Dareshooter: When it was announced that the M3 was not going to be released in the USA there was howls of derision. Now it has been announced that the M3 is being released in the USA... howls of derision.
The devil's in the details. Timing and pricing are big factors. The M3 is now coming to the US quite late, at a high price, and the details of the camera (price, specs) look even worse compared to recent introductions like the E-M10 MKII. Plus, if it had come to the US market when it was first introduced, we might be enjoying much lower street prices on it by now. For example, the street price of a Sony A6000 with built-in EVF and better specs is now only $548. But sadly, even the original full retail price of the A6000 ($649.99) is less than what Canon is pricing the M3 at for the US market ($699.99, no EVF included). Part of the "howls of derision" are coming from what Canon is pricing the EOS M3 at, especially compared to the Japan market where it's much cheaper and includes the EVF.
captura: There is no upcoming A7000. Just a rumor with no source to back it up.
A6000 was introduced February 2014. E-M10 II introduced August 2015. You're comparing a newly introduced camera against a camera introduced 18 months ago! I don't even know the point of your statement, but I don't think it's any shock that a newly introduced camera might be "better" than an 18-month-old camera! Besides, the E-M10 II is not "better" if you prefer APS-C format and higher resolution than 16mp.
"There may be a revised A6000, but already DPR has reviewed the E-M10 II and said that is a better camera."
Really? They've already reviewed the successor to the A6000, and have already concluded that the E-M10 II is "a better camera"? Haha. Now, not only are you predicting the future, you're even citing reviews from the future!
"If you want to upgrade from your entry-level APSC cameras, you need to go A7."
There you go again, making declarative statements about the future of all of Sony's offerings.
BTW, I don't consider the A6000 to be "entry-level". It outspecs the EOS M3 by a wide margin, especially when you consider fps shooting speed, buffering capacity, AF performance, features, built-in EVF, etc. If anything, it's the EOS M3 that is "entry-level". I mean, 4fps into a 5 frame RAW buffer on the M3? That's entry-level specs! The A6000 does 11fps and buffers 22 RAW frames!
captura: Apparently, those lenses are to die for. Especially at that low price.
They're good, but not exactly "to die for". For example, I have the Canon 22/2, and it's not any better than a $199 Sigma 30/2.8 Art DN. I have the Canon 22/2 for my EOS M and the Sigma 30/2.8 Art DN for my A6000. I prefer the Sigma. Too bad Sigma doesn't offer any of their Art DN lenses for the EOS M system.
The statement that EOS M lenses are "to die for" is just overblown. Besides, you still have to use them on EOS M bodies, which aren't exactly "to die for". Especially at Canon's high asking price.
@captura, you're joking of course! You seriously think you know the future of Sony's APS-C mirrorless system? You don't. The future is not written in stone. Heck, it's not written at all! Companies make adjustments and changes in strategy and product offerings all the time. To imply that you KNOW that there will never, ever, ever be a Sony "pro-line" APS-C mirrorless body like the NEX-7 ever again is simply foolish non-sense. Sony is a big company. They can do a lot of things. But one thing YOU can't do is claim to know the future. So all these declarative statements that you are making about Sony's future APSC offerings, stated as if they are facts written in stone, are just a joke.
Isn't your statement "there is no upcoming A7000" also just a rumor with no source to back it up? Haha.
Seriously though, I don't think there's any real doubt that the A6000 will eventually be replaced. It may not be called "A7000", but there certainly will be a successor to the A6000. Not everyone wants or can afford FF mirrorless. Hence the need for APS-C mirrorless, and hence the eventual need for a successor to the popular A6000.
If you're going to bet that there is "no upcoming A7000" (or whatever they call it), I'd definitely say that's a stupid bet.
Yikes! $679 body only, no EVF, only 4 fps, tiny buffer, slow AF and the add-on EVF-DC1 sells for an additional $240. Pricing and specs way out of line with the rest of the market. It'll be DOA when it hits US shores. Then Canon USA will probably use the poor resulting sales as an excuse to reject an EOS M4 if/when that one gets released, just like they initially did with the EOS M3.
epozar: no IS :(
Get a Sony A7R II. Then you'll have 5-axis stabilization with this lens!
AKH: I have been following Dpreview for around 15 years now and I don't like how it has changed over time. It is like the reviewers have become sort of fan-boys in their reviews. Just a few years ago the reviews were much more objective and balanced in my opinion.
Also I'd say that I never had any focusing issues with my D810 with fast primes down to f/1.4 and the new f/1.8 series from Nikon. Didn't even have to fine tune any of my lenses which was not the case with my previous camera the D800.
@AKH - you're contradicting yourself. On the one hand you say "I really don't care what they write", and in the very same sentence you say that you don't like what they write because you think they are "trying to create hype"! Haha! So which one is it? Do you care or don't you care?!? Obviously, this is clearly a case of someone not liking what a reviewer wrote, and so you immediately label it as "creating hype" written by a "fanboy". I think you're just seeing "creating hype" and "fanboy-ism" because it doesn't quite fit your agenda or preferred brand. It's your own biases coloring your own interpretation of what is being written.
SushiEater: I just tested D810 and D800e in very low light.D800e and D810 can focus in much lower light than that. I just tried both camera in the situation where I could not see what I was taken picture of.Basically between star light and moonlight or close.H2 ISO 1/40 Tamron 24-70mm and 70-200mm F2.8 lenses in AF-C so the focusing help light did not come on. No problem at all.And if the camera is rated for -3ev at F2.8 using brighter lenses has no effect. In other words the focusing mechanism perform the same as long as the lens is F2.8 or brighter.
I don't think it's an issue of "how low can you go" or "can I focus in light where I could not see what I was taking a picture of". The practical point here is to disprove the myth that mirrorless cameras can't focus well in anything other than bright sunlight, or that they will never be able to focus in low light. For most rational-minded people, this test proves that future mirrorless cameras can certainly be a perfectly viable option, even for low light shooting.
BTW, D810/D800s are obviously a lot larger than Sony A7s, especially if you're the kind of photog that likes to carry two bodies, like a lot of us do. Any reduction in size and weight can be a benefit to our bodies, especially if you can still get the same images as you would with much larger/heavier bodies.
MustyMarie: The real test: Just saw a F1 broadcast, many cams seen - zero A7RII's, all users using a VF, can a fast pan be done easily via EVF or LCD?
But the real test will be at the next Olympics and other Huge major sports events, will it/they still be Canon/Nikon events (massive #'s at the Olympics) or will there be oodles of A7RII's and Zony lens users ??
What will professionals resort to, cam or more complete lens systems or ?
PS: Prophecy- Sony had better start a massive Zony lens lending program for qualified pros at the huge events to succeed.
Because sports photography is the only type of photography that exists, right?
The other thing to remember is that a lot of sporting event photography (especially at the Olympics) use pre-focused cameras, often shot remotely. This is often the case at track events. When the athlete enters a particular zone, the camera is triggered remotely by a human operator located somewhere else. I can easily see mirrorless cameras eventually overtaking remotely-fired sporting event setups where there's no need for a big, bulky DSLR. Especially when you consider that these sporting event photographers might go to an event with a dozen cameras, any reduction in camera size and weight would have a huge cumulative benefit. It's an even bigger benefit when you consider the fast frame rates that mirrorless cameras are capable of, in such a small size.
Henrikw: I look forward to see how this camera performs with the Canon 1.2 in low light. Could it match or even outperform the 5d mkIII in AF speed and iso?
Canon f/1.2 with 5-axis IBIS. Pretty cool.
I think you're applying your own bias to this assessment. Anytime people like yourself reads something that they don't like, they immediately call the reviewer or writer a "fanboy". Haha. This happens in other industries too, not just cameras. If a reviewer or writer writes something positive about a certain aspect of a product, there's always going to be someone like yourself chiming in, "This is not an objective and balanced in my opinion! He's just a fanboy!!!"
Rick Knepper: So, upgrading a camera to the level of its competitors is game-changing? DPR is enamored with the tech but doesn't understand the main concern of photographers: results. So, let's all welcome Sony to the 21st Century.
A lot of DSLRs still suck in low light too.
It's amazing to see how few parts the Sony A7R II is made up of. That definitely must have long-term manufacturing cost benefits.
Considering that DSLRs have taken a couple decades to get to the level of AF performance that they have, it's great to see mirrorless performance evolving so quickly. Sony's FF mirrorless system has been around less than two years. And in that short time, it's definitely brought a lot to the table. Very promising for this system. Looking forward to the next two years!
Suave: So you are telling me that for my regular AF-intensive situation, indoor sports, I should dump 5D3 + 70-200/2.8 (ISO3200+, at least 1/500, f/2.8) in favor of Sony solution, right? Because that's what the title seems to suggest.
Wow, paranoid much? Haha. The title does not suggest you dump your equipment at all. That's simply your insecure mind talking.
Photography is a bit tent. There's plenty of room for all of us. I hate these "purists" who think that photography should only be done in a particular way with a particular type of camera. Likewise, there are a lot of "purists" who would say that even shooting RAW is doing too much post-processing, and that everything about photography should be done in-camera, at the time you press the shutter button, no post-processing allowed (in other words, shooting SOOC JPEG, or shooting slide film if you're a film shooter).
Nice to see that if a camera company makes good products, they can make money.
Jetranger_Pilot: I have never once been in a position where I have wished my 24-70 had VR. LOL Which is why it doesn't have it. It would serve no purpose. This lens is a staple for wedding photographers.
As others have stated, if you need VR on this lens, you have bigger issues.
Because of the magnification of long lenses, VR became an important addition. Some people don't understand that it is not even needed in mid to wide lenses. Even long lenses without VR can be compensated for with proper technique. You want to spend more money for no benefit? There are lots of places waiting to take your money.
The glut of people demanding useless features will keep the manufacturers busy and rich.
Those complaining about the weight of pro lenses - take a course on the importance of light. Then hit the gym, or buy the slow glass made just for people like you. Better still, get a little camera with tiny buttons that will fit in your pocket. Or use your phone. That should be light enough.
If VR is not needed in mid to wide lenses, then why do landscape photographers use tripods even when shooting with wide angle lenses?
I don't care what "proper technique" you use, when shooting at 1/60s or slower, I still like having VR/IS/OSS. The benefits are real. We don't always have the benefit of having rock-solid handholding stability every single time we press the shutter button. That's just reality. Some days are better than others, some moments are better than others. If you're going to use a high-end, expensive lens with expensive optics, it makes sense to have any tool that maximizes stability in order to maximize the image quality that your expensive glass can deliver. After all, that's why controlled lens tests aren't done handheld! Would anyone even trust a lens test that was done handheld? No. It's because handholding isn't always quite as stable or rock-solid as you seem to think it is.