Battersea: I hope Canon starts shopping there.
Apologies for the comments cause I did think they were directed at me. :P
Thanks for the compliments. Still have lots to learn though. :)
yesman12: When I see innovation like this, it confirms the reason I went with In Body Image Stabilization... Much more innovative and extensible than In Lens. And all the noise around In Lens being better is probably a wash at this point. In lens is a hold over from film era. Look what In Body can give you....
- Image stabilization on all lenses.- Tilt shift function on all lenses up to a few degrees.- Astrotracer in body equatorial mount (and I have used it)- Macro adjustment- Configurable aniti- Alias filtering- And now increased resolution (I am sure off tripod will follow).
Where as In Lens only provides IS on a given lens. That is it.
Agree to all your points but in lens also provides a stabilized viewfinder which is nice to have especially in long lenses.
Sangster: Canon L 24 mm f/1.4 II $1550Nikon 24 mm f/1.4 ED $1930Zeiss Batis 25 mm f/2 $1300
Canon L 85 mm f/1.2 $2000Nikon 85 mm f/1.8G $500Zeiss Batis 85 mm f/1.8 $1200
Very interesting pricing strategy.
^^ Honestly I have got some very decent ISO 6400 shots. The extra bulk is an issue undoubtedly but if you stick to primes its still a very usable combination. I even use lense like a 70-200mm f2.8 and I shoot for hours. Not the most comfortable option though.
Really? Is that your decision after months of usage? I have been using it for just 2 months and I have been very happy with the results
Timbukto: IMO very luke warm. SLT grabs 1/2 stop of light, IBIS is not very good, and tracking is not the greatest. So why even bother with the DSLT form factor...
^^ To be fair your 50mm f1.8 OSS is just one lens that is stabilized. The A77 II can stabilize ALL lenses attached to it. Including cheap as dirt Minolta lenses like the 50mm f1.7 which you can buy for $50 in good condition from ebay and it you get image stabilization, full AF and the works.
Its still a very capable camera to be honest. Not everyone shoots ISO 6400 and other such ISOs often.
And from the ISO 8000 photo it shows you can still have a usable photo.
Now the other advantages are the EVF which shows you a more real time image along with other advantages over an OVF. To be fair there are disadvantages too but once you start using an EVF you learn to work around its disadvantages and appreciate the advantages.
Also it has a lovely articulated screen. Great for shooting at odd angles.
And finally it still has a 12 fps mode which is pretty darn fast for those who need it. And IBIS works with odd focal lengths like fast primes or UWA lenses where you don't get many IS/VR lenses.
Ben O Connor: The DSLR without an optical viewfinder... What is the point of having the mirror then ?
^^ This is hardly the first DSLR without an optical viewfinder. That would be the A55 which was launched years ago.
The mirror helps in phase detect focusing and backwards compatibility with all old Minolta and Sony DSLR lenses for the erstwhile Minolta mount.
Plus the EVF has many advantages (and disadvantages) over an OVF.
The Davinator: Best sports camera just got better.
^^ So what ? I have more than a dozen huge roosters in my grandfathers farm. Plenty of chickens too !
What he means is that there is more to a camera than just a sensor. Just like there is more to a car than just the engine.
My Sony A7 II gives me better results and IQ than the 5d mk3 that I borrow. But the Mk3 is just a complete and total package. Its so responsive and what it does it does great.
The A7 II as much as I love it does have a few quirks and issues that you have to live with and because of that its not a camera that I can readily recommend inspite of having a better sensor.
@vscd - I am no fanboi. If required I shoot with Canon cameras, I personally use Sony cameras and I have shot extensively with Nikon cameras too.
And yes I run into issues with Canon sensors quite often. Even Canon users who use my cameras admit the sensors are better.
They don't shift because Canon has a superb lens line up. No question or doubt about that and neither is the sensors so bad or anything.
Its just that you need to use something better to appreciate it and since I have used better sensors I know the drawback of Canon sensors.
^^ Really you assume that by the complete lack of shared photos on his gallery or no of challenges entered ? :P
Not saying he isn't a good photographer who takes a lot of good photos but there isn't any evidence to support that.
I may not be any great photographer but I have taken over 10000 photos and with my old A700 I had to do a lot of bracketing, used GND filters and what not for my landscapes.
Now with my A7 I found I don't need those techniques that much anymore. Thats what a good DR can give you.
Even in weddings that I shoot I find that clipped highlights from a 5d mk 3 have very low recovery. Even my old A55 was much better in this regard.
Now please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying this is a deal breaking problem for Canon. I still enjoy very much shooting on a 5d mk3 BUT to say that is a textbook problem and not observed in real life means you are either a hardcore Canon fanboi or you haven't used a better sensor and so have no clue what you are talking about.
^^ Whats Sony got to do with it ? The Toshiba & Aptina sensors compete well with Sony and even Nikon original sensors like the 16 MP 35mm sensor used in the D4 and Nikon DF are all better in DR.
Canon is the only sensor manufacturer other than Sigma lagging behind in DR. Sony, Nikon, Aptina, Toshiba are all ahead in the race.
@vscd - Last I checked most people aren't pros and most people shoot between ISO 100 - 400mm and rarely reach ISO 800.
In fact a cursory glance at the top 3 winners of the challenges were majorly shot at ISO 100 - 200 and a few at ISO 400.
And the DR differences between Nikon and Canon sensors > ISO 800 are negligible compared to DR differences between the two at ISO 100.
Now I would agree with you if the Canon sensor had some super duper high ISO performance but even there its no better than Nikon. I use a 5D mark III extensively in my work and I find its sensor worse than my Sony A7 in almost every aspect including high ISO performance.
I have many photos ruined by less than perfect exposure which happens often in a fast paced shoot.
The only thing I love about the Mk3 is the build quality and AF but you can easily get that with a Nikon too.
@vscd - Why defend mediocrity ? Their sensors don't perform in terms of DR and if they can't compete they should look elsewhere maybe in at least a few models. There are work arounds for most drawbacks on cameras but if you are paying with your hard earned money why not demand the best ?
From all accounts Canon is using a Sony sensor in its G7x. They clearly admitted that the sensor was not developed in house.
So if they could do that for one model why not on more models ?
Lapkonium: Meh, another subpar chinese fiddly toy.
^^ I take it you have used it extensively and come up with the conclusion ?
brendon1000: I am just wondering if its worth getting this heavy lens when a Rokinon/Samyang 85mm f1.4 should be about all that is required at a cheaper price.
The Rokinon has a beautiful rendering and I got rid of it purely because i had a hard time focusing at f1.4 on moving subjects. Manually focusing with a f1.2 lens ins't going to be any easier. :P
^^ Then why buy it in the first place ? Sigma has a pretty good 85mm f1.4 lens that autofocuses and is a pretty good lens too.
And you get a good amount of used 85mm f1.4 lenses for around the same price as this pure MF lens.
Now the Rokinon 85mm f1.4 has no real competition since at its price you have to make do with the f1.8 versions which don't have as nice a rendering IMO and you need to double or tripple your budget to get an AF 85mm f1.4 lens.
I am just wondering if its worth getting this heavy lens when a Rokinon/Samyang 85mm f1.4 should be about all that is required at a cheaper price.
sentro: The 15-400 looks sweet....I wonder how much that will be?
Seems to be a killer wildlife lens. Should pair well with a K-3.
Zoron: Time to come up with a new body and new organs.
You, me and a lot of serious shooters are fine with 16 MP files. But a lot of buyers are first timers and they compare features. Ok this camera is 16 MP and costs $1299 ?? No thanks ill pass. MP is a marketing tactic but it helps sales especially for non professional cameras like Fuji, Samsung and Sony.
People who buy $3k+ bodies are generally the ones who know what they want.
Crotach: Jesus, at this price who would want to buy it? You can get full frame for less!
IQ wise I have extensively used different cameras and while most are great at low ISO at high ISO 35mm sensors still have an advantage especially if you push the files a bit when you process.
Look I am not disagreeing that it isn't a good camera but I don't see much use for it right now. People who want quality will buy 35mm sensor cameras regardless of how good APS-C is, a bigger sensor has other advantages.
People who are serious about video will spend more to get an A7s or even a Panasonic GH4 with better codec support. The Samsung video codec will appeal only to casual video shooters.
And yes 15 fps IS impressive but people who need tracking (mostly birders and wildlife shooters) have no wildlife lenses to use. The Samsung 300mm lens should help but that is sure to be very expensive. A 100-400mm/150-600mm type lens is sorely lacking.