ttran88: No Canon EOS M mount so no good
How many EOS M users are there out in the wild? The system has been a sales dud. So I see no economic incentive for Sigma to bother with the EOS M mount. Besides, the EOS M system has such a poor selection, not to mention such a low usership, that it's kind of pointless to invest the time and money to make an EOS M mount. A "dumb" adapter would require practically no investment, but a smart adapter such as the MC-11 is a bigger investment for Sigma.
Donnie G: It's easy to see how this adaptor will help Sigma sell more of their glass. My question is what will this do to Sony's already anemic lens sales? Or put another way, why would anyone want to buy Sony lenses when they can get full functionality, by way of adapters, with Canon and now Sigma glass? It just seems to me that Sony loses more than it will gain from their "universal" lens compatibility "feature", especially so since lens sales is where the money is made with ILCs. Just saying. :))
I don't know why people seem to think there's only money in lenses, and no money to be made in cameras. It's the "lens sales is where the money is" fallacy. But notice that all the tracking data in the photography industry measures camera sales as the key metric. You never see lens sales stats. The reality is that lens sales are a small portion of overall sales. For example, as a Canon user I've bought one Canon 35/1.4L; I don't need another one. But I've bought six Canon DSLRs (Canon 10D, Rebel XT, 20D, 40D, 60D, 5D). I'm not buying a new Canon 35mm lens from them every other year! Canon has made plenty of profit with every new camera body I've bought from them. Likewise, Sony will too. Sony will be making plenty of money off of their camera bodies. And as "universal" bodies, even more people will be attracted to their camera bodies. And yes, plenty of people will still want to use native Sony lenses without the need for an adapter.
Tieu Ngao: Sigma lenses are on the heavy side. Sony bodies are on the light side. This combination is not balance for my taste.
@Tieu Ngao - a lot of us use large telephotos on our DSLR bodies. Guess what? That's "front heavy"! Even a 70-200/2.8 is "front heavy" on a large pro DSLR with a big grip. What's the solution? Proper hand holding technique.
My first foray into mirrorless cameras was with a tiny Olympus E-PM1, and I used my big Canon FF DSLR lenses on it via an adapter! The reason I liked using the E-PM1 so much was because it had in-body stabilization, which meant that all of my Canon DSLR lenses that I used on it now had stabilization. It really wasn't much of an issue using these larger lenses, because I simply supported the weight of the Canon lenses with my left hand.
Unless you hold your camera/lens combo entirely from the body, I don't see it to be a big issue at all. If you properly support the lens with your left hand (which you are supposed to do), the lens basically becomes weightless from the perspective of the body. Proper handholding technique ensures you can have proper "balance" when using any lens and body combination.
sunilkumar: Somehow 'limited edition' does not sound much meaningful as it used to be in film era. After 3-5 years the digi camera becomes junk.
I am not saying anything against digital but only limited edition so
I don't know why people think "after 3-5 years the digi camera becomes junk". A digital camera can basically last forever, performing as well as the day you bought it, providing you have battery power. I still have a Canon 60D, which was released in August 2010, almost six years ago. It still works excellent, and still produces excellent images. A friend of mine is shooting with a Canon 40D, which was introduced in August 2007. Every day, she's still producing great images with it. The idea that a digital camera "becomes junk" after 3-5 years is pure non-sense coming from people who see cameras as gadgets rather than as photographic tools.
Everlast66: I don't know why, but I find this old Nikon F and Canon F-1 much more nicely engineered.Somehow they look much more clean, solid and passionately designed. Of course to some extent this is due to the actual technology being much simpler.
"much more clean, solid and passionately designed." LOL, talk about ridiculous romanticizing! Yes, they are "more clean" because they barely have anything to them. More "solid"? Maybe yes, maybe no, but there's no way of telling that from these cut-aways. But I think today's cameras, especially pro bodies are more structurally advanced and structurally stronger because manufacturers have had decades to refine these designs. As for being more "passionately designed"...that's extreme romanticizing. With these older cameras, there wasn't much designing needed. They were basically just squarish light-tight boxes. Very few controls, very few ergonomic considerations...just not a whole lot of "design" to do "passionately. In comparison, today's cameras have a huge amount of design considerations required of them.
belle100: Call me ignorance. I know Pentax produced some excellent MF since the film age. But I don't understand what's the fuss. Why is everybody here so excited about this Pentax FF?
Competition is good. And sometimes, competition can bring something new to the table. In the case of Pentax, they've brought IBIS and other pixel-shift/sensor-shift technologies to the FF DSLR world. I don't think Canon or Nikon would have ever done that.
It's strange how the from so many years ago looks more modern than the newly introduced K-1.
T3: That rear LCD articulation looks fantastic. Very innovative. I love it when companies are willing to try something new, and to break from the stodgy, conservative status quo.
@photomedium - apparently, there are some people who still think that the only way to take a photo is from eye level.
I like articulating LCDs, and I like them even better if they can stay in line with the viewfinder (I don't like the kind of LCDs that swing out to the side). The K-1's articulation is a great solution.
That rear LCD articulation looks fantastic. Very innovative. I love it when companies are willing to try something new, and to break from the stodgy, conservative status quo.
Glad to see Sigma continuing to put out great "DN" lenses for Sony E-mount. Good lenses at affordable prices. I hope they introduce an 85 or 90mm.
Favorable Exponynt: Lens stabilisation doesn't stabilize subject movement (It is a portrait lens after all) You are in danger of ending up with stabilized out of focus area's and a fuzzy portrait.
Right, because there's soooo much rapid movement during a portrait shoot! Not. I don't know what kind of portrait shooting you're doing, but most subjects during a portrait shoot are stationary and still. Your subject or model will move between shots, but then they'll pause for a moment, hold the pause or look, then you take your shot.
I would gladly take these lenses over non-stabilized versions. Because the "danger" of fuzzy shots is higher with a non-stabilized lens. These lens will be great for existing light portraiture and wedding reportage. Right now, we typically have to crank the ISO up to ensure a steady shot. With stabilization, it allows you to get away with a lower ISO, and still get steady shots even at very slow shutter speeds.
Paul Petersen: I am not a Canon Shooter but there is a lot of stuff here in a competent package. Don't forget the great DSLR shooting experience of not having to worry about your battery all the time or lag for action shot.This is a compelling package for a lot of folks.
"lag for action shot."
I would actually prefer my Sony A6000 for action shots over an 80D because the A6000 can do 11fps bursts compared to the 80D's 7fps. That's better for capturing that perfect moment of an action sequence. Fast frame rate is so valuable for shooting action. That's why Canon upped the burst rate from 8fps in the 7D to 10fps in the 7D MKII. Because for action, you're not firing off just a single shot and relying on super-human reflexes. These days, action photographers are firing off high fps bursts into deep buffers.
Hey, it could be worse. They could have omitted RAW, like on the XC10.
For the average consumer, an A6300 for $1K is a better buy, not just for the money but also for the portability. I take my A6000 everywhere with me. Back when I was only using Canon DSLRs, I rarely carried them with me unless I was intent on doing some shooting. I think that's the big factor: which camera are you most likely to grab when you're heading out the door. I still have a trusty old Canon 60D (I've owned the 10D, 20D, 40D, and 60D). But I also have an A6000. I have found that 90% of the time, I am choosing the A6000 over the 60D when I go out. Both are capable of taking great pictures. I just like the greater portability, smaller size, and features of the A6000. I no longer see the point of carrying around heavier, bulkier DSLR gear when something like an A6000/63000 does just as well or better, with face/eye detection AF and a WYSIWYG exposure-previewing viewfinder. Will I be buying an 80D? A few years ago, I would have been a loyal, returning Canon DSLR buyer. Not anymore.
CosminMunteanu: I don't know how much can man trust this company. Not so long ago (beginning of 2015) they promissed the K-Pentax to Fuji-X Lens -Turbo II version but until now, no news of it :-/
"Promised" vs delivered, vaporware vs the real thing. Apparently, this Speedmaster is the real thing, not some future promise.
PKDanny: This isn't a FAST prime lens because oh NO AUTOFOCUS!!!!
@Thermidor - "Keep in mind however that this style of focusing isn't for pixel peepers." In other words, it's not very accurate and not very consistent, and that's even with using slower apertures for greater DOF. In my experience, fast manual focus generally means sloppy focus where you're relying on greater DOF to mask your inaccurate focusing.
fmian: This seems to go against the Sony hubris of 'Our lens has to be bigger otherwise we compromise image quality' Re: their 85mm f/1.4 GM lens.
First of all, I think we need true test comparisons of these two lenses before you draw any conclusions. For example, how good is the the Speedmaster in the corners compared to the Sony lens? Secondly, let's not forget that the Sony 85mm/1.4 is A) a much longer focal length than 35mm, and B) has autofocus, not to mention electronically controlled aperture blades, and various other electronics. But hey, let's just ignore all those factors and bang on about "Sony hubris". LOL. You clearly have a chip on your shoulder.
scottcraig: Oh thank you Sony, now I can spend $3300 on a camera just because...
The world is a big place, with people of different levels of income and wealth. I have successful female friends who spend $3300+ for a handbag. I have another friend who collects expensive watches, most of which are more than $5000. There are people in the world who have a lot of money. I was in Dubai recently. Plenty of people there with LOTS of money to spend. A camera such as the RX1R II caters to the many wealthier photo hobbyists in the world. It's not for your average Walmart shopper looking for bargains. And I think that's a smart strategy for Sony. There's not much margin in lower-end compact cameras (that market is basically dead). For camera companies to survive, they need some high end, high margin, premium products to sell. This is one of those products. And there is definitely a market for them, because there are a lot of wealthier people in the world who don't think that $3300 is a lot of money. People need to look at the bigger picture, and get out more.
Dan DeLion: If you don’t like the shortcomings of this camera, wait 12 months for the next version. And wait another 12 months for the improved next version. By that time the reviewed version will sell for $500. Sony needs to spend a lot more time designing and beta testing its cameras so that they get it right the first time.
"Sony needs to spend a lot more time designing and beta testing its cameras so that they get it right the first time."
It's not a case of "getting it right the first time". Just imagine if Canon or Nikon "got it right the first time" with their first DSLR, then just stopped putting out updated models. Same with cars, or smartphones, or tablets, or any other product. Why didn't everyone just "get it right the first time" instead of constantly putting out improved versions of their previous product?!?! Well, it's obviously because companies want new things to sell. Sure, companies could "spend a lot more time designing and beta testing"...you could do that forever. But as Steve Jobs said, real CEO's ship. In other words, at some point you have to stop designing and testing, and simply ship a product so you can sell it...otherwise you have no business. You can't really wait for ultimate, un-improvable perfection.