GaryW

Not really -- in real life, you can see people smirking or using a mocking tone in their voice.  So, putting a winking-smiley is the long-standing internet substitute.

The 10-18 has a pretty good rep.  Considering the difficulty in getting "perfect" results out of wide-angle lenses, I'm not so sure I'd be too negative on that one.  However, the 16-70 is a ...

Almost by definition, they were designed to a specification that you find disappointing.  So, yes.  :-) My expectations are that kit lenses are not as good as more expensive lenses, and zooms are ...

The first pic kinda looks like a bad memory card, but could be a failing sensor, I suppose. Like someone else said, swap out the SD  card first and see if that's it, since that's the cheapest, ...

What if you could use an adapter and still have PDAF and Canikon lenses but using a Sony camera?  Of course, there's that up-front cost with getting an adapter...

It's worth considering.  It seems to bother some people, and others not so much. I will say that I would object to complaining about the 18-105's power zoom until you've tried it.  It feels very ...

You can see a bit more detail out of the 35 shots, but you have to look at 100% details to see it.  You  wouldn't be able to see differences unless you printed large or maybe cropped a lot.   But, ...

Please post your results.  I would expect them to be similar in image quality.  Where I think you'll have to make up your mind are the other, more secondary, features -- AF, pancake size, etc.  If ...

True.  I think this is one of the hardest things to figure out, though.  When is it simply "good enough" (for the intended purpose)? I find that the bar has been raised so high with my Nex-6 that I ...

OK, that's better, but it still seems to be lacking a bit in detail and color.  But the weird cross-hatch is gone, at least.  I don't think a lot of RAW processors handle Xtrans well, from what ...

Well, this photo has been down-sized -- it is not the original resolution, so I don't see how this can be used to determine lens sharpness.  Most of it is OOF anyway, due to DOF.

It's the lens everyone loves to hate!  Now that the 16mm doesn't seem to be around anymore.... Certainly for things like CA, but the barrel distortion of the 18-55 at wide angles is kind of a ...

It's also one of those "diminishing returns" scenarios, where you pay twice as much for something "better" but it's not twice-better.

For backpacking, I would tend to want to pack light, but the OSS in the 18-105 really impresses me.  It's great for video, IMHO.  Distortion correction is not perfect would be the only negative I ...

Holy cow. Loss of color, less detail, and the noise pattern is kind of in a cross-hatch pattern. I say this purely as a Sony fanboy, that I'll keep my Sony. ;-) Seriously, though, the Sony 18-55 is ...

Yeah, the lens improves greatly by f5.6, but yeah, I'd re-take this shot. Probably.  I say, re-do.

Sounds like you have a ton of wonderful subjects, but it's just different than what you used to.  While I like to dabble in  different areas of photography, I can understand where some prefer one ...

My question isn't usually which camera, but which lens? Some trips, you're probably not going to be photographing wildlife, so why take a long lens?  Sometimes I want to pack really light.

I've had multiple P&S cameras over the years.  I'm not sure that they are much better these days, at least not enough for $550.  The last P&S we had (we have since given away) had a decent zoom, ...

But I already have a phone and would have to buy a P&S.  It'd have to be a lot better to be worth $550 more. Maybe, although I seem to get decent results from it.  It has low-light limitations just ...