beavertown: Another piece of junk.
Who wants to buy a tiny sensor super noisy blurry zoom toy camera nowadays?
All super zoom cameras should move on to 1" sensor like RX10 etc.
Yes and it will really have 1250mm equiv lens for $250...
abortabort: So where were the 'equivalence' charts when reviewing the A7/R cameras? putting down the lens range compared to m43's... which if converted to m43's 'equivalence' would make a supposedly very poor lineup look like the most amazing lineup ever assembled in the mirrorless space... But since that didn't happen, here is the lineup again in m43's equivalent:
17.5mm f1.427.5mm f0.912-35mm f2 14-35mm f1.7-2.835-100mm f2
Yes, DSLRs have fuller systems and look even better in pure numbers, but the point of this is comparing a supposedly very average mirrorless system with another supposedly very full and rich system... According to your review.
Yes, when it comes to criticisms compared to FF DSLRs they are probably more apt, especially when comparing to the lens ranges and likely AF (especially tracking). But DPRs review focussed mostly on comparing to m43's and Fuji X - Not once did equivalence come up when talking lens lineups.
What is to say that the market for FF mirrorless is really any different to m43's? These are clearly not aimed to match DSLRs. In terms of size, body wise they are about the same as other high end mirrorless and lens wise they are are similar or smaller than their equivalent counterparts (not that any really exist).
I don't mind which way they do it, it's irrelevant when talking in terms of equivalence... that is after all the whole point ;)
My point is if they are going to compare to other mirrorless systems rather specifically (it is after all more in that camp than anything else) then equivalence should have played a part, especially when talking about available lens lineups (or announced lineups). They do it for fixed lens cameras that are otherwise competing in the same market space, why not interchangeable lens cameras? Again especially when 'knocking' the lens lineup speaking directly of the mirrorless competition.
Also, apologies to all for the crazy amounts of reposts, this seems to be a bug that hitting 'post' on my phone doesn't return to the comments section.
Sorry, but a) this is not how the review was stated (nor tested) and b) the camera was directly compared against other mirrorless systems, including m43's. When taken on equivalence the small number of lenses is already incredibly healthy and not one of those is available in m43's native AF lenses.
Just a Photographer: If DP Review wants to talk about equivalence, then do away with terms like, Full Frame, APS, APS-C, Four/Thirds etc. As these terms are actually very confusing.
Especially surrounding APS and APS-C as many of the manufacturers have slightly different sensor sizes they put into their camera's, but all call them APS or APS-C.
Better talk about 'sensor diagonal size' just like we compare TV screens to each other.
FF (24x36mm) has a sensor diagonal of 43.27mmFuji APS-C (23.6x15.6mm) has a sensor diagonal of 28.29mmCanon APS-C (14.9x22.3) has a sensor diagonal of 26.82mmNikon APS-C (23.5 x 15.6 mm) has a sensor diagonal of 27.38mm
Taking the diagonal size of the sensor would be fairer to compare sensors then based upon their naming which is dictated by marketing.
They almost always state the crop factor, whether it be Canon at 1.6x, Nikon/Sony/Pentax/Fujifilm at 1.5x, Micro Four Thirds (and Four Thirds) at 2x, Nikon 1 at 2.7x and even Pentax Q at 5.3x and 4.5x(?).
So where were the 'equivalence' charts when reviewing the A7/R cameras? putting down the lens range compared to m43's... which if converted to m43's 'equivalence' would make a supposedly very poor lineup look like the most amazing lineup ever assembled in the mirrorless space... But since that didn't happen, here is the lineup again in m43's equivalent:
thx1138: Ain't competition grand. Alas the Canikon duopoly have no qualms charging extortionate prices, especially on lenses. We've seen the Yen plummet in the last 18 months and yet prices are still rising.
Good on you Panasonic for shaming Sony into action.
Now tell me again how much that Nikon V3 was selling for?
Because as long as lens and sensor 'specs' are comparable then everything should be the same price?
abortabort: Typical DPR 'we hate sony because they aren't fun', but this time with no actual explanation... Because there just really isn't one. So you praise Fuji for more direct controls, like aperture rings around the lens, exp comp dials and e-dials... But when Sony do it it's 'less fun' than a Panasonic with one miserable dial... Righto! Maybe it's the selfie screen that makes it more 'funerer'?
Ugh, but the RX10 has zoom and yes primes can be fun as well. I have never ever read DPR say that a camera is more fun because it has more zoom...
I don't hear DPR commenters banging on about how great super zoom lenses are for DSLRs because they are more fun because they have more zoom.
So again this is really really clutching at straws.
'zoom' does not make something more or less fun to shoot, sorry but that holds no water. DPR believe the X100/S are fun to shoot (I happen to agree) and it has no zoom.
A better grip makes it more fun to shoot? Come on, clutching at straws, again take X100/S, which has no grip...
I'd say that having direct and constant controls over Aperture, Shutter, Exp Comp and ISO that are always available, make something far more enjoyable to shoot than a slightly better grip and one control dial for everything.
Typical DPR 'we hate sony because they aren't fun', but this time with no actual explanation... Because there just really isn't one. So you praise Fuji for more direct controls, like aperture rings around the lens, exp comp dials and e-dials... But when Sony do it it's 'less fun' than a Panasonic with one miserable dial... Righto! Maybe it's the selfie screen that makes it more 'funerer'?
bwana4swahili: I've seen so many 3rd party tests and discussion, pros/cons, yeas/nays, etc. the only way I'll be able to see whether the A7S does the job for my needs is to actually use one!
I've used one, A7 got passed on the next day.
MikeF4Black: Who is really interested in ISO's higher than 6400? I'm not. The A7s appears to be no more than a hype.
So it performs better at high ISOs (it's biggest claim to fame) but it is 'hype' because you don't need it... Hmmm ok. Cameras in general must ALL be hype then because many people don't feel they need them?
BigG30: Came to find the butthurt Canon users saying "what's the point in ISO this high?" - was not disappointed! Let's be honest, if this camera had a Canon logo on it the fanboys would be all over this like a cheap suit.
It's funny, the Canon Nikon crowd always dissing the Sony's for not having as good high ISO, when it wipes the floor with them they claim to not need it...
Amusing to say the least :)
HowaboutRAW: Too bad at ISO 25,600 in raw it has the standard Sony sensor high ISO magenta and cyan banding in shadowed areas.
It's not fair to Sony to draw conclusions without more examples, but this isn't great performance. The A99 and the Nikon D610 can be pushed to ISO 12,800 with a bit of magenta and cyan banding starting to show in deep shadow, so had expected more from this sensor with fewer pixels.
@ How about RAW - Yes.
I wonder if these are shot with or without electronic shutter?
aarif: excellent now if it only had a better AF to go with the low light performance I would have bought it, not in love with it's battery performance too
The AF IS a lot better in low light, where the A7 and A7R started to struggle. A7S is good to very good in low light AF.
Carlos Loff: Great - I was wishing so much for this test - Great performance
Now I gave up waiting on Nikon D400 but since the Pentax K-3 is showing issues with shutter and Ricoh does not recognise them, I changed my attention to Sony A7s
Each time more convinced to go for Sony
D400/K-3 couldn't be more different beasts to A7S. It's a slightly strange comparison.
I wonder if I will be allowed to use this phone's cameras to shoot something again a white background?
peevee1: What's the point? Cheaper than the lens alone, these days you can get E-PM2 (with IBIS and better sensor and EVF support)+14-42 +40-150, and that 40-150 is faster, sharp and 70g lighter and focuses with the speed of light.
Yeah but add an UWA and a fast 35mn prime and then see who is out in front.
Seems kind of pricey on its own though, especially compared to the rest of the system.