Happy Jones: The NX1 looks very impressive. In most of the scenes is competes favorably with the latest Sony FF camera, the A7ii. The D7200 might be even better which might have people questioning some of the benefits of a FF body. The sensor these days has become such a minor consideration because of how close these cameras now are.But for everything else it is like comparing an entry level body vs. a professional body. 15 FPS vs. 5 FPS, 4k video vs. moire filled 1080p, and a lot more very big differences. It makes the NX1 seem like a bargain for anyone wanting the best performance overall.
If I normally use a 450mm lens and am on a budget, it is NOT logical to buy a FF camera. And can you point us to the FF body that can shoot at 15 FPS for under $6000? I would say almost ANYONE on a budget would be better served with an APS-C camera over a FF camera with expensive bulky lenses. And at ISOs 100-3200 I can't see much of a difference between the NX1 and the A7 in the studio scenes, so any claims of which is better in real life has no impact.
nandbytes: Dpr conclusion says - "the 7D Mark II has no limitations in its high speed drive mode"
Canon user manual on pg142 says - "The maximum continuous speed of approx. 10 shots/sec is attained used the following condition: 1/1000 sec. or faster shutter speed, maximum aperture (varies depending on lens). EOS iTR AF:OFF, and Anti-flicker shooting: Disable."Sounds worst than A77ii if you ask me.
Dpr conclusion says - "12 fps mode offers little to no control over shutter speed and aperture"And"And while the a77 II locks users into a priority mode, with no control over shutter speed or aperture when shooting at 12fps"
If I my memory doesn't fail me, you can actually change our shutter sheed in 12fps mode+AF-C and you can change both shutter speed and aperture in 12fps mode while using AF-S and M autofocus mode.
Also little control is not the same as no control - which is it?
And for a camera from the 80s MF is acceptable. But today you lose 90% of prospective buyers when you say "you can do it but only if you manually focus".I love the a77ii, but hate the f/3.5 restrictions.
mosc: The A6000's combination of price, a-mount support, AF, and 11fps burst are good enough to render this camera DOA IMHO. I also think this pricepoint's market share is continuing to shrink. People want pro grade everything (which means telephoto lens behemoths), the size/feature advantage of mirrorless and fixed lens, or they use their phone.
"the a77II was released before the a6000"Really? Is today opposite day?
The Ace in the Hole for this camera is all the Minolta 'forgotten gems' lenses. The list is long and the prices are usually low. Anyone who isn't bothered by using legacy lenses and who is looking for the best performance/price ratio should get this camera. Don't be fooled by Sony raising Alpha lens prices (70-200mm F/2.8 is now $3000) . There are bargains available in every category
The NX1 looks very impressive. In most of the scenes is competes favorably with the latest Sony FF camera, the A7ii. The D7200 might be even better which might have people questioning some of the benefits of a FF body. The sensor these days has become such a minor consideration because of how close these cameras now are.But for everything else it is like comparing an entry level body vs. a professional body. 15 FPS vs. 5 FPS, 4k video vs. moire filled 1080p, and a lot more very big differences. It makes the NX1 seem like a bargain for anyone wanting the best performance overall.
Nikon now has 2 APS-C cameras that best some current FF cameras in the studio scenes (NX1 is very close too). DP Review has done a superb job showing us comparable images instead of numbers. Numbers don't show us noise patterns, banding, or poor color casting, which for me means the DPR comparisons are more useful.
armanius: Interesting that so many are intensively vested on what the review says. Almost as if they own Sony stock and are afraid that the camera won't sell well! Not getting a Gold Award is not the end of the world!
So true!They shot themselves in the foot too. They complained the reason why images did not look as good as some current cameras was because some settings on the A7ii cause a 12 bit output with reduce image quality. Turns out DPR did use the right settings, but now we know if one puts their camera into continuous shooting mode or if long shutter speeds are used (and the camera uses dark frame subtraction), the comparative images might been even worse. So if you own an A7ii, avoid settings like continuous shooting mode. Shouldn't these be listed in the Cons section?
So we've learned a lot in the past day. Besides the A7ii performing about the same as the older A7 while other camera makers have improved, we've learned that the A7ii often resorts to a 12 bit output which has been found to reduce image quality even more. A few of these cases are if the camera is put into continuous shooting mode or if long shutter speeds are used (and the camera uses dark frame subtraction). I could not image high end Canon and Nikon cameras reducing image quality in RAW files simply because they were set to continuous shooting mode. A big thanks goes out to the Sony guys who have been pointing these things out.Rishi makes a good point. If we point out to Sony just big of an issue these things are, maybe Sony will fix them (Sony has a good track record on this).
Mike99999: Sony "releases"? Some of these lenses won't be available until July!
So my initial statement was true and you are trolling with weird comments now. And you knew it was true before your insults.
The Sony 'team' were pushing the roadmap on prospective buyers in Sept last year. You must have been one because you didn't deny it. It sunk in your head - I was right about the '15 lenses before 2015' saying and now you want blame someone else :D Calling people names is a tip you got caught saying something incorrect.
Happy Jones: I am with everyone. A 60mm F/2 macro would have been better. IMHO, APSC is better for macro work. Short lenses, longer working distance, or larger DoF. I'd take a 60mm macro on an A6000 over an A7 with a 90mm macro, and buy a slew of other lenses with the savings.
Not everyone since more e-mount owners own APSC bodies exclusively. 60mm lenses are smaller and lighter for the APSC bodies, the NEX series, the A5100 and A6000.
I was referring to native Sony auto focus lenses. The kind your average consumer would consider. Not manual focus lenses with a fuji or e-mount adapter glued on. (legacy macros are cheaper and possibly a better option)Hint: A big majority of APSC camera buyers would NEVER consider manual focus lenses, especially $1000 ones.
"All told, Sony plans to offer a total of 15 FE lenses before 2015, including a macro and a wide-angle zoom."
Sony had the lenses on their roadmap for release in 2014. The roadmap was displayed at several press events. Don't you remember telling every 15 new lenses by the end of 2014? Do you want me to link to Sony's slides showing the roadmap?As a 'sales' guy you knew this. :D
Calling everyone a 'troll' who points out what Sony said kills your credibility, but this forum already knows you all too well.
These were all scheduled for 2014. They've been delayed a few times. It was a sales strategy to say lenses were coming faster. Last year buyers were told they'd be out very soon. Now it is July 2015 for some.There will not be any more lenses until 2016.
jalywol, myself and a bunch of other people were not happy with A6000 focusing. Read jalywol's thread she started.
DPR and Sony's site do not list an APS-C E mount 50mm macro. There is a poorly reviewed 30mm F/3.5 macro with only a 1 inch working distance. Little use for us who enjoy a longer working distance for macros.
I am with everyone. A 60mm F/2 macro would have been better. IMHO, APSC is better for macro work. Short lenses, longer working distance, or larger DoF. I'd take a 60mm macro on an A6000 over an A7 with a 90mm macro, and buy a slew of other lenses with the savings.
Nordstjernen: Some people can not imagine that keeping the left hand under the lens will balance about any lens without adding a bulky and heavy camera. I use my Minolta APO 400 mm f:4.5 with the A7 with no balance problems. But then, the A7 is about the same size and weight as old SLR film cameras.
Some people struggle even more to imagine that you can put a small lens om such a camera to get a ultra-compact FF system and use bigger lenses if bright apertures or longer focal lengths is needed.
But then, some people think that bashing makes their own brand look better.
Nah, too busy trying to "balance" the massive lens with my hands. With normal cameras you can hold the camera and lens combo with your right hand with you finger ready to go on the shutter buton. No 2nd hand needed! Image that!And why can't they make a $400 85mm F/1.8 lens like everyone else? If they do in few years it will be as big as a house and retail for $1500.
Sony needs to put the shutter button and control wheels on the bottom of these new lenses then. Or maybe we need to grow a 3rd hand :) It is fun to read the excuses though.
In the article is shows an APS sensor does not use the full aperture of a FF lens. Since f-stop is focal length divided by lens diameter and has no relationship to sensor size, this is confusing. Couldn't an APS lens be made with a much smaller diameter since much of it is not being used and still have the same light gathering? Are we saying an APS F1.8 lens projects more light on to an APS sensor since f-stop does not change with sensor size? An APS lens will vignette on a FF sensor because it concentrates light more to the center than a FF lens. Say for a 50mm lens couldn't a lens direct all the light of a 28mm opening towards an APS size sensor rather than spreading it out over a FF size sensor? We would see vignetting on the FF sensor with the lens because the light is more focused. To me then this F/1.8 lens would put the same amount of light on the APS sensor (but more concentrated to a smaller area) as a FF lens would on a FF sensor.
I want to thank Panasonic for knocking a little sense in to Sony pricing. Isn't there an LX8 coming soon too? ;) Thank you for the comparison. The FZ looks formidable and so far I prefer its RAW files over the RX. I like the longer reach option too since it is a fixed lens.