The sample image on the Fuji website must be a joke, right?
Ayoh: Why do you perpetuate the marking non-sense of equivalent focal length? It is only supporting the misleading statements of the manufacturer. What is this reference full-frame camera which defines the "equivalent" focal length? For example, when cropped to APS-C, the canon 5Ds with a 400mm lens would give you approximately the same resolution as a 400mm lens on the fuji Xpro2 due to similar pixel pitch. Similarly when both use 2X converters. The key parameters are lens actual focal length, pixel pitch and number of pixels. The "equivalent focal length" is a deceptive marketing gimmick which you should know better not to keep using.
"a popular photographic frame size from the 1920s"
LOL because in 2016 only a fraction of professional photographers shoot full frame.
qwertyasdf: 2x TC on 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 gives 800mm @ f11.2, if this qualifies as bringing 1219 to a system, I might as well stack five 2x TCs on a Canon 1200mm and and bring 8,246,337,208,320mm to the EF system, on a crop body.
It is true: crop sensors do not provide more reach than full frame sensors, as nothing stops you from cropping the full frame image afterwards.
p5freak: The provided sample pic on the Fuji website is very soft. Shows again that a x2 teleconverter shouldnt be used on zooms.
Agreed, the provided sample is garbage, and doesn't bode well for this tele setup.
I'm not a fan of these excessively processed images. It reeks of bad photography.
And to all of these people promoting their favorite Photoshop clone: get a life.
Reactive: Whilst playing with the charts I compared an Olympus OM-D EM-5 II in pixel shift mode against a Canon 5DS. The results are very similar, certainly only as far apart as the 40MP v 50MP difference. So pixel shift mode can clearly match expensive sensors... but then what's the point? The Pentax results are extremely impressive as a technical feat, but only in a completely artificial scenario that's irrelevant to nearly every photographic situation - unless all you do is indoor table-top still life work. Pixel shift seems like a very limited gimmick to me.
It is indeed a gimmick for armchair pixel peepers.
In real-world use, nothing will beat a 36, 42 or 50 mp sensor.
The only real-world scenario where I see needing this resolution is when I need to crop. And cropping is in order when I cannot get close enough to the action. Action implies a non-static subject.
PaulDavis: They look like they were designed by Sony. If someone just saw the picture and not the title of the article they would think these are two new Sony brand lenses.
I just gave up all my FE Sony gear but it is still exciting to see new lenses coming out for it. I don't know why but I always find myself rooting for their success in this camera market.
Sony indeed licenses the E-mount technology, which allows third parties to build AF lenses.
Unlike Nikon and Canon where they have to reverse engineer the protocol.
forpetessake: I have a feeling, Samyang is not an outlier and the other manufacturers will follow the suit. Sony fe-mount is going to dominate the market, they only need a cheaper FF model for masses under $1000. Affordable body and lenses will quickly capture the market. Canon and Nikon are risking to become third party lens manufacturers. The crop sensor cameras are also going the way of Dodo, so developing new APS-C lenses makes little sense. It makes sense for Sigma, Tamron, Tokina to switch their efforts to fe-mount before the field becomes too crowded,
"A Canon EF 600mm f/4 IS II is 17.6" long, where an Olympus 300mm f/4.0 IS Pro is only 8.9" long"
This misconception is called focal length cheating.
The Canon 300mm f/4L is cheaper and lighter than the Olympus. You can crop that Canon image 2x to have 600mm equivalent and it will still look 10x better than the Olympus.
Images that are already cropped by the sensor have significantly less latitude for cropping in post. All the samples I've seen from the Olympus 300/4 and Panasonic 100-400 are miserably soft compared to Canon tele glass.
"if I want a really portable system with sensibly sized lenses I'd always go for APS-C or MFT"
This misconception is called f-stop cheating.
People seem to think that a f/1.4 MFT lens will magically perform better than a f/2.8 full frame lens. It never does. The f/2.8 full frame lens will be smaller, cheaper, and sharper because it is easier to produce. It will wipe the floor with MFT glass in terms of low light performance, bokeh and sharpness.
Retro1976: I don't know why there is so much hype over the Sony A series bodies and lenses. Look at these samples: The rich color, skin tones, contrast and detail - the images are lovely, superb. Sony doesn't come close to Canon in this regard, and yet time and time again people talk about the superiority of Sony sensors, yet my eyes don't see it.
You're joking right? The colors are incredibly harsh in these examples, like from a micro four thirds sensor.
Calvin Chann: I own the 25 and 85. I won't buy the 18. If they had come out with a 35 or 50, instant buy.
I like the design of the Batis.
There is currently a hole for a mid priced 35mm at around f2, or a 50mm now that Sony will release their own nifty fifty.
I believe the 50mm Batis will be f/1.4, but indeed, a 35mm Batis is more critical.
Wild Light: 18??? Why not 35 or 50??????
Perhaps Rishi got a bad copy. The FE35/1.4 is quite decent in terms of sharpness wide open and rendering. I agree with the onion ring bokeh though. My biggest gripe is the ridiculous size. I would much rather see a Loxia version of the Zeiss 35/1.4 ZM. In the meantime, I think the Loxia 35/2 is pretty stellar and very small.
MF is pretty cool through a good EVF.
Retro1976: Sony makes remarkable cameras: class leading sensors, features galore, I mean it's everything one could want right ? Yet I go back and forth and buy one of these bodies and always end up dissapointed, I know it's purely subjective but I often find myself happier with Fuji, Olympus or Canon. Its not just me, friends and fellow photogs always end up switching back. I think Sony is close to arriving at the right formula, but still have some work to do.
Nikon tried with the Df to go the "pure photography" route. I was underwhelmed. The faux-Leica strategy of Fuji also disappoints with the crop sensors and style-over-function design.
The Sony A7 series with Zeiss Loxia glass has been the closest to "pure photography" I've been able to afford in the digital realm. The first day I laid hands on a Loxia lens I have never looked back.
sgoldswo: I don't see how you can rate a camera which has a clumsy user interface with a gold award. It makes the review irrelevant if you don't consider the user experience.
I always have this problem with high ratings for Sony and Panasonic cameras (which both have their moments of clunkyness in the user interface). If they require extensive customization, they simply aren't as much fun to use, however capable they are.
All major brands have clumsy UIs. Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, all have sub par menu systems. Canon is so bad it is a joke. Yet people buy these cameras....
It would be nice if companies would fix this for once and for all, but I find the Sony UI quite decent compared to Canon.
LandonT87: My biggest issue is with the lack of good zoom lenses. I'd be willing to pay for the 16-70mm f/4 lens but for $1000, the performance is unacceptable. I know sharpness isn't everything but it got a DXO Mark score for sharpness of 8 (8!) on a 24 MP camera. Further, I have a picture from a friend using a NEX 7 and the 16-70mm and it is noticeably soft around the edges.
Zoom kit for A6x00Sony 10-18Sony 28-70Sony 70-200
Prime kit for A6x00:Zeiss Touit 12/2.8Sigma 19/2.8Sony 28/2Sony Zeiss 55/1.8Zeiss Batis 85/1.8
Smaug01: Also ugly, just like the Lumix GX-8. If I'm gonna put down that kind of coin for a camera, it has to LOOK good too. (Like Fuji X100T, Olympus OM-D, etc.) It's not too much to ask.
This is a computer box with a lump for the grip and a lens mount; really uninspired.
Nothing worse than these ugly Fuji and Olympus retro cameras.
Sony please copy this lens for the A7 series !!!!!
This post shows that even the most expensive gear will not save a bad photographer. All of these images are literally composed for 85mm and shot with 28mm. It's terrible. I wonder who screens these entries.
Cytokine: Most of these samples are at 5.6, f4, or 2.8, and at these apertures almost all the good 85's are sharp.
The Bokeh is so bad I cant believe a Japanese company made this lens, it looks like Nissan Bokeh. Sony even made a machine to predict the bokeh?????
Why so few 1.4 samples? Is it that bad that the reviewers cant or dare not post any.
I am no Zeiss fan, but they would never put their name on something so bad.
There are plenty of lenses as sharp as this one, with better bokeh at a fraction of the price.
Did Zeiss refuse to put their name on this lens design? Maybe it should be called the Grand Mess.
Could the simplest explanation indeed be the correct one? That in the wake of test chart sharpness obsession, Sony went the Sigma route with lenses only optimized for sharpness, ignoring all other characteristics, and Zeiss said NO?
Flashback: I hate to differ here, but where is the pop?
I can see plenty of detail, but not absolute sharpness. Maybe it's a due to lack of contrast. I was expecting more from this combination.
False. 3D "pop" comes from a combination of:- amount of bokeh- field curvature- drop in contrast in OOF areas- color tonality (this is coating and sensor related)
The field curvature part is important, and generally lenses with field curvature score poorly on flat test charts.
Hugo King: FuhTeng has the best post so far.
Sony is out for money but still doesn't get Photography. Sharpness is nice, but their colors are still off, and ergonomics and function lag behind most everyone else. Some of the pictures I've see from their latest cameras are not good at all. A terrible picture can't be improved by 'sharpness', but this electronics company plans on making money by selling that idea to tech geeks.
This is senseless brand hating without factual basis.
As an Olympus/Nikon/Sony user, I prefer Sony because the colors look less processed, more organic. Nikon is alright, and almost identical in RAW. Olympus is too harsh on the color processing, even in RAW somehow.