moizes 2: Do not got you completely, gentlemen. What is the practical reason to compare very good amateurish APS-C camera to the top-on-the-line pro FF gear? 3X of the price? Sorry, but it looks funny... Apples and oranges, you know...
Disagree. With all due respect, but we should compare it to the new Sum, or Sony, or Fuji, or any APS-C else. New Canon 5 is 50MP, and is not better than 810 of any respect, incl. detailing, even is much worse in DR department, than 800/810. It is what I've seen in the lab, after my own test. Old Russian Ljubitel 6X6 was delivering better final 20x30 print than 100x higher of price and resolution Leica. Do not say "NO", please. Apples to apples, oranges to oranges.
Do not got you completely, gentlemen. What is the practical reason to compare very good amateurish APS-C camera to the top-on-the-line pro FF gear? 3X of the price? Sorry, but it looks funny... Apples and oranges, you know...
Somebody, make me sure its DR is on the same, at least, level, as my old D800 already is. This new Sony camera is really great, no critics, but let us wait for the formal test from this very source to clarify.
whyamihere: The most popular complaints appear to be:
"It's heavy and big!" I'm not sure what you were expecting out of a f/2.8 zoom made mostly of metal and glass. It's about the same size and weight as most other f/2.8 APS-C zooms out there.
"If I attach this lens to my Fuji camera, it's no longer the ultimate travel camera!" Unless you lost all of your other lenses, you can still mount them to your camera when you travel.
"It has no IS!" Most zooms of this type don't, either.
"But the Canon and Samsung lenses have IS!" Those lenses also have inconsistent optics. Which is more important to you: IQ or IS?
"It's overpriced!" Except it costs roughly the same as the competition.
I don't own Fuji gear, but, come on, these arguments are pretty weak.
In the light of this discussion there is direct sense to compare 50/1.8 lens on different formats. On D800, D7100, V3. ISO 200, wide open, 1/250, portrait. Result of exposure is absolutely the same (+/- 10% to uneven shatter), with different perspectives and DOF. The main target - face - was illuminated absolutely evenly, across 3 files. About Fiji - have never worked with such the system, so no comments. Just my personal thinking - without OIS this new zoom is a step to the next in-body stabilization camera.
Daniel Lauring: I love that Fuji has had such an aggressive lens release map and the quality of the lenses but the prices are truly "cringeworthy." Typically, they do drop to more reasonable figures in a year or two.
24-120/4 lens for FF will acting like 36-180/4 lens on APS-C sensor. 24-105/4 lens - as 36 - 157/4. 24-120/4 lens is average quality glass on 36 MP sensor, acceptable, but nothing spectacular. Looks like some have never seen any camera/lens combo.
Kurt_K: Overpriced, I would say, given the lack of stabilization.
brendon1000 - out of questions. Have never seen any practical degradation from my Nik 16-35. I could admit that there is some microscopically visible changes to file with VR to the file from tripod, but needs to be magnified to 300% to notice, what is not life reality. Only future in-body stabilization may explain such move.
HFLM - to follow your logic the same lens will be 2.8 on APS-c, 1,6 on 1", and 0.95 on 1/7 sensor, while on FF it is 4.2! So why my 24-70 is 2.8 on FF and acting absolutely the SAME as 2.8 lens on V3? Sorry but your math looks like scholastic - 2.8 lens will be the same on ANY format, with different DOF, if one wants the same angle of view on different format cameras, using the same lens, of course. Stop misleading people with your only wrong math. Looks like you are not a practical photographer.
Nerd2, it IS 2.8 lens on every format. You are wrong but insisting on it. Can you understand very simple thing - f2.8 on this lens is not changing on any format, but THEORETHICAL DOF only, coze on bigger format, with greater angle of view, the lens shows greater DOF! Stop misleading people.
jdh99: In my opinion there are some people posting who are looking at this lens in the wrong way. There seems to be people who don't feel this is really an f2.8 lens compared to say the canon and Nikon 24-70 f2.8 lenses and that somehow Fuji are inferior to Canon and Nikon/Sony because of the weight of this lens. If we take that same argument why aren't these people complaining about Canon/Nikon full frame lenses in terms of subject isolation/weight compared to say the equivalent focal length medium format lenses...its the same pointless argument.Make no mistake this is an f2.8 lens!Yes in terms of subject isolation it will behave slightly differently to a 24-70 f2.8 full frame lens...The best way to look at it is that it will behave the same as a full frame 16-55mm f2.8 lens!
It is still 2.8 lens for FF. 4.2 is for theoretical DOF only. Come on, guys, for lens sake...
Sure you have your own point. Why not? But don't sound like a very last truth. Everyone from dozens of thousand pros has his/hers own point of view, as relevant as your one is. Have you worked with every CanSam lens to say it is inconsistent? I am not, Nikonian am, so am not able to say anything about, even with my 55 years in pro photography. Sorry, but your post looks just funny.
Tamron has... Does Fuji mean future in-body stabilization?
Scotts Photographs: The reason jpeg alternatives have such a rough time, IMHO, is that the majority of casual camera buyers (even those who buy DSLRs) and smartphone owners understand and like jpeg. They're happy with it... it does the job well enough. You can chatter at them all day long about lossless compression and bit depth and they just don't care. They can't tell the difference between a jpeg and another file format, just as most people can't tell the difference between 100/200/300 dpi prints. So, kudos to the programmer for developing something superior, but good luck getting it adopted as a replacement to the very popular, non-threatening, familiar jpeg, which is part of a whole universe of devices and software dedicated to it.
Correct. Dozens of million devices are based on JPEG. So each and every of them (or your comp, at least) will need a new converter to replace JPEG to the new format. So I doubt that new converter will be for free.
Yessss! That is what I am staying about! If the hood is covered with gold inside out, I am first in the line to take it! Even my Hassy Solara with extra-expensive wooden grip means nothing today! So do not call my friends from Brikk IDIOTS! They are not! They are a little bit a...a... off mainstream.
gmke: The previous batch of "serious" bridge cameras had 5/8 to 2/3 inch sensors (1:1.7 or 1:1.6). A few of them also had fast lenses, f1.8 to f2.5 on the Zuiko-baked versions, for example; so the fast lens to mitigate the not-so-great ISO performance was a welcome sop. These 1 inch sensors are about a stop and a half better at the sensor level, so they fit right between 4/3 and 2/3. What a surprise! What makes sense for the FZ1000 and the RX10 is the long reach of the zoom lens WITHOUT the f-stop fall-off typical of DSLR and ILC long reach zooms. At the short end, these cameras are out gunned by the DSLR and ILC sensor/lens combinations. At the long end, you can expect it to be the other way around because there are NO affordable long zooms with f4.0 at the long end.
Not bad but far from FZ200 Leica-made zoom. 25-600/2.8 lens is razor sharp thru the zoom at any F-stop. FZ200 is 2012 year model, still the best in its class.
Wolfgang Fieger: Amazing little camera! Full respect! If anything left now, Sony could maybe release a RX100s with 10 MP ;-)And another one:On the front right side I see some appropriate room for a dedicated AEL button, just somewhere next to the lens where one could easily engage it with the index finger.
forpetessake: Before people start cheering and celebrating, they need to understand that Sony (just like other manufacturers) mislead the ignorant public providing equivalent FLs and conveniently forgetting to convert the f-stops to FF as well. So they would advertise RX-10 lens as 24-200mm f/2.8 equivalent, while it's 24-200mm f/7.6 equivalent. Same with these lens designs, they provide an equivalent FL and 'forget' to provide an equivalent f-stop. If you look at the actual equivalent numbers, like the first design is 26-112mm f/5.1-9.0 you'll be a lot less jubilant. The lenses are quite dim, no faster than they were in the compact 35mm film cameras of yesteryear.
To Forpetessake. Do not be so warrior. You are wrong completely. Try to learn first, then post, try not look funny.
Mario G: A backpack called "HardDrive"? What a stupid name.
Why not? It is collecting everything, you may put a lot of things inside. Smart move with the name, I believe.
Just a Photographer: Too bad these 'real world' samples were made by a bad photographer.With these pictures shown you can't judge the camera - what a missed chance.
That is what I am telling post-to-post, test-to-test. World and life important first presentation for manufacturer, just spoiled by using wrong lens and bad objects. Some images are blur, can one imagine that?
Nathaniel George Weir: Why does everyone complain complain complain complain in the comments at DPreview? Seriously this is free information for all of us. If you don’t like how they present the article then just move on about your life. I honestly value the comments section in DPreview, but part of the reason I haven't been coming to DPreview is because I’ve become sick of all of the negative comments and feedback from people who have nothing else better to do or say. I understand that DPreview moderators listen to the people in the comments section. But please people:“If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say it at all"
To Nathaniel - completely wrong what you are just posted. With all my due respect to DPR sometime they posted the things I may described with one word only - ignorance. Sample - new camera test with worse garbage lens ever possible. I do not want to say the goal was to put that camera to dust, it will be stupid, it was not - simply overlooking by testers. But such the things can't have it place on pages of word important review, especially by DPR. So on and on, but I really like this site for its, mostly top pro reviews, otherwise I will be silent. So critics just helping this nice net source to grow!