peevee1: So no stabilization on either?
Sony has a 10-18mm OSS lens and a 35mm f1.8 OSS lens for E mount. There isn't always a loss of IQ else Canon wouldn't have launched lenses with IS/VR.
Shamael: they all go for 1500$, 32/1.8, 12/2.8, and 50/2.8. A lot of money for 2 diaphragm faster than Sigma 30 that sells 199$. It is not pocketable, so better run a Tokina 11/16 2.8 with adapter and a Sigma 30 1.4 beside. You get the 2 lenses and the adapter for the price of one Zeiss lens. Now, just answer AF, with EA2 adapter on NEX they do that as well. Zeiss is good, but their prices suck.
The main competitor of the Zeiss 32mm is not the Sigma 30mm f2.8.
People who need a f1.8 lens isn't going to compromise on a f2.8 lens.
The Sigma is no doubt a good lens but Zeiss lenses are legendary for their IQ. They would have would up a long ago in the DSLR lens market if they weren't good considering they were all manual focus lenses with little to no electronics.
For E mount and XF mount they are fully electronic with AF, camera aperture control and metering.
Plus Zeiss lenses generally have stellar build quality.
That said the main competitor is going to be the Sony 35mm f1.8 OSS which is a sharp lens, as fast as the Zeiss, has OSS as well and costs around $1000 less.
For the Fuji system Zeiss will have a far tougher time as the very capable 35mm f1.4 lens is available for half the price of the Zeiss and is 2/3rds of a stop faster to boot.
However those who want every last bit of quality will pay the extra premium that the Zeiss lens commands.
Frank C.: still waiting for the D400 review... ummmmm.... camera
This digital zoom will offer exactly the same IQ as taking a full res image and cropping it ! There is nothing to be gained in using the digital crop other than getting more photos before the buffer is full.
But yes there is little the D400 would be able to add to the D7100 except maybe a faster burst rate of say 8-9 fps with a bigger buffer but yes there is precious little the D400 would be able to add other than maybe a new sensor ? Or a newer AF system with even more AF points ?
Just speculation on my part of course. No idea if a D400 is even being considered by Nikon.
Abhijith Kannankavil: i really love the way sigma is heating up the market. Others need to come up with better stuff to keep up at those higher prices they sell (canon and nik)
Pricing is still a mystery but judging from the MTF charts this has decent center sharpness but borders will be soft unless stopped down.
If this is $2000 then sales for sure will be low as no one would wish to pay so many $$$ for a lens that will be useless (for Canon users at least) when they upgrade to FF.
Even Nikon users wouldn't really want to buy a FF body and use it in crop mode so at $2000 it makes little sense. Lets hope Sigma prices it properly.
SRT3lkt: I thought today was Apr 1.
This lens is a f1.8 lens NOT a f2.8 lens. DOF for sure will be similar but NOT speed. The f1.8 lens will be more than a stop faster which is a big deal for low light shooters.
HubertChen: In my experience, going from f/2.8 to f/2 dramatically increases lens aberrations. A lot of sigma lenses have excellent center performance but abysmal border sharpness. This lens is sure interesting and sigma is applauded to innovate a lens which on paper looks very practical and desirable. However, before getting excited about it I like to see a serious lens test and real world images. Last but not least combining wide angle with open aperture and nice bokeh has been always difficult, but doing this in a zoom has been close to impossible. Who will be willing to shell out 1000 USD for a lens will look for nice bokeh too. If Sigma can pull this one off they will sure impress many.
A group portrait at f1.8 !!! You need to stop down for more DOF for a group portrait.
photo nuts: I am impressed by Sigma's efforts.
BUT I will never get such a lens.
This lens is equivalent to 27-52.5mm f/2.7 on FF. Weight is 810g.
Canon, Nikon and Tamron VC FF equivalents weigh 805g, 900g and 825 g respectively.
I really don't see any weight advantage in shooting with a small-size sensor here. It's the same 'mistake' Olympus made with their honking f/2 zoom lenses on four-third mount.
^^ You still won't have the speed of f1.8. You can raise the ISO but that would result in more noise as well considering todays APS-C sensors are just about a stop behind FF bodies and a lot cheaper to boot.
Majoren: I would like to see this thing in an EF->EF version to put on my 50D
Then My 24-105 f/4 would go from FOV 36-168 to FOV 24-105But illuminating my sensor as it was f/2.8
FF with the low lvl pixel noice, you could crop to an 8MP shot..
EF->EF mount ASAP please
Yes but AF with this adapter is just OK. Not great as Canon EF lenses work best with phase detect systems while NEX and m43 work with contrast detect systems.
Its IMPOSSIBLE to work on an EF to EF mount. Law of physics and all.
It could work on a Canon M mount but thats a propriety mount so no one will have access to the workings of the mount.
m43 is an open mount standard while Sony has disclosed the working of its mount so metabones has released adapters to these two mounts only since they have all available data.
dougster1979: Why Not make cameras with a low pass filter. With the option to bypass. ie Menu:Low Pass filter:OnOff
Its a physical filter not some software emulation.
I absolutely love this photo ! Perfect light, beautiful model and great composition.
BUT it really is not focused well.
The focus seems to be on her sweater as her hair and sweater are sharp and the eyebrows, eyelashes and eyes are slightly OOF.
Pal2012: Decent review and its good to know this doesn't suffer from the poor design of the Pentax models, bloatware etc
I am a Sony Alpha user and love the interface. Tried a Pentax K20 and was fairly impressed.
However I tried a NEX5 and felt like throwing the camera on a hard floor ! I just couldn't believe how crappy the interface was when I simply love the Alpha interface.
That said I like the metal finish of the NEX bodies. Feels quite solid in the hands. IQ was also quite good.
mpgxsvcd: It is like Canon is still gloating in the fact that the 5D MKII was such a huge success. They have decided that they will never make another camera that improves on the 5DMKII.
Well the A77 does shoot 12 fps.
Ivan Lietaert: Compare this with the GH3.Panasonic listened carefully to the GH2 users, and then produced a revolutionary camera that is kicking ass as a video camera. The GJ3 easily is in the same league as the 5DMIII but costs only half as much.
As for the 700D, there is absolutely nothing in the image quality department that would even make me consider replacing my now rusty 550D.
Of course, you get a lot of camera for its money, but the 650D or the 600D is a wiser option.
I only now looked at its price... wow... what an insult to common sense!
Nope, the GH3 takes better stills.
The Canon does have a better selection of lenses of course but it shows that while Canon has persisted with this old sensor the competition has improved and the new Panasonic sensor outperforms the Canon even though the sensor used in the Panasonic is noticeably smaller in size.
dan_7d: im sorry but iv had to stop my self from saying this for so long but i would like to see any one you people here make a camera all you do is moan and moan how you shut your mouths and come up with something your self
You will hardly see anyone complain about a Nikon D7100 or a 7D as those were class leading cameras at the time. This is a sad rehash that Canon will get away with because it has a lot of customers with blind loyalty to the brand.
Take that away and Canon would see its sales drop like a hot potato.
They have been really arrogant in the past few years with under specd cameras (compared to the competition) and lenses with rather high prices allowing the competition to similarly raise prices.
This is all IMO of course.
raizans: Olympus already tried the tiny DSLR thing before concluding that mirrorless was the way to go. I guess Canon didn't get the memo. ;)
^^ No actually people for a majority of casual shooters a mirrorless is all they need. I have used Nikon, Sony and Canon's entry level DSLRs and found them pretty ordinary in both focusing and ergonomics.
A basic mirrorless camera offers practically the same IQ in a much smaller package especially now with the pancake zoom lenses. The newer crop of mirrorless cameras will outperform most budget DSLRs in focusing and their small sized lenses allow them to be more portable than a DSLR.
For those who aren't really looking at building a system a mirrorless is a more compact and a better alternative (IMO) than an entry level DSLR.
bloodycape: I noticed it is smaller than the Sony SLT A35/37(and may complained they were compact for an DSLR as the grip was small), but it's barley lighter than the A35. Those cameras already feel pretty well built so it be interesting how this Canon compares.
There is generally a limit to how small you will want a camera when the lenses are big. Trying to use this 100D with even a basic 55-250mm is going to be a problem.
I own the A37 and while its fine when using primes or the kit lens it becomes very uncomfortable when I attach my CZ 24-70mm f2.8 or a Tamron 70-200mm.
Such dimensions are fine with mirrorless cameras as the lenses are much smaller than DSLR lenses
mironv: Well there are very elaborate weddings with set time for formals where there is a time to use such lens or regular one in slow methodical aproch. On another hand camera and lenses getting better abd better but aparenty in high end weddings the "worst" picture looks the better. There are so many that shot with flare, PP to look like chip 50's slides or out of focus blured shots and people paid upwords of $4500 to $10000 for such "style".To me it looks like this days starting at high end is easier than low end but since one bride won a court case in USA all wedding photogs be weary.What was a claim she won? She claim she did not like pictures and asked for $40.000 and yes she did get a $$$$$$$$$$. Market will never be same since any bride can say I don't like it pay me lot of $$$$$$$$ I'm sure that $40K covered a even big wedding cost and who paid for that poor photographer.
I believe they were referring to this -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lz-07D5KoE
Chuck Yadmark: About time somebody went this way. Hope the quality is good and maybe more choices as well. I often use 12-24 as a walk around, I find 18-70 not wide enough for my taste.
Sony has done it. They have IBIS for their Alpha cameras and they have a 10-24mm OIS lens for NEX cameras. :)
digby dart: I commented first and then read some of the other comments... from the images I have seen around from this camera, taken in a variety of situations, I'd have given it a Sparkling Triple Mega Platinum Award.
At au$1200 with a totally excellent 35mm metal bodied prime its a gift. I read OMD, GH3 & D7000 in some comments, are we all pointing outward on the same planet, this thing delivers D4 results minimum - for that at au$1200 with a 'magic' prime thrown in I'd be happy focusing with a mechanical crank handle on the side.
For the grumbling cash flash grandads below, Nikon and Canon full framers are really nice gear, take excellent frames - these Fuji's just look to be heck of a lot better from build/ergonomics to image quality. Doesn't make your or my gear any less, this stuff is just heaps better for the money.
Like me for the moment, live with it. :-D
You like the photos then fine. I still like the output of FF sensors more than the Fuji's photos and I believe most FF cameras far outsell the Fuji.
Most people aren't terribly happy with slow AF and a camera that locks up from time to time.
No doubt, per pixel sharpness is very good indeed and high ISO capability can match any FF camera BUT IQ is not just specifications and the output of FF cameras IMO is better than what the Fuji can deliver.