GCHYBA: Uhhh, will 99.9% of people really be able to tell the diff between the images this one makes and a much cheaper, similar model?In my opinion, there are two types of camera: One you carry in your pocket and a DSLR.This is neither.
"Show me 20 B&W pictures and I will tell you which one they were took with Leica (in the M3-4 period).The quality was huge in difference"
Years ago in the UK there used to a Leica club that circulated members photos for comment. One member received plenty of praise in particular comments about the technical quality delivered by the Leica lenses they had used.
The trouble was he took them with a Nikon and had duped the other members. I don't believe it was out of spite but more out of interest to see if people could spot the difference. They couldn't and waxed lyrical about the quality delivered by what were in fact Nikon lenses.
Emperors new cloths!
Diopter: The Sony NEX 5 line has been discontinued and it is selling below $400 here and there. Why I should buy a Leica's poor copycat without a flip-flop screen?!(-)
For some reason when I read the above rather condescending reply by RMillward the old saying "A fool and his money are easily parted" came to mind.
Dave Oddie: "I found myself wondering whether the truism about 'the best camera is the one you have with you' shouldn't really be something like: 'the best camera is the one you enjoy shooting with enough to have with you.' "
The above from the article is very true in my experience. Get the ergonomics right and a camera will get used. Get them wrong and it can actually stop you taking photos as the urge to pick the camera up is somehow muted subconsciously in my experience.
Years ago in the days of film I bought one SLR which was supposed to be the "best" when in the shop another felt better in the hand. Always regretted it.
These days I shoot with a Sony A77 and ergonomically it's the best camera I have ever had. I enjoy taking photos with it so I can see absolutely where the reviewer is coming from here.
It may be his personal view regarding the a6000 but having read it I doubt many would find themselves in disagreement over most points if they actually used the camera.
I am not sure you make a valid point here.
I could say my old film SLR has better ergonomics than your 5N but you would never consider using one.
Back in the days of film when I made my mistake of picking the wrong camera ergonomically the "sensors" were always identical because the film was the same for either camera. So the issue you highlight wasn't one back then.
I don't think it is now either in that once you decide on your modern "film" i.e. what size of sensor you want then if that was aps-c given most 16-24mp aps-c cameras deliver the goods image quality-wise ergonomics can be a deciding factor when a few years ago that was not true.
Most would never consider going for a small sensor camera if aps-c was the quality level you were after so the fact an ergonomically better camera of lower quality existed is rather a moot point.
What you need is a better aps-c camera from an ergonomic point of view. Then I guarantee you will stop using the 5N.
"I found myself wondering whether the truism about 'the best camera is the one you have with you' shouldn't really be something like: 'the best camera is the one you enjoy shooting with enough to have with you.' "
suntek101: This seems to be a wonderful camera but I like to do low and high angle shooting and I have been waiting for Pentax to incorporate an articulated LCD screen into their next camera since the K10. Hopefully the "K1" will be released in a year or two and my wish will come true. Are you listening Ricoh/Pentax? Until then, I'll just dream of the K3 while making the most of my old K10!
The objections to a tilting LCD are bonkers in my opinion.
I own a Sony A77. It's weather sealed, the tilting LCD doesn't affect this nor does it add bulk. Just how thick do you think these things are?
The fact it can be turned round so the LCD screen faces the body protects it from damage when not in use. You can't do that with fixed LCD screen so it is actually better from a durability point of view than camera with fixed LCD's.
Why any digital camera doesn't have a tilting LCD I really do not understand. It is an option this modern technology brings to the table.
And as to the comment about Capa, do you not use things like auto focus or in-body stabilization? Please turn them off so you can enjoy the full photographic experience!
tkbslc: I'm not really sure this product is very relevant to the dpreview site or its users. I get including the Canon Cinema 1D cameras and NEX camcorder because they use camera lenses, but this has zero to do with photography.
No need to apologise as you were right the first time. They are not relevant to the majority of the sites users. Specialist video related sites would serve the minority who are interested better and leave this place uncluttered. Same goes for Smart Phone stuff.
dbateman: I find it interesting that the EM1 with a Panasonic sensor gets this feature.
Whereas the older models using a Sony sensor (know to have this feature) haven't got the update yet.
Either the update is coming or the Sony sensors sold to Olympus don't support this feature. Maybe somethings are better with Panasonic sensors, thus the shift in the high end pro model.
If the Sony sensors Olympus use don't support this feature I think you mean the ones Olympus chose to buy don't have it.
Sony won't sell sensors with deliberately reduced features. They would not have a market if they did.
Unimpressive. Lots of shots of the drone. Few if any of going where humans can't.
Zoron: no built-in stabilization....so no for me.
Arguments against stabilisation on short lenses are just silly.
I learned this years ago when I found how useful it was on my Minolta A1 which had an F2.8 lens at 28mm equivalent.
Shooting that in a museum at ridiculously low shutter speeds was all the convincing I needed.
A fast lens with stabilisation simply extends the usability envelope .Furthermore and a point everyone misses, with stabilisation you aren't forced to go wide open in dim light all the time. You can still exercise a degree of control over the aperture, stop it down a bit for d.o.f control or to sharpen things up as most lenses are at least a bit soft wide open.
Without stabilisation you have to use F1.7 like it or not.
It was the best thing Panasonic did adding in body IS to the GX7 for this reason.
Pantyhose Bandit: Oh... The Guardina - the company that can't even spell its own name right. What a bastion of journalistic integrity. I wouldn't trust anything the guardian scrawled on its pages.
The Guardian is a left of centre paper generally but supported the Liberal Democrats at the last election in the UK. Who now prop up a right wing government. At times it struggles to reconcile its support for the Lib Dems with what actually happened. So its credentials as a leftist paper are a bit tarnished.
More is the pity as "anything that even smells conservative" deserves all the trashing anyone can heap upon it. In my humble opinion of course.
alexisgreat: Once again Olympus shows how much brainier they are than other camera manufacturers- especially the "big name" conventional ones. Direct Live Histogram, Pixel Mapping, Supersonic Wave Filter, Live View, and now this!
"I guess that is a matter of opinion."
Olympus has always been innovative. I bought an OM4 film camera which had "multi-spot" metering where you could take several spot readings from different parts of the scene.
This is sort of doing the same except instead of averaging out the readings as the OM4 did this adjusts the exposure for each "spot" independently. An old idea taken to its logical conclusion given the capabilities digital allows.
Canon copied the "multi-spot" metering on the T90 (I think). Someone will copy this feature just the same.
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.