Wow! For just $600, I'll be able to get ugly photos all the way from 16mm up to 300mm for months, maybe even years, until the lens breaks!
I'm increasingly feeling the love for MFT...
Random Asian Guy: A lot of my photos are from low light situations, So this camera interests me quite a bit.
But I'm surprised it can only manage 5 fps for stills with only 12 megapixels.
I'd take A-mount for low-light in most cases. Fast, stabilized primes.
ProfHankD: This probably was a minimal-effort way for Sony to bring out support for serious 4K, and it gives Sony an interesting read on the market in comparing sales of A7, A7R, A7S. In addition, if this comes out around $2K, Sony is going to sell a heck of a lot of them to would-be videographers that otherwise would buy Canon DSLRs or micro4/3.
I also wonder if this is the last step before the mechanical focal plane shutter goes bye bye -- which should happen sometime soon....
I doubt it can compete with MFT. Maybe the next gen.
aqasem: What if it has,5-axis OISGlobal shutterFully articulated screenin camera 4KHybrid AFsame size and around $2000
I'd gladly take a bigger size if it meant IBIS, in-camera 4k, and hybrid AF.
Big and useful beats small and useless. The video rig to make this into a usable camera adds $2k minimum, and is huge and cumbersome.
Truth of the matter is, if I can tolerate huge and cumbersome, I can get very good video from just about any camera with a proper lighting setup. Even my cell phone now does well enough given studio settings. I don't mind a large pro camcorder and audio, but something that's a spiderweb of HD recorders, cameras, lenses, fixtures to focus lenses, etc. just isn't all that useful in real-world conditions, and isn't necessary in a studio.
Sonyshine: A very succinct appraisal of the Sony A7s from Kirk Tuck:
OUCH! Hole in Sony foot....
Panasonic must be rubbing their hands in delight?
Agreed. This camera seems close to very good, but rushed to market to meet the GH4. Sony has a history of making nearly-great products with crippling flaws. This feels like one of them. They do follow up. The A7s MKII will surely be great, though.
Forever Young: Forgive my ignorance...Where can I enjoy 4K Video? My TVs are only HD, my computer monitors are HD! What is the benefit of 4K Video over 2K? So I can crop? In still photography it makes sense to have higher and higher resolution, up to a limit of course, as I can have large prints with high MP photos, but for videos? Is there any 'everyday' benefit of having 4K over HD? Will they look nicer on a HD screen? Or it is only for professional film making and large screens? If so, why put in in an amateur body?
Have you ever heard of crops? Of ken burns? It's a lot more important with video than with stills. With stills, most of the time, you can take the time to get things right. If you're shooting a video -- let's say a few speakers on a discussion panel -- a couple of high res cameras and crops to faces are the way to go. If you're scanning an audience, you'll get a nicer pan in post than when shooting. Perfectly smooth.
Chris2210: Screen resolution. Can someone explain to me the advantage of 586 ppi on a smartphone over one that's around, say 300ppi?
I am very near-sighted so occasionally, without corrective lenses I will hold my phone screen within several inches of my eyes. Even at that range I cannot discern individual pixels. What is the use of more resolution if the limitations of 'perfect' human vision means one is unable to perceive it? On a tiny screen is a 1080p film perceptually any better than 720p? I think not.
The numbers game in screen resolution terms is getting increasingly ridiculous as it goes increasingly beyond the useful. And it isn't as if there isn't a price to pay in terms of battery drain.
Whenever screen resolutions have gone up, I could see smaller text and images were sharper. I've only seen computers up to QHD, and cells up to 1080p, so it's possible QHD on a cell goes beyond the limits of reasonable, but I'll hold off judgement until I see it. So far, it's always helped.
I'm betting the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 will be sensibly priced. Sigma has made waves by offering lenses much better than OEM -- for less than OEM prices. It's a good strategy.
Alphoid: I'm wondering how much the 0.77x crop factor does for you, relative to economies of scale and the type of engineering that goes into a modern, high-end mass-produced dSLR.
I'd love to see an actual, objective comparison to a D800 with a nice Zeiss lens, a Sigma 35mm f/1.4, or similar. 35mm lenses have come a long ways since the days when I last saw someone compare MF to FF.
I hear all about the magic of MF, but I wonder if at this point, it is still real or just psychosomatic.
A 6x9 sensor would cream the D800, if someone were to make one. That would justify the Hassy purchase price tag too (although I suspect it would cost much, much more to produce).
I'm wondering how much the 0.77x crop factor does for you, relative to economies of scale and the type of engineering that goes into a modern, high-end mass-produced dSLR.
I do wish they'd either stabilize or discount their Sony lenses. If the former, they could work on NEX. If the latter, they'd be cheaper.
Wow. Waiting on dimensions. This seems better than the RX100, potentially, and the second decent all-around compact camera series.
It's funny. The cell phone cameras are getting better and better as main cameras for photographers, while point-and-shoots are getting worse and worse.
Cell phones offer growing sensors, wider apertures, increasingly more programmability and control, and better review. In the meantime, Sony announces a 63x zoom point-and-shoot with an f/3-5.9 lens, and Canon, a D30 with horrible folded optics.
I don't get why someone doesn't make a point-and-shoot with a fixed f/0.95 lens, make it sturdy, and beyond that, make the sensor as large as possible while maintaining form factor.
I wish the Nokia phones would dual-boot Android and Windows Phone. I'd totally buy one of these models if I wasn't taking a risk on Windows but had a choice.
Alternatively, I wish some Android manufacturer would release a reasonable competitor.
It's funny. It seems like Nokia is hampered by Windows (since otherwise, almost all photographers would buy Nokia), and Windows is hampered by Nokia (who doesn't make the best hardware otherwise). If Microsoft had a strategy of choice on all handsets, it would work better for all involved.
Heck, if I got an Android+Windows phone, I'd at least try Windows. If Windows was better (and I've never used it, so aside from knowing how badly Windows sucks elsewhere, I have no idea), I'd switch to Windows.
Fast focus. 4k video. Building on top of an already-successful camera. Assuming the price is in-line with the predecessors, this seems like a home run.
Only bit I don't like: I was hoping the GX7 would signal all MFT cameras were switching to IBIS. Oh well.
The quality of photos from all rugged cameras except for the Nikon AW1 is just atrocious. If someone made a rugged camera without folded optics, I'd surly buy it. It's okay if the lens protrudes, so long as it is reasonably protected. I don't mind no zoom. All I want is good photos. I'm thinking a 1/1.7" sensor and a high quality 24mm-equivalent f/2 lens. GPS. Open wifi interface with Android+iOS apps. Waterproof to 50 feet. Drop proof to 2 meters. Freeze-proof. Dust-proof. Full manual controls (even if through menus) and low-speed RAW shooting. Great automatic modes. At least 30 second max exposure.
Impressive engineering accomplishment. That said, I'd never consider buying or recommend one. What would be much more impressive would be extending the zoom range on an f/2.8 zoom without compromising image quality. Now a 16-105mm f/2.8 -- that would be revolutionary.
If it was not for crappy folded optics, had manual, and maybe RAW I would buy one...
duartix: 1080/60p? Is this a joke? Do we have to buy their cheaper cameras to get the best of their video? Meanwhile their m43 cameras are still featuring a codec and frame rates from the Middle Ages.
Smaller sensor means it is easier to do fast readout. Signals take a while to propagate over long wires.
(Footnote; intentionally slightly oversimplified)