Photoman: I think I will stick to my Minolta 28/2.8. A lot of distortion in this lens.
Who said that it was a MF lens? I have the Minolta 28/2 AF and it is a pretty good performer, certainly less distortion but maybe a bit more coma wide open. Sharpness and contrast are not an issue.
naththo: Fairly soft in some of photos I think might be just from awful amount of distortion spoils the image unfortunately as you had to make a LOT of correction to distortion up to nearly 50% is not good sign.
Up to 50% of what?
This is the first camera that really makes sense of the CX system, a proper GM1 competitor. Very well priced and looks quite pleasant to use with a decent array of controls for such a tiny body, but adding a tilt screen.
Does this mean we will see a PDAF enabled Sony 20.3 MP 1" hitting cameras like RX100 IV and RX10 II?
Mike FL: "Nikon 1 J5: What you need to know?"
Will NIKON keep its Signature feature to distinguish it with other camera makers?
Nikon 1's Signature feature = The Most NOISY 1" sensor that you can find.
Nikon should has better way to kill Nikon-1 system other than giving it a NOISY 1" sensor.
Why just put a SONY sensor inside to give NIKON 1 some life back.
Doesn't this now have a 20.3 MP BSI sensor? Sounds a LOT like a Sony sensor to me!
Photomino: a silver award for the most advanced mirrorless camera ever made....
Yes, because the E-M1 and X-T1 got brand new sensors and they churn out new sensors with every iteration?
naththo: Still struggle to catch up with Nikon again. Nikon still ahead of it!
So baked in noise reduction makes one 'sensor' better than another, got it!
koolbreez: With this increased body size, why not a single mention of the "No Flash" issue, especially in the conclussions, as it is a big negative factor? Smaller,lighter models have flashes, why not this one, and why no talk at all about this issue?
Oh and nor did my E-M1, which was bigger than the A7S. I know the A7 II is a bit bigger, but mainly due to IBIS mech.
Leica 'looks' smaller, but my M8 is considerably chunkier than my A7S and neither have a flash.
MustyMarie: Apparently Sony is still MP4 codec challenged and simply must not be able to find someone to code that encoder - still keeping the world-wide standard of mp4 at a 'lesser' resolution/frame rate - engineering at its most feeble ?
And yet I thought mp4 just a file type for H.264/H.265/etc NOT such a trying encoding - sad that Sony finds it so hard to actually comply with world-wide standards - its hard it makes my brain hurt !!!!!! ;)
Shameful that Sony must constantly insist on its relatively arbitrary PROPRIETARY file types/encoding - XAVC-S/AVCHD which so happen to be H.264/H.264 5.2 which If I am NOT mistaken is the same as what can be in a MP4 file - silly Sony - glad you do NOT insist on your proprietary flash mem cards that no one ever used !!
Learn what a wrapper is and what a codec is champ.
I never once claimed the A7 ii was as good or better than the D750, sorry you have some difficulty with that.
abortabort: This review has the same 'trouble' as the A7 and A7R etc, it isn't the observations on performance, it is the comparisons that are utterly confusing. Basically it reads like this:
High ISO performance isn't as good as the best DSLR cameras on the marketIt is bigger than smaller cameras on the marketIt doesn't have a touch screen like some camerasIt does drive along a mountain pass like a LamborghiniIt doesn't refresh like an ice cold beer on a hot day
Seriously? I don't care what DPR decide to categorise these as, but PICK one. If you are going to compare it as a mirrorless (where it is apparently very heavy) than the IQ needs to be compared as such. Conversely if you are going to compare to a DSLR where it's IQ is not 'top of the leaderboard' then fine, it is still smaller and lighter than any of them and they don't have touch screens.
Why does it have to be the 'best of everything' otherwise it is no good? Does the X-T1 beat the D750 in IQ? No. Was it even compared? Sensibly no. Was it's AF tracking compared to a D750? No, again sensibly.
Apparently the A7's have to have all the best of mirrorless AND the best of DSLRs or it is not very good at anything.
And while we are talking about comparisons between this and the D750, why not mention the 'class leading' highest max shutter speed rather than spending time complaining it isn't any quieter than its direct competition?
What about the RAW buffer, again class leading yet forgotten. We know that you have a particular interest in AF tracking and are quite keen to improve DPR's testing ability in this regard, so this is a particular area of interest for you, but these other areas are worth looking at.
Thanks Rishi, totally agree on your points. Where I stumble in understanding then is why it is considered heavy? Why is no touch screen a 'con' when the models it is being compared to such as the D750 also don't have them? It isn't in the 'cons' list in the D750 review and in fairness why isn't the lack of IBIS on the D750 listed as a 'con' if we are only going to look at every angle from a best in class approach?
Again I don't disagree with the conclusions, the AF is not as good as something like a D750, but when making comparisons things need to be considered in a reasonable and well defined group of products. So if the A7 II, D750 and 6D belong to a group then the pros and cons need to be weighted as such.
Don't know, my A7S is still pretty good at high ISO's ;)
Why does everyone expect a new sensor with every new model? And what is this 'still haven't fixed'... wow the whole series have been out for less than 18 months, not to mention there IS a high ISO gem in the set.
Nikon have a mirrorless full frame camera?
This review has the same 'trouble' as the A7 and A7R etc, it isn't the observations on performance, it is the comparisons that are utterly confusing. Basically it reads like this:
straylightrun: It's a shame Sony didn't fix the loud shutter noise. You would think with a larger body that it would be able to muffle the noise better.
They have, it has been improved by the more dense body.
jkokich: Forgive what may sound like a stupid question (there are those), but why is there shutter sound, at all? (Serious question, even if stupid).
Because the focal plane shutter makes a noise, not just the mirror.
ekaton: And they have all these inexpensive, yet quite good pancake primes unlike any other competitor. If they could only come up with a decent RF style body.
Have all these? They have 3, which are all ok but nothing spectacular. 2 of which (16 and 20) are a bit better than the Sony's and the 3rd (30mm) I would rather the slight extra bulk for the newer, faster focusing, 1/3 stop fast and OSS enabled Sony.
Papi61: I'm a Nikon shooter, but I recently bought an NX1 for its amazing 4K video capabilities (and I'm extremely satisfied with the results. Incidentally, it's also a great still camera. And the 16-50 f/2.0-2.8 + 50-150 f/2.8 zooms are top-notch.)
It would have been totally awesome if Samsung had released the NX500 with the same 4K video capabilities as the NX1 (not to mention it would have saved me $750...), but unfortunately 4K video on the NX500 works only if the sensor is cropped by a factor of 1.6. What the hell were they thinking? If this camera had the same 4K video as the NX1 for a mere $800, it would fly off the shelves.
LX100 does better 4k for similar money with a smaller sensor and a faster lens to compensate.
I don't care about the 5 frame buffer, but the crippled crop mode and low bitrate I do. I was going to buy this as a walk around P&S with kit lens and use my other glass adapted for video (cheapest s35 4K camera out there), but it isn't and now I won't. Will wait for the inevitable NX1.1 to drop with minor minor changes and might grab one then.
4K might be a party piece for now, but before long everything will offer 4K, then what will set this apart?
RichRMA: I don't quite get Samsung. It's not like they've produced silly things like Sigma's Quadra (or whatever it's called) but they, like Sony are trying to break into the camera market in a big way. Now, Sony offered unique cameras, ultra portable (except for some of the lenses) NEX bodies which were an immediate hit. They also offered fixed-mirror DSLRs and now compact FF bodies. This has cemented them firmly into 3rd place. But Samsung, apart from the NX1, has offered cameras done better by others. Their small mirrorless cameras with EVF's were more or less like Panasonic's. Their EVF-less mirror-less are really just P&S's with good sensors. In other words, they broke no new ground, really.I think the NX1 is a great camera, by most accounts, but their other cameras are also-rans.
I owned Samsung's first mirrorless the NX10 along with the much gloated 30mm f2, mostly because it offered exceptional value at clearance prices. But at the same time it just didn't. The 30mm was ok, but nothing spectacular (yes it's a bit smaller than say your average crop 35mm f1.8, but not significantly so). The body was pretty 'meh'. It in no way was better or even particularly smaller than an a55 and 35mm f1.8, but the sensor was actually pretty horrid... no REALLY horrid.
Since getting rid of it and a few other Samsung lenses I somehow managed to acquire, I kept being hopeful for the system and they simply never delivered, just coming out with iteration after iteration of the same thing, in fact often going in many backwards steps such as getting rid of the EVF option after the NX100 and the hideous beast that is the Galaxy NX. Even the NX mini, not released very long ago, is a bit of a 'what the heck' camera.
So now finally they release the NX1 where they throw all the tech they have at it and it seems to be relatively impressive. BUT that is only one camera and it is a lot of money to spend on the one and only body they have produced that is remotely interesting. I was seriously interested in the NX500 as a possible 'dip the toes' camera, but it has some serious downsides and don't think I will be buying because of this.
I certainly wouldn't be racing out for a NX1 just yet, but if they start making things more interesting then they could be a brand to watch at some point, but one decent body (which is far from perfect) does not make for a compelling system.