yonsarh: I think the main point for this A5100 is the video. It has 50mbps bit rate on 1080p, while most camera uses 28m or 24mbps for the video. the higher bit rate you have, the more clear picture you will going to get after the encoding.
The added video capabilities of the A5100 is welcome.
I think one of its limitations when used as a video camera remains. An NEX used as a video camera quickly overheats when used over extended periods outdoors and under the sun. Articulating the rear screen away from the body lessens the heat buildup in the body but the NEX ultimately overheats still. I cool the NEX by removing the battery, leaving the battery door open for a while, and using a new cool unused battery. The final solution however came in the shape of a Panasonic GH2/GH3 which has never overheated despite hours of use under hot and direct sunlight.
rinkos: i wish for 2 things..1.that the A6000 would also have had that touch screen 2.the new 50mbit codec on the a6000 as well
Agree. I will add still the following:
1. Articulating EVF (like the Panasonic GX-7)2. The 36mp sensor from the A7R3. Front and rear IR ports
marcpol: No IR Remote??? Can't believe. Anyway i am waiting for a nex-5 successor as i would also like to have mic port.
As to the A5100 class/type of camera not being designed for professional use, it does not mean that it cannot be used professionally if it comes with the features needed by one. Other than the discontinued NEX-5N type, there is no "professional" camera that combines in one body the following features so useful and essential for professional work:- mirrorless so no need for time-wasting mirror up- wireless handsfree IR remote for shutter release- electronic first curtain- articulating screen- touch screen for quickly designating an area to magnify for manual focusing- peaking support- articulating EVF- sensor of at least APS-C size;
The 2 x D800E & 1 x D800 I use for portrait/landscape work are poor seconds to the NEX-5N in terms of ease & convenience of use. The 5N is hobbled primarily by having a miniscule area to properly mount an Arca plate & the lack of a rear IR port. A new camera with all the above desired features plus a 36mp 24x35mm sensor will be a must-buy for me.
The phone remote is good and has its uses and advantages but so does an IR remote. Why have only one if it is possible to have both?
In my case, an IR remote is very essential for a quick and easy hands-free shutter release. By deleting the IR remote from the A5100, Sony made the A5100 much less attractive and usable for my purpose.
An IR remote takes very little space in the pocket, can be fished out in less than a second, and used to release shutter in as little time. Using a camera phone is not only slow and kludgy, but will also cause night blindness when shooting in low light and at night. Battery drain on the A5100 will also be higher if the WiFi is used. I also do not want to always bring my phone with me.
This is not to say that a phone-based remote is not useful and has no advantages. But Sony should have kept the IR remote.
I would have upgraded my two NEX-5N with the A5100 but this has been scuttled when Sony deleted the IR remote (and the ability to accept an external articulating EVF).
My wish list is for Sony to combine the best features of the NEX-5N (touch screen) and NEX-7 (tri-nav controls), and marry this with the A7R sensor coupled with electronic first curtain. I would also like Sony to put an IR port at the rear of the camera. Might as well also integrate an Arca rail on its base.
nnowak: The piracy statements are pure marketing BS.
The only reason for switching to a subscription model is that it guarantees a steady and dependable revenue stream. No more need for major annual or semi-annual software revisions in the hopes of luring new customers or upgraders. No more spikes in sales right after a new release followed by lagging sales as software nears end of life. No need for discounts to clear out previous version software. The programmers now only need to roll out small new features on an ad-hoc basis.
Nothing about the cloud service (functional or financial) is beneficial to me and is only designed to help Adobe. CS6 is the end of my relationship with Adobe.
With all of the people promising to abandon Adobe, I don't see how this ridiculous change will be a financial benefit in the long run. Maybe Adobe will die a quick death and then that steaming pile that is Flash will be gone forever too. I can only hope.
"... people will keep using their CS6 products for a very long time."
Do not underestimate Adobe's understanding and resolve to neuter CS6 as early as possible to force its users to subscribe and get on board CC.
Given this development, I wonder whether the major camera manufacturers will come to the understanding that in addition to the camera body and lenses, the software component is the third and crucial leg on which digital photography stands and that they have a major role to play on this matter.
While developing a software such as Adobe Photoshop is beyond the capabilities of these camera manufacturers, their adoption of a common RAW file standard (definitely not DNG!) just like what they are doing with JPG will go a long way in helping other software companies to provide alternatives to Adobe's offering.
Adopting a common RAW standard and doing away with the need to constantly update the RAW converter (essentially, ACR for Adobe) every time a new camera model is released will mean that the user will have more money to spend on camera gears rather than spend it to update software to be able to make use of new model releases.
Jimmy jang Boo: How about a voice of reason crying in the wilderness???
"If you're going to complain about Adobe CC, at least understand it!"
Adobe's marketing is partly responsible for the confusion by using "Cloud" when it actually means subscription.
LGO: For those planning to use the Lightroom in lieu of ACR (which is only available through subscription) to process RAW files from future camera models then port the file to Photoshop, be advised that Adobe can "upgrade" the future versions of the Lightroom output so that it will be incompatible with CS6 to pressure the user to subscribe.
The user does have an option to output a DNG or TIF from Lightroom as an intermediate file and use this in Photoshop but this will slow the workflow and take up storage space.
At best, the LR + Photoshop (CS6) should be seen as a temporary solution that will work until such time that Adobe makes the underlying ACR engine in LR incompatible for use with Photoshop. Because of this, I am now on the lookout for another software that will replace LR and Photoshop.
I considered this (just read my post carefully).
DNG as a solution will work if you do not mind a slower workflow and have still another file that will take up space in the main storage and backup storage.
For those planning to use the Lightroom in lieu of ACR (which is only available through subscription) to process RAW files from future camera models then port the file to Photoshop, be advised that Adobe can "upgrade" the future versions of the Lightroom output so that it will be incompatible with CS6 to pressure the user to subscribe.
photo nuts: Are there pictures of the hard filters for matching fluorescent and tungsten lighting? Curious about those