I find the level of cynicism of most of the comments to be simultaneously unsurprising and utterly infuriating.
Nowhere else can you find a group of people who are completely defeatist about a production team taking a photography and film tool that the majority of people have on their person at any given time and making a full-length feature.
I'll gladly argue against the use of a 'real camera'. I'm fed up with footage from 'real cameras' being post-processed into appearing as amateur handheld video. This is the real deal, which lends to the character and authenticity of the movie.
For all the concerns about the footage quality, I can't say that I've read a single review of the film thus far complaining of how the film looks. Your average audience member doesn't care about IQ unless it adds or completely distracts from the story being told. It looks like an interesting movie, which means I'll probably take it over the countless beautifully-shot yet otherwise-garbage films out there.
vesa1tahti: Real photographers don't take videos. So, clearly Gold Award in still photography. Cheers.
'Real photographers don't take videos' is the sentiment of a person who doesn't understand video is photography, just with a faster frame rate and more post-processing work.
Opposite to your claim, pro photographers are increasingly *more* inclined to produce video for their clients:
(This is one among many articles that I've read in the last 6 months alone.)
And, rather than investing in separate cinema equipment, it's probably easier and more financially feasible to expect your DSLR to perform the task - especially with the likes of Panasonic, Samsung, and Sony, proving that 4k in a tiny package isn't difficult.
But, if you insist that photographers don't take videos, I'll be sure to let the people I know who do both for a living that they have to pick one or the other, and not both, just to make you happy. I'm sure they'll want to meet you to extract the money their business lost.
ProfHankD: These look clearly designed for Sony FE bodies, and even the OLED display makes sense for that (the info was digitally available, so I bet this doesn't cost any more than the usual focus/DoF scales). A big step for Zeiss... a giant endorsement for Sony.
Not an opinion, just pointing out that you're pointing out the obvious. (Or just read Eric Hensel's reply, which was aimed at me, but aptly describes yours.)
There's nothing informative about your comment, and this isn't a 'bold move' for Zeiss or Sony. Sony thew Zeiss some money, along with an engineer or two, and told them to hit a certain price point. Zeiss made an optical design, tested a few prototypes, and had their partners in Japan (aka: Cosina) crank out production copies. It's not terribly different than how the 'Zeiss' lenses made by Sony are produced, or how the Touit lenses are produced. (I wouldn't be surprised if the Loxia line was also made in a similar fashion.)
This isn't new territory for Zeiss or Sony at all. You just think it is because they have the Zeiss badge on the side without there also being the name Sony being visible somewhere else.
Peiasdf: Fast prime + IBIS + FF = dream combo for 2015. Wish this tech is available in 2010.
It was available in 2010. Actually, it was available in 2008.
EcoR1: Excellent. It seems that E-mount is becoming very fast the de facto mount for professionals and enthusiasts who wants to have best possible image quality in smallest possible form and with all modern camera- and lens-desing benefits.
Personally I think I'll go for a 25mm lens, it has a very short minimum focusing distance and I can finally give up my 24mm A-mount lens. Also weight is not bad.
I don't know if you've looked at the lens specs closely, but the Batis 85mm f/1.8 is not only larger than Nikon's 85mm f/1.8G (81mm x 92mm, vs 78mm x 73mm), it's also heavier by a good 125 grams (475g vs 350g). If you believe DXO Mark, Nikon's lens is also among the sharpest 85mm full-frame lenses out there that doesn't have the word 'Otus' in its brand name.
As far as E-mount becoming the de facto for anything, there's no evidence at all to support such a claim. Global mirrorless sales are down for the quarter and have been generally flat for the last year, according to CIPA sales figures. If Sony is seeing any gains, it's at the expense of other mirrorless camera manufacturers, and not from people leaving DSLRs for Sony E-mount cameras. (DSLR sales are just way down, and it's because consumers are leaving the market, altogether.)
Essentially, you're making stuff up, and I have no idea what you're prattling on about.
I think a lot of the trepidation towards these lenses comes from 3 areas: Sony-manufactured, Zeiss-branded lenses have been hit or miss in terms of build and optical quality, Zeiss-manufactured lenses (the Loxia and Touit brands) have provided dubious value (the Touit lenses regularly go on sale at steep discounts), & every other system has at least a set of financially accessible lenses (not all are of the utmost quality, for sure, but they're items people can buy without having to sell vital organs for cash).
The fact that people are balking at Zeiss' introduction of another pair of lenses that cost over $1k shouldn't be surprising. If Sony were a consistently top-tier brand, expensive lenses would be an expected side-effect. Instead, they push flawed, unintentionally hobbled cameras with aggressive pricing & expect users to buy often-flawed, expensive lenses to match.
I say this as a Sony/Zeiss owner: Lens prices must come down, or overall product quality must go up.
Your powers of observation are astounding, considering the blurb above mentions that these are FE lenses, and that Zeiss and Sony have been in a partnership since 1996...
Fearless Spiff: It really is a joke. I am more than pi**ed.
...Why? It's a free photo editing app that's going to be included with every Mac. I'm not sure what your expectations were.
BeaverTerror: When Aperture's discontinuation was announced a year ago, certain individuals on theses forums attempted to defend Apple's decision with the old "don't bash something that hasn't even been released".
Now that the Photos App has turned out to be just as much of an abomination as we all predicted, it's time to eat your socks.
There, there, cranky commentator, we all knew Photos wasn't going to replace Aperture. Everyone experiences a bout of denial from time to time.
jhinkey: "All the size/weight advantages of not having a mirror mechanism are negated the second you try to squeeze an IBIS system inside the body."
Hardly. It's still smaller and lighter than the D750.
Who is the editor of these articles?
I would imagine that the author(s) are referring to the fact that the A7II weighs roughly the same as a mid-range DSLR. It's not far off in weight from a D7100, for example. It's not a precise apples-to-apples comparison, in terms of overall specs, but it's something certain customers might concern themselves with.
Thank you, DPR crew, for another excellent write-up. I think the conclusion page properly sums up a number of concerns I have with the A7 series, which has prevented me from investing in the system.
First, I know there's only so much that can be done about shutter noise, but there has to be a way of dampening the focal plane shutter mechanism used. For all the 'flappy mirror' nonsense of mirrorless fanboys, the A7 series has the loudest shutter I've ever heard.
Secondly - and this is only briefly addressed - is the lack of accessible lenses. I speak not so much to the lack of a native line-up, but rather the costliness. You can tell me all day long that the 35mm and 55mm primes are sharp as sharp can be, they're still both $800+, which is inhibitive. Nobody would pay $800 for a 35mm f/2.8 for a DSLR without being laughed at.
Lastly, as is well documented, the raw files. Just... why? I mean, I have my theories, but none of them make practical sense. This just needs fixing.
ecube: I'm highly satisfied with my Samsung Tab.For REAL computing, my MacBookPro has everything I need and more. Best thing with this combo, I don't have to worry about virus and both system are very stable.
My bigger problem with the OP is the insinuation that Android is stable and virus-free. Now *that* is laughable.
Hi, I'm an educated Mac [and Windows, as well as Linux] user. Mac OS generally requires someone with admin access to willfully install software in order to become infected with anything, and the HowToGeek article basically says as much. The people who have done so are, unsurprisingly, a rather narrow spectrum of users, especially now that Apple has the AppStore.
There are few instances where a flaw in the OS lead to any worrisome compromise for the user [e.g.: HeartBleed], but these exploits also affected much larger, public-facing devices which would prove more problematic [in the case of HeartBleed, public servers for Gmail and FaceBook were also compromised].
Statistically, there are much fewer viruses and malware variants for Mac OS. Apple also tends to issue security updates to address exploits far more frequently than Microsoft does. Given the choice of Mac OS X and Windows for my personal systems, I choose Mac every time.
For that much money it needs to be much thinner and it needs to make phone calls. Lollipop 5.0 supports raw. Olympus are behind. Fail.
Hey, I can cobble together random words too!
For that much money, it needs to have an EVF and allow me to remotely control my slow cooker. iOS 8.2 supports photos on the Apple Watch. Olympus makes me sad. Cheeseburgers.
BFHunt: No viewfinder? No deal. I'll stick with my Panasonic LF1 thanks. Plus the LF1 is f2.0 at the wide end, and has a larger sensor. I'm surprised the LF1 hasn't done better in the marketplace as it really has a nice set of specifications, and is very pocketable.
If you're surprised the LF1 hasn't done better, you may want to have a look at sales of compact cameras over the last few years.
Essentially, the LF1 is a merely-competent product lost in a sea of premium compact cameras with better image quality (think RX100) in an overall declining market segment.
I highly expect the SH-2 to deliver mostly the same market performance.
Mssimo: Great camera, but where are the lenses? Nikon DX lens selection: 4 Primes, one f2.8 standard zoom and two wide zooms (all other are kit or super zoom lenses)
This segment will die next year. Full frames are almost hitting the magic $999 mark. Mirrorless have much better native lens selection and innovations.
Nikon has given up on DX, they are just "milking the cash cow till its bone dry" I would not invest in this system.
Papi61: "I'm sure it's also different between your D600 and another FF model with a different sensor... ;)"
I don't think you quite grasp what I mean by 'resolving capability'. There are several factors that come into play when placing a FX lens on a DX camera. Shifts in convergence (the cause of chromatic aberrations), diffraction, and transmission, all have an effect on resolution. Sometimes, these effects are minor when switching between formats, but often there are jarring differences. Even when you control for differences between sensor technology - such as pixel pitch or total resolution - or autofocus, there's a difference because each lens was designed for a specific sensor size.
Glibly stating that FX lenses can be placed on a DX camera, consequence free, is disingenuous. You're essentially ignoring the complex physics of how photography works and, in turn, doling out incorrect information.
"Guess what, you can use all the FF Nikkors you want with DX cameras."
True, however a number of FX lenses behave much differently when attached to a DX camera. I'm not referring to the dreaded 'equivalence' nonsense, but rather the difference in resolving capability. For example, the sharpness characteristic of my 70-300mm lens is different between my D7000 and D600. Same goes for my primes - I have to perform different levels of corrections for each lens depending on the body it's attached to.
Suffice to say, the OP has a point, despite their conclusion being overly dramatic: You would imagine that Nikon, with all of it's DX bodies available, ought to have more lenses optimized for the format. They don't, and that ought to be of concern.
Juck: That slow zoom had better be a hell of a performer for $1000.
Forpetessake: Ljmac is correct. Reason? Physics.
The formulae for determining light-gathering capabilities of a lens says that, all things being equal between sensor technologies (which I know isn't a given, but, for the sake of this argument, it doesn't matter), if two lenses for two different formats have the same FoV, ISO setting, and shutter speed in camera, they will require the same aperture to get the same exposure.
The ONLY thing that changes is DoF.
I've owned/used multiple formats. I have used a light meter. No light meter asks, "What format are you using?" because that's not how physics works. Equivalence is a bull$#!t argument, and it needs to stop.
whyamihere: I know all of the D7100 owners are moaning or just saying 'meh' to this camera, but, for me, this is a reason to upgrade from a D7000.
The deeper buffer essentially solves one of the biggest issues I've had with the D7x00 series. Even when not shooting in continuous burst mode, I found it easy to fill up the buffer on my D7000, and it has a deeper buffer than the D7100 (10 14-bit raw vs only 6). To my irritation, I kept coming up against this limit.
So long as the image quality looks reasonably good at ISO 3200, I'm buying one.
Brownie puts the finger on the issue quite well. Few people require 24MP, and I count myself as being part of the plurality that does not need it. I never had a problem with the AF on the D7000, so the improvements of the D7100 were a non-factor. The lack of OLPF and the somewhat minor improvements in high ISO performance weren't enough to make me pay out for a D7100. The absolutely tiny buffer killed any remaining interest I had.
This D7200, however, is worth a look, in my opinion. The buffer depth is an important factor for me. As I said above, so long as ISO 3200 is clean enough for my tastes (of course, it looked just fine to me on my D7000, so I can only imagine that it looks at least similar, if not somewhat better on a modern camera), I'll buy one. I don't need most of the other improvements, but that buffer depth alleviates one of the few complaints I had of the D7000.
I know all of the D7100 owners are moaning or just saying 'meh' to this camera, but, for me, this is a reason to upgrade from a D7000.