Ill admit its much better than I imagined but look at the right side of the image and you can see the heavy handed noise reduction smearing away detail till there are these blotches.
Also the scene is very bright (1/640 sec) so the camera is not having to struggle much in such conditions.
Valiant Thor: Nice camera but not appealing at this price. I'll take the GH4 any day over the D810. If I want full frame, I'll wait for the Sony A7s.
Your requirement MUST be video. Else you wouldn't really compare a 35mm camera with a quarter frame camera like the highly video centric GH4.
Gosman: I love this article and seems to come out of my own mouth. Indeed I'm the one on the Nikon forum that pinned the name "Guinea Pigs" upon the early adaptors of the D800. I urged everyone to wait. What I didn't know was that it would take Nikon 2 years to upgrade and make the must needed changes. It is a huge lesson to all of us about product life cycles. This is why I decided to stay with Pentax and the K-3 which is now at the height of the crop sensor life cycle. I decided to stay away from full frame for awhile and see where the product cycle takes it along with the mirror less cameras. And yes, I am a Kodachrome baby and it is the first thing I thought of when I saw the ISO (we called it ASA) was 64!
Agree with Thematic.
The OP would make a lot of sense if we were investing in property or some other big ticket financial instrument. Definitely NOT for a camera that is used largely by amateurs or professionals who don't really care to wait for something good. Better is always around the corner.
brendon1000: No word on the video bitrate which is currently a Canon strong point.
If the bit rate is still 28 MBps then this camera won't be able to successfully compete with the 5D Mk III.
Nope, but the A7s is just ONE camera. ALL the other Sony cameras use the AVCHD 2.0 codec which has low bitrates and generally low quality videos.
And you can't compare a RX100 III to a 35mm sensor DSLR like this one.
gregbartgis: I really do wish you'd also include shooting results with 4/3 sensors. They're becoming ubiquitous and there are quite a few of us who would love to have such a lens for use on our Oly's and Panny's. If there are compatibility problems, please explain. If the lens is just too unsharp to be used on anything smaller than APS-C, please inform. I love the idea of having a zoom with the reach of one the equivalent of 300 - 1200mm on FF. There are presently no supertelephoto lenses of very appreciable focal length being made for small sensor cameras. This one would be a treat.
The Metabones adapter works but AF is mediocre that its practically useless. Neither m43 or Canon/Nikon will ever make an adapter like Metabones.
Sony is hardly class leading in video DSLRs. I use Sony and while I like the still image quality its video quality sucks. Canon is far far ahead even without hacks.
Hopefully this Nikon will help bridge the gap to Canon.
No word on the video bitrate which is currently a Canon strong point.
saralecaire: How are they calling this smaller and lighter? Old version is 3.3" long, new version is 3.78" long. Old version is 420g, new version is 540g. So marketing can outright just lie now?
You must be comparing it to the non VC model.
Tamron has a 28-300mm VC model as well which is slightly bigger than this lens.
Unfortunately these third party guys have a ton of these superzooms that makes it very confusing for customers. :P
Its the MSRP. Street prices will be lower.
Juandante: Still no FF Fuji ?
^^ Agreed. Leica lenses are expensive but you do get a reasonably priced ones if you are willing to buy used.
You are correct about the Metabones adapter for Canon lenses. AF is not really adequate even in bright light.
There is also a Contax to NEX adapter which works pretty well in AF. www.sonyalpharumors.com/contax-g-sony-nex-e-af-adapter-mk-iii-autofocus-test/
^^ Well the correct statement is they don't don't have real fast AF prime lenses. Rokinon offers quite a few fast prime lenses are really nice prices for the Sony FE mount. 24mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 14mm f2.8 and 85mm f1.4 are all great lenses but of course don't have AF.
Other than Rokinon you can use small Leica primes like the Voightlander 35mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4 etc.
iudex: Man this lens is huge. Considering it is a lens for CSCs and it is so slow (f3,5-5,6) it should have been much smaller. But 490g and 67mm filter thread? Definitely not corresponding with the luminosity. And also more suitable for large DSLR with proper handgrip than for small CSC (OK, X-T1 is relatively usable, but this lens definitely doesn´t fit to X-E2/X-M1/X-A1).
Generally any mirrorless lens > 70mm or so will lose the size advantage of DSLR lenses.
So the Fuji 50-200mm is heavier and as big as say a Canon 55-250mm IS . Sure the Fuji lens is 1/3rd of a stop faster but the Canon is 50mm longer to make up for that.
Well the Sony FE system is FF but and their bodies are pretty close to Fuji in size but the lenses are more expensive.
Fully agree. Or else they will end up like Sony. 3 camera systems but none of them are really complete systems.
mosc: I want an A-mount version of the A6000 with a proper grip, preferably in a $999 package with that 16-50 f2.8 lens of theirs. Who's with me? SLT be damned, just rip it out and let the chip do the work.
^^ No, a vast majority of A mount customers like me will transition to a proper system like Canon or Nikon rather than go for a crappy NEX system. Using an expensive LA-EA4 adapter just to use my A mount lenses without any stabilization is hardly an option for any A mount user. An electronic adapter is basically adding 2 additional failure points to your system. Not a good option whatsoever.
Sony will only shoot itself in the foot if it stops the only lens system of theirs that is close to being a complete system.
No doubt the E mount is the future but not everyone wants a tiny body with tiny buttons and the lackluster mirrorless sales (compared to DSLR sales ) tells the story.
Mike FL: From what I can see, the a6000 has more noise than most, if not all, of Fuji APS-C cameras, I guess that one of the reason is a6000 has too many megapixels.
IMHO: It is always the problem for most of Sony; too many megapixels.
Not really. Its a myth that greater pixels must also mean more noise. The A6000 measures better than the earlier Sony 16 MP NEX6 in noise.
The Fuji's have exceptional noise performance but not everyone likes the Fuji colors.
JanMatthys: every day there is either a Sony RX100III review or a review for a Sony camera, I guess the marketing dept of Sony is bankrolling DPreview
@Segaman - Hey I am no fanboi. Its not that I have nothing good to say about Canon. Its just that I have nothing good to say about the 1200D which I feel is an insult to consumers who would buy it just for the Canon brand name. A Pentax K500 in comparison is miles ahead in technology.
If you move up the food chain in Canon then things start to look great. The 70D, 5d mk 3, 1DX are all very good cameras.
Perhaps Dpreview should review the recent Canon 1200D. Whats new about that camera ? Same sensor as a 5 year old 550D, same AF system as a 20D which is 10 years old. Smallest viewfinder of any DSLR camera in the market and possibly even past cameras or last but not least its class leading battery life of 500 shots.
beemerchef: The camera is wonderful. I take a lot of photos having been on the road for the past 8 years full time camping [with my Dog!] and as someone pointed out to me since I do not sell photos and my largest posted format could be at the most 900x... "why am I driving a couple Ferrari which can go 300mph [2 x Canon 5D Mark III "L" lenses] when I am only going 40!". It all made sense as very tired having 40lbs of camera around my neck The a6000 is perfect BUT, do not buy the 16~50mm lens which is part of the kit. I made that mistake. I should have read the reviews on it and not just the camera. It has the worse distortion, vignetting, totally black corners at 16mm! Shame on Sony for that. I am now waiting for the 10~18mm to arrive, meaning I am ending up spending more on a lens than the camera itself. I have read good reviews on that one. It will be worth it to me so we shall see what happens.
@beemerchef - As McQuestion said, the kit lens is practically free, its incredibly small and while yes it has black corners at 16mm its still one of the widest kit lenses of all time on any camera systems.
IQ is not terribly good wide open but central sharpness is excellent 1 stop down. Can't ask much from a $150 zoom lens on a high MP sensor like the A6000. Adobe has a profile for this lens as does the Sony IDC convertor so the black corner problem can be fixed with a little loss of resolution and FOV.
Maklike Tier: I love the 'concept' of this camera, but if you have to stick a $1000 prime onto it to get quality shots from it, then you're looking at a $1600 package....with only one lens. For that sort of money you could get an EM5/10 with THREE f1.8 primes, or the EM5 Elite with the Pro 2.8 zoom.
I think Sony is an incredibly innovative and adventurous company, but they really do lack the 'X-Factor' that companies like Fuji and Olympus have.
I understand most of their zooms suck but they have quite a few quality cheap primes like the 35mm f1.8 OSS, 50mm f1.8 OSS and even a good 18-105mm PZ OSS zoom. All these lenses are pretty inexpensive.
Even the cheap 20mm f2.8 pancake is a reasonably sharp lens. With a 24 MP sensor, you will still get more resolution, dynamic range and noise performance than a 16 MP m43 camera with a sharp lens.
The Fuji system has some amazing prime lenses, class leading primes and ISO performance that rivals FF cameras. But the cameras are pretty big and heavy (for a mirrorless camera).