Sony a77 II camera now shipping, tested at DxOMark

Sony-a77-II-camera Sony-a77II-camera
Sony-a77-II-camera-front Sony-a77-II
The Sony a77 II camera that was announced few weeks ago is now shipping in the EU - the first units already arrived at Foto Hans Keuzekamp in the Netherlands. The camera is expected to start shipping in the US on June 10th. Today DxOMark released their a7II test results - the overall score is better than the Pentax K-3 but not as good as the Nikon D7100:

Sony a77 II DxOMark test review
DxoMark's conclusion on the Sony a7II:

Although Sony is likely to be criticized for removing the GPS function, in just about every other detail the A77 II looks like an attractive update. The slight gains in sensor performance over its predecessor are welcome and place the A77 II on a level with rivals. Whether it’s enough to counter as yet unannounced models from Nikon and Canon, however, only time will tell.

This entry was posted in Sony and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Kynikos

    So many bodies… so many mounts… so few lenses.

    • Kenko

      For some people quality means more than quantity. How many Zeiss-lenses with autofocus have come out from Canikon?

      • TinusVerdino

        Quality is not an issue for canonikon. The best Zeiss lenses are MF anyway and are made for Canonikon.

      • Duarte Castelo Branco

        None, but the yellow ringed nikkors and L lenses are at least as good as anything that Sony can offer

        • DStudio

          Apparently someone hasn’t used the Sony Zeiss lenses. Rather it’s the Canons and Nikkors that are “almost” as good.

          • The ZA 24/2 isn’t better than the 24/1.4s from C and N, which is a problem because it’s a stop slower and they still couldn’t make it optically better like the ZF/ZE 25/2 which is also exclusive to C and N.

            The ZA 50/1.4… the only direct competitors exclusive to C and N are the Otus 55 and 50 MP. Yes they’re manual focus but if AF matters there’s also the Sigma 50 A. Definitely not a win for A-mount.

            ZA 85/1.4 is no match for the 85/1.2L II… not many are, except likely the upcoming Otus 85, which is also exclusive to C and N.

            ZA 135/1.8… nice lens but not a great deal different to Canon’s 135/2L. The 135/1.8 shows aberrations wide open which makes it suitable only for portraits and then its MTF sharpness becomes meaningless. The ZF/ZE 135/2 APO is definitely the better lens in this range… again on C and N.

            Oops… ran out of ZA lens options. (No one serious cares about the zooms of either side) so let’s talk about what Sony doesn’t have a real alternative for…

            14/2.8L II, TS-E 17/4L, 24/1.4L II, TS-E 24/3.5L II, 35/1.4L, TS-E 45/2.8, 50/1.2L, 85/1.2L II, TS-E 90/2.8, 100/2.8L IS Macro, 180/3.5L Macro, 200/2L IS, 400/2.8L IS II, 400/4 DO IS, 600/4L IS II, 800/5.6L IS.

            That’s just the current high end primes from Canon. Not even Minolta had lenses to compare. And serious systems have tilt shift lenses. A-mount is far from it because its users don’t even know what they’re missing.

          • bas076

            Yes 24/2ZA is not better then C/N 24/1.4 but noticeably cheaper.

            50/1.4ZA have not competitors on C/N. Otus is not in that price level. Sigma Art is the competitor but it will be produced also for A-mount.

            I had a possibility to take a look on 85/1.2 II L. Good lens but not better then Minolta 85/1.4 G(D) in term of boke(until 1.4 of cause) and ZA have better resolution.

            138/1.8 ZA have biger XA and 135/2 L have faster AF but this is all. In all other terms ZA better opticaly. 135/2 APO is the resolution mashine but lack of AF and pure support of manual focusing in C/N making it less attractive.

            And? Then out of options? … Nooot really.

            100/2.8 L macro? Sony/Minolta 100/2.8 and new Sigma 105/2.8 OS also for A-Mount. 180/3.5L Macro, Nikkor 200/4? Here it is – Minolta 200/4 G Telemacro APO. I am own one. 400/4 DO? Not best performer but price!!! The alternative is definitly Minolta 400/4.5 G APO. I own one. Half of price 400/4 DO. 50/1.2 L? Already done the comparation on 50/1.4ZA untill 1.4 making from L greek salad in term of optical performance. 600mm? Ok. There is Minolta 600/4 G APO. L is clearly better performer but ones more… Price!!!

            So whats left? TS? Yes here there is a real lack.
            Only Samyang 24/3.5 TS have native A-mount.

            About 14mm. In price difference 14/2.8 from Samyang definitly better choce then 14/2.8L
            And 200/2, 400/2.8, 800/5.6, 200-400 and so on…So few even advanced fotographers using lenses of that price range that the percantage of its lack influence negligible.

            There is no real problem of lenses lack on A-mount. It is only virtual problem existing only in charts and blogs of some very specific techno-fetishists

          • If you’re bringing price also in to a comparison then we might as well end this saying there’s no clear winner.

            What makes you think the 85 1.2L II is not as sharp as the ZA? It’s a moot point, regardless because for the intended use, you’re not going to see a difference in sharpness. However, you will likely see a difference in the shallow DOF. There’s around a dozen 85/1.4 lenses separated by sharpness that’s not visible in real life and bokeh that’s subjective. But there’s only one current 85/1.2.

            I was comparing to current options from Sony. The 400/4.5 is longer and is as heavy as the 400/4 DO IS.

            You can’t also bring Samyang and other third parties in to the comparison unless they make the lenses only for Sony A-mount.

            TS is not about techno-fetishism… it’s about knowing photography technique.

            I do agree that for a lot of people the A-mount choices right now would be more than adequate. But it’s wrong to say that C and N are “almost as good”… that’s where this whole thing started 🙂

          • DStudio

            As I mentioned, Kenko and I were referring to the AF (Sony Zeiss) lenses, which is pertinent because you need a body like the a77 II to take advantage of them.

            The 135/1.8 is one of the best AF lenses you can buy in any FL. The 85/1.4 is close to it, and betters Canon and Nikon’s options. The 16-35/2.8 is better than Canon’s. And even the 24/2 is better than the Nikon and Canon’s 24/1.4s. I’ve used all but the 24 and have seen for myself. But you can refer to Photozone if you don’t believe me.

          • “The 135/1.8 is one of the best AF lenses you can buy in any FL. ”

            It’s a very nice lens but I wouldn’t go as far as saying what you said. All it says is that you haven’t used better lenses 🙂

            ” The 85/1.4 comes close to it, and betters Canon and Nikon’s options.”

            And you say this because?

            “The 16-35/2.8 beats Canon’s. ”

            Zooms vs. zooms, Star Trek vs. Star Wars, no one cares…

            “And the 24/2 is better than the Nikon and Canon’s 24/1.4s.”

            But you yourself just said that it’s not better in your previous post. When did this change? 🙂

            “But you can refer to Photozone if you don’t believe me.”

            I think that’s where your problem is. Photozone’s numbers, especially off-center are pretty meaningless if you look in to the details.

          • DStudio

            “Zooms, No one cares …” A flippant comment when you can’t prove your point.

            And I’d sure be interested in hearing about the myriad better AF lenses you’re referring to – please keep it within the common 24-200mm range.

            Perhaps you should take a closer look at the lenses. Your comments tell me you probably haven’t used these lenses. Someone who purports to have such fine taste as you do certainly recognizes that Canon and Nikon’s strengths lie more in the breadth of their offerings than in having the absolute finest glass possible. So why is it so hard to accept that these may not be the best Zeiss lenses ever, but they still beat the C/N offerings?

          • I’ve used a few lenses:


            And you?

          • DStudio

            I see that you’ve used quite a few, so you’re clearly qualified to answer the question: Which AF lenses (35mm-format DSLR mount, of course) are better?

          • DStudio

            I see that you’ve used quite a few, so you’re clearly qualified to answer the question: Which AF lenses (35mm-format DSLR mount, of course) are better?

          • Better is a very vague requirement. You need to be more specific about what you’re after.

            I can say that the ZA 135/1.8 produces images that are very similar in feel to the Canon 85/1.2L II, both wide open, complete with the aberrations. The 135 has a slight edge in IQ that’s not evident in real usage but you’d expect that because it’s significantly longer and a stop slower.

            If you’re talking about plain IQ, the Canon 200/2L IS wipes the floor with all lenses faster than f/2.8 (including the Otus 55 and 135 APO). Nikon’s AF-D 200/4 Micro-Nikkor and Sigma 150/2.8 OSS are also excellent lenses but i haven’t compared them against the 135/1.8 at common apertures.

            You should also consider manual focus lenses… the 135/1.8 is no AF speed demon anyway. ZF/ZE 25/2, Otus 55, Sigma 50A, ZF/ZE 50MP, 125/2.5 APO Lanthar, ZF/ZE 135 APO, etc. are fast lenses that are better.

          • DStudio

            Thanks for validating my statement. There are 2 lenses which are clearly better (C/N 200/2), and they’re over 3 times the price. And there are a few others we’re not sure about. So actually the Sony Zeiss 135/1.8 “is one of the best AF lenses you can buy in any FL.”

            The Sony lenses with the Zeiss badge beat the competition (obviously we’re talking about the results they produce). We’ve already established the 135 is better. The 85/1.4 handles both in-focus and OOF areas nicer than the Canon 85/1.2 II. The Canon 50/1.2 and Nikon 58/1.4G are rather badly maligned (which is partly justified) while Sony outdoes them again. And Photozone says the 24/2 beats the C/N 24/1.4 competition, while many of its owners claim it’s in the same class as the 85/1.4 and 135/1.8.

            So Sony wins in the primes, like I said. And in the zooms – 16-35 and 24-70 (which you say don’t matter anyway) it also beats Canon. Nikon matches it at 24-70, however.

            So let’s check the records. We’ve compared all the current premium Sony Zeiss lenses.

            Sony: 5-0-1
            Nikon: 0-4-1
            Canon: 0-6-0

            So perhaps “almost as good” was being generous.

          • No matter how much you stomp your feet it doesn’t change facts or reality. Adding various qualifiers to make your lens seem better than it really is is the oldest trick in any book. “My lens is the best between 1pm and 2pm during march in leap years” Not everyone cares about AF or price. None of that shows in the photos in the hands of a skilled user. Who cares what’s the flavour of the month?

            Honestly it’s complete nonsense to ask what’s “better” at any focal length. You need to be more specific. Again no one but a complete noob buying their first or second lens asks questions like that. Normal people don’t buy a 135 if they need something else. Also saying one lens’ bokeh is better than another is another noob thing to say. Nikon users like the 85D’s bokeh over the 85G’s… try and use your logic to explain that. You can’t, because bokeh is subjective. Read about it.

            Photozone is crap for anything outside the center and I have demonstrated it using the 24L and 24G and have also given a theoretical explanation of why their methodologies are wrong and not indicative.

            I have nothing to say about zooms because I don’t care… they’re not made for people who care about using specialised tools. I.e. they’re made for professionals and noobs… hence the reason why noobs talk so much about what professionals use.

          • DStudio

            I’ve rebuffed the common assumption and myth that Canon and Nikon’s lenses are better than, or even as good as, the Sony Zeiss lenses. Auto Focus is a requirement for many photographers, so Sony’s accomplishment here is not to be trivialized. Despite a smaller lineup, at these very common and most critical focal lengths they outdo the competition, and allow a photographer to produce images that are just that much more beautiful for about the same price.

            Anyone who cares about the quality of his photographs – but still has to be a bit pragmatic – can investigate for himself. Look at photos, look at verdicts, look at numbers, go to many online resources – it’s all out there. If you see the difference in the photos, and it’s enough difference to matter to you, you have an attractive option. The a77 II matters because Sony is far from an “also ran,” but actually is the BEST AF DSLR system possible under MANY common shooting scenarios. They should get credit for this, because it’s certainly due them.

          • “I’ve rebuffed the common assumption and myth that Canon and Nikon’s lenses are better than, or even as good as,”

            Maybe you heard it wrong or maybe it’s delusion… but no one’s saying the Sony lenses are bad or that all C and N lenses are better. The problem is when you try to say that all Sony Zeiss lenses are better than what others have.

            “Better yet, get your hands on these lenses. ”

            I have used every lens I have listed in my flickr profile. Which lenses have you used to make such wide claims about systems you’ve never used and lenses you’ve never touched?

            “The a77 II matters because Sony is far from an “also ran,””

            Real DSLRs don’t have APS-C sensors. Period. The world has progressed far beyond Nikon’s mid-2000 propaganda. You need to get new brochures 😉

            “but actually is the BEST AF DSLR system possible under MANY common shooting scenarios. ”

            Again, in other words… when the sun is 1.618 radians off the horizon during leprechaun and unicorn mating season. No… it’s not the best AF DSLR no matter how extensive your use of caps is. If I wanted the best AF, I’d go for a 1D X or a 1D C or maybe even a D4s. Why are you so bent on AF anyway? Unless you have a disability that prevents you from manual focusing, you shouldn’t make it such a big requirement.

          • DStudio

            Geno, you have extensive understanding of a vast number of products. This places you well beyond most of us in experience. The second paragraph is addressed to a broader audience, who may benefit from the Sony Zeiss offerings.

          • Sure. If that part about broadness was mentioned from the start there probably wouldn’t have been a need for a further discussion. The issue is we all start from the broader audience and some eventually end up wanting the best/no-compromise solution… those people could be mislead by some of the earlier claims.

          • bas076

            No, I can’t agree with you. When we are talking for example about 24mm fixed lences, we can very clear situation that advantages of 24/1.4 are exactly in proportion of bigger price, compared to 24/2 ZA.

            The same thing I can tell about 135/1.8 ZA. It has exact proportion over 135L.

            What makes me think abot 85L like that? Tests, Personal knowledge with it on mark II, and also Minolta 85/1.4G and knowing comparations minolta with ZA. In my opinion 85L and Minolta have nicer boke, ZA better color rendering, contrast and sharpness. Of cause you can say that there is f1.2 but it is so few situation when you are going to yous it and benefit from real advatages….

            I agree that 400/4.5 have approximetly the same weght. But clearly better boke, not less sharp if not better from wide open and can be reached for half of the price in mint condition.

            And why I canht bring third party if it is available?

            ZE/ZF also third party for C/N and you know that some of them have M42 version that can be used on A?

            And of cause I know for what is TS. I am using tilt adapter for E-mount by myself and I am also understanding for what is usewfull shift. But it is still low persantage of high priced lens market even for C/N. And it is understandable why Sony is not entering to it and counting on third party like Samyang.

            And for the end if we will take a look on combination A77 II and 16-50/2.8 it is possible to say that C/N is “almost that good”, in that level of prices. But honestly? Not really. Because I am defenetly not fanboy, I am pragmatic and if C/N will give better solution whan arrive the time for upgrate I will switch without any nostalgia, but the ecpectable bodies are D9300 and 7D mark II will be in 2K price range and let see how much more they will provide for expectable high price…

          • No one cares about how difficult the battle is… what matters is who wins. Also it’s much easier to make a 24/2 (e.g. see the old Oly 24/2) than making it a whole stop faster. If anything, it’s overpriced. Even if you say the 24/2 is the best bang for the buck it still is not a winner. Not against the 24/1.4L II, 24/1.4G, TS-E 24L II or ZF/ZE 25/2… It’s not the best at anything that shows in the photos. Sony doesn’t even acknowledge you for defending this lens and losing, why bother?

            We can’t bring 3rd party lenses because you can use them on C and N too.

          • bas076

            Who wing? I can tell you who wing and I think you know that the winner is 500/550/600/650/700D camera with kit lens shooting with internal flash directly to face. That is the true winner, winning a number of times in amount compare to all other selling lenses and cameras.So you are going to use winner? No? Why not?l

            In this level of optic 24ZA better in price/performance relation, clearly better in color rendering and contrast, less resolution performer and C/N one stop faster. But ones more, honestly, 1.4 on 24mm? How much cases you have for that?

            So if you want winers in absolute parameters, yes 24/1.4 will be, if you you want better choice 24ZA is better choice. It is not about Sony or other manufacturer. It is about yoiu and me as customer. Cold, educated, experienced customer.
            The possibility to use third party on C/N is not a point. A point was that A have lack of needed lenses and manual third party zeisses can be took out from the comparation also because it is not native C/N. ZA even done by Zeiss design is native for Sony.

          • Dpablo unfiltered

            I was going to give you a thumbs up until you mentioned the 400 f4 DO. There is a Minolta 400 f4.5 that I would much rather have than that lens. There is also a non stabilized Minolta 600 f4 and about half the long tele users leave that function switched off most of the time anyway. Sigma makes an acceptable 180 f3.5 macro and probably even makes it for Sony mount. And do you really need IS in a 100 macro? There’s plenty of 100 macros…

          • You need to read what I responded to… don’t jump in to the middle of a discussion and add before finding out the context properly. Here we were talking about current lenses exclusive to Sony vs. ones exclusive to non-Sony (mostly Canon).

            The 400/4.5 Minolta is longer and is as heavy as the 400/4 DO IS. Again current lenses…

          • bas076

            400/4 DO defenetly not a good example to remind…

          • Dpablo unfiltered

            No doubt. If I was a camera company I would brag about NOT having that. I really don’t think Geno is using one…

          • bas076


          • And you’ve used this lens?

          • bas076

            Somebody know personaly yes, with 7D and also 100-400L. And I M400/4.5 G against. I know the differences.

          • Somebody you know personally? Then you should try hanging out with people who know how to use a camera:




          • bas076

            You really think that it is examples of 400 DO goodness? I can easily find close examples from initially 1500$ cost Sony 70-400/4-5.6 G SSM first version. More then that, even from cheaper lenses. Examples of lens goodnees not providing by fast search in flickr. I thank you are more careful in arguments.

          • The question was not whether the 400/4 DO gets one to a gallery full of pretentious people holding champagne flutes 🙂 Those examples were evidence against your comment on the 400/4 DO not being a good lens. If it wasn’t a good lens, those shots wouldn’t have been possible.

            And no, a 70-400@400/5.6 is not as good as a 400/4 just the same way a 400/4 is not as good as a 400/2.8. Aperture does matter… not all people lug large lenses for bragging rights 😉

          • bas076

            Lets divide my response in two parts.
            I took a look on you page and …I know one landscape photographer much better then you. You know what gear he is used for years? Canon 350D + 17-85 dark zoom. After long time upgraded to 550D + 15-85, ones more dark zoom with not the best resolution and camera with pure DR and only last year added Sony A7 + FE 55/1.8Z to it. You understand what I am talking about? All his pictures just impossible, using your logic, but they are many and they exists. You know that joke about discussion between atheist and catholic about not seeing God? Catholic to atheist : You seeing my ass? No? But it exists!!!
            If it is news for you that 70-400G on the long end closed to f8 even a little better then new Nikkor 80-400 and at list equal if not better the 400 DO, I am sorry for the time you spend to use so much gear not figured it out. May be you need to hang out with better testers?

          • LOL just as well because I’m not taking these photos for anyone but myself. What kind of photos you find interesting, what car you drive, what kind of people/animals/things you find arousing… that’s not my business and are you saying I should care?

            And take a good look at my gear list. I own everything I want and stuff from many manufacturers. It has more things than you’ll figure out why in a good while. I don’t do refractors for long focal lengths because even my more manageable 200/2 is too big to lug around for the sorts of shots I do. And I don’t even care for serious zooms like the 200-400/4s… let alone general use crap zooms like 70-400s, etc.

            From your tone you seem to be a complete noob who thinks you know better. People probably buy you photography books for your birthday so that you could imitate someone else’s personal subjective vision because you don’t have one of your own.

            Now if you’re talking about lenses, I speak from understanding and experience. .. two more things you lack.

          • bas076

            You totally missed my point and not because you can’t understand if until now you brilliantly understood my not native english with tons of mistakes.Because don’t want to. It is comfortable position suddenly to display misunderstanding I gave you the example that somebodies good picture and more then that in well downsized cant speak a thing about lens goodness but you suddenly have no care about my taste? This is really LOL..

            Yes of cause I took a look. Quantity is not telling a thing about quality. It like to say that if you fuck 100 women you defiantly know about love and you defensively know how to handle relations.I will believe you more if you show 10-12 lenses and 3-5 cameras used during years and not 100 units of gear. But it is you design to jump between so much items. Just when you are speaking about choices do not behave like pure snob, because it is discussing.

            From many years experience as IT engineer and teem leader I learned to be exact in technical aspects. No you are right I am not collecting things, because of that i have only 2-3 books about digital photography and only one about Photoshop. But I really don’t think that I need to fill some complexes about that I know something better about lenses then you, even if you collect them all. And if you still don’t know that nobody, even experienced physiologist can’t tell can’t tell who is noob and who is not by somebodies tone and who is not, I am sorry for you ones more. Try to add same logic to you rhetoric, if you can, if not, learn it.Because you suggestions looking infantile if you are already older then 18 😉

            Now if we finished about me and returning to lenses. Provide arguments, if you so sure in you position, or ones more, learn what is “argument”. And try to reach meaning of such a term like “understanding”, the main thing you lack, in order to make bridge between reached experience and productive possibility to express you interests using it. Even experienced Canon user saying that 400 DO have minimal advantages comparing to the long end of 100-400L and 100-400L is not as good on 400mm as 70-400G. You have something that say about approving spent of minimum 5K$? Bring it.

          • You’re rambling on. In my few years I’ve taught many that have become more than IT engineers, for what it’s worth 😉 And countless more who know how to use google as well as register a username LOL

            Also at the level of knowledge that you have demonstrated, you should stick to asking questions than making claims.

          • Dpablo unfiltered

            Your view is related to the thought that one company will smother the other within your lifetime. You also feel that a company can’t obtain a large share of the market without offering a lot of equipment that only a small segment of the same wants or can afford.
            However, the need for others to buy their sensors from the one causes a lot of money to be available for them to continue developing new sensors and the technology associated with them and also allows the one company a price advantage that works directly against the others. The Minolta line of lenses was kind of sparse forty years ago and here they still are, probably in a better position than they were then.
            Also, what initially attracted me to Nikon in the early digital years was the cheap and largely discontinued AI and AIS lenses and their low cost old f2.8 zooms like the 35-70 and the 80-200. It was a combination of a few cheap old handy lenses like the 28-135 and cheap ten megapixel bodies with free image stabilization that led me to Sony. The fixed translucent bodies are also interesting in their ability to do a lot of frames quickly and they were the first to offer a 24 megapixel APS that is very suitable for sports and wildlife.
            Also, and going very well with that camera is a 70-400 lens that might well still best what is available from the others.
            What the company needs more than lenses is an actual replacement for the A850/900.

          • Dpablo unfiltered

            Oh, and I forgot to add that the full lineup of all the new lenses, off brand lenses, and the old Minolta lenses are image stabilized… to whatever degree the latest camera allows. Neither of the other two offer tilt shift with image stabilization so therefore Sony must be the winner. Right? I can put an off brand tilt shift on a Sony and have EXCLUSIVE shake reduction that none of the others can enjoy…

          • Are you seriously comprehending any of what’s being talked about? It’s about _current_ options. Look the word up.

            Unless you have shares in any company, who gives about its future? Use the best tools there right now instead of sitting around waiting for some elusive magic lens that _might_ be released some day by your manufacturer. Check how long it took Nikon to release a 24 1.4 for example… except for newcomers, one part of the Nikon users who have one now were in denial of the benefits of such a lens and the other part waited 35 years (look it up).

          • Duarte Castelo Branco

            the zooms certainly don’t match against the nikkors and canons. All primes from the the 3 brands are good, except macro lenses were sony still doesn’t know what is Internal focussing.

            Were sony really can match is in midrange primes. No 1.8 primes that are any good.

          • bas076

            Yes? Belive me if it was like that I was in C/N camp not today, yesterday. 16-35 from Canon even not close to Sony. 24-70 better only ver.II, but for such a price if it was not better, it was just a disaster for Canon. 24-70 Nikkor in my opinion overall better but not so batter that cousing to switch system if sombody already own 24-70ZA. 70-400 from Sony better then 100-400 Canon and old 80-400 Nikkor, much better then old one. New one better from 80-300, but at the end second version of Sony have a little advantage, that in my opinion important in such a zooms. And if we take in account huge price of 80-400 new, the choice becoming very difficult.
            And lats say a couple of words about 16-50 of Sony. Both N/C have no real competitor for it. Havy and high priced 17-55 is not a choice I am really want to talk.

          • bas076

            Ah, fogot about 70-300, only Canon have new 70-300L thet actually better performer then 70-300G Sony, but also higher then Sony’s price tag.

          • DStudio

            Kenko and I were talking about the AF (Sony Zeiss) lenses.

            The 135/1.8 is one of the best AF lenses you can buy in any FL. The 85/1.4 is close to it, and betters Canon and Nikon’s options. The 16-35/2.8 is better than Canon’s. And even the 24/2 is better than the Nikon and Canon’s 24/1.4s. I’ve used all but the 24 and have seen for myself. But you can refer to Photozone if you don’t believe me.

      • Neopulse

        Canon & Nikon never made Zeiss lenses, wtf are you talking about?

      • Srly

        I don’t see any Zeiss lens with autofocus on sonies either… Oh but I see crap with a sticker…

        • bas076

          It’s a pity to live with no understanding that you are actually blind. Sorry for you.

      • Max

        show me what difference your zeiss lenses make in 99% of your photos against gold nikkors and l-series? you probably buy the most expensive milk in the grocey store too simply because it’s the most expensive.

    • ethan503

      Oh wise one, please tell me what a mount lenses are missing that you already own in another brand.

      • El Aura

        105 mm f/2
        28 mm f/2
        18 mm f/3.5
        180 mm f/2.8 (non-macro)

        • Well you also need to mention whether you use these on an APS-C or a FF.

        • R71

          All those FL can be covered by sony, minolta, sigma, tamron etc…

          • El Aura

            No, only one of the can be sort of covered (18 mm by 20 mm). The three Minolta lenses are no longer sold by Sony. You can of course find used copies. But for the F-mount, I can get a ‘new’ 18 mm f/2.8, a new 18 mm f/3.5, a new 20 mm f/2.8 and a new 21 mm f/2.8.
            And no, 135 mm cannot substitute 100/105 mm. And 100 mm f/2.8 cannot substitute 100 mm f/2.

            And can you show me any sane person who would use FF WA lenses (18 mm, 28 mm) on APS-C? (Ie, it should have been bloody obvious to anybody that I’m on FF.)

            I haven’t counted recently, but Canon probably has some 50 lenses, Nikon some 40 and Sony some 30 (including the ‘Zeiss’ ZA lenses). And the Zeiss ZF/ZE line is not available for the A-mount. And not all Sigma/Tokina/Tamron lenses are available for the A-mount either. And that difference is not just all in expensive exotics that few people would ever own.

            I did not bemoan the lens portfolio of Sony, I just answered to the pretentious question that implied that for the normal person there are no missing lenses on Sony.

        • bas076

          Minolta 100/2
          Minolta 28/2
          Sony 20/2.8
          Minolta 200/2.8 G [HS] APO

          • Dpablo unfiltered

            And the 100 lens is supposed to be really really good too. And it’s little like an old Nikon 50.

          • bas076

            I have news for you. Minolta 100/2 in my opinion not so far away from 135/1.8 ZA. And it is very questionable what lens is better 105 DC or that Minolta.

        • Mr.Black

          Also 103,5mm f/2.3, 19,7mm f/3,7 and 193mm f/3,1.

    • Denis Mamaev

      What are You talking about? 2 mounts, 2 bodies for A-mount(A58 and A77II) and 6 for E-mount(A3000, A5000, A6000, A7/7r/7s). More than 20 lenses for E-mount and more than 50 for A-mount…

      • Sky

        Actually: There’s over 400 lenses for A-mount if you count in all 3rd party lenses working natively on A-mount (and really countless amount if you count in lenses that you can use with adapters)

    • Ufupuw

      A mount has 34 years history and it’s not short on lenses

      • Except when you go to a shop and want to buy a real lens…

        • bas076

          I missed that comment.
          Are you banned in Google?

          • Nah you just don’t know how to use a browser

          • bas076

            So why you are looking like banned in Google(from you posting about shooing) if I so not educated in web technology.

  • bob

    can i still use my A77 mk1 grip on this new body?

    • R71

      yes you can.

  • “tested at DxOMark” a.k.a. a waste of time

  • Ufupuw

    Specs are better than D7100 in every way

    • TinusVerdino

      D7100 has a better sensor and an optical viewfinder. K-3 is ofcourse superior to both :p

      • Real World

        D7100 has slightly better sensor results on paper but in real world yes, K-3 is a better camera.

      • bas076

        A little bit better in noise and DR but in cost of contrast and color rendering. I can understand when about optical viewfinder advantage speakiing FF owners, but crop? Really, that… that thing can be taken in account to compite with last line of EVF’s?

      • Ufupuw

        2 points is nothing. A77 has better specs in every way

        Faster burst rate (12 vs 6)
        Larger Buffer
        Built In Wifi
        Image stabilization
        More AF points
        60p video

        A7 II has better specs than K-3 too

        • Zos Xavius

          Define better. I’ll take a camera without anything in front of the sensor anyday. K-3 is better in more ways than one. The SLT mirror kills resolution and blocks light. No thanks.

          • bas076

            First of all mirror takes 5% of resolution and it was tested on very old A55 already. Second, yes it is taking light, you are right but it is really the design if it is exceptable trade for the other camera spec or not. Personally I thank that for A77 it is not, but for A77 II it is already not so clear. Pentax maked very good cameras with pretty bad AF. May be it was changed in K-5 II and K-3. If yes it is really good information. But you are talking about resolution and I can’t see in tests any advantage in resolution for Pentax cameras using native lenses. So what the difference in fact that mirror taking 5% of resolution if Pentax without that constant mirror have no practical advantage?

          • Zos Xavius

            Yes, the AF has been massively improved with the K-5 IIs and K-3. The K-5 IIs I have is a noticeable improvement in low light AF, especially in mixed lighting where the K-5 would focus shift. The K-3 is even better with its 25 cross points and three f2.8 points. Quite honestly even a K-7 has no problems focusing at all in good light. As far as lenses, I have a few that out resolve the K-5 IIs. Even the not so great lenses I have saw a noticeable improvement with the AA filter removed. 5% resolution loss on an A55 would translate into greater resolution loss on a camera with smaller pixel pitch btw. They can’t change the SLT mirror that much because it wouldn’t reflect enough light if they made the reflecting portions thinner.

          • Ufupuw

            A mount has more AF lenses (old Minolta one) and new Zeiss/Sony one. These are superb lenses.

            AF is leaps ahead.

            A77 II #1 APSC right now

  • Arn

    Scenes mode on the mode select wheel for a expert digital SLR ? Seriously ?

    • Zos Xavius

      I can’t take any camera with scene modes seriously.

      • DStudio

        Fortunately the presence of scene modes won’t degrade your IQ, so I guess any lack of seriousness is all on you.

        Too bad if some people pass over a well-performing camera just because of this.

        But I agree – it IS a bit awkward for a serious shooter.

        • Zos Xavius

          LOL. You sony fanboys are so easy to troll. The comment above is only half serious.

        • Zos Xavius

          lol. you sony fanboys are so easy to troll. the comment above is only half serious.

  • Ted

    Gosh! that’s a good looking Canon

  • iphoto27

    So many reduction cameras hitting the market for the beginners & post beginners to use.

    Yet, very few shooters are willing to learn photography 101.
    And so many are getting Lightroom & Photoshop.

    Stop shooting RAW and then cheat in Photoshop just because you can’t get it right from the first place.
    Stop worrying about camera body replacement when you can’t sell a 8X10 print for $400.00.
    A new body WILL NOT make your images any better.

  • Back to top