ttran88: No difference in IQ!! Sony is pulling a Canon on us!!!
Again: as has been hinted by the DPR staff below, the major(!) change is in the AF speed (in addition to the already-known stuff: 4k, higher-res EVF and hi-speed video).
If you don't need it, just stick with Mk III.
Digimat: Guys...you need to look at the conversion settings, that first iso800 shot is +1.1EV, +12 Shadows, +13 Blacks, + Tone Curve. Thats at least 2 Stops lifted (ISO3200) and we all know the canon sensors dont like to be pushed.
Seems to be about the same Noise you get out of a 7D II, which is..well...kind of okay but not terribly good. However, you can use quite aggressive Noise Reduction and still retain a lot of Detail for common print sizes, because you have so many Pixels to play with.
So...you will have a lot of Resolution up to about ISO800, maybe equivalent Resolution up to ISO3200 compared to a 5D3, and a bit better than average Canon APC-S Res @ISO6400.
Andrea, just compare the noise level to, say, these shots:
These are OOC JPEG's shot with my Fuji X-E1, at base ISO, with 30s, last summer in a particularly dark night (Finnish Summer nights aren't dark; this one was dark because of the heavy clouds). They show little noise.
Of course, it's apples-to-oranges (APS-C vs. FF; ISO200 vs. ISO800; 16 Mpixels vs. 54 Mpixels) but it's the end result that counts. And my shots are a lot cleaner than those of the Canon.
Stollen1234: Amazing entry Camera..thank you Canon. for the price you get a lot of super features.most important the image quality..if you take a look at the Photos they are almost better than both Nikon and Sony FF cameras.
He was surely sarcastic.
The ISO400 shot of the same subject, done with similar lighting (SAM_023_ISO400) uses dialed-down shadows (-16) and only +.25 Exposure. Only blacks have been increased, which shouldn't have an effect on, say, the colored sky's noise. This results in an effective ISO of about 400 - and not more.
Nevertheless, the resulting image is still noisy. Of course it's a lot better than the pretty much useless first shot you've referred to - but still noisy.
eno2: If 'the customer’s voice is the most important data for me' (him), where is the most wanted uncompressed Sony RAW format, all Sony users scream after it for several years now!
"And many Sony users (maybe even most) care very little about this issue. "
Because many prospective users didn't even consider purchasing into the system because of the 11-bit RAW's? (I'm one of them.)
Michael Long: As long as you're listening to your customer's voices...
a7000 = a6000 + 24mp high-ISO APS-C sensor. 5-axis in-body stabilization, silent-shutter mode.
... and full Canon lens compatibility please...
kamituel: I'd love the interviewer to ask Sony about their lens roadmap. The info about them working on 2.8 zooms and large aperture primes is nice, but why not post a full roadmap, like Fuji does?
"The Sony 24-70 is similar in optical performance to the Canon equivalent while being smaller in volume and more lightweight. "
Well, in the tests I've read, the Zeiss is significantly worse (and not THAT much cheaper). Check out for example this (German):
"Really? I don't share that sentiment. I suspect many also feel the same. Would be nice to have, but I'm ok with the status quo."
YOU are OK. I'm not - along with tons of other (prospective or existing) Sony customers / users.
I wouldn't bother with waiting for native FE zooms now that Canon lenses are fully supported.
Given that the, say, Canon EF 24 - 70mm / 2,8L USM II produces absolutely stunning results on the A7r (much-much better than even the expensive Zeiss 24-70mm/4, let alone Sony's kit lens), I wouldn't wait for native Sony zooms (of questionable quality) but would go straight for Canon FF lenses.
matthiasbasler: A question to the community (or dpreviewers), since the topic of battery life is often discussed here:One of my use cases is timelapse photography. Many cameras do not allow to change battery while on a tripod so battery life *is* important. Leaving accessory grips out of discussion for now, is there anybody with practical experience just how much the battery life of a 300-CIPA-shots rated mirrorless camera compares to a 450 or 600-CIPY-shots rated DSLR in this specific use case where the camera is on/standby for hours continuously and shooting, lets say, one photo every 15 or 20 seconds?
I have an EOS650D, rated 440 shots, and during a night timelapse session at ~20°C temperature it worked 5.5hrs with one full (original Canon) battery. It did roughly 1000 shots every 20s with 4s exposure each.Do you have any comparable data for a mirrorless ILC cameras?
The Fuji X-E1 with a brand new factory battery, about 600 shots. Interestingly, cheap aftermarket batteries fare almost equally well.
This with all-manual settings and the LCD at its lowest.
(Some of my X-E1 timelapses are at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRCMHcDIpnQzbHXQ57KilqJmDMauD6ihH )
naththo: Who cares about video? How about add 14 bit uncompressed lossless raw to it?
pcblade, please stop trolling.
Wolfgang Fieger: Not so impresdive as the same company never offered any firmware update for their pro model A99. Thought that body really needs some improvements that could be provided easily with updates
justmeMN: Reality check: According to Sony's May 27, 2015 financial documents, Sony's worldwide ILC market share is a weak (by value) 11%. The introduction of a new $3,200 camera body won't significantly change that.
Smartphones, not Sony, are the biggest threat to Canon and Nikon cameras.
I don't really have anything against Sony cameras, but the breathless hyperbole surrounding them is just silly.
"For example, I don't currently use Sony MILC, but I now plan on eventually getting a Sony A6000 (or its successor) because the A7S II gives me a lot of confidence in where Sony is going with their technology and how ambitiously they are moving, so it gives me greater confidence to buy into the Sony mirrorless world."
Proper FE support doesn't mean they take the "lesser" (A / native APS-C E) mounts seriously. These two are essentially dead and will unlikely receive any new lens.
Smitty1: This was a very important week indeed at DPmirrorless.
"Haha no kidding right, DPR have officially declared themselves E mount fanboys."
Well, their constant (and rightful!) mentioning the lack of a proper native APS-C E lens lineup doesn't necessarily make them fanboys...
Macro Nutrients: Ok this is disappointing, the NX500 higher ISO is clearly worse than the NX1, Samsung apparently sabotaged the 500 to protect the 1. ISO 1600 looks the same, but above that the NX1 is clearly cleaner. Disappointing.
"And it comes to cost of having copper heatsink that thing don't come cheap at all. So it will influence the price on camera as well. Computer CPU with Copper Heatsink is far more expensive than regular one. Like about $65+ for Heatsink with copper. $20 for without copper. Huge difference in price."
Nevertheless, the NX500's being (at low light & high ISO's, significantly) noisier than the NX1 is a major disappointment. After all, we've been told all the time they have the same sensor & imaging pipeline, which also infers the two models produce the same IQ.
Let me cite DPR themselves: : http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2617394279/samsung-nx500-shooting-experience :
"the 28MP sensor is the same, it can capture 4K video, and the still imaging pipeline is identical. "
D200_4me: Honestly, the only thing these little V and J 1 series camera have against them is lesser high ISO quality and (if it matters to you), very deep depth of field. I really enjoyed the two I had, but in the end it was hard to justify keeping them due to the availability of other small cameras with much larger sensors (like the a6000). I loved the size, the lens quality, the VR of the lenses and the simple and great videos they can make.
"A GM1 with the smaller F/2.8 zooms is every bit as good as the big A6000 and its full frame sized F/4 zooms."
One shouldn't use E / FE zooms at all as they're all pretty bad, compared to zooms in other systems. Sonys should be used with primes.
Randy Veeman: The J5 is very close to the A5100 at ISO1600 in the compare scene. Pretty cool.
"Sony APS-C still noisy. Sony has always struggle to stay in competition with the noise compare to APS-C in Nikon/Canon still ahead of. "
What are you talking about? Take a look at the A5100 high-ISO low-light RAW's and compare them to, say, the Canon 760D results. The A5100 is somewhat cleaner than the Canon. It's only the latest-and-greatest (and quite expensive) Nikon D7200 that beats the (almost three times cheaper) Sony.
"Sony in general tends to be noisy, and I own an A77II !! "
There was a reason I emphasized having only compared non-SLT Sonly MILC's to the NX1/NX500. (See "I've compared the noise to that of Sony's 24 Mpixel non-SLT cameras (the A6000 and the A5100)." above.)
SLT's will always be noisier than non-SLT's. One shouldn't base his/her assessment of all products of a camera manufacturer based on the noise levels of SLT cameras.
Menneisyys: I've imported both ISO6400 NX1 & NX500 low-light RAW's to ACR9.
The NX1 RAW is around 10% brighter (on the white background of the portraits on the left, 12%; in the center area, some 4%. Both measured in the red channel.). Assuming exactly the same lighting, this may mean the NX1 is more sensitive to light. (Actually, in DPR's previous reviews, they did state the NX1 is more sensitive to light than most other cameras.)
Nevertheless, 10% difference in in-RAW brightness wouldn't result in such a huge (1EV in higher ISO) difference. There is something fundamentally wrong with the NX500 - again, it produces even noisier results than the A5100 equipped with Sony's over a year-old 24 Mpixel sensor.
" NX500 image processing is the one to be culprit for not processing image properly due to more noise or either the heating issue problem in sensor cos of the body in mirrorless is smaller and cramped in either way."
1, there should be almost no in-camera image processing WRT RAW files.
2, camera bodies of similar size deliver sometimes significantly less noisy RAW's. Just compare the Sony A5100 RAW's (with its "old", non-BSI 24 Mpixel sensor) to those of the NX500. The A5100 is definitely cleaner (while being beaten by the NX1).
Samsung has messed up something very badly - or, it's ACR9 that produces substandard results with the NX500 RAW's, while it (still) processes NX1 RAW's just fine, as has been pointed out by me below in my direct ARC9 comparisons.
I've continued playing with the low-light RAW's – now, with the ISO100 ones, both shot with 3 seconds and, as with the 6400 images, also showing some 10% higher NX1 brightness.
I've increased the exposure by 5EV (and completely dialed down sharpening & CNR. The tint, in this case, was the same (+1) by default so I haven't touched it.) After exporting, I've scrutinized the bottles in the bottom as they have homogenous and under-exposed areas.
The NX500 exhibits definitely more prevalent noise speckles than the NX1. There difference is noticeable. This means the NX500 has a major handicap even at base ISO compared to its big bother.
I've uploaded both the developed, full images and the bottle crops in the flickr set at https://www.flickr.com/photos/33448355@N07/sets/72157654268584645 . See the image names for more info on the images.