Yeah, so A-mount is still alive... not! They could have easily made that lens work on A-mount as well with matching/dedicated adapter for E-mount (a telephoto lens has no need whatsoever for a short registration distance, it brings no technical benefits) but no, they had to make it E-mount. So Alpha-DSLR/DSLT users brace, your system is on the chopping block...
samfan: When I was picking my DSLR brand in 2006, I chose Nikon over Canon. One of the reason was that Nikons always perfectly worked with 3rd party lenses, unlike Canon which used to have constant focusing problems with Sigma lenses.
And for years I've been using 3rd party lenses without problem, happy with picking Nikon.
Today? Screw Nikon. Most my favorite lenses are Sigmas. Honestly I'll rather switch to the Sigma SD1 than buy another Nikon DSLR and not be able to use lenses such as 50-150/2.8, 30/1.4 or 8-16mm. Especially since Nikon completely dumps on DX users and doesn't provide any alternative to these.
I also bought a V1 since there's nothing else like it but it's gonna be a cold day in hell when I buy a FT1 only for overpriced Nikon lenses.
Well you chose the system for all the wrong reasons... It wasn't Canon who did something wrong, it was Sigmas fault back then and it again is Sigmas fault today because they chose not to license the respective specifications but rather reverse engineer them, which is going to be prone to omissions due to as of yet unused but well specified features within the internal standard of cameras and lenses of the OEM...
Hadarmil: Frankly, I'd give up some mm on both ends if they could make a faster super tele zoom. Oh, and keep it for crop sensors. We still don't have fast super telezooms for crop which would probably make them cheaper and lighter.Maybe Sigma will understand the market hole(as they occasionally do) and act to fill it. Right now I doubt the Tamron will be as good and cost effective to become a serious success for serious photogs. feels more in line like the old tactics of shoving larger unusable focal lengths to catch press attention. 200-500 f/4 sounds a little better even if you can't upgrade with it to FF.
Heck, why doesn't anyone make a crop fast prime? A sharp 2.8 300 for crop will get my money and probably a lot of others'.
Rant rant rant. Sure do hope I'm wrong.
At the long end the lens speed dominates the size of the lens - from about 100mm onwards the image circle is so big that it can more than cover a full frame sensor. For a smaller sensor you would need to add additional internal baffling to reduce stray light entering the mirror chamber of the camera.Telephoto lenses neither get cheaper nor do they get lighter for crop sensors!
Why not make it f/5.6 at the long end, then at least all focusing systems would be within their working range! At f/6.3 nobody should buy this lens as it will not focus reliably on all but the top of the line DSLR...
Why didn't you test the focusing performance in a more relevant scenario - where you use a tele zoom lens of 200 or 300mm length and not those piddly wide angle lenses? A big fail to put the finger on the sore wound that is focusing performance of this camera when challenged!
InTheMist: I don't want my images to look accurate, I want them to look awesome.
Look, I'm a Nikon shooter, but I do find the Canon images very appealing. Who cares how scientifically accurate it is it is as long as it looks great?
Edit: As an engineer in test and measurement, I don't can't seriously fault DxO on a methodology front. Frankly, I think DxO has the most believable method.
@dual12, blooming has been a thing of the past - the last camera to really suffer from that phenomenon was the Nikon D70 and to a lesser extent the Nikon D50. Since then blooming hasn't been an issue on any brand! So you are talking plain rubbish!
Eleson: " Of course, in return the 70D gains the most sophisticated live view AF system available on any SLR." ????It got beaten by the a-77, and in my view, it deliveres better live view AF than 70D.
What is the rationale behind the statement above??
@Eleson, the A77 video autofocus is useless for video if you want to use your lens at anything else but f/3.5 or wide open, whichever of the two are worse! So want to shoot at f/10 - no autofocus. Want to shoot at f/1.8 with your fast lens - no autofocus!
Abbas Rafey: I have never seen DXO saying any good about canonIs it that badOr it is advertising for Sony sensors only.I used both Nikon, canon and sigma I can shoot with a,l the cameras without any noticeable difference only you need to know your camera and how tweak with it.
the only thing I have moved to canon is there superior focusing system.
No matter what is your sensor it is worthless if it cannot focus it fast.
@chj, then you heard wrong!
JM McInnes: Sasha B suggests that "Mirrors in camera are like cathode ray tubes in TVs, a real technological dinosaurs".When image sensors achieve the same dynamic range as the human eye that may become true. For the moment, if you want an optical TTL viewfinder, you need a mirror. It may be a dinosaur, but the meteor hasn't hit Chicxulub yet.
@T3, negative films had about 8, with careful pummeling 10 EV dynamic range, well below what current sensors can capture... The problem is even the best EVF's only show about 5EV!
Their measurements are so badly screwed - the 100mm f/2 USM lens better than the 100mm f/2.8L IS USM - there is something fishy going on here, and it stinks mighty badly! I can only see one reason in their published data: They seem to take all aperture settings into account which a lens offers - and at f/22 (the maximum the 100mm f/2 can close it's aperture to) the diffraction of the sensor isn't as bad as on the 100mm f/2.8L IS USM where the lens can close to f/32. So these guys basically are morons who have no clue what they do and should be barred from further producing this overload of measurement garbage! Please DPreview - do yourself a favor and drop them from your portfolio of partners, you're better off without them!
Spectro: the image to the left looks like a canon, the one to the right looks like a nikon...oop wrong topic.
I am all for getting the highest DR like film. We can add contrast to and saturation if we wanted in post production. Just give us the most raw data possible. Engineers keep it up. Rambus is those guys that I remember suing other memory makers on ram.
Film has less DR than current sensors!
The problem is the newly granted right to sublicense without compensation to you. You (dpreview that is) should compare the license agreements again, the previous rights are necessary to operate a service like Instagram, the new ones go far beyond what is necessary. If I were a DPreview regular previously using Instagram I'd scramble to pull all my content of their site. Fast!
I can't wait for the day when the wretched, unstable and misleading WISIWIG mode get's binned. The voting war malarchy doesn't help either and the lack of ability to contact the moderators and the lack of feedback from them doesn't make the situation any better! Please return sanity to the forum by binning the whole mess!
Karl Gnter Wnsch: DNG is a seriously flawed concept - to try to press several hardware dependant formats like the different RAW file formats into a common mould is a complete misconception. It was always lossy (even when it wasn't meant to be) and with every evolution step it got closer to the encompassed RAW formats - thus replacing several disjunct, well specified standards with a absolutely messy jumble of parts that DNG has become over time.
@Henry M. Hertz,try to read the specification with regard to black level storage and evaluation. The first evolution steps mandated the removal of the covered rows of the sensor data an replacing them with a single calculated black level value. So converting your files to DNG would have lost you the status data about the column variances - leading to excessive banding which you only could tackle with stronger noise reduction instead of the proper solution of using the covered sensor cells as reference. It now may contain this data but previously it didn't - if you converted the DNG with the old converter you have botched your RAW files.
dbateman: This is good. I do hope more cameras come with DNG. I only know of Pentax now that has DNG. It would be great if all cameras had the choice of DNG. Then you don't have to upgrade your adobe software so often :)
DNG is one unholy mess of things - it has no place whatsoever in a camera!
DNG is a seriously flawed concept - to try to press several hardware dependant formats like the different RAW file formats into a common mould is a complete misconception. It was always lossy (even when it wasn't meant to be) and with every evolution step it got closer to the encompassed RAW formats - thus replacing several disjunct, well specified standards with a absolutely messy jumble of parts that DNG has become over time.
Jogger: How about DXO sensor measurements as well.. e.g. instead of factory default jpgs for testing dynamic range.
@Simon, sorry to hear that you are selling out. DPreview previously was the benchmark for independent reviews. By tying in with the DxO lot I feel that the independence is lost - because DxO Tests are nothing more than a marketing vehicle for their software products. I have yet to see a single test by them that is not marred by extensive and exhaustive procedural mistakes and flaws that make them complete and utterly irrelevant for real life photography.
For what it's worth - I wouldn't bother with DxO results, their testing procedures are so far off any reality that these values serve no one - as often as they contradict reality they should really refrain from publishing anything. Anyone trusting their data is IMHO up a creek without a paddle...
GPW: All of Manfrotto equipment is overpriced. I am in the process of replacing my Manfrotto tripod, monopod and heads with the much better and cheaper Induro brand. I own the Induro AT413 tripod and it kicks Manfrottos butt in terms of build,stability and price.
@GPW, I agree. I tossed my Manfrotto gear into the metal recycling bin because I couldn't bring myself to lie enough to be able to resell it. So I took quite a hefty loss but switching to a combination of Novoflex, Feisol and Berlebach tripods and heads did make a heck of a difference. Recent Manfrotto products not only are too expensive, in parts they are far worse than previous models. IMHO the reason for their products to go backwards is to protect the premium brand in their parent company lineup - Gitzo...
The fixed length of the legs make setting up that wannabee tripod (it's none by my book) impossible on terrain that's not perfectly flat. Even the slightest angle of the ground would make me fear for the stability of the rig... Why do you give this a rating of 4 stars when really it deserves one at maximum? Because as far as tripods are concerned you're probably better off without - at least then you won't have to deal with the rig toppling and destroying your gear in the process...