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.
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.
naththo: Still struggle to catch up with Nikon again. Nikon still ahead of it!
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.
nerd2: Heard the raw buffer is almostly nonexistent.
An all too common problem with Samsung NX cameras. I think I read a 4-5 frame buffer somewhere. Also while it does indeed do 4K it is at a much lower bitrate and with far less features than the NX1. In fact it seems that while it has the same sensor there is otherwise very little that makes this 'the guts' of an NX1 in a smaller body.
Timlo: Not only is a rangefinder camera expensive to buy but to own too. What I've heard owners send in their cameras for inspection and service regularly, usually for checking the alignment of the rangefinder. In this regard this Konost with its digital ghost patch is really ground breaking in my opinion, no more maintenence!
It will still require a mechanical linkage to the lens, but there will be less points of mechanical failure for sure. The accuracy of the patch might be tricky though.
J A C S: Lenses?
Voigtlander have plenty of good value and affordable M-Mount lenses and cameras. Plus LTM.
TwoMetreBill: Sony will focus on sensors for vehicles and phones, each heading rapidly toward a billion sensors a year. Sony is doing extremely well in this market. Sensors for cameras, a rapidly declining market measured at less than 1/10th of one percent of the phone/ vehicle market.
With a growing multi-billion sensor market out there, they will soon stop wasting their time on the collapsing multi-million sensor camera market.
My worthless opinion, within 5 years, only Panasonic will be making camera sensors.
If Pany just made a full frame version of their current 4/3rds sensor, it would be 64 MP. When it comes to sensor technology, Panasonic is the world leader; not Sony, Samsung, Fuji or Canon.
Ah, sony made a 16MP 4/3's sensor which is still considered by many to be the best 4/3's sensor made. Sony also make a 1" type 20MP sensor that scaled up to 135 format would beat the pants off anything Panasonic could muster with a scaled up 4/3's sensor.
Mike FL: SONY will be NOT in good position after CANON starts to entering the mirror-less market.
If SONY's Camera decision has to be out of business one day, M43 camera mfc will be died before SONY.
Canon entered the mirrorless market 2 years ago... crickets. Oh you mean when they 'seriously' enter the market...
Canon: "we have always been serious about mirrorless"
Marty4650: People who enjoy paying $10 a month for the rest of their lives to get the latest tools are right. This is the "best deal for them" even if it is a very poor deal for others. But there are plenty of other people who don't want or need to upgrade every year. And their attitude seems to be... "that's their problem.... I got what I want."
I wonder if these those people lease their cars rather than buy them? I wonder if they upgrade to every release of Microsoft Office? Do they rent their homes? Or rent their furniture? Do they upgrade their wives every year?
I think the whole point of the complaints is that Adobe stopped giving you a choice of renting or buying. Everyone has to rent now, or use some other software. Take it or leave it.
This may be great for the people who were upgrading every year anyway, and for Adobe's bottom line, but it shouldn't be hard to understand why other people would rather own their homes, cars, furniture or software rather then renting.
Why should they, do people 'buy' you? You never ever OWNED photoshop, ever. You have a perpetual license but it is not even close to the same thing. You aren't just paying for the license, you are paying an ongoing support contract, something most people didn't have the option of previously. You can choose to moan about it like everyone else, but the arguments I read are near fantasy.
The idea of the 760D has me very interested indeed. The idea of a semi enthusiast but cost effective DSLR that is inexpensive and light weight, with some of those quite nice pancakes is very tempting and one of the reasons I moved to mirrorless, smallish bodies with higher end controls, it isn't rocket science! Which have all DSLRs (apart from a nice little effort from Pentax) always had to be so lacklustre in this range? Why do we always have to buy big clunkers to get two dials and half decent AF? Or a top LCD panel?
My only gripe thus far is they seem to have used the typical rebel pentamirror VF which firmly places it behind mirrorless (you can argue best OVF vs EVF all day long, but those poxy little things simply aren't in the same class).
And and Canon are offering three bodies around this sensor DPR, not two.
mgrum: "Canon has never offered us two cameras with the same sensor and asked us to pay more for one, to get some extra features before"
That's pretty much all Canon have done for the past 6 years ;)
Taking it further, selling the following all at once based on the same sensor with different exteriors:
(might have been 550D/600D or 600D/650D - but you get the point)
Ron A 19: I'd love to see this battle: Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 vs Sony Zeiss FE 35 1.4.
On a FE camera I think the result will be pretty obvious, there is a reason why that lens is pretty large.
Thanks DPR for adding additional info to this article! Particularly interested in the 35mm. Did you have a chance to try the manual focus? I wonder how the new actuator affects the focus by wire MF? The large focus ring suggests it is a decent priority for them. Now I just need an order button.
villagranvicent: This is the only system with more camera bodies than native lenses...
Erm no. Nikon have actually more 1 bodies than lenses (V1-3, J1-4, S1-2, AW1 = 10 vs 8 lenses with another 3 variations). Canon have a 3 body to 4 lens ratio for EF-M. Sony have 4 FE bodies (really 2 bodies I and II and 3 sensor variations for I) and currently 7 lenses and these 4 for imminent release makes 11, plus they have the 'designed for' loxia range of 2 lenses with more on the way.
But hey, let's not let the facts get in the way of a good Internet meme ;)