whtchocla7e: I like the idea of such a camera but it's still a far cry from my favorite Olympus XA. I suppose I can continue waiting a bit longer for the digital XA...
...and F-Zuiko, F meaning the 6 element magic lens.
If you do not know, all this would be very pocket-able.
Bring on the XB (digital)!!!! XA-D? XA-M? XA!
My XA is the deal; for a pocket film camera. Digital needs that.
Rangefinder (focus). Inexpensive.Even OVF; if cost is an issue.35mm (focal) FULL FRAME f/2.8, closes mostly flat; with built-in lens cover/ON switch.State of the art, Full frame sensor, and digital screen on back.Removable, hidden, wireless remote (bright, optional diffuse-able)flash; with it's own battery pack!All controls, and features, as balanced, and not stupid.
Stellar video; not missing full control, stabilization, and stereo jacks(head phones and mic, duh).
One day perhaps the m43 sensor will be better than the best APS-C sensors today. That day, is not today. I can not abide the water color smeary noise at 1:1, at real world lighting (including shadows in any contrasting light) high IOS's. I'd say the goal is zero noise; at ISO 3200. This camera is way over priced. It's fine lenses are also way overpriced, comparatively (think 35mm Nikkor AF-S). I'm all for better carry sizes(and pocket camera progression); but it's just not worth it, now.
plastique2: I own now an A3000 for some ten days. I am very satisfied with the image quality and with the shape of the camera and the ergonomics. I really don't understand the previous post by Neodp. I don't share his/her experience. And yet there is a thing that keeps nagging and annoying me more and more. This here is now intended for the engineers from SONY to read, maybe to respond, and just, just maybe to do something. I'll put it in a sarcastic form:What is the benefit of shooting in RAW + JPEG without having the option to shoot just in RAW ? I would like to know it so I can enjoy fully the benefits of this most likely very wisely implemented restriction in the A3000 too! Please tell us! OR FIX IT!For years now I am shooting only in RAW with all my cameras. I don't need the in-camera jpegs. Does that make me a bad person, dear SONY?!
I'm not saying the sensor is worse than sensors; from 5 years gone by. I just don't understand why anyone would buy this; compared to a D5100, for one example.
My point is, the APS-C sensor has more noise than competitive APS-C sensors, so do not make the mistake of assuming it doesn't matter. Light gathering ability is job one. At least it should have been.
You should know, this affects your dynamic range, and color/light sensitivity, including the realistic tonal gradations; that are possible. That translates, and even into down-sampled pictures. Such as those on the web.
It's not just about more megapixels; though more can be better. It's how it does, with more, that counts.
Neodp: This camera stinks; compared to Nikon DSLR's.
I tested the A3000, against a D5200, and a D3100, and the noise sucked, on the mere $400 Sony. The menus actually were not that bad, and the low res EVF, and screen, wasn't extremely bad. the menu had manual focus assist options; but I couldn't test a adapted manual lens. I went kit lens, and 55mm on them all, and into the shadows. Besides the fact the the Nikon flash blew it away, the no flash pictures are what I am talking about.
Don't be fooled into thinking this is a low noise APS-C sensor; because it can't compare. At least to better APS-C sensors.
It's a shame; because the price was good (now I know why), and the build wasn’t objectionable at all, Decent little grip. The kit lens ( that I would sell) seemed well build, and smooth. All in all, a waste of money however.
Maybe at $90, it might be a better choice than tiny sensor cams; but it's just an already outdated sensor. It's not like one can pop in another here.
Correction, it was in fact a J3; which improved a bit on the J1. I don't recommend it; but it's pictures are not worse than the A3000, and it's not APS-C.
NTNphoto: If this this isn't too expensive I look at it as a great opportunity to get the D4 sensor that is in a $6k body for half or less than that price. I don't need the insane ruggedness or 10fps of the D4, but I could certainly use the best low light performing sensor on the market today. Sure they're probably reusing tech, but it's not like they're throwing a D80 sensor into a $3k body or anything.
Not saying I'll be getting one for sure until I get more details, but I think people are quick to put this camera down for a number of ridiculous reasons without giving it a chance.
I just think there's room for it in their stable of FF camerasD4- Pro sport shooters, wedding photographers, concert photographers, news, documentaryD800- Studio, Fashion, landscape, super high res D610- Kind of a mix of everything...Jack of all trades master of none in a way(not saying it's a bad camera I have its maligned little brother D600 and like it a lot)
There is room for something else
...Way to ready to drink the pricey kool-aid. NOTHING, about the very fine D4 warrants it's OVER pricing. Nothing. You are far to easy to fool.
Peter Lacus: Dear DSLR manufacturers - what about the following proposal: You create a nice looking camera with all the essential controls (aperture, shutter speed, ISO) and strip all unnecessary fluff in the process - i.e. no AF, video, screens of any kind etc. Put a great OVF (Oly OM/Pentax MX or at least Nikon FM style) and a decent chip inside (12MP FF would be preferable). USB connection for initial setup/customization, DNG output. Is that too much to ask?
That's (basic photo graphic needs) actually, really smart. However, we can, and still need to fix the still vs. video, technical issues, and make it to where great video does not hurt stills.
Your suggestion could make them extremely affordable; but they will not do that. Camera companies have gone the way of the government, medical, and insurance industries. They will screw you; if you let them!
My thing is... why; my Lord why!? Vote, with your wallet as CLOSED.
MAKE A BETTER CAMERA!
Zanearn: Earlier this year (2013), Fujifilm announced FinePix HS50EXR, which also has a DSLR-like body with similar size and weight than this a3000, and... a 1/2' sensor, at $549.95. About the same time, Nikon announced COOLPIX P520 with a 1/2.3' sensor, for $449.
I think the editor should compare a3000 with these cameras, since they are all DSLR-like and have similar prices, targeting the same group of customers.
I tested it. It's not the resolution (megapixies) that's the problem, it's the noise (in low light), compared to better APS-C camera.. Don't be fooled. This is not a good performer; because if you give that up, you might be better off with a pocket camera. Neither being great, nor value for what you are getting. They are the stark opposite, of future proof. They are yesterdays sensors, and sensors mater.
Camera companies suck. They really do.
Oh, and the Nikon J1 thing, you know? The one they can't hardly sell, the sensor is so stupid. Well, It beat the A3000; by a hair, noise wise.
The A3000 picked ISO 2000, odly, and that looked underexposed(hiding noise?). Yes, I went through every setting on the A3000 camera, for these tests. This is no people camera. No real world light camera.
Plus, you lose fast shot to shot, in Raw. Also, the shutter sounds very dull, and bad (clunky), if you care about that.
Hey, it did what it did, and it didn't.
This camera stinks; compared to Nikon DSLR's.
pgb: Affordable Sigma E mount lenses would help sway me. Sony should give Sigma the protocol if they want to sell bodies. The clean HDMI would make 10 bit video recordings possible assuming the HDMI is the 10 bit version.
Looks rugged and cool, who cares if the size advantage disappears with EF etc lenses, you can always use primes or native lenses, your choice.An E to EF adapter that works fast would really sell.
Evf is not a positive, I can't believe it looks as good as optics but I'venever seen one. It would be great for my manual primes.
If it had IBIS I'd be really tempted but maybe that's too hard with FF.
I think the horse has already left the barn; as far as having good enough EVF. The question becomes; is any EVF, you buy, one that is comparable to a good SLR OVF. Minor pros, and cons, accepted. Just not major ones. After all, OVF's are not perfect, either. Yes, it is subjective; but good is, as good does.
Wabznasm: I've confused myself. Can someone please assist a noob? :)
I love using my Super Takumar 55m 1.8 on my NEX 5.Will this lens be suitable for use on an A7 / A7r? Will it change the focal length? and will it be more suitable on one over the other?
... I don't know, should we call theses equivalents by new names? What names would be less confusing, and let folks know, theses equivalents don't actual indicates their names letters(when equivalents); but actually something else. I think that's the confusion.
Also, as to the other metric: You should understand, the focal equivalent, does not change the compression (look) factor, of the actual lens, focal lengths. Just the angle. A cropped lens does not actually give you the "full frame" equivalent. Only partly.
The aspect ration is often different, also. A 14MPx 4:3 sensor is like 12Mpx 3:2, or there abouts. What aspect do you want, or to crop from? (if you often want to crop; outside of your initial, already finished composition).
DPR's new charts do a great job, of showing the different comparable effects of Bokeh, and angle of view, across different cameras. I commend them, as that is the main point.
It is unfortunate, that these are stated in 35mm f/ equivalents; because many do not have a, full frame, Bokeh point of reference. Yet, in all fairness, this had to be done in some way, and it works. One has to understand, the equivalent is *not* a "f/" measurement at all; which is kinda weird. Also, at issue, is the quality of the Bokeh; which is an entirely different metric.
Still; the charting of both "f/" equivalents, and with "F"(angle) equivalents, is very useful, in ranking cameras. Many would otherwise, only find this out to late, and after buying the wrong camera; for them. Therefore this is exactly DPR's job, and well done. Thank you.
Vitruvius: Very nice specs and I'm sure it will perform great. But it is just BUTT ugly. I know that many will like it, but I am definetly NOT one of them. I have the A77 and love Sony but I would never spend that much money on something I thought was ugly JUST for the performance. Like buying a really fast but ugly sports car. A small part of the enjoyment of having something nice is also looking at it. Yech!
Ah, come on now. Looks is down on the list; but it does matter. Highly preferential, and not of main photographic concern, sure; but who wants an ugly camera? Without compromising photographic qualities, it's the manufactures job to produce cameras. Even with looks; that the buyers like.
I mean damn. Do they not do serious market research? You see, I think they do; but then they partly ignore it, and put themselves first. That is backwards, and I am sick of it. Yes it's a broken world; but why give in to it? Educate yourself first!
A companies job, is to make a better, "mouse trap". This includes customer preferences, or lost sales to the competition. The current reality is we have lost this. How can we get it back? Can you see how a lack of unfettered competitiveness is killing us? Such as intellectual property laws? BS, all.
But you ignore me, and soon you will not be able to afford any new, good, passable camera, at all. Pink barbie cams for all! Not.
raztec: Nikon and Canon better get their sh..t together. A lot of us are willing to jump ship if you don't come out with something similar.
Give us FF rangefinder size cameras with a nice viewfinder with which we can use our existing lenses and manual focus if need be, or you will see a mass exodus from your systems.
Neodp: You know, this is a very frustrating model split. Once again; where you can't have what's in camera A; with some of camera B. Way overpriced, and even more, for with the "more expensive" one. Yet, not many ask why, and I will likely be berated for even bringing price up. I do recognize, the major class leading improvements. I'm just not ignoring what's missing.
Officially, Canikon has completely lost touch with reality. With all their new system (sub class) lenses, they should have been full frame.
My only suggestion, is new FF lenses, and a fully AF/AE/IS included adapter, to the fine ole', good value, F-mount lenses. It's not that I don't like some old Nikon bodies; but it's only because they are the lesser of photographic benefits evils. Not that I wouldn't go, with nearly any brand; if one would produce the better, benefits, balance. It's just that better is not finding a great balance; in the current camera industry. Call me negative; but it's true.
....I think this is because buyers will buy anything new, and the manufactures know it. Planned obsolescence. A price tier; for everyone. Cameras are getting worse, overall, and their one, or two new, and better technologies, do not make up for it. I suppose, the manufactures are scratching their collective heads; as to why photographers love yesteryear’s cameras.
You know, this is a very frustrating model split. Once again; where you can't have what's in camera A; with some of camera B. Way overpriced, and even more, for with the "more expensive" one. Yet, not many ask why, and I will likely be berated for even bringing price up. I do recognize, the major class leading improvements. I'm just not ignoring what's missing.
maxola67: Mirrorless FF makes even less sens than mirroless APC-S(not mentioning m4/3) does.Sony is trying to play on fields where it will have a little chance.How that was on DSLRs one.Once Canon president said something like that - "Firm without film camera making history couldn't design a good camera".
Today; that become true.