Optics and quality in the film era were fine enough. One only needs to look at the quality of work [fashion, photo-journalism, industrial, travel, art] from that era.
Nobody talked about inadequate background blurr, depth of field or focusing problems. So, remove IS, AF and any of self-inflicted complications from the equation now, and you should be able to have higher quality, unhindered by all that new nonsense like pixel-level analysis.
Digital era has brought in countless of difficulties counter-balanced by cheap photography for hundreds of millions. The result has been a much worse quality / quantity relationship.
chessov: I wish instead Zeiss would come up with a sub £2000/2500 digital Zeiss Ikon with a full frame sensor. That would be a winner.
What happened to Contax-Yashica?
cheetah43: How the hell can one take action photos with all those AF machinations to think and fiddle about? And, where is the action? The photos are all frozen at 1/2000.
Steppenwolf, Dummheit ohne Grenzen!
How the hell can one take action photos with all those AF machinations to think and fiddle about? And, where is the action? The photos are all frozen at 1/2000.
Look at Sports Illustrated sports action photos of half a century ago! This digital photography age is ridiculous.
Comments and opinions vary; the subject matter ought to be analyzed precisely, scientifically. Soft or not soft, sharp or not sharp, colour rendition accurate or not, banding or not banding! Can people not agree on something this scientific? If it becomes so subjective then why bother with tests?Leica lens bad or inferior or inadequate? What BS! But they seem to have f...ed it up with their sensor and software [sorry, firmware] both of which can be sorted out without having to write off their investment in this camera.
Leica must have invested a lot into this; then realizing potentially a total failure they climbed up to their cloud and came up with those dream prices.And the grip! Get a grip, Leica! What is the 50mm/1.4 envisaged for 2016 going to cost? They've set up the scale; it's going to cost Mickey Mouse money.
What 28mm sees is not what the eye sees looking straight ahead. Why do people rave about a 28mm lens with all its distortions? Yes, you can do this, that and the other post-processing. It should be click, post to the printers, and no faffing around with the image.
What a hideous piece of a camera! Apart from that, with all the round bodywork how does it stay secure being held? Sony, Sony!
Marking: 82%. OK, fine. What improvements would take the mark beyond 90%? There seems to me a great deal of confusion about marking standards and consistency. In DPR's view how could a camera attain 95% in its class? It would be interesting to know. if DPR says, "It is impossible; the matter is subjective" then marking loses its sense.
Design: that grip, horrible, stuck on [looks as if] with sloping shutter! Forget this. Can one hope for a larger RX1, ILS camera with EVF? No silly grips, please! C'mon Sony, you can do it. The a7II looks awful.
JacquesBalthazar: That Sony FE range sure has some very attractive features, and most of the recent lenses are clearly best in class. Well done to all involved! That said, I do wish the Sony body designs and user interfaces were not what they are. I just do not like them. Would love that range to have the Fuji xt1 design for example. One day maybe. Part of the pleasure of photography is the interaction with the tools. I think they are getting the lens designs right, the body features are great, but the body design.....
Alpha 7 body design is bad; RX designs are fine.
Ergonomics and handling, JPEG image quality, performance are all at around 65% mark - serious inadequacies [ref. graphic]. All this reflects very badly on the whole of Alpha 7 series. Why would Sony release Alpha 7S - supposedly a video film maker's version - with such short-comings priced at $2500 that cannot take decent JPEGs?
In specs highlights no lens specs; in the comparisons table no lens comparisons! Well, what does a lens have anything to do with photography?
The NatGeo photographers could have a say or two about colour photography. Are there any commenting in these columns?
Fiddling with colours in post-processing is not photography.
Catalin Stavaru: I really really wanted to like this camera...but when I look at the sample pictures I see the same horrible color rendition that made me sell my Sony cameras. But in this particular gallery it's like the blandest set ever, color-wise. Not one picture makes me say "wow" and this is a full-frame camera. Something is really wrong with Sony, they are simply neglecting this area and then they wonder why people don't budge from Canon and Nikon.
It is the person, not the camera.
plasnu: I have a feeling that Sony will be the successor to Canon. This is probably the ideal size of the FF camera, which used to be standard in film era.
I can see Jurassic period of the digital camera is ending.
Flat top, no grips, On/Off button, shutter, shutter speed and sensitivity [ISO] dials on top, viewfinder at the left - well, a clean design!
An ugly grip [why have one at all], mode dial sticks out, exposure compensation dial is imbedded, the contraption above the lens is ridiculous [there are no mirrors there, so put the blooming viewfinder somewhere else]. Obviously it is never going to be pocketable, not even trenchcoatable [you know from whom], so why bother coming up with a design that resembles a Giza pyramid? Leica has got a thing or two to teach.
SnappyUK: Kill it. Kill it with hammers. Take off and nuke it from orbit; it's the only way to be sure.
The previous abomination is currently appearing in an ad for Haig Club Whisky, starring David Beckham, who is probably the epitome of the demographic at which this product is aimed.
This offer is even an insult to the rich. A few of them could perhaps purchase the thing, appear at Hasselblad's HQ and sledgehammer it flat and quietly go away. They can afford doing this sort of thing.