mpgxsvcd: Sony just glared at Canon and Canon meekishly let them cut in front of them in the line. Nikon got to the club late so they are way at the back of the line.
Hasselbad is trying to fake their way onto the VIP list.
Olympus and Panasonic are trying to sneak into the back door with some very authentic looking back stage passes they created together.
Samsung just went to the wrong club all-together.
Samsung are in the doldrums of imaging... they really did go to the wrong club.
Donnie G: Will 3 variations on their alpha 7 FF body be enough to finally make this camera type profitable for Sony? Or, will we see an A7X in about 6 months? I guess we will know soon enough.
Yes because it has been so non profitable for them thus far? :S
cgarrard: Only the Nikon mount- that sucks. Good lens otherwise it seems. Both Sony A-Mount and Pentax K-Mount need a constant f/4 lens in this range- you'd think they'd know and pick up on that gap in the market.
Tokina don't make K-Mount lenses, they get rebadged as Pentax lenses like the 50-135mm.
ShatteredSky: Well, well, well. Since nobody seems to interested to do a comparable tough camera this year, how about a underwater housing for the RX100III?
There was for other models, so do t see any reason why not. No OEM one though.
The Lotus Eater: Assuming I have done the maths correctly (and I am very average at maths), this camera offers DOF at least as shallow as the Sony E 16-50mm lens on NEX/Axxxx cameras.
Moreover, as the RX100 III's lens is faster then the 16-50mm by 2 stops, that should compensate for any ISO performance disadvantages against APS-C sensors.
Am I missing something? This seems almost too good to be true.
Well RX100 scores about a stop behind the NEX-6 and about 1.3 stops behind the a6000. It's lens is 2 stops faster so should perform a little better except at base ISO of course.
As mentioned it gets dangerously close to 2 stops behind the A7, but 2 stops faster lens, so RX100 III gets fairly close to A7 with kit lens.
Start adding faster lenses and this all goes out the window of course.
Alphoid: I'd be interested to know what they did to merit the price... The Canon and Nikon branded 70-200 f/4 sell for less.
Prices in Japan are usually higher, $1500 seems to be a straight conversion.
Yet does still seem high, considering the Tamron f2.8 VC and Sigma f2.8 OS are cheaper...
Thorgrem: How does this compare to the much cheaper Panasonic GH4?
Actually probably about 3 stops for 4K video.
More like 2 stops, maybe a little more.
qed: BetaMax is much better than 4k video.
You can pry my BMC100P Betamovie from my cold dead hands.
setaside2: I was so surprised to see Sony being not just realistic about the price for the A7s but actually, in my eyes, more than fair... I about fell over. It will be in my bag as soon as its allowed. Exciting camera.
I agree, think the pricing is very reasonable... Will wait to see the AF, have no problems with CDAF just looking forward to -4ev to get it in the region of current better m43's. If that's the case then this will be a spectacular little camera.
pew pew: I suspect this camera will blow the dxo sensor stats.
I keep seeing the 'it's a reworked D700 sensor' mantra around the internet... What a load of nonsense!
Did the D700 sensor do full sensor read out for video? Gapless micro lenses? Was it even made by Sony? Don't think so. Do you really think the biggest sensor manufacturer in the world needs to get a 'Nikon design' fabbed by 'someone else' to make a 4K optimised sensor?
The only thing this sensor has in common with the D700 sensor is the size and resolution (which is likely not the same, but very close to be rounded to 12MP).
ottonis: It is remarkable how some people already bash the A7s and some others already praise it like the new holy grail.
We still don't have any serious review of this camera. What we have are some extremely promising specs that are of particular interest for those people whose main interest is in the low-light capabilities for stills/video.
We have the extraordinary specs and we have some stunning video/stills samples, but I would really wait for some serious and more detailed reviews and testing before making a conclusion about this camera.
Personally, if the A7s is at least one full stop better (with regards to SNR) compared with its A7/r siblings, then it would be of interest of me, as it would put it 2+ stops above the best APS-C cameras today.If on my Nex 5N ISO 800- was the maximum tolerable ISO with regards to IQ/noisefloor/SNR, then the A7s would allow to shoot at ISO 3200 at the same quality, which is just astonishing.
And there is ZERO way it will perform a full stop better than the A7R, that would mean, as an example, that it would score around 6000 on DXO... Just ain't going to happen.
Apart from the first videos there have been no sanctioned samples. So I agree, the samples we've seen thus far have been terrible.
Seeing video though that was shot at full read out suggests the performance is really rather good.
Lux Painter: The price is not bad, although it should be less than 2k considering:
- extremly low frame rate- less than 16 MP- no internal 4k recording
The only interesting feature that's left is the superb ISO performance.But the first 3 points are a no go for me (even if it would be priced less than 2k)
The second point is the reason for the high ISO abilities, so you are really calling the same thing a pro and a con. It's funny how not so long ago people decried that 'we don't need more MP, just better ISO' someone gives it to us and we cry about not having more MP... People are weird. Think that as 24MP has become the 'norm' rather than the exception, it is suddenly no longer 'enough' to have less, it's suddenly weirdly a bad thing.
I say bring on more cameras like this!
1. Breaks compatibility with third party batteries.2. Breaks compatibility with third party lenses.3. Dangles some minor fix carrot to ensure users 'update' to 'take advantage' of features *1 and *2. 4. Fixes bug that allowed users to downgrade firmware to earlier versions.
There is a reason why I don't have any Nikon equipment any more.
Smokymtnhiker: The 16-35mm F4L should be awesome on the A7R. It would be the perfect do-all lens for backpacking trips. I hope Novoflex hurries up with their AF adapter. If so I will forget about getting the Sony 35mm 2.8.
Why do you need to wait for Novoflex? Use the Metabones or one of the other rip off adapters. I'm tempted by the Canon, but the similarly spec'd and likely priced Zeiss will be a better match.
The 10-18mm on the other hand is very interesting as a much cheaper Sony 10-18mm alternative, but slower.
ttnewton: Forget the IS for wide angle lenses, if it costs a stop or more. I just don't get that. In handheld low-light scenarios involving moving subjects (wedding, photojournalism) if the moving subjects are blurry, it hardly matters if the still background is nice and sharp. Might be worse, actually. The loss of a stop requires doubling the shutter time, all else equal, so low-light moving-subject situations are going to suffer with this lens.
But what if the subject is not moving? I can definitely see a place for handheld landscape/travel enthusiasts who want the best possible optical performance without having to lug a tripod. But still, why spend big bucks on the finest optics and then compromise your landscapes by leaving the tripod home?
What Canon REALLY needs to get around to is a good competitor to Nikon's amazing 14-24mm f/2.8. Now THAT is a lens I'd buy, IS or not!! :-)
@ ttnewton - Erm that's why they do a 16-35mm f2.8? As you say soft corners aren't a concern but f2.8 is, that's why they make one. You haven't 'lost' anything, this GIVES IS to the previous 17-40mm and sits in between in their range.
Lawrencew: A $299 launch price sounds a bit of a bargain for a UWA. That said, Canon's recent STM lenses like the 55-250mm have taken a long time to fall significantly in street price.
That's a pretty good starter line up now though from 10-250mm all IS and STM, if matches the decent (for their price) IQ of the 18-55 and 55-250 lenses.
It isn't clear how closely it matches, but the EF-M 11-22mm IS STM is an amazing lens, so that bodes well for the 10-18
It is also wider and cheaper than the 11-22mm by 25%.
DVT80111: Still nothing can compete with the Sigma 18-35/1.8
Well that is a 'normal' zoom, these are ultra wide angles and (for once) Sigma doesn't have anything as good.