BennoFG: It seems the argument here is the big camera crowd saying:"this is why FF/35mm is better" and the m43 crowd saying "but this is why I bought m43 and didn't buy FF/35mm"
I'll join in. I am so stoked with m43. I do freelance travel photography. I moved from Nikon to m4/3 two years ago. So The big cameras were near on perfect until I had a comparison. I notice the EM-5 with a panny 20mm 1.7 gives a beautiful shallow portrait, but doesn't take away the natural smile on people facing a guy with a camera. The EM-1 gets pulled out in stiking jungle humidity with a 2.8 zoom that's also safely weatherproofed.
Those cameras are no longer insured. The price vs features required makes it affordable to risk having to replace a camera. I am saving money.
The size and weight benefits are appreciated no-end and the difference in image quality non-existant. really, the last 7 of 8 projects have been for digital end-use. I have not had to adjust to anything more than the button latout.
personally, m43 was godsend.Great interview! Keep pumping those high end bodies and lenses out Olympus, I'll keep buying them.
A question I have always in my mind is,
Carrying one big DSLR with 2.8 zoom performs better than multiple M43 bodies with primes.
Too late, but nice support.
Black Box: I don't know if it's intentional but I really like the "old" colors of this series. They somehow look very... Soviet, if you like. And they really show what Sochi really is - a dirty overcrowded cloaka with nothing to see, eat or go to. AVOID.
Actually, Mamiya 7 is the one of the last film camera ever produced. Sold until 2013. Most contemporary medium format camera. Also, Portra 400 is the newest version of the Kodak film. Nothing old.
If you think digital is new and film is old, that's different story, though.
plasnu: Another nice documentary with Mamiya 7. Mamiya 7 has already established a classic status for documentary photography.
Looks like it.
U-point is licensed by NIK, but NIK is now owned by GOOGLE, so probably the licensing issue.
The chart of Digital Camera sales as proportion of whole company is interesting.
It's not old. These are very typical 90's Mamiya camera using Portra 400.
Another nice documentary with Mamiya 7. Mamiya 7 has already established a classic status for documentary photography.
There is aesthetic issue with film simulation without doubt. They do look fake, and they actually are.
Wye Photography: Personal view to which I am entitled - don't bite my head off.
I find it mildly amusing that thousands upon thousands of people abandoned film in their absolute droves and "made the switch to digital", spent $1000's (the $ is there for the benefit of my American brothers) on the new gear, computers, software only then to mimic film. If I could understand irony, I think that could be ironic.
I use digital, I also use film (B&W, just started to self process colour), I can tell you those "film packs" are just a waste of money esp BW. I can process Tri-X in D76, HC-110, Prescysol and Perceptol and have four different results.
With colour, I get a slightly different colour and rendition from my old Canon kit as I do from my RTS (and those sublime Carl Zeiss T* lenses) kit.
Personally, I think all these film sim profiles, albeit free from Adobe, are a gimmick. Quality film kit is cheap as chips thanks to digital. Buy some, have a go, do if for real. You'll enjoy it!
I use real film, digital and digital film sim.
Film is film, digital is digital, sim is sim. I prefer real film by far and I'll trash all my digital camera, if film camera has the same convenience as digital.
icexe: Dear Hasselblad,
Please, just stop it. You're embarrassing yourself.
I would choose Hassey version over Sony, IF the price is the same or $25 more.
rbryll: Kowa makes truly *excellent* low-distortion machine vision (C-mount) lenses. I could not find better lenses on the market for 3D stereo vision applications, maybe with the exception of some Schneider Optics models costing 5-7 times as much. I hope these new lenses are a success, the company deserves it. (I'm not affiliated with Kowa, just using their stuff).
hmm, I have to see the sample images from those lenses, then.
Too early for April fool.
abortabort: I love all the comparisons to the D800 in the comments here (and to some extent in the reviews), but here's the thing:
The A7/R are not competing with the D800, nor 5D III. They are already very competent cameras and if they are what you are after I am sure a friendly retailer will be able to help you get your fix.
Fact is the A7/R don't have any natural competitors, they offer us something that we've never had before. So the comparisons are largely meaningless. We don't usually compare a D800 to a 1DX now do we? Why? They are both full frames right? Yeah but they are in a different class, that is why most of the time we don't compare them.
But when we find something that defies comparison due to being something completely new, we tend to grasp onto whatever we see as closest, but that doesn't really work does it?
I mean when the iPhone came out I saw lots of comparisons to this and that, Windows Mobile, Nokia E70, Palm Centro, BlackBerry etc. But it couldn't be directly compared because it was something new.
If you are going to try to compare to something, it would have to be the Leica M's, not a D800 or whatever. Think of the D800 and it's ilk as a desktop computer, a workhorse for getting shiz done. Now think of the A7/R as a shiny new smartphone, super cool, but when you compare it to the workhorse it could NEVER replace it right? I mean there are so many things it can't do that the big powerful desktop can do... it's a 'toy' for rich people with more money than sense right?
Yep, now is a time to stand up and proudly condemn the A7/R in the same way you said they would have to prise your Window Mobile, or Palm or Nokia from your cold dead hands and how a smartphone would never be anything more than a gimmick.
Remember that iPhone didn't even have apps. No 3G. No GPS. Battery life was terrible. Couldn't video call... and all the rest.
Now go back to condemning then for not having 30 years worth of accumulated lenses and short battery life. (even though they have 30 years of accumulated lenses).
I don't think A7r is competing FF DSLR, but A7R Mark II probably will.
sgoldswo: Just curious, but other than build quality and resolution (which is a curse as well as a blessing) why is this rated a good bit higher than the A7? To my mind, the A7 is the better of the two, more manageable RAWs, less noisy shutter, faster AF etc.
Not true at all.http://www.flickr.com/photos/martinstelbrink/sets/72157638008570035/
I feel A7 and A7r should share the same score after reading both reviews, considering the price difference and not so much difference other than pixel count.
" the a7R has the unique ability to adapt to nearly every 35mm lens ever made thanks to a wide array of available adapters, most of them limiting these lenses to manual focus."
Not true at all. Most of non-telecentric rangefinder wide angle lens below 35mm is almost unusable with A7r.
Image Samples. So much better than any NEX.
This silver body may look nice with Contax G lenses.
Joachim Gerstl: So that's how you are supposed to hold it. Now it makes perfect sense.