Miles Lye: If Sony can get IBIS and exceptional high iso performance in the A7RII, then what's the point in upgrading or considering this camera or a Nikon alternative? Why pay more for less? The A7 cameras aren't perfect at all but Sony is making amazing progression in a short amount of time and they listen. After using an A7 and seeing the progression with the A7s and A7II, I don't doubt Sony will make this camera look dated when the A7RII is announced.
Sony FE still don't have too many native lens but due to short lens flange length has propably the most extensive range of options available via adapters.
IMHO the 5DS/SR price is 1000 eur too high compared to the competition, especially Nikon D810. It seems that there's not too many new features besides 50MP sensor. Syncs speed is still only 1/200s and for video it lacks 60fps at 1080p resolution.
At last something new at the Canon front...but considering the pricing and the fact that the dynamic range of 5D S/SR is apparently not improved from previous models, I think I'll stick with my Sony A7R for awhile as a body for my wide-angle Canon TS-E lenses. I'm waiting for Sony to bring a pro FE-mount body with IBIS and similar resolution but with better DR.
50MP is not a big improvement in resolution compared to 36MP.
There's no mention of flash metering, so I assume it can't do that.
I think the price is very high for so simple plug-in device. Dedicated light meters with much better features won't cost too much more money compared to the Lumu.
kadardr: I don't have a Sony right now, I just have a question: why do have the A7s and the two other A7's different mounts. Why the s version is heavy duty and the others are not? Something is not adding up here.
Huh? You don't seem to understand.
If there's any loose compenents between less and camera body, then shutter shock will make them move resulting in more blur. That's why one point tripod attachment may not be enough for A7R and large magnification depending on adapter and lens combo.
Might be so but I've used macro lenses for product photography with A7R and hate the shutter shock with certain shutter speeds.
Naturally the mount should be as robust as possible with no play be it for stills or film production.
Most still shooters don't usually drop their cameras or use them as baseball bat, so talk of "stress point" etc. is a bit funny IMHO.
For high resolution still photography with A7R and somewhat longer lenges, the shutter mechanism and any play in mount or adapter connections will sometimes cause blur in images if both the lens and camera body are not secured properly to a tripod.
I don't quite buy it that only video use would require somehow more robust mount than still photography. Fe. camera shutter is not used (no vibrations) and resolution is much lower and there's usually slight motion blur in footage anyway.
Sdaniella: let's hope 7DMkII's new sensor has improved uncompressed RAW DR 16-17 EV by at least +2EV over the old 7D/5DMkIII RAW DR 14-15 EV sensors
and extended dual iso (dual gain) sensor architecture to read all pixel lines with two (or more) iso/gain amplification, not just one per alternating pixel (grbg doublet) lines, OFFER IT OPENLY or at least automatically (not hide it), so one need not rely on ML hack to extract (divert) the two potentially SELECTABLE different ISO image data from the sensor processed to the memory card ...
if you got what I'm getting atthat puts pressure on Canon to deliver MULTI-ISO (multi-gain) capture (customizable handheld fast capture HDR stills and Cine video) sooner, not later
reminder: 4k H.265 ... Samsung APSC NX1 (digital 35mm 4k Cine) is here US$1500 ...
Yes I've used and tested 5D mk II & III vs. Nikon D800 in this regard as dynamic range is important for my work in high contrast situations. The shadow noise quality of 5D mkIII is bad. The dynamic range is simply nowhere as good as with Nikon or Sony. And this is a wellknown fact among pro photographers.
LOL Where did you get this figure of 14-15 EV dynamic range for 5D mkIII?
Its DR is mere 10.97 EV @ ISO 100 according to DxOMark screen mode (1:1 pixels) compared to D810's 13.67 EV @ ISO 64.
Canon sensors are NOT known for good dynamic range and shadow noise performance. D810 in comparison has the smoothest shadows (at ISO 64) I've seen so far in a DSLR.
DarkShift: Canon seems to be stuck too much with their old design of controls and interface. Not much improvements in this regard.
The thumbwheel position is not very good for controlling aperture or shutterspeed. It moves too easily by accident if not locked. Not good position for left eye dominant shooter either. Very disturbing.
I don't quite understand why they can't add control wheel to upper right of their bodies like every other manufacturer.
May be so, but after using Nikon D800 & D810 interface for sometime, the Canon's "time proven" user interface feels not so good to me anymore.
Using gear from different manufacturers is sometimes beneficial. One will quickly learn that something that you've used to do a lot of times may not have been the easiest way at all.
qwertyasdf: This might be the first and last time that I say this to a M43 lens:
It's priced reasonably. Given it's longer range than 70-200 FF lens, it is way way more versatile, and I have confidence in the IQ of a Oly HG lens. Oh....also, the 0.21x magnification, taking into account of the crop factor of M43 sensor, is class-leading.
You don't seem to have clue. It is a true f2.8 lens, DOF has nothing to do with that.
Actually ISO control can be set to movie record button with D800 if needed.
For me there's usually no need to adjust constantly the other settings you mention while using OVF. So their position if very fine for me.
For adjusting aperture or shutter speed it's often not required to cycle through all values :D
And the Canon lock can't be operated on the fly. Fe. Nikon D810 works much better in this regard as shutterspeed and aperture can be locked separately. And it has much better user interface overall giving this 'designed for photographer' feeling ;)
Canon seems to be stuck too much with their old design of controls and interface. Not much improvements in this regard.
The big question for me is if the dynamic range and shadow noise are improved with the new sensor in 7D II.
If not, it might tell something about sensor performance of the rumoured high resolution Canon FF camera. Sony is rumoured to release 46-50 MP FF sensor later, so Canon will face very tough competition.
Yes, I know but RStyga claimed that the Zuiko 150/2.8 is not a f/2.8 lens at all.
Please go read some photo science before posting here. This Zuiko definitely is F2.8 lens by definition which means its focal length divided by diameter of the maximum aperture is indeed 2.8.
Mssimo: DXOMark has the review out already.
Nice information, but I would not propably call it the best performing portrait lens. Without fast autofocus I wouldn't use it for general portraiture but for anything else where AF is not necessary and subjects don't move too much. For portraiture it is not necessary to have the best absolute sharpness. More important is to have lens focused where it should be.
If one compares the results to Nikkor AF-S 85 f/1.8G on D800, it is surprising that the Nikkor actually has less distortion (0.1% vs 0.2%) and its T-stop is closer to the manufacturer rating than with Otus. Where Nikkor looses is wide open performance and CA & LoCA, but for portraiture this is usually not a big issue for me.
erotavlas: we all know everyone who uses this lens will still end up tweaking their photo's to death in Lightroom and Photoshop making whatever benefits this lens offers with respect to colour, clarity, sharpness, contrast etc kind of pointless.
I think 99% of clients don't even now what LoCA is.
The greatest artistic potential is and should be behind the viewfinder. Equipment has not much to do with the art anyway. Equipment image quality != art.
That said, this Otus should be great lens for certain situations but not so practical for general use.
Wedding photographer: I believe that the new perfect portrait lens should have: 1) beautiful pattern bokeh (Yes); 2) accurate and fast autofocus (No);
In my opinion modern lenses have acceptable sharpness (considering possibility of their mediocre autofocus systems).
I think, other parameters such as “flawless sharpness” and especially “No distortion“ should be placed on fourth or fifth place.
However Marketers of Zeiss have other point of view. They look based on synthetic tests of manual sharpness - far from real life.
Separate lenses of course :) One with ultrasonic AF for portrait use and one MF lens with tilt and shift for different cases.
Photoman: Wait till Sigma release their 85/1.4 lens. 1/4 price and better quality, like their 50/1.4 ART lens.
Sigma has much lower price compared to Otus that I wouldn't be too concerned what happens after ten years of use (if professional). It can obviously be used as manual focus lens too...