Video: Hands-on with Sony's G Master lenses and the a6300 at CP+ 2016

It appears Sony GM lenses surpass the Zeiss Batis lenses. That cost money. I'm willing to pay.

Well they should not of had a conference in Iceland then introducing an unfinished product. The camera did NOT focus on what I told it to, it focused on the background instead of the person the center point was pointed at.

And to be honest? people walked out of the conference and I didnt even test more than one lens because I was just annoyed at all the crap they did, it was basicly a 2 hour advertisement then a 5 minute video that repeated everything they said but compressed it into 5 minutes. And we just got 30 mins of testing for about 40 people. 2 full frames, 2 crops and 3 compacts.

You're being beta testers. Now that they learned about the issue they are going to fix it.
Sony is working hard on giving new lenses to users, firmware bugs are absolutely common in all the newly released products.
I'm not justifying them, I'm just being positive. :-)

Cant exactly call us beta testers when we got 1 minute at best with a camera because it was overcrowded and people blocking each other. I wanted to like they're cameras and thought I might switch, but instead I just left frustrated and pi**ed off as I felt my time was completely wasted by they're 2 hour talk about 3 lenses and 1 camera (yup thats ALL they talked about for 2 HOURS)

I'm sorry for your bad experience.
But I think that a software flaw in the product should be considered differently from a s*itty presentation. ;-)
Sony's marketing is not good at all lately. Products are.

Whatever those women get paid, it's not enough. The perv element among the photo crowd is just something that's always bugged me. It gives landscape photographers, architectural photographers, pet photographers, and others a bad name.

To above concerns... yes it was video overheating. 4K commercial for manufacturing company. Cameras went bonkers hot for interview footage. Not good to constantly swap cameras out in front of business owners.

I left the VG Battery Grip on tripod, and swapped bodies from there. So the battery wasn't ever even inside the cameras. LCD was pulled out for theoretically better ventilation... but not. Camera was controlled by USB remote, so even my hands couldn't affect it. All tripod work. Touching/removing the camera was extremely hot.

I would have gladly shot this without issue on a99. But client insisted 4K and Sony doesn't provide for their AMount loyalists.

Lens used was 18-200PZ, which is awesome. Much better than the 18-105/4. Point to note that I was in APS-C mode for entire shoot.

@Clyde
I'd be curious too.
Are you on the latest firmware?
BC

my film era lenses work quite well on my digital camera. i have 16 of them and none is younger than 15 years.

and digital cameras benefit greatly from a mirror. my d800 is a joy to shoot. quick, responsive, everything happens instantly. not so on the a7s2 i rented over the weekend with a nice lens marred by that dreadfull focus by wire. it´s a beefed up point and shoot from how it operates. horrible body ergonomics as well. small, but hard to reach buttons all over the place. and don´t get me started on the battery. please, where is the benefit of size reduction? i can´t see it!

Shot on what camera out of interest?

Saying "They got paid, and nobody put a gun to their head" Doesn't change the fact that it's just another way for men to put women in their place.

Think if there were another camera like leica m9, with the small optics.. yet someone would find a way to make it electronic / AF, but still keep it small like the original m9 .. I see much more value in a FF that would truly be size of mft body + lens .. and of course without costing a fortune like the leica does

@TrojMacReady - because there are no APS-C lenses of similar quality (i.e. L lenses) from Canon, doh!

You're comparing different real focal lengths now, see my earlier point there. A 70-200 keeps the same real focal length on both FF and APS-C. Like I said they may provide different FOV's, but they still serve both formats, since for the FOV and apertures offered, there's practically nothing to gain when designing for a smaller sensor alone with longer focal lengths. Hence why those actively designing for both formats, never bothered with long APS-C only lenses.

Lenses similar to the Olympus 75-300 in size while covering a FF circle are the Nikon 70-300, Canon 75-300 (both able to resolve more, faster transmission, similar distortion and similar or less vignetting still on APS-C according to DXOmark) and the Sony 75-300 for example.

"Taking it a step further, the smallest current µ4/3 75-300 (Olympus) lens is similar in size (difference between 1 to 5 mm) and weight (within 30 grams) compared to the smallest FF 75-300mm lens, even though he latter has slightly faster apertures and covers an image format that is 4 times larger in size." I thought you were the one who wanted to compare them, or did I understand it wrong? 75-300 olympus is smaller than tamron 70-300 usd vc is what I tried to prove

And no, a 70-200 lens on a aps-c is not identical or same on a aps-c, and yew aperture matters too. The compression of the background and the tele perspective (the flattering effect of the tele lenses, tele distortion) becomes different, due to different camera to subject distance with aps-c. On aps-c, such lens also has less background blur. http://howmuchblur.com/#compare-1x-200mm-f2.8-and-1.5x-200mm-f2.8-and-1.5x-150mm-f2.8-and-1.5x-150mm-f2-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject

"there's practically nothing to gain when designing for a smaller sensor alone with longer focal lengths. " But that's not entirely true? It's possible to design lenses that are smaller, the nikon macro dx lenses and the 35 dx is good example. Only reason canikon isn't doing it is because they don't want people stuck in DX system too long, their endgame is to get as many users to their FF system as possible.

I don't understand what this true focal length thing you're talking about is. Yes the olympus 75-300 is a 75-300 lens, but it acts as a small 150-600 equiv lens that the canikon or any other manufacturer hasn't provided. Take example the latest olympus 300 f4. Would it be possible for canikon make a 600 f8? Maybe. Will they? Absolutely not.

It's possible to design good or good enough lenses, keeping the optics small. It's possible with FF too, but smaller image circle doesn't hurt? I know Nikon 50 1.4 and 35mm 1.8 DX are "good enough", whilst a sigma's 50 1.4 art is overkill.

"I thought you were the one who wanted to compare them, or did I understand it wrong? "
Yes and I gave 3 examples that are in the same ballpark, size wise, while covering formats up to 4 times larger. My comment regarding comparing different real focal lengths, was aimed at your "nikon aps-c 55-200 " example. You still seem to be confusing FOV with the subject at hand: real focal length.

The original premise was that these lenses are needlessly large for APS-C cameras. My point is that tele lenses of such REAL focal lengths, wouldn't be smaller if they had thrown FF coverage out of the window. Yes, of course FOV is different, yes, of course that results in different compression, etc etc. That's all completely besides the point. They serve different holes in the FF and APS-C lineups, but those are functional positions nonetheless. If you want 85mm portrait lens for APS-C, covering the equiv of around 130mm on FF, these aren't needlessly large, FF coverage or not.

"But that's not entirely true? It's possible to design lenses that are smaller, the nikon macro dx lenses and the 35 dx is good example. Only reason canikon isn't doing it is because they don't want people stuck in DX system too long, their endgame is to get as many users to their FF system as possible."

I seem to be talking to a wall here, but I already said that it makes a difference for short focal lengths, such as the one you mention but I also said several times, that this was about longer focal lengths (mostly 70mm+).

Equivalents change nothing about the fact that lenses can serve a purpose on each format, even if the framing and everything changes. Thus 1 lens design, 1 true focal length, can fill different(!) holes in both APS-C and FF lens lineups, without being compromised (such as needlessly large) by the fact that it covers a larger image circle too. Anyone seeing an automatic contradiction there, is following a fallacy.

I think I'm missing the point here. I say aps-c lenses are needlessly large, when I look at the 50-150 sigma f2.8, or the fuji primes, which are very close to FF sigma art lenses in terms of size and weight. I can sort of understand what a 18-35 f1.8 might be going for, but at same time I don't understand why there's no more of the 1.8 sort of small primes for aps-c. The 35mm prime for nikon and couple of macro lenses are the only small primes for nikon, and there's no real 400 or 600 equiv either.

I don't understand what's the point of looking "true focal lengths" other than comparing the sizes, because for the equiv fl is the one that the lens is being purchased for, be it mf, aps-c or mft. You say real focal lengths aren't smaller, but the 100-400 panasonic is both smaller and lighter than either the canon or nikon counterparts. 45 1.8 is also smaller than 50 1.8 .

I think leica with m9 + its lenses has shown it's possible to make even small FF lenses, just that today most of the manufacturers don't embrace it / don't see the value on doing so. I look at canikon 1.8 primes, they're indeed smaller than sigma's or tamron's newer lenses, some smaller than "premium" canikon primes, because different design. It's when we start going for wide open sharpness that things become heavy.

Yet for some reason, they've not tried to make these consumer primes smaller, by making aps-c versions of them. The 35mm dx prime is actually pretty good, and it's sad to see there aren't more lenses of the same ideology for the aps-c. I'm sure if canikon saw value in making small birder lenses, they could make a smaller 100-400 for aps-c. They don't want to.

My interpretation of the A6300 is that it's a tool. They've done very little to make it appealing to a single-body amateur. However as a working professional who wants a second body that generally gets the job done and can merge into their A7SII/A7RII workflow, it will do fantastically.

Hence the pairing it with the FE lenses.

But also the marketing people probably wanted to shoe-horn their products together to make the most efficient use of product exposure.

Wouldn't over-think it to be honest.

Yes, actually, they look bigger than the equivalent Canikon. That cheering you hear in the background is Canikon using this vid to market their own products. Size weight advantage to mirrorless? Doesn't look like it on FF, apples to apples comparison. Check this out:
http://camerasize.com/compact/#312.286,624.515,ha,t

@Malikknows: It's slightly longer, yes, but as a kit it remains over 200g lighter than the 5DIII despite being stabilized in-body and producing images with twice the megapixel count on a back-lit sensor with live readout to two high-res screens. Not saying the Canon doesn't have its own advantages, just that there's a lot of other perks to shooting mirrorless than just the size and weight.

I don't disagree with any of that, Anders. Just making the point that after all this time we finally have Sony lenses that we can compare directly and that size/weight advantage for mirrorless looks moot. BTW, I'll trade you that 200g for 3x the battery life. Horses for courses....

Rumors are Sony and Zeiss are having a divorce. Hence the GM line from Sony and the Batis and Loxia line from Zeiss. Who's cheating on who?

mick232:The other 5 have been sold already.
You mean to those DPR readers who pressed I own it or I had it buttons.

I've asked people at Sony, other lenses are coming. It's just a delay of deadline. We will see them probably during 2016.
Zeiss lenses aren't included in Sony's roadmap.