Reinhard136: If you have a sony E mount, would you be better off buying the Canon mount version, which has the VC, and using the E - mount / Canon adapter, which I think gives full functionality ? - or is that clunky for some reason ?
The Metabones Canon adapter results in pretty slow AF but yes you will get IS.
Conversely the Sony version will offer pretty fast AF but no IS. :P
Ben Stonewall: Is there an adaptor that'll allow the use of Sony lenses?
No. Sony lenses lack an aperture control so you cannot use them except wide open. So no one has designed such an adpater.
LensBeginner: Cons:1. never shot jpg2. ditto3. that's a problem with lenses, not camera4. true. But it's a camera, not a videocamera5. true
...not many cons there, are there? ;-)
I am referring to a 'zoom' lens. A 560mm or 300mm lens are good for birds but not for wildlife. The 560mm is not a lens I would mention is the same sentence as a 100-400mm or 80-400mm lens. :P
The 300mm f4 lens is a good option but its a prime and hence a bit restrictive.
The 645Z seems to be an awesome camera by all accounts. The high ISO capabilities alone are amazing. But as an upgrade path there is one issue - None of the existing Pentax lenses will work with the new body.
I will concede the lens lineup hole is not as great as I thought when I wrote that post but generally there isn't too many lenses in the current Pentax line up that I care for honestly.
And judging by the state of sales of Pentax I am not alone.
gdfthr73: It Just drives me nuts. So many amazing full frame lenses for the K mount camera and no full frame K-mount camera exists. WTF
@robbo - Yes its true many pros are getting smaller systems for less serious work but their main work is generally always done with FF or MF.
And if I really need small I would rather get a Fuji or Olympus m43 system than a DSLR. The m43 system current IQ is ridiculously close to APS-C now.
And their primes are even more compact than the primes from Pentax.
And I disagree that APS-C has caught up with old FF cameras. Maybe the 5D MK 1 but the MK II and D700 are still better than current APS-C sensors. Its not just high ISO performance but general IQ that is better. I have generally found FF images to 'pop' more than APS-C photos.
Valeriu 64: Congratulation Ricoh, and team Ricoh - Pentax for your succes.Pentax K-3 is the best APS-C DSRL at this moment .
God , bless you
^^ Look at the DPreview test and see how many OOF shots they got while tracking. Tracking focus is one area where everyone other than Nikon and Canon lag behind.
I myself am a Sony user and while for static subjects I am happy with the AF, for tracking ability my friends basic 60D is much much better.
Well for starters, a good quality wildlife lens is missing. Not talking about a Sigma 150-500mm lens which is a below average lens but something like a 100-400mm L or a 80-400mm AF-S. Even Sony has a good 70-400mm lens.
The excellent Tamron 150-600mm isn't going to come to Pentax anytime soon at least.
Secondly, they lack an upgrade option. I started the Sony system when there was no FF camera around. Never bothered me as I never thought I would want to spend so much money. Now I wish to get into FF and Sony has an option. Not so with Pentax.
Earlier FF was too expensive compared to APS-C but now bodies like the Canon 6D are available for as low as $1599 so those not looking to shoot in bad weather can have a camera with better IQ than the K3.
Lastly Canon and Nikon are simply better available. In my country there are very few Pentaxians so getting used lenses is difficult. With Canon or Nikon there are generally tons of vibrant used markets in almost any part of the world.
Then why go APS-C when 4/3rd is so close ? And why go 4/3rd when 1 inch is so close.
You want the best IQ this side of medium format you need FF.
I have shot extensively with Full Frame while still using crop and FF is just better. Not that I can't take good photos with crop but FF is noticeably better.
The K3 for all its many pluses doesn't have the best AF system. The AF system on the D7100 is about the best you can get with any APS-C DSLR today and that makes a difference.
Yes this seems like an excellent camera at a good price. Pentax has done a very good job with this camera.
Unfortunately as a whole system Pentax isn't very complete and that's holding back potential first time buyers.
People have been waiting for a Pentax full frame camera for many years now. Don't know if it will ever happen. The problem is they have plenty of prime lenses for FF but hardly any zoom lenses.
The 16-50mm f2.8, 50-135mm f2.8, 12-24mm f4, 60-250mm f4 are all APS-C lenses. So they will need a whole range of FF zoom lenses to go with a FF camera. Currently they lack even one FF zoom lens.
toomanycanons: Maybe the IQ will blow everyone away. Like, sharp edge to edge from wide to tele. Only time will tell.
Highly highly doubt but in any case such lenses are for convenience like when traveling. Hardly anyone takes such a lens for a specific shoot.
camcom12: I might jump for 16-160mm for the same price, but with slightly better IQ, but this lens portends to be quite the compromise. Who knows, maybe it will surprise us.
Tokina has a 16.5-135mm lens. Nobody seems to be buying it though.
That said I have a Sony 16-105mm that I love. Between 16-70mm or so it matches most of my primes in center sharpness and contrast. Corners are really really noticeably crap though at the wide end.
beenthere: I'd take 16-150 with slightly better optical performance if asked. Who honestly wants to carry this behemoth (or the equally massive Nikon 18-300) around all day?
You need to shift to mirror less if you consider this particular lens heavy !!! :P
Alphoid: Wow! For just $600, I'll be able to get ugly photos all the way from 16mm up to 300mm for months, maybe even years, until the lens breaks!
^^ Well said !
I have seen so many amazing photos taken with crappy lenses and so many crappy photos taken with amazing lenses.
Ex14: I don't know why everyone is so excited over this. Couldn't they have added this capability their A7 and A7R? With the exception of a (as oif right now) claimed Better DR and autofocus, sony's recent blitz of products with seemingly short life cycles is a tad worrying to me.Call me paranoid, but for long are they gonna support their product? And if no, will this trend push other camera makers to follow suit as well.
Don't get me wrong, Thir cameras are fantastic gears Maybe I'm a bit biased to Fuji (being a user) but I really come to expect companies to support existing products more than just throwing a whole boatload of cameras and later on not having enough resource or due to sheer marketing factors to not be able to update firmware or add new features unto existing products.
The A7 and A7r are still photography focused cameras with video features while this is a video focused camera with still photography features. Different audiences and markets.
Name me ONE company that has upgraded an existing DSLR to shoot 4k video.
While I respect Fuji as a company the fact is many of their cameras have been released as beta versions with tons of bugs. The firmwares are simply to fix the innumerable bugs in the firmware.
Thorgrem: Can anybody tell me if the A3000 was successful at all? When that was announced a lot of Sony users said it would break the low market. Did that come true?
Yes it has focus peaking. No one has reliable sales info of cameras but apparently some DPreview users do have this sales info. :P
fuxicek: I played with the Sony A3000 in the store... Its very light, comfortable to hold and when I looked into viewfinder, I told myself "Its not that bad as everyone says, I could live with that" ...then I looked into Sony A58 viewfinder and realized, what a crap the A3000´s finder actually is... :D
And was the A58 the same price as the A3000 ?
Similarly look at a D5200 viewfinder and then look at a D7100 viewfinder and you will see a pretty substantial difference too.
Awesome photo ! :)
007peter: This Camera is WHY SONY has ZERO RESPECT among photographers. Sony has a nasty habit of making numerous camera model without improvements...or even inferior to the previous generation. This happen before:Sony A230 is inferior to A200 it replaced. NEX 3N w/250K LCD + no accessory port is inferior to the previous NEX F3 with 920K LCD + accessory port. In the mean while, there is still no NEX-7 replacement in site. Wake Up Sony!
So if a current camera model is worse than a 5 year old camera model and you are fine with it then its no wonder Canon is making so much money in-spite of having the worst APS-C sensors in the industry. :)
Neodp: This sensor is not up the best of APS-C sensors. I personal compared the A3000 to a D5100 (what was there to compare) in the shadows, all other things equal, and noise was noticeably worse, even at base ISO. That lead me to believe that Sony is passing-off a poor substitute for other, best APS-C sensors on the market, in their A3000 model. So if this is the same sensor....
@Yabokkie - The A3000 is a mirrorless camera. No SLT mirror to block light
@Neodp - Won't argue with you but there isn't really any reliable information anywhere on the internet that backs up your claims.
There can be varying reasons why the 5100 was noticeably ahead like WB settings, JPEG settings, how high ISO you used etc.
I have compared a D7000 (same sensor) to my A55 (same sensor but with a light grabbing SLT mirror) and found very little difference in ISO performance upto ISO 1600. However from ISO 3200 the D7000 was a bit cleaner and by ISO 12800 the difference was pretty obvious.
However this was only at 100% viewing. At normal resolution I couldn't readily tell any of them apart.
So if you shoot at ISO 6400 and beyond often and crop 100% then the Nikon is a better option.