HowaboutRAW: The Lollipop OS supports raw, right?
@ Menneisyys:" Definitely not. Not even much larger sensors have that much."
That's assuming you're just looking at the highlights. But there should be DR treasures should be in the shadows too. Large sensor cameras have the benefit of low shadow noise, but phone cameras tend to employ quite crude NR in shadows, which kills more shadow information than needed. From what I've seen, the Nexus 5 has quite a bit more information in RAW shadows available, than what the OOC jpegs present us with.
quezra: I'm still surprised the A7ii beat the D750. It is far more of an incremental upgrade to its predecessor (A7) than D750 is (to D700).
And this condensed all-in-one vote doesn't make much sense since all these products are good, yet each suited to completely different tasks or types of photographer.
All true, but I just replied to the statement that the A7II was the first to have a stabilized FF sensor in general.
And the A900 and A850.
Interesting how "van der Galiën" as a last name over time has turned in to "Vander Galien".
Marty4650: It looks like Sony is getting serious about FE.
Smart move, on their part. I hope Canon and Nikon are paying attention.
"Why is that funny? "It's funny because the most heard complaint about Pentax at the very moment, is lack of new lenses and bodies. I guess LED lights in a funky looking grip weren't considered much of an upgrade...
And that's what this was about, not how many lenses there were or weren't. Altough I agree, that is probably a more relevant discussion....
"Sony is not caring about APS-C anymore and it shows".
Reality check, the A6000 outsells any other mirrorless camera at the moment. It also outsells every Sony system camera in the current line up.
If you think Sony doesn't care about their best selling system camera, you're the one living in a dream world. They put lens development resources where the holes are the most glaring (FE), as expected. And for the umptieth time, a 70-200 was lacking for APS-C too, same goes for a 135 and longer macro. They wouldn't be much different if just designed for APS-C, hence why A6000 owners are enjoying their 70-200 lenses too.
FUD won't turn that in to "ditching".
AmirhosainD90: So where is long awaited promised "Sony prime FE 85 Zeiss F1.4"?
Maybe Bluevellet photoshopped it so he could point out how Sony failed on their "promise" now. ;-)
TN Args: @Smartypants...... humunnnnnnnngous!
I would still like to see a Sony statement on who they think is going to buy the A7 system and who they think will be buying the A77/99 system. With their separate lens systems.
The A77II is overhauled on practically all levels (CMOS sensor, AF sensors, processor, controls, buffer depth, seals and build, connections, LCD, range limiter, on sensor PDAF, Wifi, etc.). Don't be fooled by the name, as it's arguably more of an update than most other cameras replacing their predecessors.
The myth of completeness. Complete depends on your needs. Most people stick to no more than 3 lenses (in fact, recent surveys suggest even less). And with >20 lenses, there's still plenty of people to please, as also suggested by sales.Most of those "mediocre" lenses outresolve most µ4/3 lenses. See DXOmark. And to suggest Pentax while claiming Sony has stopped APS-C development (refuted by Sony already), is hilarious.
More FUD, as expected.
Rooru S: Even if I love E-mount cameras...All I got to say about these new lenses (Except the 28 and the Macro is...) WTH with these HUGE LENSES.
Hope no.1: The macro doesn't extend while focusing and the lens has mechanical coupling instead of focus by wire just like the 28-105 F4 G OSS.
Hope no.2: The 28mm f/2 is the best bang for the buck and also has mechanical coupling. I would buy the lens and the converters inmediately to replace the SEL16F28 + VCLECU1 and VCLECF1.
Hope no.3: They quit making huge lenses with large aperture and focus on a best balance in size after these lenses. It wasn't necessary to make a 35mm f1.4, just a f2 like the one found on the RX1 series would be fine.
Meanwhile in A-mount, Sony should bring a 1DX/D4S competitor and D810 competitor. The a7R isn't good enough and I'm quite sure a a99 succesor should try to compete against it while bringing another model to compete against the D750 and leave the a7Mk.II against the D610.
I agree that relatively affordable primes are welcome and from what I've heard, the 28mm f/2 is the first to fulfill some of those wishes (<$500).
Paul Auclair: sweet. improved IBIS.the only (and just slightly) eyebrow raiser for me was the 7II's IBIS performance being somewhat less than Oly's mirror-less offerings.
Nonsense, the sensor fits and has room to move, as displayed with the A7II and the fact that there's more room than the Leica FF mount. The corners you are referring to, are not part of the active pixel array. Before there were FF E mount cameras (just after release of the first NEX cameras), Sony stated that FF wasn't planned yet, but that it would fit because they took the option into consideration during the design process. As for amplitude, it moves as much or more than the sensor in the A mount FF cameras, which has a lot more room to spare. We've gone through all the assumptions (FF doesn't fit, oh it fits, but can't move, oh it moves but not enough/ as much as the other FF IBIS system) and time and time they fell flat on their faces in practise.
There's already the Zeiss 35mm f/2 and if you want really compact, there's the 35mm f/2.8. So what was missing and asked for? The f/1.4.
Those looking for a compact aps-c system have choice already. And compact and tele are hard to combine with larger sensors, unless you give them ultra slow/small apertures.
ZAnton: So the short flange distance makes no sense, because it causes big distortions, abberations and problems with "real aperture" on a big sensor (light has to fall on the sensor under a big angle). These lenses look quite long.
So what is a advantage of a slim 35mm mirrorless?
Last time I checked,(new) quality A mount lenses covering FF weren't cheap either.
No, they are not ditching APS-C at all. Especially the longer FL lenses were asked for by APS-E users too and would have been similar in size and weight, if just designed for APS-C (hence why you for example don't see 70-200 lenses from other big brands just covering the APS-C circle either).
A popular FUD claim is still FUD.
Rod McD: I must be looking to something different from other buyers of this system. Here we have yet another Sony FE mount 35mm lens - now three : the FE f2.8, the FE f1.4 and the Zeiss Loxia f2. Surely it would have been better to fill out some needed additional FLs before variety in aperture?
To me the obvious uses for a high res, low weight camera like the A7r are landscape and travel, yet until this announcement there's been no lens wider than 35mm. So, it's great that there's finally a 28mm, though I would have thought that if you're only going to do one lens wider than 35mm, a 24mm would have been a more obvious choice.
I still suspect that there must be a difficulty with the A7r micro lenses or some other reason they aren't delivering WA lenses. Good to get the 90 macro but I can't really fathom the lack of an early 85mm portrait lens either.
Samyang/Rokinon has excellent 14 and 24mm FF lenses for these cameras.
CanonKen: Is there any reason you could not have 'slow' (f/2-2.8) Leica-sized lenses for say 24, 35, 50, 85mm? Not talking these MF things, but small, light, AF, Sony-made lenses that would complement the small size of the body?
They have the 35mm f/2.8 now, which is small, light, and 'fits' the a7 well, but all the new stuff seems huge compared to the compact body.
The 28mm f/2 is small.
The mount was designed with the FF option from the start, according to Sony. Weight is the largest issue, combined with cooling issues (currently countered with a lightweight heatsink attached to the back of the sensor, thus moving too), not so much amplitude.
JoEick: Rishi, you need to stop being defensive and actually read what is being criticized. Everyone knows Sony exmor sensors have better low ISO DR. We knew this years before this article tried making it into something groundbreaking.
People (including myself) are taking offense to those who try to overstate the effectiveness in being able to get a shot or not, based on the low ISO DR. It's just pushing people to let their gear dictate everything for them, without any thought or skill required by the photographer.
Extra DR is nice and never hurts (except in photographer skills), but it's not really the feature that is making photos possible that were previously not possible with some basic photography skills in merging exposures.
I am aware that this is DPR, a gear praising website, where suggesting features are not needed or are overstated, is like breaking all the 10 commandments in one shot. Photographer skills are going backwards, while tech marches forwards. :(
@ rccad:You sound rather defensive of a camera, trying to brush off factually presented and well explained flaws of a machine, as user error.
It's not just about the scene presented, it's about offering extra lattitude. As soon as that scene involves movement of camera or main objects, good luck with your bracketing for example.
rnclark: The example on above (page 13, real world raw dr) is an example of differences in processing. While the Nikon does have a slight advantage, the actual difference between the two cameras is much smaller, less than a stop in dynamic range. The main reason that the nikon data look so much better out of camera is that nikon clips the low end and runs a filter on the raw data before recording the data. With the canon, there is an offset and no apparent filtering in the raw file. Nikon's raw filter is very very good. Apply similar filtering on the canon raw data (luminance filter done in the raw converter), then adjust the offsets in post processing and one can get very close to the same dynamic and look of the nikon image.
I have downloaded the above raw files and processed the canon data to properly deal with the offsets and the results between the two cameras are very close. I would post the results, but being new here I do not see a way to do that.
In the example posted by Roger, the Nikon results are actually much worse than a direct Lightroom/ACR conversion, with shadow details turned to mush and desaturated. Of course, if you add enough NR to the Canon shadows, you can smooth things out. But even in his example, the Canon ends up with much less detail in cars and grass.
Not exactly what I would call an example of good processing. More masking poor DR.