dcolak: My NEX7 paired with SEL 50mm f1.8 or Sigma 60mm gives MUCH BETTER images. Sharper, less CA, nicer colors.
What´s going on here?
And why does high ISO image of FF A7II look no better than those I get from my NEX7?
Isn't FF supposed to be much much better than APS-C?!
Why are you comparing portrait/tele lenses to a wide angle lens? Slap an 85mm Otus on a full frame body and it will make your NEX7 images look like they were taken with a cell phone.
OortCloud: 42mm portrait lens? LOL!
@OortCloud. You seem to be confused. A 42mm micro four thirds lens distorts the same as a 85mm full frame lens. Distortion is result of angle-of-view.
You seem to be of the crowd that thinks that 42mm lenses distort the same across all systems, clueless of the fact that the angle-of-view is created by the triangle of focal length + sensor diagonal.
Images distort because you are too close to you subject. Whether you are using a 42mm on M43 or a 85mm on full frame your distance to the subjectg will be the same.
disraeli demon: Glad to see the μ4/3 lens stable continuing to expand. Before switching to mirrorless, I was using Nikon APS-C and was constantly disappointed by the lack of compact fast primes for that format. Four years on from switching, Nikon does have a 40mm macro for APS-C, but neither they nor Canon offer a 60mm f2 (i know there are "nifty fifties," but that extra 10mm does make a difference). Neither company has anything to match the range of fast wide-angle primes offered by μ4/3... Or Fuji...
I also switched to M43 after using Nikon DX for years. I now complemented it with an A7.
@nerd2: the DX prime selection is abysmal. There's a mediocre 35/1.8. For longer focal lengths you can use the mediocre FX 50/1.4 and the very good 85/1.8 without a problem, true. But there's no solution for a DX-sized 16/1.8 and 24/1.8.
In the meantime for M43 you can choose from 12/2, 14/2.5, 15/1.7, 17/1.8 and 20/1.7 and all of them excellent lenses.
vroger1: One caveat. When I bought the Leica 25mm Summilux some years ago, I already had the 20mm Lumix 1.7. The latter lens is good- the much more expensive Leica branded lens is great. The difference was noticeable even in the sample comparisons by DP Review. Lumix lenses are very good- but Leica branded are probably worth the price difference. VRR
I disagree. I used to own both the 20/1.7 and 25/1.4. After one year I sold the 25/1.4. The rendering is uglier and the boost in sharpness is minimal.
If I'm going to carry a lens as big as the 25/1.4, I'd rather carry my A7 with Loxia 50/2 (which is night and day better). The 20/1.7 however is super compact and delivers in the IQ department.
I'm hoping for more of the same with the 42.5/1.7.
nerd2: 85mm f3.5 portrait prime? Not interested at all.Oh and it's priced $399... you can get the excellent nikkor 85mm 1.8G at only $50 more.
The Olympus 45/1.8 has much nicer looking bokeh than the Nikkor 85/1.8G. On top of that it is a fraction of the size (the whole point of micro four thirds).
The Panasonic version adds image stabilization, making it an ideal match for the tiny GM5. A pocketable, stabilized portrait set up is priceless IMO. I hope they will also do a 75mm.
Poweruser: Another demonstration of how little "bokeh" is going on in a 2.8 midrange zoom on APS-C. Which is why most people should be happier with either a slower, cheaper, lighter standard zoom or a set of fast primes.
This could have been a winner if as fast as Sigmas 18-35.
@The Davinator: wrong. 'Bokeh' is Japanese for blur. Obviously you can have more blur or no blur. In Photography it is commonly used to describe the quality of the blur, but it is not the correct translation of the word.
kodos: The more I see how the lens situation is panning out the more glad I am that I went Micro 43rds (for my shooting style/subjects). The lenses are huge on FF Mirrorless. Though I am sometimes wondering if the Fuji mirrorless system might have been a good compromise instead. But I love my little Olympus bodies and lenses.
I think I'd rather get a FF DSLR system as a complement to my M43 setup, and have the best of both worlds when I need it.
But for those who love FF Mirrorless, I am glad that Sony is about to unleash some more lenses! It was the primary thing holding me back from pulling the trigger.
I own both, M43 and A7. The A7 is significantly better and the size difference is marginal. Especially with lenses like the Loxia lenses there isn't much difference in size with M43, while the difference in IQ is night and day.
Craig from Nevada: If this system competes with others on the basis of how consumers view the trade-offs of image quality, size and price, these lenses seem to suggest that Sony will have to prices these lenses very aggressively in order to make a go at it.
If I want small--micro 43 or APS-C are probably better choices. People have tired of dragging the full frame kit around everywhere. Other than maybe against FF DSLRs, I am not sure if Sony competes well on this front.
In terms of quality, this is a very good system, but maybe not the equal of full frame DSLR at this point but it will get there.
Price is the key. The price of the camera is attractive, but the lenses have to be priced decently. This system is the poor man's Full Frame. Sony needs to put people like me in a full frame system for substantially less than Canikon.
Meh. I'm in the process of selling most of my Olympus M43 gear after buying an A7 a year ago. There's no practical difference in carrying the Sony 35/2.8 compared to the Olympus 17/1.8 or Panasonic 20/1.7 on an E-M5 or E-P5. And there's no difference in carrying the Loxia 50/2 or 35/2 compared to the Panasonic Leica 25/1.4. And those lenses cover 90% of my needs.
The only lens that has me holding on to Olympus is the 75/1.8, hopefully there will be a compact yet stellar portrait lens from Sony or Zeiss one day.
olypan: A wake up call to all the 35mm fan boys who think they can have a compact system. If you are not a working pro you will look ridiculous carrying these lenses around. Use legacy lenses and enjoy softovision even at f8.
Wake up call to crop fan boys like yourself: there's plenty of compact, fast, sharp Zeiss ZM, Zeiss Loxia, Leica M and Voigtländer lenses that work wonderfully on the A7 series. More and more of those are specifically optimized for the A7.
Kwick1: Brand new sensor? According to Robin Wong of Olympus, it's exactly the same as the E-M1 and all of that similar generation. Face it, micro-four thirds is stuck in a rut until that sensor is improved.
@misolo, there's DxO test charts, and there's real world use. And my E-M5 for sure performs a whole lot worse than what its DxO test chart promised. In practical use I find it 3-4 stops worse than my A7.
nerd2: Wow, native 4K video / 28MP BSI sensor / 9fps with hybrid AF? /Full flip up AMOLED screen?
It just dominates every other non-FF MILC offerings... and it's almost a steal at $799 with lens.
Great, that's like winning the olympics where no professional athletes are allowed to compete. Awesome.
mpgxsvcd: I wish all of the camera manufactures realized what Canon has already figured out. Canon knows that if you get the word out there that your cameras are the “best” then it will take a long time for the general public to figure it out if that no longer is true.
Basically Canon is still riding high on their PR campaign from more than a decade ago. They still sell some cameras simply because most people don’t even realize that Samsung, Olympus, and Panasonic even make cameras.
I hate to say it but the other camera companies better start investing more into Advertising and getting their entire line of cameras in stores like Best Buy. It doesn’t matter how good your product is. Not enough people will buy it if they don’t even know it exists.
You are joking right? Canon has a great reputation because pros use Canon. And do you know why pros use Canon? Let me give you a hint.... it has to do with a full frame sensor in combination with some of the following...
- 24mm f/1.4L- 35mm f/1.4L- 50mm f/1.2L- 85mm f/1.2L- 135mm f/2L- 16-35mm f/2.8L- 16-35mm f/4L- 24-70mm f/2.8L II- 24-70mm f.4L IS- 24-105mm f/4L- 70-200mm f/2.8L IS- 200mm f/2L IS- 300mm f/2.8L IS- 400mm f/2.8L IS- 500mm f/4L IS- 600mm f/4L IS- etc.. etc...
tkbslc: Needs a viewfinder and it's instantly the best ILC on the market.
So if someone were to offer you a Leica or this, free of charge, you would take this?
D1N0: High res mode is a lot sharper but not as sharp as a single exposure 36mp
@linux99: Yes there are: A7R.
I'm really happy with my GM5. For years I've longed for a pocketable camera with EVF and with a small tele lens. Panasonic did it, and did a fantastic job at it.
This is not a camera for people who want an item of lust like the OM-D or X-T1. This camera is a tool to add to your toolbox. Together with the pancakes and collapsible zooms, it makes for a perfect companion to a full frame system. It gets the job done.
Looks like a Tokina design. Lots of similarities with the Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8.
This article makes very little sense. The upgrade path is a real marketing strategy from the two largest camera manufacturers: Canon and Nikon. And that strategy is a proven success.
The reality is that 99% of the image 'look' is produced by the LENS. If money were no object, you choose the lens that gives you the most pleasing image, and then you attach a camera with a compatible sensor size.
However, most people have a limited budget and compromise accordingly. A crop body can be one of those compromises.
WGVanDyck: An interesting article, however, there is a fallacy within “Fallacy 2”. The manufacturers introduced a false premise that the APS-C lenses would do the same things as the FF lenses they try to emulate (35DX=50FX). The reality is; you are going to get the native characteristics of a lens’ focal length regardless of the sensor you put it on. As an example: a 35mm DX lens is going to give you 35mm lens distortion and DOF characteristics when mounted on an APS-C sensor. Other than angle of view, it (or any 35mm) is not equivalent to a 50mm lens. But, with the DX 35mm, you have all of the light falloff, distortion, and filter vignetting issues that would be reduced or nonexistent if a 35mm FF lens were used. The only APS-C lenses that make any sense are the wide to ultra-wide focal lengths. I love my Nikkor 12-24mm DX, but otherwise I find FF lenses don’t have the DX lenses' edge problems. So, there is a good reason to buy FF lenses, even when one doesn’t plan “upgrading” to a FF camera.
martindpr: I would add that different gear should be used for different assignment: Read the field test about the Canon 7D2 @ dpreview and you will see that it outperforms FF for wildlife photography. The reason is evident: Better resolution of the APS-C area (given the same lens) than FF, and better DOF. This is valid also for macro photography. For ex., you are photographing lions in the savanna and you have 1DX and 7DMk2, you have, say 300mm lens mounted on both, and you are 300 feet away from the heard. Which will produce a better picture? Well, the 1DX has 18MP and its sensor is x2 the size of 7D2. If it had the pixel density of 7D2, it would have to sport 40MP (double than 7D2) because of sensor size. So, given the diffraction limit at around f/8 of 20MP APS-C, it would be easy to conclude that 7D2 would produce better MAGNIFICATION of the physical frame (lioness hunting), given the same 300mm lens. The extended DOF further improves the quality.
This comment is bunk.
Jonathan F/2: What I find funny is that Nikon shows how to do small optics with the 300mm f/4 PF VR. Sony makes small bodies, but their optics look no smaller than SLR equivalents.
Who cares about Sony lenses when you can use Zeiss, Leica and Voigtländer glass on your A7?