Couscousdelight: Amazing, check this :
If you shot moving objects with pixel shift, the moving parts of the image won't be processed, but only the non-moving parts !
Guys, sorry for bursting your bubble, but that's only partially true (if at all). Just take a look at my following crop (notice the red arrows):
See the interlaced combing lines-like effect? Yes, that's the result of the wind's slightly moving the leaves / wire between the shots.
stanic042: I like the lack of moiré and increased detail
So do I. I'm really looking forward for their FF model. If it'll also have the same-quality/efficiency pixel shift, it'll be a killer.
Mister Joseph: That Pentax Pixel Shift is a Pixel-Peeper's dream. Imagine Pentax Pixel Shift on a 42MP FF Sensor... Or how about a 645Z II with Pixel Shift?
"Imagine Pentax Pixel Shift on a 42MP FF Sensor..."
I *really* hope Pentax does introduce their FF model quickly so that we know whether- it'll indeed have the new Sony stacked 42 Mpixel sensor- it'll have pixel shift and- it'll be cheaper than the A7R2.
"Dual Mode is a special mode that we have seen in a similar form on various competing devices. It allows you to embed the front camera image in the main camera frame or vice versa. It works with both video and still images and is accessed in the same way as the panorama mode described above. The embedded image can be moved around the screen but not resized. Unfortunately, the very small output size of 1280 x 720 pixels limits its usefulness."
That's VERY bad. I use my Note4 almost exclusively in Dual mode when shooting social videos / snapshots to, then, share it with relatives on YouTube. I simply *LOVE* dual recording.
(I only use the Note4 for this kind of stuff and nothing more serious. My X-E1, which, with the 27mm prime, is very light and small, is used for everything else.)
b craw: Looks a bit like the love child of a Leica Digilux 2 and a Samsung NX500. Pretty.
"Menneisyys, NX1 has higher default noise reduction in jpeg...less noise and less detail both. IQ is the same and RAW is much better than jpeg like with most cams."
I've only compared RAW's, in which the NX500 was sigbificantly noisier than both the NX1 and even Sony 24 Mpixel cameras like the A6000.
"Looks a bit like the love child of a Leica Digilux 2 and a Samsung NX500. Pretty."
Hope it's not as dumbed-down and underperforming as the NX500. Yes, even IQ-wise - the NX500 is about 1EV worse in high ISO and 0.5 EV worse in base ISO shadows than the NX1.
Gadgety: "It takes many of its features from the GX7 that it surely replaces but builds them into a much more substantial body....the GX8 doesn't have room for the built-in pop-up flash that its predecessor offered... the one thing the GX8 isn't short of is space."
"In a nice touch, Panasonic has removed the 29 minute, 59 second recording restriction from non-European models, so it's only European users who might by stymied by the workings of EU duty regulations."
It's 4.5% tax. Why not offer two models in Europe, one with the restriction lifted, with the addition of the 4.5% tax.
"It's 4.5% tax. Why not offer two models in Europe, one with the restriction lifted, with the addition of the 4.5% tax."
This is what has been constantly asked ever since the release of the GH1. Philip Bloom for example posted even a firmware petition more than six(!) years ago (and talked a lot to Pana): http://philipbloom.net/blog/the-lumix-30-minutes-eu-recording-issue/
The results are known, unfortunately :( It seems the only way of getting the camera for us EU people to order it from overseas, with all its hassles (higher price & no local warranty, for example).
Brian Mosley: Richard,
is there likely to be any difference in image quality when using the electronic shutter vs the mechanical shutter?
"In fact, can't see any difference in image quality - perhaps the only risk is rolling shutter effects for fast moving subjects?"
That sounds really promising. Does it also apply to the A7R2? (and, hopefully, the upcoming A7000?) That'd be a godsend (I need every single EV I can squeeze out from the sensor when shooting panos.)
"if any, in noise levels etc when using Electronic vs Mechanical Shutter in any camera (Sony or Panasonic)"
I wouldn't hold my breath. For example, on the Fuji X-T10, the all=electronic shots have about 2 EV more noise in deep shadows in RAW. In JPEG's, there's virtually no difference.
norman shearer: I really like the tech they are putting into this camera, lets hope some of it ends up in the A7000. An electronic shutter with no rolling artifacts or drop in bit rate would be great for street shooters.
"Why would " drop in bit rate" be great for street shooters and what bit rate has to do with street shooting to begin with ?"
He obviously meant RAW bit depth, which is indeed different between mechanical and electronic shutters on many cameras.
"though Apple users will have to manually re-select the camera's Wi-Fi if their device is already connected to a different network"
oh, the 'legendary' user-friendliness...
We can only praise Apple for not putting NFC in there. And no, Apple Pay isn't full NFC.
Utterlyotter: Magnificent camera, but not for me for the forseeable future even though it does give me a touch of GAS.I really really hope this sensortech will be implemented in the upcoming A6100 or A7000. (End of the year or 1st quarter of next is my guess)Teething issues - wich most new tech has - should hopefully be ironed out by then.
+ Quiet shutter, built in ND capability and Ibis would be nice, as long as it doesn´t make it significantly larger..
"Here he goes again, mentions a lens costing more than twice as much as the Sony 24-70, but calls the latter "expensive"."
Is the Zeiss around 1000 euros (amazon.de: 1029 currently) here in Europe? Yes, it is. Does it have *significantly* worse IQ that the Canon, which "only" costs 1920 euros on amazon.de? Yes, it does.
What's the point in using a top (and _very_ expensive) body with a zoom delivering significantly worse IQ than both the native primes and third-party (here: Canon) zooms? I definitely wouldn't bother with the Zeiss zoom. Either the primes (the 55mm, for example) or the Canon zoom, no lower-quality zooms for me on a $3000 body, thanks. You know: a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
Searching: Sony is sure getting good coverage these days.
"Actually Sony does seem to upgrade every two seconds and most times they are minimal."
Well, while I'm a die-hard Fuji fan, I can tell you Sony did innovate a LOT more in recent years than Fuji WRT bodies... (the lens lineup is a completely different question. If I ever purchase an A7-series camera, I'll only use either Canon zooms or native Sony primes, Sony's zooms sucking pretty hard.)
helltormentor: @ Rishi SanyalSony's strategy on cameras has always been an enigma to me. It seems that they are more concerned about the number of sensors that they sell rather than that of cameras they manufacture. This camera has potential to persuade many enthusiasts to ditch their DSLRs for it but, strangely, Sony has crippled the camera in one way or another to make them think twice. When I was reading the article, I had a big grin on my face thinking the AF micro adjustment era was gone till I reached the section describing that the AF point couldn't be selected. Funny thing is that issues like this or lossy RAW can be addressed by just FW updates but Sony leaves much to be desired when it goes to FWs. Since you can directly talk to some Sony managers, have you ever asked why it is like this? I can accept that Sony doesn't pay attention to what people discuss in forums but I have difficulty believing they do nothing about a criticism that is mentioned on your reviews since they are well aware of the number of your readers. You mentioned this lossy RAW issue when you reviewed the A7/R but nothing changed and it continued its way to A7S, A7II and apparently A7RII. At present, a Sony manager says that they have heard the voice of photographers and they are going to address the issue by FW update. Seriously, how difficult could it be that it took them so long to start thinking about it?!! How long will it take them to let people choose the desired focus point on their adapted lenses?! Although it sounds silly, I cannot help but think that Sony has reached an agreement with Nikon not to cannibalize their sells since I believe this camera could do it.
"It isn't Sony's job nor intention to make their cameras 100% compatible with Canon or Nikon lenses."
The more compatible with Canon's / Nikon's FF lineup, the better Sony FF bodies will sell.
Currently, Sony normal zooms, even expensive ones like the Zeiss 24-70mm/4, are significantly worse than top Canon zooms, for example, the Canon EF 24 - 70mm / 2,8L USM II. A Sony body and a top Canon zoom is a set up that simply can't be beaten and has significantly better value than anything Canon- or Sony-only.
"sick and tired waiting for(Sony) great standard zoom!!!"
Use Canon FF zooms in the meantime. They (most importantly, the Canon EF 24 - 70mm / 2,8L USM II) are _far_ better on the A7 series than any Sony normal zooms, incl. the expensive Zeiss 24-70mm/4.
Here's a German-language comparison: http://www.traumflieger.de/reports/Objektiv-Tests/Sony-Objektive-am-Vollformat/Canon-EF-24-70mm-2-8L-USM-II-im-Test-an-Sony-A7-Modellen::876.html
sebastian huvenaars: Turn your nikon into a Sony R1 :) kinda...
Most of us remember such a great and revolutionary camera.
brendon1000: Yeah Sony prices its lenses very high but their 16-50mm f2.8 was launched at an MSRP of $799 which was pretty good.
Too bad it's A-mount only and there isn't anything comparable on either E or FE. That is, it's pretty irrelevant NOW, unless you shoot with SLT bodies and/or want to use A->E adapters. And, of course, it has no OIS to start with, making it even more useless on most Sony MILC's, except for the A7II and the A7R2 (both in crop mode).
QuarryCat: for that astronomic price a 2.8/16-55 mm VR would do much more sense!
especially for Nikon China-Plastics
"Yeah Sony prices its lenses very high but their 16-50mm f2.8 was launched at an MSRP of $799 which was pretty good."
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.