lapomattiabarambaniviendalmare: The biggest issue for this Sony super toy is the lack of adequate lenses.4k $ and no real fast primes or 2.8 zooms?Come on Sony, you've got to be kidding...
If you want to use a Canon 50mm f1.4 over a Sony 55mm f1.8 then yes the system isn't for you.
Zoron: Sigma 24-70 F2.8 OS ART lens.....now or never Sigma.
^^ Well the evidence doesn't support your theory. Nobody has managed to come out with an f2 zoom for even APS-C sensors forget about FF.
The APS-C f2 zoom was just 2x zoom and the FF zoom is half of that ! So I doubt we may be seeing a 24-70mm f2 zoom anytime soon.
But ill be very happy if proved wrong ! :P
dlkeller: Once more Tamron is screwing Sony users by removing VC with the lame excuse that Sony has in camera stabilization. They seem to not consider that many Sony users are using the non-stabilized mirrorless cameras or just prefer the stabilized viewfinder the Tamron offers Canon and Nikon.
There is no proof whatsoever that ALL new Sony bodies will come with IBIS. It may be there for the higher end ones but they may not use them for their low end bodies.
^^ Except for the A7 II and now the A7r II there doesn't exist another Sony mirrorless body with IBIS.
However all Sony SLT bodies (their DSLR lineup) have IBIS.
That is why the Tamron 18-200mm VC lens for mirrorless cameras comes with VC as Sony bodies don't have it in the sensor.
@BarnET - Agree with you. Wish there was a way where an OSS/VC lens would disable the IBIS of the body it is attached to.
Sigma already tried and a 24-35mm 'zoom' is all they managed to come up with at f2. :P
And its already 1 kg. Any further zoom will probably be 2 kg+ and a 86mm filter thread !
If you believe Tamron, they say they removed the VC because people would enable both VC and IBIS resulting in blurred images.
Both IS systems don't talk to each other which results in blurred photos.
The difference between the Nikon and Sony version is that the lens has all the additional elements for IS but its not enabled. This is to ensure they don't have to redesign the lens for Sony cameras.
MidwestDad: The varying interpretations of the studio scenes are very interesting.I see hardly any difference between the GX8 and the A6000 even at ISO6400.What this tells me is under any realistic viewing conditions no one is going to see any difference. So it is time to move on and look at other features. Bicker about tiny differences at pixel level is meaningless. I think micro four thirds excels at being compact when longer focal lengths are considered (90mm and up), and Panasonic has been killing it with 4K/30p video for over a year now. What other ILC shoot 4K internally for this price? Any others under $2000? What about under $2500? Maybe I need to say Samsung and Panasonic are killing it. :)
Honestly the differences you see here are for a very basic scene. Its when you push and start shooting demanding scenes that a better sensor shows itself.
If you believe IQ is equivalent between m43 and a good APS-C sensor then thats fine for you. However I appreciate better sensors and I have got the largest sensor I can afford.
ecka84: So, why would I choose this over FF 135L or my 150/2.8 APO Macro?
ecka84 - No everyone like toting a huge camera + lenses on trips.
My friend shifted to a 5D mk 3 + 24-70mm f2.8 + 70-200mm f2.8 and that was the day he hardly used his camera for personal work.
He just hated carting around the gear on vacations and destination photography.
After checking around he bought a Fuji XE-2 + 18-55mm lens and frankly he has begun enjoying photography again.
Sure a 5D mk 3 + 135mm f2 L lens will be better in IQ BUT the combo is much heavier and bulkier.
The 6D is lighter but frankly after using a 5D mk 3 I felt the 6D to be a poor compromise.
^^ If you are happy with old tech that is fine. People still shoot film for the experience of it. And I was able to take good photos with my old cameras too. In fact some of my best photos were taken with my older cameras and I haven't been able to get better photos from my latest FF cameras.
BUT I enjoyed photography much more once I upgraded. I love the advantage that technology has added to the experience to the photography process.
Lets face it if Photography was still at the film stage hardly anyone would be shooting today.
arhmatic: I need to repeat, video quality is disappointing. Why repeat? I keep hearing the same "if you want good video quality, buy I video camera" - getting a second camera is not the answer.
The reasonable thing to do is for Fuji to get the video quality at the comparable level with everything else on the market. Not exceed, like the still image quality, just match the other offerings. Whatever the technical limitation with sensor and such, well, most simple users don't get and don't care, they simply want something comparable. Cheers!
^^ Yes people do take a lot of meaningless video but guess what a huge majority takes pretty much badly framed, tilted crappy photos too but they still buy DSLRs and mirrorless cameras when a cell phone will not even test their limits.
People who are serious shooters are a small fraction of the people buying such cameras.
So those people who make up the bunch of sales do care about fluff like 4k and stuff which you and I don't use at all.
Tieu Ngao: Regarding the Nikon 24mm f/1.8: If I need a prime at 24mm I'd buy the Sigma Art 24mm f/1.4 for an extra $100. Why bother with this made-in-China Nikon G lens?
The Nikon is substantially smaller for one and two the Sigma is known to have focusing issues wide open. The Nikon should have more reliable AF.
That said the Sigma has biting sharpness and contrast even wide open which I doubt you will find in the Nikon. Sharpness wise a stop down and the Nikon should match the Sigma but the Sigma should have higher contrast.
Too many 24-70mm f2.8 lenses. Before this Nikon even Tokina launched a 24-70mm f2.8. :P
^^ Yes the advantage of mirrorless cameras like Sony and m43 is the large scale adaption of electronic lenses like Canon.
With the new A7r II you will get pretty reliable AF with the 135mm f2 L which kinda makes Canon a 3rd party manufacturer for Sony. :P
^^ They aren't even close to #1 so there is always room for improvement.
Their sensors are already among the best you can get for mirrorless for still photography so why are they #1 from bottom for video ?
They suck at video compared to say a decent performing camera with video like the D750. Some people who also want to shoot video will need to buy another system for video or sell off the Fuji and get a system that serves both purposes.
I personally know 3 people who very reluctantly sold their entire Fuji system mainly because they couldn't afford to maintain two systems.
If Fuji had decent video performance they would probably still be with Fuji.
^^ If you are happy with the 6D that is fine. Companies are happy when customers are content when they can give you 6 year old tech today and people still buy it. In the meanwhile the Fuji offers a far better AF system than the 6D. And even with the ISO difference the advantage of the Canon is less than one stop.
AshMills: Ok I know equivalence meh meh, but the Olympus 12-40 2.8 (24-80 5.6) AND the 40-150 2.8 (80-300 5.6) TOGETHER weigh about the same as the 24-70 2.8VR.
^^ Obviously it depends on your needs. I know a local pro who uses a RX100 camera for his work. That is far smaller than your m43 cameras. He is happy with the output and his clients are happy.
However I like the output of larger sensors. The differences aren't night and day but enough for me to appreciate the higher IQ and consequently the larger lenses.
Antony John: Lots of negative comments but:1) Nikon has provided probably a better performing 24-70 for professionals (albeit at a higher price, size and mass - but if that's what's required for IQ/usability improvement then so be it).2) Nikon have again replaced ageing prime optics with (assumed once more) a better quality solution at an affordable price and F1.8 (c.f. Nikon 24 F2.8 AF-D)3) Nikon have developed a new 200-500 lens at an affordable price. If it has similar IQ to the 70-200 F4 then it'll be a winner. Perhaps not as good at 200 & 500 as the Tamron/Sigma lenses, but if one only needs 250 - 450 then my guess it will be equivalent if not slightly better (based on the premise that the extremes of the focal lengths are always the weakest) than the other 2.It's taken some time but hopefully Nikon have nailed it with these lenses at their respective price points.
400mm is really pretty short for birds.
500mm is better.
WACONimages: 24-70mm $2399 In what world is Nikon living, on Mars maybe ;-)
Check up the MSRP of the Canon 24-70mm II and the Sony 24-70mm f2.8 SSM II and then post here.
Sadly this is the new trend in photography. Price all new lenses significantly higher than old. :(
Don Sata: I really hoped that 24mm was specific for APS cameras but the wait was too long, I'm glad I moved to Fuji months ago.
^^ I think pricing has to do with it. Full frame lenses have to cover a larger area and so cost more.
Just compare the Fuji 35mm f1.4 to the Nikon 35mm f1.4 G.
Or the Fuji 56mm f1.2 to the slower nikon 58mm f1.4 G.
CameraLabTester: Canon Sentinel: "The enemy has released a 24-70 FF f2.8 VR lens! I think we should abandon our yoga position on this fence..."
Grand Canon Moff Tarkin: "Evacuate? ... In our moment of triumph? I think you are over estimating their chances!"
(slaps sentinel like Batman did to Robin...)
^^ Yes similar in IQ and price but it lacks IS/VR.