Dirk Nuary: It's manual, but why more expensive than AF lenses which is more complex ? It's because Europe brand? You know Toyota is more valuable and convenient than BMW or Mercedes.
^^ Oh yeah DPreview are filled with them ! But this guy *seems* to have a genuine query.
Jetfly: I'm still waiting for a Zeiss lens which offers autofocus capabilities for Nikon mount. Just like Batis for Sony FE.
@Jetfly - Sigma reverse engineers the lens mount of Canon and Nikon so they allows them to have lenses with AF. However thats also the reason their lenses keep having problems with newer Canon and Nikon bodies.
According to Zeiss but I don't know how true it is, Canon and Nikon only allow Japanese manufacturers access to their lens mount specs. So Zeiss being a German company is barred from making AF lenses for Canon/Nikon
^^ No need to be rude !
@Dirk - These lenses are MF because Zeiss lacks the licence to make Canon and Nikon AF lenses.
They make AF lenses for Sony and Fuji mirrorless systems since those mounts allow 3rd party manufacturers full mount specs.
Sigma reverse engineers the mount specs for Canon and Nikon which is why their lenses run into problems from time to time.
And lastly these lenses have a certain rendering that many people prefer to first party lenses.
Wedding photographer: New models in DXomark rating:87 Nikon D720087 Canon EOS 5DS70 Canon EOS 7D Mark II
I own old Canons, but I think that Canon should to do something before simply disappear from the market, because Nikon makes great cameras.
@Fermat1637 - The Canon 7D mark II has an all cross 65 point AF system and can shoot at 10 fps with unlimited buffer for JPEG images. The D7200 can shoot at just 6 fps which is 40% slower and has a smaller buffer as well.
@Hellraiser - Agreed but the Canon can also focus to -3EV with the central focus point though of course the Nikon can use all its focus points. But do you know that the Canon can shoot 66% faster than the Nikon. And it has an unlimited buffer too. I don't know about you but having faster burst rates and a larger buffer are far more useful than shooting in -3 EV light which till date I have never shot in.
@Wedding photographer - No doubt Canon DR simply cannot match Nikon. I don't disagree there. You will need to use tools like exposure bracketing, GND filters or a black card technique in order to balance the sky and ground to negate the disadvantage Canon has over Nikon w.r.t the lower DR.
However if you don't use AF why not consider a FF Sony A7r instead ?
There is more to a camera than just the sensor. The Canon 7D mk II is of course a more expensive camera but it also has a better focusing system, a larger buffer, higher frame rate capture etc.
Adamant: Based on still IQ, I can see absolutely no reason to prefer the RX10 II to its (now substantially cheaper) predecessor. The Mk I looks cleaner at low ISO. High ISO rendering on the Mk II is different, but not appreciably better.
Maybe so but I would put far more faith in their testing than on your own personal tests that could be very flawed and biased.
DXOMark says otherwise. They rate the RX10 II better than the FZ1000.
And DPreview is testing the lens at only one focal length. There is no data on the rest of the zoom range.
That said the FZ1000 seems like an incredible bargain considering the price difference.
Sony never claimed it improved the IQ. IQ is very much still the same as the lens is the same.
However the faster sensor readout allows for 4k video, far superior burst mode and much faster maximum shutter speeds.
stevie wonder: I think these are awful rubbish😴
Everybody's tastes are different. Most of these photos are a bit 'artsy' and some people can't appreciate such photos. My mom saw the band photo with them in silhouette and she was like oh you can't see their faces.
Look at landscape photographers or people photographers. You will see more comments on such photos as people are drawn to colorful sharp photos.
These photos however require a certain mindset to appreciate. I do but a lot of people don't.
tt321: Lenses keep growing in size. 67mm filters for modest aperture normal primes now. Very soon filter companies will be able to remove 52mm and smaller sizes from their catalogs...
Can't be helped. :(
In order to match growing sensor resolutions. fast lenses have to be more and more complex and use exotic glass in order to compensate for the greatly increased resolutions.
SarahBK: The problem with these two lenses is trying to decide which one of them to buy...
@Musty - Rubbish !!!! I shoot in front of a cliff most of the time. I prefer the 45mm as I would rather take 5 steps back. WARNING : Not recommended for stupid people who stand with their BACK facing the edge of the cliff.
J A C S: Gear used in this story: Sony AS and Sony 24-70.
The image has its EXIF embeded. Its a Nikon D300, ISO 400, 1/500 shutter speed at 160mm.
Geir Ove: Why doesn't Sony make this a non-isssue by offering the user to choose between Lossless or lossy compression?
Of course, that means RAW converters must support both, but that shouldn't be hard.
I strongly believe (no proof though) that the issue is down to file sizes and the processors inability to handle large amounts of data.
So if they had lossless RAW the filesizes might be too big for the processor to handle resulting in much slower performance.
Else there is absolutely no reason they simply can't fix this in a firmware update as its a negative being highlighted in many reputed sites.
Xentinus: Despite they are 1.8 lense,they are big and heavy!
Samsung 45mm 1.8:Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 1.75 x 2.44" (44.5 x 62 mm)Weight 4.06 oz (115 g)
If you are happy with the 45mm Samsung then thats great. These lenses are for those that care for IQ especially wide open.
The Sigma Art lenses are big and heavy and yet people are flocking to buy them as their performance is what counts.
The sharpest lenses around are the Zeiss Otus lenses and they are even bigger than the Sigma.
Graham Austin: The images are good, but honestly I don't think they are £1500 better than a Ricoh GR.
Look people who want to buy such a camera have money. People like you and me can't justify spending so much for a fixed lens camera.
The Sony RX1 is also a pretty popular camera and the Q has a wider lens and a darn good EVF while not costing a great deal more.
turnschuh: Need more sample pictures, if the bokeh is something like the 60mm f2 it would be perfect. I wonder about why go for a 45mm instead of 50mm though.
45mm is more 'normal' than 50mm.
^^ That is a mirrorless lens. Of course its going to be smaller. And does the Samsung 45mm come with IS/VR/OSS ?
Graham everyone's needs are different. While yes some people simply have money and don't mind spending, photographer is still an art form for many and their choice of tool needs to appeal to them.
I have upgraded to an A7 from a crop sensor Sony A55 and as much as the IQ has improved on the A7 I simply don't care too much for its skin tone rendition. No matter how much I try and what filters I use they simply don't look that great to me.
The Canon I feel does a better job on skin tones but then I don't like how little I can push the RAW files.
So its all a compromise at the end of the day and people looking for the best compact camera will not be happy with an APS-C sensor GR with a slow f2.8 lens.
^^ I was referring to the pulling and pushing only. Didn't say anything about color cause at times I actually do prefer the color of the Canon files to my Sony. AF wise its a no contest and the Canon is leagues ahead of the Sony but I still prefer the Sony files when it comes to pushing.
Rarely do I encounter a scenario where I have screwed up so badly that the files cannot be pushed or pulled beyond the capabilities of the sensor. And if this pushing and pulling has resulted in artifacts (highly possible) they aren't big enough for me to really notice them.
But with the Canon I encounter such scenarios more often.
What has lens got to do with anything ? I use a 24-70mm f2.8 mk 1, sometimes a 35mm f1.4 and rarely an 85mm f1.2 L
I was not referring to the sharpness or contrast but the dynamic range and how much the Raw files can be pushed.
If I clip the highlights on the 5d there is very little that I can bring back.
However the A7 has far more headroom to bring back blown highlights.