission of the A6000 from this comparison a bit bizarre, especially if the Nikon is included.DPR gave it a very good review, as have most other reviewers, so I'm baffled, is it too cheap for you ?Oh well .........
Clearly what this shows is priced based categorisation is stupid.
In any case that ISN'T the categorisation used. They talk of enthusiast level mirrorless cameras. The fact the A6000 is definitely that level of camera should see it here.
The fact it is considerably cheaper than some of the others should give it additional browny points not exclude it!
Beckler8: Like all the haters here, I too think this is pretty stupid. It's a luxury image camera. But then admit that Rolls Royce and Rolex are ridiculous as well. At least this camera is a rebadge of a great model, whereas those two examples are badges of nothing.
"....but that's not what makes them expensive - it's the pointless luxury factor; just as with this camera."
Nonsense. You really don't know how a Rolls Royce is made do you?
Whatever they charge for it the fact a Rolls is by and large hand built has a huge bearing on the final cost.
Unlike this camera which for the most part fell off the Sony production line.
For your analogy to be remotely close to the truth a Rolls would be a BMW 7 series with a bit of gold lief slapped on dashboard.
A Rolls may be pointless ostentation to most people who can get around in a Ford but it is also bespoke engineering. The Hasselblad is just pointless ostentation.
There is a difference.
JurijTurnsek: There is still room for A7 in Sony's line-up. Some people don't need IBIS and are happy with the low price and lower weight and bulk, excellent performance of the original A7. Maybe Sony will prolong its productions as it did with the RX100 series.
"Well, A900 I use has IBIS and most of the time it is turned off. Didn't realize that I really need it."
You do realise it only works when it needs to right? So there no penalty for leaving it on all the time as I do and it may just get you a shot you otherwise miss.
You don't have to be a masochist to enjoy photography and taking advantage of new technology isn't a crime.
Why not use ISO 100 with IBIS rather than ISO 800 without it for suitable subjects when you do not have your tripod with you or simply do not have time to set it up?
I just find it bizarre people want to make life difficult for themselves.