Percival Merriwether: They were going to call it the "BeExpensive" but that would have been too obvious.
I am sure they do. I have an old Cullman aluminium tripod of over 30 years vintage. It's still going strong.
At the time I bought it Cullman were the brand of choice but there was no way their tripods cost the price of a decent lens! I certainly don't recall thinking it was a particularly expensive purchase.
Whereas today when I saw the price of this Manfrotto one I thought "You have got to be kidding!"
Agreed. It seems to have become fashionable to charge high prices for what are essentially pretty simple mechanical devices when it comes to tripods.
Pretty neat trick of the marketing dept to convince people this sort of money is justified. I am reminded of the marketing phrase "reassuringly expensive" which was used in the UK to advertise Stella Artois larger.
OK carbon fibre may put the material cost up but the aluminium ones aren't exactly cheap.
Dave Oddie: The geometric equivalence (apertures, dof) is well explained and is how I thought it all worked.
The interesting bit is about the equivalence of light, or should I say lack of it.
As the article says "a simplistic measure of standard deviation from a common patch suggests the noise isn't solely related to sensor size, either"
I have always thought those stating that a smaller sensor such as 4/3 was definitely 2 stops (or whatever) worse than FF were totally ignoring the capabilities of each sensor.
We all know generally smaller sensors are noisier than larger ones but by how much can't be stated by a simple equivalence rule.
At the end of the day what matters is the results regardless of format. If they are acceptable to you that is all that matters.
I also think most people would be hard pressed to tell the difference in non-low light shots when viewed properly and not pixel peeping and could choose a format based on the other characteristics not noise performance.
Well yes but I was kind of taking it for granted we were talking the same number of pixels in different sensor sizes as the article tried to do in the test.
So you'd expect a 16mp 4/3 sensor to be noisier than a 16mp aps-c sensor due to the density but what you can't say is there is a simple mathematical rule that says by how much.
Fuji who as far as I know don't make FF sensors could make a 16mp aps-c sensor that outperforms all other 16mp aps-c sensors so how the Fuji sensor and the rest stack up v FF would be different.
That means you can't apply a bit of simple maths as you can with geometric aspects discussed in the article.
I have always thought this obviously true but have seen posts in forums saying how noisy a 4/3 (or whatever) sensors must be relative to another sensor size by doing just that.
This is what I was trying to get at.
The geometric equivalence (apertures, dof) is well explained and is how I thought it all worked.
saralecaire: Still more expensive than the brand new and 4K capable Panasonic FZ1000.
Siobhan A, the Panasonic may have 4K video but as the comparative review points out the Sony has far more than just an ND filter to aid it in producing its video output such as the way the auto ISO works which keeps shutter speed and aperture locked while still allowing for accurate exposure and the fact it has a full sensor readout.
wt66: so how does the sony cropped from 400 to 600 compare to the tamron at 600? is there any reason to upgrade?
It is always easier in my opinion to work with the native focal length than to crop but you ask an interesting question of the Sony 400 cropped to 600 v the Tamron @ 600.
One thing is for sure is the Sony is an outstanding lens @ 400mm. It is it sharper than the Tamron but it is slightly faster as the T stop is f6.3 for the Sony whereas it is f7 for the Tamron.
I don't think you would lose the SSM because the Tamron is not a screw drive lens on the Sony. It uses the same electronic focusing mechanism as the Canikon variants.
It may or may not be as good as SSM but it certainly won't be a noisy screw drive.
If I already owned the Sony this review would not having me upgrading. I would know I would be getting a lens less sharp @400mm for the sake of the range 400-600.
As it is I don't own the Sony and great lens though it is, I can't justify paying that much when the Tamron sells for approx £500 less than the Sony. or will do when they get around to releasing it ion Sony mount!
munro harrap: If you Google Nagasaki bombing there are many many pictures, from a wide variety of sources, terrible. That anyone can think of putting them up for auction in the art market is a disgusting way of profiting from the two most dreadful acts of terrorism known to man. You will not be able to look at them all, it is too upsetting. To make things worse, if that is possible, they chose the Feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord Jesus Christ, as it was then known, to bomb Hiroshima.
If they had flattened Nagasaki with a 1000 bomber raid and killed just as many in the process, would that have been terrorism?
You seem to have no idea that there was a war on.
0MitchAG: Annnnnd the photos are dissimilar... *confused*
User1961agy: "I think the point of the exercise was not to exactly replicate the precise operation, but for todays II(AC) Squadron to honour and bring attention to the part played by their II (AC) Squadron World War 2 forbears which may not be widely known."
Well said. As Wally Brooks said, these were unarmed planes so vulnerable to flak and being intercepted. So brave men indeed.
Photos are supposed to convey something and as such these work as they draw attention to these mens' efforts.
disraeli demon: There's a sort of Holy-Trinity-plus-one of features that I've been looking for in a compact for years: fast performance, fast lens, hot shoe, articulated (or at least fold-out) screen. Canon's G-line were missing the fast lens, but when they finally added that they dumped the articulated screen. Samsung had all the hardware features but the performance was too slow. Sony add the fold-out screen but take away the hot shoe.
Are these guys deliberately teasing me?
Sony are past masters at adding good new things (EVF in this case) and at the same time taking others away (long end of the lens and hot shoe).
I use an A77 and I have never seen Sony NOT remove something useful each time they bring a new model out ever since I bought my A100 years ago. On the A77 its the GPS - gone form the MkII.
Evolution must not have an equivalent word in Japanese!
Henrik Herranen: The cloud model lets the service provider spy on user data and steal it, or revoke said service without notice. Also it lets intelligence agencies easy access to any sensitive information through the service provider. All of this has always been known. It was and is inevitable.
If you use cloud services, you accept that whenever any computer between you and your cloud service provider breaks, there is no service. You also accept that you don't have privacy. Yes, a cloud system might be convenient much of the time, but you don't own yourself nor your data anymore.
End of line.
There is nothing inherent in a cloud service that says the service provider will spy on your data. Unless you give them permission to do so it would be illegal in most western countries for this to happen and the technology such as Virtualization and anonymization can make your data less vulnerable than that on your own PC.
As to reliability again the technology is there to make cloud systems more robust than your own PC.
The fact Adobe have managed to break their cloud just tells you they don't know what they are doing. Many enterprise level computer systems just do not break beleive it or not. In fact I have my doubts Adobe is running a cloud service at all.
As to intelligence agencies accessing the data unless the cloud provider is complicit they are probably better at looking after it than you are.
Deliverator: It seems to me the SLT cameras should be better when it comes to vibrations from mirror slap. Does anyone have any insight to offer on this?
There have been tests done I believe that show mirror slap can be an issue with traditional DLSR's but not the SLT's.
The other bonus is the electronic first curtain shutter.
That reduces the chance of shutter vibrations affecting the results which can apparently effect the 36mp A7 which does not have this feature.
Scottelly: They took away the GPS?!? WTF?!?
Though I am glad they have made a new, updated version of the A77, I can't understand Sony. I won't buy it without GPS. I will get the old one instead . . . or I'll get a Nikon D5300. I don't really need the speed shooting capability, and until I see that Sony is committed to this line of cameras by making three or four new, kick-ass lenses for them, I will stay away from their newest cameras. The mirrorless cameras don't have two of the features I have come to expect from Sony - in-camera image stabilization and GPS, and now Sony drops GPS from their newest A77! I think they dropped the ball too.
I was thinking Sony should make one of these without an anti-aliasing filter. Hopefully they will make an A79 with that and GPS . . . and a bigger buffer . . . and two memory card slots (fast ones - maybe UHS2).
I wonder how fast the memory card slot in this camera is.
"Totally agree...no GPS, no sale. GPS 'was' one of the defining features of this line of cameras."
Same here. May have been tempted to upgrade but not now.
They lost me from the compact mirrorless area with Nex minus IBIS (another feature I won't do without having used it) and now they just lost another potential sale.
This is par for the course with Sony though who have done it before. Debates used to rage about what was missing from the A2xx/A3xx/4xx/5xx cameras compared to what the old A100 had.
Why don't they understand "upgrade" does not mean removing useful features from a camera?
Michael Ma: Sometimes GPS comes in handy when trying to remember exactly where you took it.
I think people are oversensitive to private data that no one would ever care about. OK, so you went to Yosemite National Park and a TGIF for a company dinner. Guess what, no one cares.
I use GPS on my A77 all the time. It is never off. With Lightroom it is very useful to see where photos were taken and if anyone ever travels extensively it is a boon.
Why do Sony do this type of thing?
WiFi to a phone is no substitute as even if the phone can tag the photos or use an app store GPS data for later manual addition most smart phones battery life is not up to the task of long term use.
kecajkerugo: If it only had OIS or if Fuji had internal stabilization….Fast lens does work well if the subject is moving and therefore cannot be frozen by any stabilization system (even by the OMD- EM-1). It does not work for any steady subject where a stabilized glass, even much darker, easily outperforms a bright prime lens.
I didn't miss the point. The point I was making was in reply to nerd2 and was as you say simply "OIS does work for moving objects "
We all know you need fast shutter speeds to freeze movement but for example if you shoot motor racing and use slower speeds to blur the background as you pan OIS can help with vertical camera shake.
Basically fast lens + OIS/IBIS is always better to have then simply a fast lens.
I think Canon recently brought out a 35mm F2 prime with OIS which I think was a great move.
The fact a slower lens with OIS/ibis can match a fast lens in certain circumstances where subject movement is not an issue is a given I thought.
It is also not a free ride for the fast lens where subject movement is an issue either because as you open it up focusing and depth of field become issues.
Since when does OIS not work for a moving subject?
That would mean I could not use an OIS lens with anything other than static subjects and that clearly isn't the case as OIS is used by sports photography all the time.
I have one OIS lens (Sigma 105 macro) and it has mode of OIS for panning. IBIS also works on non-static subjects.
OIS and IBIS stabilize camera shake. They have got nothing to do with the subject moving or not.
pedroboe100: I don't get it. It's bulky and expensive. Why would someone choose this over a Pentax K5, Olympus EM1, Pana GH3, with a Tamron superzoom lens?
"The fact you don't get it shows your lack of understand in photography, even more so the models you suggest as alternatives. Please tell me how much a GH3 with a 200mm f2.8 zoom lens would cost?????"
The point is you don't need an F2.8 lens on an aps-c camera to match the RX10 shooting wide open due to the lower noise of the sensor.
I think it is you who doesn't get it.
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.' "