Can someone explain to me how the 'dot' metric works. 1400*1050 pixels = 1,470,000 pixels. How is this 4.41 million dots?
andersf: So shooting raw+jpg and sending the jpg is ok, but shooting raw, applying a quick fix such as +1 EV and then sending the jpg is not? How would they even know this? It can be done in camera!
What's the difference between shooting the RAW to have a one stop margin, versus e.g shooting 3 jpgs directly in a +/-1 EV bracket?
It feels like a very roundabout way of saying "send us the pictures quick and don't edit too much".
To quote the DPR article:
"The list of acceptable adjustments includes cropping (as long as journalistic integrity is maintained), minor use of levels and curves adjustments, minor brightness and contrast adjustments, and downsizing photos to fit 3500 pixels longest edge."
dwill23: You must not have ever shot pro sports work. I've shot 100s of NCAA football games all around the country and a little less than 50 NFL games. This by far doesn't make me a pro like other who've shot 1000s of NFL games, but it doesn't take that experience to know that the best shots have completely buttery out of focus background.
These shots look like what parents get at HS games. Distracting in focus backgrounds.
This is not to say if you put a 400 f2.8 on that thing it couldn't hold it's own, but until then you can't compare the two.
"it doesn't take that experience to know that the best shots have completely buttery out of focus background."
Surely you're talking more about the lens than the photographer? And who says you need buttery backgrounds to make good sports photos?
trulandphoto: "a lot of pros may be wondering: 'if I ditch my DSLR for some of the advanced AF features the a7R II offers, will I be sacrificing low-light AF performance?'"
I sincerely doubt that. Only in DPReview world would such a question be asked.
How much is Amazon paying Sony?
Why should Amazon be paying Sony?
That aside, why do you doubt something that you have no reason to doubt? I've certainly not used an A7Rii, but when all the things said on the internet by various review sites and users stack up, maybe there's some merit there.
This is hardly news for anyone who follows Sony. Sony's focus has been on full frame since the first A7(r) was released. It's not to say they got rid of their APS-C bodies altogether.
As a user of an APS-C E-mount body, am I concerned about their shift in focus? Not really, other than that it means my current APS-C lenses lose much more resale value than I would've liked.
Does it mean that there are fewer lenses to for me to use? NO. Remember (especially to those moaning about lenses) that FE lenses can still be used on APS-C bodies. And they work great. Love my newly acquired FE 28 and FE 70-200 on my NEX 5R.
Why are people so negative? Have no clue. Misinformed fanboys maybe?
Thorgrem: So APS-C e-mount is good as dead. The last APS-C lens came in 2013....
You probably know this already, but errrr... FE lenses can be used on APS-C bodies. I already use the FE 28 and FE 70-200 on my NEX 5R and it's nothing short of amazing. In a sense I'm actually glad Sony doesn't release any more APS-C lenses - there's no need to!
Martinka: Why do you always stop for a while before taking the shot? This is not a typical usage of AF-C, so this test is more or less useless.
I agree with your point. I suppose he just needs a moment or two to get his framing right
Joseph Mama: Wait... what the actual hell IS this supposed to be for anyways?
How is this better than say.. a smartphone camera? Oh wait...its actually found a way to be WORSE due to fixed focus and dinky sensor. And no zoom.All the disadvantages of a lower end smartphone, but you gain... um... ok what exactly DO you gain?
I'm guessing there is absolutely no need to focus. Small sensor and lens at 6.5mm FF equivalent indicates very deep DOF.
While it doesn't seem like the main intention, I see this as a way around having mis-focused images, or having missed a shot because the autofocus was too slow. Being able to correct for focus after-the-fact does indeed make things much simpler and more convenient.
instamatic: Insertable cartridges? Could it be that this camera will have replaceable sensor modules? Perhaps user-replaceable? That would be super nice and quite innovative.
mgblack... it's April 2 already where I am...
I really love the yellow markings on that lens
yabokkie: a little bit embarassing
flipmac is talking about light transmission. An f1.8 lens in ff will transmit the same amount of light in APS-C etc etc. This is the reason why people describe a lens with a smaller f-number a faster lens, since it lets in more light hence you can use a faster shutter speed to get the same exposure.
Rather you are speaking of depth of field equivalents: flipmac talks of this in his second paragraph
xc1427: I am confused by the Hybrid AF ability of the 50 f1.8 and 30 f3.5 lenses. In the extended review of NEX6, which is just posted before, it is claimed that "Note that this hybrid AF technology is not compatible with any of the fixed focal length E-mount lenses except the high-end Sonnar T* 24mm F1.8 ZA. And existing E-mount zooms will require a firmware update.".
I suppose it's because it wasn't supported by the firmware at that point in time, rather than a physical limitation per se. I don't know anything about optics and such, but that's how I interpret it