Andrew Booth: Sigma's turnover last year was 33 billion yen - $320 million
This shouldn't concern them too much.
It is 15% of the profit on the sales of the six specific lenses.
From the article:
15% of the 10.1 billion JPY profit Sigma made on the lenses in question will go to Nikon.
So that is 1.5 billion JPY which is not a lot.
jackspra: Sales in the states keep these companies rolling so give the price etc. in American language.
The new 'Air' tripods will retail from £180-£334 ($301-$559)
3rd line down!
gskolenda: I don't get it! $6,500 bucks for a 16mp FF camera body, they don't need to sell very many of these to make a huge profit, regardless of the market conditions!
This is a big time Rip in my mine, I would take the D800-D800e any day over this camera.
"You are not the market for this camera GSK, but I am guessing you do not make $40k+ a year as a professional portrait/wedding/newswire photographer......"
I thought they all used iPhone's for that these days ;)
Daniel from Bavaria: Maybe its a bit slow for the one other thing, but therefore it is quite small and lightweight and it seems that optically it is very, very good. Therefore I do not really understand all the bashing here.
I am a Canon and Fuji X user and think that Sony is doing great for the whole camera industry - they are playing the pioneer in many areas. Only Olympus, Panasonic and Fuji are also in that ballpark, but FF only comes from Sony. Canon and Nikon are still waiting with their thumbs up in their - you know what - . If you like the handling of the Sony cameras or not is just a matter of preference, but technically they are doing really well. Very interesting times for all of us!
"Some people need to learn that not only fast lenses are "good" lenses. And so not only the fast lenses are expensive lenses."
What has that got to do with anything posted above? I certainly don't need to "learn" that this Sony is optically good. I used to use an Olympus Zuiko F2.8 35mm in my film days as my standard lens.
It was optically superb. It was also a lot cheaper than its faster F2 counterpart, which is the point.
I see no reason for this Sony lens to be priced as it is.
If it was F2 even at this price I think you would see far less complaints.
Sony seems to be shying away from fast lenses for this series of camera. The new 70-200 zoom is F4 but priced as an F2.8 ought to be (The A series F2.8 is also overpriced).
If they want to keep things compact by selling slower lenses fair enough but don't charge the same price as faster glass.
Lenses like the 8.5mm are what all the smaller formats lack. You have to go with a zoom in most cases as far as I am aware on m43 and aps-c with most primes being no wider than 14mm. (Unless you want a fisheye)
At F2.8 the lenses are not fast for the focal lengths they have so why not just stick a 19mm->50mm F2.8 zoom on and save the trouble if having three different cameras?
I am sure with zoom lens optical design being so good these days such a lens would offer excellent quality and they would sell a lot more cameras.
I feel sorry for Ian Rawcliffe. He has to try and convince the buying public that this camera is worth the premium over an A99.
He is probably more than aware no one believes a word he has written about it yet it is his job top try and sell this ridiculous camera.
Reading the press release about the virtues he attributes to it is painful.
samfan: Well if they can pull off a 16mm , why wouldn't they rather make a decent 16-100 or something?
All these superzooms are rather tiring. 'Either get a crappy megazoom or deal with prime lenses' seems to be a message of the day. What happened to good zooms with moderate range and moderate speed? Not pushing the envelope much lately.
I have a CZ 16-80 for my Sony A77 and it is a brilliant lens so I can see where people are coming from here but I would have loved this Tamron a few years ago when travelling for 9 months.
FriendlyWalkabout: @DpreviewDxo also reviewed this lens on nex-7. I don’t understand how it can get a phenomenal 29/36 mp resolution on the A7r while only getting 15/24 mp result on the Nex 7. I understand the nex 7 has anti aliasing filter, but it wouldn't make that big a difference would it? I see the very cheap canon eosm 22mm lens scores a relatively better 13/18 mp. Please help me understand.
I don't look at the dxo site much but if I recall correctly the same lens always gets a higher rating on full frame than on aps-c regardless of make. (justs checked and the Nikon 58mm f1.4 is has a higher rating on the 610 than on the 7100)
As to the Sony lens. Nice short portrait lens on aps-c but 55mm is too long for a standard lens on full frame for me personally. I never liked 50mm never mind 55mm when I shot film.
The very compact A7 is crying out for a 40mm F2 pancake style lens.
greypixelz: sad he had to reach this age in order to understand that suffering and horror is not 'photojournalism' or 'the public's right to be informed'.there is such a thing as human dignity and dying is part of it. photographing death or any kind of suffering for public display is undignified and disqualifies the photographer as a human being. man should be immortalized on the highest peaks, not the deepest of valleys. this whole culture of decay and death is satanic in nature and goes against what man really is. the spirit of humanity is about rising from the abyss, not falling in it.God bless you all!
greypixelz: "he and others like him, did NOTHING to help those people in need, just like the media is a propaganda machine for corporations looking for your sympathy and reaching for your wallets and ending up taking your souls."
You need to get a bit of perspective and equating what he did to corporate avarice and a society dominated by a plutocracy today ignores many things not least the time in history he operated and the effect his and other photos had on shaping attitudes to things like the Vietnam war.
You and I know there is plenty of suffering in the world. We still spend a fortune on our hobby, buy TV's, cars and everything else.
Iconic images like the famous photo of the badly burned Kim Phuc from the Vietnam war shape public opinion.
The photographer who took that image took her and others to hospital. Would you prefer the photo was not taken and they just ferried the injured to hospital?
sik_photos: It is almost universally acceptable to crop a photo. It is also historically accepted to dodge and burn a photo in the darkroom (or digitally)to enhance the quality of the image without changing the essence of the news, preserving the message of the image. In this case the removal of the camera in the corner of the image has zero to do with the communication of news events. All "reporting" ,including photography, involves a conscious editing of reality, what you choose to show and what you choose not to show, the context into which you place things, and more, and among such choices and all are subjective. To even choose which images to publish (or send to your publisher) are editing choices. All photographers and their employers know this.
It would be quite naive to believe that this type of editing, photoshop pixel manipulation, does not happen all the time; I suspect there is something else going on in the decision to end working with this photographer.
"It has everything to do with communication of news events. Now it is clear to me that this image was not taken in "the height of a battle" but it was staged. Like probably most pictures coming from that area."
I take your point but you would have been none the wiser had he been able to remove the camera by cropping were it in a different position in the frame and he would not have been sanctioned for doing that.
As to it being staged you may suggest that, but you don't know for sure. Photographers have been known to be right up there in the thick of the action so why there would not be a chance of a camera being caught in a photo in the thick of it I don't know.
What he should have done if the thought the camera spoiled the photo and it was not possible to crop it out is simply not submit the photo to AP.
As he did and AP concluded he had not done this on any other photo a warning would suffice IMO. Looks like AP wanted to make a point or use this an an excuse to ditch him
David0X: Why are people hung up about this "Oh, it must be Full Frame to be pro" crap?
35mm is totally arbitrary - based on the movie film , and remember, it used to Be called "miniature format" because it was so small. Roll film was small too. Quarter Plate was small before that... jeeze. Why was Half Plate called "Half Plate"? See if you can guess.
Unless you have an SLR (optical viewfinder limited by sensor size - no, not Fuji X) or a whole bunch of legacy glass (Nikon, Canon yes, Fuji X no) then there is no reason to bang on about "Full Frame" being pro.
Want a big sensor? Get a Phase One for goodness' sake.
"Seriously though, what point are you making? The bigger the sensor, the more light it collects. End of story. Full frame is an arbitrary point on the size scale, sure. So is APS-C or m4/3. If you're making out that size doesn't matter at all, just pop over to Connect and join everyone shooting with their cellphone."
The point is if an aps-c sensor gives good enough image quality that is all that matters. The fact smart phones don't does't mean aps-c cameras don't either.
One day we may end up with small sensors delivering all the image quality we ever need and making a full frame sensor using the same technology to get even better quality will be a waste of time. Are we at this point now? No but for some people aps-c is easily good enough and FF overkill already.
Biggiep: So this is Nikon's equivalent pricewise of Canon's 35mm f/2 IS but f/1.8 and no VR. I'd rather have stabilization than 1.8, otherwise why not just get a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 when it's on sale instead? We all know Nikon never has sales unlike Canon.
"No VR on a fast 35, he complains to much laughter."
Why? Canon has it on its F2 which is hardly slow and as someone who has a camera with IBIS that meant my 28 F2 was stabilised I can vouch for the additional capability that a fast lens AND stabilization brings to the table.
I "laugh" at those who can't see this ;)
Dave Oddie: This looks to be another quality lens from Fuji but what all the makers seem to be be missing whether for mirror-less or just aps-c on d-slr's is a compact fixed focal length uwa prime.
On m43 that would be say a 8.5mm to give a f.o.v of a 17mm on FF and on aps-c say 11mm.
I use a Sony 11-18 on my A77 and the only reason I do is for the 11mm end really. My 16-80 takes me wide enough most of the time and if I need wider than 16mm it is usually 11mm.
The Sony is not a heavy lens at all and is rather underrated (very good geometry IMO) but still, I'd prefer a less bulky lens to lug about so a 11mm F3.5 would be great.
I just find it odd that for all sensors smaller than FF no matter what make you shoot the only way to get an ultra wide angle rectilinear lens is to buy a zoom.
peevee1, The result is a lens the size of the Fuji. If I was an X series or Nex owner I might be tempted by that Zeiss mentioned by PatMann but the point still stands.
Bar that lens which is available in just two mounts you have to buy a zoom if you want UWA on aps-c and smaller sensors.
They may be easy to make (really!?) but they are still bulky lenses and you won't find a prime this wide for smaller format Nikon/Sony/Pentax/Sigma d-slr cameras.
I used ot own an Olympus 18mm F3.5 film lens for my oM cameras and it was muh smaller than the Fuji zoom and it was full frame!
This looks to be another quality lens from Fuji but what all the makers seem to be be missing whether for mirror-less or just aps-c on d-slr's is a compact fixed focal length uwa prime.
"...but if I was selling every camera I own and starting afresh, the E-M1 would probably be the one I'd buy."
I agree. I shoot a Sony A77, have some very nice CZ and G lenses and I think its the best camera I have ever shot with. Ergonomically brilliant in my opinion.
However if all that gear went AWOL I would be taking a serious look at the E-M1. Looks a great camera to me with some fine lenses.
I enjoyed the article as well because instead of a review that people nit pick over or question the methodology of, this one is based on actually using the camera.
I think we are at the stage where image quality is more than good enough in many cameras and you can buy based on features and usability instead of basing it on how noisy it is at ISO 128000 or whatever.
Cycleshooter: Video never has the information density of the printed word, but is cheaperto produce. This is the first step back from what has made this site great.
Cheaper it isn't but the written word (with associated photos or illustrations) is far more easily referable than a video.
Nothing wrong with videos as such but prose is miles better for expressing any kind of definitive and/or authoritative opinion.
spiderhunter: It appears that Canon and Nikon are so complacent with their toaster-sized DSLRs that they are blind to what is going around them. They can reduce the size of things but they just don't do it. The song "the times they are a-changing" comes to mind. Sure, they still have their lion's share of the pro market but I feel Sony has rocked the boat. The Sony FF mirrorless are still not there yet when it comes to AF tracking abilities ( but great for non-action work) and battery life but given time and more RD, they will get there. I hope the size of truly capable pro models will get lighter, not heavier.
Hand phones got lighter and smaller. The early models were gigantic by comparison. Compactness and portability is what manufacturers should aim for. Yes, there is a limit as to how small FF lenses can go but striving to reduce sizes and making things lighter are surely the way to go.
Go Sony, go! Show them the way!
Hugi808. I don't recognise that description of the EVF on my Sony A77. It's great. Not sure why it would give anyone a headache either. It doesn't use some poor low frequency pulse width modulation technology like you find on cheap LCD monitors.
So for me the EVF isn't the problem with the A7's. It is what they have had to sacrifice in the pursuit of very small FF bodies. The lens mount is narrow so that makes fast lenses hard to make. There is no in-body stabilisation. The battery is small which means not only fewer shots but GPS which I find very useful has gone.
Canikon as spiderhunter said may be complacent in producing toaster sized dslrs but Sony has had to leave out too much modern innovation such as IBIS and GPS to achieve what they did. I am sure some people won't miss these things but I find them very useful so in that sense these cameras are a retrograde step. And of course they use a different lens mount than my A77 so its a completely system anyway.
Rick Knepper: Portraits of the living legends of blues
Since 2008, photographer Lou Bopp has made regular trips down Mississippi's Route 61 — known as 'The Blues Highway' — to document the lives of unknown musicians who have made important contributions to the classic American musical genre.
These fellows are either living legends or unknown musicians. I don't think you can have it both ways. Since I own CDs of most of the Legends of Blues, living or otherwise, I was surprised to see these names mentioned under a title containing the term "Living Legends". DPR, you need to work a little harder on your editorial skills.
"hese guys were/are important in their contributions to a unique American genre."
Why? What did these particular guys contribute to the genre to make them specifically such important contributors to it?