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.
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.
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
northwizard: First Panasonic removing the GPS module of it's travelzoom compact, now Nikon! Why?
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.
snooked123: Disclaimer: I am not a Canon shooter.
While everyone is going crazy about how Canikon are **ting in their pants, look at Canon 7D II. That camera costs $1800 which is approximately equal to the proposed price of Sony A7, but it would be a miracle if a7 sales numbers are within 25% of what Canon 7DII's numbers will be.
Sony A7 while innovative doesn't offer:a- The AF speed of Canikon's enthusiast level cameras.b- The enthusiast level lenses are scarce and expensive (Nikon's f1.8 offerings are great).
Additionally, who among the fanboys can guarantee that the whimsical sony boss will not dump A series for something new in a year? Similar to what Sony has done to Alpha, SLT and now even NEX? :-D
@RaghavBaijal“No... As soon as Tracking is involved, the Sony A77II with the brand new AF Module & A6000…” I agree, very good performance but you then contradict yourself“Any E Mount camera with IBIS along with the SLT Adapter is as good as any A Mount camera.”No they aren’t. For the very reason you champion the A77II, the AF is still not up to it. Also I do not want to have to mess with or pay for an adapter. The cheaper one is £140 but does not allow AF with screw drive lenses and the one that does is £230. You second statement is an exaggeration of the real position.Sony is updating some A mount lenses to work with on-sensor AF but why would I buy a 70-300G MkII when I had to add a another £140 to the price for an adapter? If A mount dies E mount to me is as a different a mount as Nikon or Canon. They could well lose me as a customer. I bet I am not alone in that view so Sony has made a huge mistake if it thinks A mount users will follow like sheep to E mount.
Everybody needs IBIS :) Some people just don't realise it.
And where is the bulk and weight here? Looks the same size as an A7 bar the grip which is clearly an ergonomic modification anyway.
It's a myth IBIS adds weight and bulk. Just look at the A series SLR's and SLT's. They are no heavier or more bulky than conventional SLR's that don't have it.
They are also no more expensive and often cheaper than comparable models in other ranges. So there isn't a price issue either.
If Sony charges a premium price for this camera IBIS isn't the reason. It is because they think they can.
Tom Caldwell: So I am quite peeved. As one of those that saw the awkwardness of the A7 series controls from day one and then watched as Sony proceeded to issue two more camera bodies with the identical control layout before finally deciding that they were not going to change anything and dong dang stupidly bought one.
This was reinforced by getting a hiding over daring to say that the camera was great but the controls needed a makeover. So many thought that the controls on the A7 series were just fine (?) I suppose they will now rush and apologise to me and confirm that my suggestions were quite correct and that Sony should listen. Well apparently they have listened to what should have been the bleeding obvious and much cheering is apparent !
But the only ones that should be cheering are those who have wisely held off buying an A7 so far. For the rest Sony has just instantly devalued your MkI shutter squeeze by a huge amount.
@Tom I am not in the market to switch mounts so was never going to buy an A7 anyway but you were right to question the things you did.
It seemed obvious to me they were first generation cameras that would be at least tweaked in a MkII so I would never have jumped for one even if I was looking for a change. I'd never buy a MkI Fuji for the same reasons.
The other thing that that they left out of the MkI was IBIS.
That was dismissed by many as they sought to justify its absence. IBIS has always been a great idea but when Sony left it out the "fan boys" suddenly decided in-lens was better or it just wasn't needed.
Now Sony has seen sense and not only that linked it to in-lens stabilization as well.
So I feel quite vindicated also, as one of the biggest downers for me on the E mount has always been the lack if IBIS.
ProfHankD: Samsung already owns much of the camera market via cell phones. It's obvious from the specs that Samsung also is trying to be a leader in serious system cameras, and the sample images show that they haven't screwed-up very much. I look forward to a teardown, which I expect will reveal that this is almost entirely made from Samsung parts and subsystems. In the near future, how will other camera companies compete against the targeted resources of arguably the world's largest tech company?
Here's hoping this is a motivating challenge to companies like Canon, and not the big, bright, thing in the sky that causes a mass extinction when it hits.
"It's not the count (quantity) that counts, but the quality. A system can be very strong with even a moderate amount of lenses - see for example Fuji X."
I have been able to assemble a lens set that suits me in Sony A mount of very high quality lenses including CZ 16-80 and 70-300G to name two but that is me.
For FF users there a gaps for Sony A mount and E mount is worse and if a manufacturer doesn't make a lens you need and your mount is not supported well by Sigma and Tamron then it doesn't matter how good the quality is of the lenses they do make.
I don't see a great deal of difference between Samsung and Sony E mount at the moment. Officially I think Samsung have 19 lenses but several are standard zooms of different specs and there is nothing over 200mm.
I certainly could not replicate my Sony A mount lens set in the NX system at this time.
This is the kind of camera I can see people buying as a compliment to a dslr outfit and then hardly ever using the dslr outfit.
There is one caveat to that though and it is that problem highlighted in the review about the single control dial. Anyone used to dual dials with exposure compensation on one and aperture the other for example (as I have my camera set up) would be driven mad by this ergonomic compromise. And that kind of thing can actually spoil your enjoyment of the using the gear.
People naturally and unconsciously gravitate to well designed easy to use kit.
On a more general point this and the RX10 are obviously intended to be great travel cameras so why no GPS?
I use it all the time on my camera and it seems an obvious feature to have on a travel camera.
AmateurSnaps: I love the idea of a bridge camera but at this price what are the advantages of this camera over a Canon/Nikon/Sony with for example the Tamron 16-300mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD Macro?
"I discovered a very good reason! Take a handhold shot of a night scene with 600 equivalent focal lenght and 1/30s or slower with this camera and with a DSLR. Look at the pictures in detail and you´ll notice that the DSLR give vertical lines on each luminous point from the city lamps while Lumix keep the lamps as points. This is due the vertical oscilation created by the mirror shock."
Not with a Sony SLT or any of the mirrorless competition. They don't have flapping mirrors either. Some like the Sony SLT's, even have electronic first curtain shutters reducing any potential vibration even more.
Dave Oddie: One day some manufacturer will make a zoom lens on a camera like this that doesn't stop short at 70mm or 75mm equivalent.
I am sure an aperture of F2.8 at the long end of 90mm equivalent won't result in a huge lens. You could even compromise and have it at F3.5 while still be F2.8 for considerable way towards the telephoto end with the lens even longer at say 105mm equivalent.
There are 24-70 FF lenses, 16-50 aps-c lenses and now this 12-37.5 zoom and they all stop short.
What happened to the standard zoom going to 85mm equivalent, the first proper portrait focal length?
Add the 37.5mm long end to 12mp and you can't even crop that much.
I thought Sony took a step back by losing the long end of the zoom on the RX100 III. Same story with this camera for me.
Now if a MkII came out with a slower 24-105 equivalent on the front, where do I sign up?
"Most people didn't think Sony took a step back with the faster lens on the RX100III."
How do you know that? Most review sites mentioned it as at least a compromise.
I have never understood how 70mm gained any popularity. Back in the days of film I remember 35-70 being some of the first standard zooms but only because optically no one had worked out how to make lenses with a bigger range of any quality. Nikon had a 43-86 which was utter rubbish.
When Canikon went digital they did so with aps-c and had zero designed-for-aps-c lenses so people started calling 50mm lenses "portrait" lenses. They aren't yet this 70/75mm length has stuck even in FF where we see 24-70mm lenses.
We regularly see launches of 16-50 lenses on aps-c because they want F2.8 or to make them very small and the Rx100 III and the LX100 offer up a similar compromise, in my opinion, in their respective formats.
I much prefer the wider range of my 16-80.
mpgxsvcd: I wonder why they couldn’t have produced a camera like this a few years ago. I know the auto focus tech was not as good and you wouldn’t have had the 4K video. However, couldn’t they have put a 4/3s inch sensor in this size body back then?
Could they have produced this lens a few years back? Were they just waiting for the software correcting technology to catch-up with this lens design?
I have often thought along these lines. Maybe they didn't think sensors of this size offered enough to warrant it but I can't see why physically it cold not have been done.
Going the other way, to interchangeable lenses instead of fixed, it seems to have taken equally long for that to arrive in small sensor cameras. I am thinking of the Nikon 1 and Pentax small sensor cameras here.
One day some manufacturer will make a zoom lens on a camera like this that doesn't stop short at 70mm or 75mm equivalent.