Some of your specs appear to be wrong.
It isn't capable of 12fps, at least from what Sony has stated so far. Sony states it tops out at 8fps. Also you mention that it can be remote controlled via wire or by smartphone, yet none of the specs (nor the images of the camera) show it having WiFi or NFC. Lastly, the EVF I believe has a magnification of .88x, not 1.09x like the A77II.
There might be other inconsistencies, but these are the ones that caught my eye.
Now they need to fix the import problem Lightroom has when pulling in photos from the new iPhone 6s and 6s Plus. For people using the live mode, Lightroom will only import the 3MB movie file and ignores the JPEG file.
What I had to do as a work around was using Windows 8.1's own photo importer, which does import both files. Delete the movies, then import the photos. If the movies and photos reside in the same folder then Lightroom will still see just the movie file and import just that.
@Wedding photographer: If you watch the video closely you will see that two separate GoPros were used at the same time to record the video simultaneously (one on the Luuv in the right hand, the other held with the left hand).
magneto shot: Sony have the tendency to shoot itself on the foot always. when you see any products coming from sony, u can be as sure as the constellations stars in the skies that it will have one stupid flaw. One so significant that it blows your mind to think how Sony could have missed it.
What that means then is there is no excuse for the other manufacturers to make the kind of mistakes that they have made.
What makes that any different than every other manufacturer out there?
cr2shooter: Raw should be just that - raw and unmolested. I wouldn't consider buying any Sony camera when they implement goofy stuff like this. You can rely on companies like Canon to provide a thorough, reliable implementation.
Sony no longer uses IDC and instead now has a deal with Phase One's Capture One software.
In the earlier days when cARW was an option on the Sony cameras, it used to be an issue with the RAW editors to read the cARW files properly while the uncompressed ARW files were interpretted just fine. The developers, shortly afterwards, released an update that provided cARW support. Seeing that it was possible and didn't take long, I don't see it as much of a problem for developers to do the same if/when Sony chooses to give us that capability back.
And if coordinated with developers before releasing the update, RAW editors could be ready for the files before the firmware even becomes available.
photomedium: Great way or stimulating Sony! Good job. There has to be a deep technical reason why sony chooses this silly legacy compression strategy. I imagine is something very basic in the hardware design of their BIONZ chips, memory, ADC converter or whatever. It may not be possible for them to change it without redesigning the processor altogether OR come up with a kludge cure that would be worse than the disease itself. My take: don't expect a fix until the bionz XX or XXX comes out.
Sony has stated in past interviews that the compression and RAW file changes could be made via a firmware update.
Now there could be increased limitation in the number of images that can be stored in buffer as well as a longer offload to the memory card due to larger file sizes.
Nukunukoo: -3EV for Phase Detect accuracy threshold? That's hard to believe and I would like more replicatable tests with different fast lens. Because if the A7Rm2 can constantly perform like that with a bright lens, I will know what my next wedding gear will be!
Bluevellet, I wasn't getting defensive, I was just stating facts and correcting you on your incorrect assumption about Sigma lenses and their measured T-stops.
Bluevellet, if you would do some research first you would see that the newer Sigma's actually do quite well in regards to T-stops. The 50mm A they used in the video measured around 1.5 T-Stops on a Nikon D750 and 1.7T-Stops on a Canon 5D MkIII and 6D. The Sony 35mm measured at 1.6 T-Stops on an A7R. The difference between the three is practically nil.
So trying to use this as an excuse to explain the Nikon's and Canon's poorer performance falls short. In this case, you can't blame the light transmission of the lens for causing such performance.
JanMatthys: Can't they simply renounce their claim to the "royal family" and merge into normal society? Or do they still want their weddings televised world wide? pick a lane
Just because you are a celebrity or royalty does not mean it is a public invitation to have your privacy violated and your entire life publicly ogled at without consent. Like you and me, they should have a right to choose what they want to share with the public and what they do not want to share. Share a wedding, sure, they consented to it. Share an afternoon with family at a private park, no. Put the same scenarios on a pauper and you should expect the same.
I expect the same rights to privacy that fall on me should be respected as much to apply to them.
There are times when I want my private life to be private and times when I want to share my life with the public. There are also understandings of what to expect when soliciting in a public venue. There are also laws about consent forms when being singled out for profit, etc. All of those boundaries should be honored and respected.
Hmmm....So I wonder if existing subscribers to the Adobe CC Photography plan qualify for the 20% discount and, if so, how?
Everything I am reading so far only seems to point towards those who haven't subscribed to Adobe CC yet which, in my mind, is kind of silly being that this is a Pro model aimed at higher end users who are probably already subscribed to some kind of CC plan.
If I could somehow get that discount on my CC Photography plan for the first year of Flickr Pro subscribing, that would be essentially $24 saved that can go towards the Flickr subscription (almost cutting the first year cost in half).
Daniel4: How does Capture One compare to DxO, in general and the noise reduction in particular?
Lightroom CC's new dehaze feature does a pretty decent job, much like the ClearView. And like FuhTeng said, very little goes a long way.
daciangroza: I find it strange that you're comparing this to Photoshop and not Lightroom. Lightroom and Capture One have the same workflow and features with some differences in interface. Maybe certain algorithms are better and this would be an interesting comparison.
I use both and I agree that Capture One would be much better compared to LR.
LR has a much better, more mature DAM. It's workflow is also better, bar none.
Capture One, however, has a great RAW engine with amazing color reproduction and detail retention. Noise reduction is better too in Capture One. Photos just look more pleasing to the eye out of the box than what LR does by default. And while I can get some colors close, it isn't the same (especially skin tones).
Exporting and Printing photos is much easier than Capture One.
LR, for obvious reasons, also has much better third party plug-in support.
While the user interface could use some improvements and still falls short of LR, it has come a long way. If it had a better DAM and plug-in support, I would be using Capture One far more than I do now. As it stands, I treat the program more as a plug-in than a standalone for specific types of photos. I wish it had better LR integration like DxO, that would make me happy.
DxO has better integration with Lightroom if you prefer LR as a DAM.
Image quality, both produce great colors with the slight advantage to Capture One (especially skin tones). Out of the box detail retention I preferred Capture One, it just looked sharp and detailed out of the box. DxO I didn't care for its out of the box sharpness, I felt more detail was lost.
Noise reduction both do well. Again, out of the box Capture One does a very good job. DxO has a slight edge with their new noise reduction features, but the lead didn't seem to be as big as some make it out to be.
DxO has a much larger lens correction database, no comparison.
User interface being compared, neither are as easy and intuitive as Lightroom. But compared to each other, I found Capture One's much more intuitive and customizable.
Performance advantage went to Capture One, it just felt smoother and faster than DxO.
To sum it up, with minimal work, Capture One looked the best. The images felt more natural and true.
OrdinarilyInordinate: Well, it's great for professionals or people who have a lot of money to burn on software, but it's prohibitively expensive for an average amateur photographer. I wish they had a more reasonably priced trimmed down option, perhaps without tethering functions.
For Sony camera owners, they can get a version called Capture One Express for free. For about $50, Sony camera owners can get the full blown Capture One Pro. The only caveat is the "Sony" version will only work with Sony camera files. To work with other brands will require the much more expensive version. It appears to be a tie in deal between Sony and Phase One since now all Sony cameras come with Phase One's product as the default RAW editor, much like how Nikon and Nik had a deal before Google bought Nik (and then Nikon going to Silkypix).
CameraLabTester: The time spent on the computer just trying to find where you wanted to focus, after painstakingly downloading the MegaBlob file and running trough the timeline... is far greater than the quick moment of NAILING THE FOCUS in the first place.
The invention is good, why not... but the cumbersome action of plodding trough miles and miles of image stream file images defeats the purpose of a steady fast workflow.
May work for some, but not all will take it up.
That's assuming you knew what you wanted to focus on in the first place or only had one or two subjects you wanted to focus on. This would be great for those once in a lifetime trips where you may not be able to go back and retake the photo.
I can also see this being beneficial for those that want to do focus stacking to increase their depth of field. Macro photographers would love this!
supeyugin1: I don't buy from Amazon since they started charging tax in California, and also they raised the minimum free shipping amount from $25 to $35. Prime is useless with a tax.I do buy from ndependent sellers on amazon who don't charge tax and offer moderate shipping prices.
Charging tax is mandatory if they have distribution facilities or shops set up in the state you reside in.
The sellers that are not charging you tax do not reside in California, hence why you are not taxed.
However, as an upstanding citizen, you are supposed to report any purchases you made out of state (online or not) and pay the difference in sales tax on your tax return form. Most people, though, don't do this unless it is a large purchase that gets tracked via other methods (automobile, boat, etc.).
nikkornikon: Dear Nikon: You got this 100% Wrong. Over Priced and not needed. And...DX.
IF a DX user was smart...Pay for the Sigma 50mm Art and Cheaper Price for an Excellent Lens....and for a zoom...Use your feet.
Your feet can only do so much, especially with a 50mm prime. A 50mm will never give you the FOV that 16mm can give you, especially when you are limited on movement such as indoors or if you want to get a one shot landscape picture.
This lens is what I consider a perfect premium vacation lens. I used to own the Zeiss 16-80mm F/3.5-F/4.5 some years ago and while it wasn't the fastest, it certainly was a great all rounder for those days when you can carry only one lens. For days when I could carry more lenses, I would put the 16-80 down and take the 24-70, 11-16, and 70-200 or maybe a handful of primes.
Besides, for a DX users I would choose the 35mm over the 50mm if I could only have one prime. My 35mm got far more use than my 50mm ever did as a walk around lens.
Danny: And who needs an de-haze feature anyway? Just take better pictures or leave the job to someone else. Completely nonsense and only for CC users, there goes your money. $$$$$
That's the answer to everything! Be a better photographer. Please...
I'll make sure to have a one on one chat with mother nature the next time I want to take a haze or fog free photo at a location that is heavily prone to being in the mist. You know, because she listens and takes requests...
coody: Why can't it be designed better from the beginning but has to go through the firmware updating? Can the firmware perfectly resolve the flaw? Usually the more firmware updating has, the more problems the product has.
I see it as a way to meet production deadlines, expanding camera capabilities with a limited annual budget by stretching it across multiple years, as well as keeping a single camera model viable longer. Also, on the plus side, it gives Fuji free advertising.