It's been an enlightening if at times disheartening series. Thanks so much for the individual corporation interviews and for this summary Dp!
olyflyer: Basically, MF cameras are waist level cameras IMHO. So, the question is, can you tilt the VF upwards or is it exchangeable to a vertical one, or at least have a tilt able LCD?
Third listed viewfinder option from Hassy product page (link at end of DPR article):
"HVM: Waist-level viewfinder. Image magnification 3.2 times"
Sounds like a great artistic tool. The body size and design are perfect for studio and landscape photography (think tripod). Even if my lotto numbers come in, it it is more camera than I would know how to handle.
SF Photo Gal: With 36 MP FF now available, I wonder if the need for this kind of beast really exists?
If you think the sole criteria for judging a camera is the number of megapixels in the sensor....then yeah. In the real world, it is not that simple!
Not as revealing at the recent interview with Nikon execs, but useful none the less. Both seemed to point out that the camera market and the public's desires do indeed differ by geographical region.
It is interesting that both Canon and Nikon express that mirror-less is less popular in the US than elsewhere. Possibly Canon was right not to put much energy into mirrorless technology, at least yet.
As to camera size, I find uses for both by medium sized 6D and small sized Sl-1. Each shines, but in different situations imo.
They are all very humorous. Number three however looks a bit too artificial, jmo!
Nice move, unfortunately I went to Canon after the D600 debacle. No issues with my 6D.
Think I saw a law firm signing on participants for a CA against Nik Am, possibly this had something to do with it (or not).
^This is not to start a Canon, Nikon, etc. debate. They just are a little late to the playoffs imo.
It seems the best thing the a7 and a7r have going for them is the sensor. The rest of the package from Sony seems quite lacking in terms of implementation.
The aSony isn't going to make me change from Nikon or Canon.
Again, I want to thank DP for this informative interview. Since it has been posted I find myself referring back to how the Nikon quartet sees the market. Laugh as some may, these cats have been in this business and just this business for quite some time. Their views are very relevant to what we might see (or not) for the next few years.
Just Ed: Surprised that IDC did not include figures for Sony.Since they are all the little darling of all the posts lately it would be niceto know how profitable, or unprofitable, mirrorless is for them.
I tried the link but it did have the full report. (edit)
My question was based upon"
"Although none of these figures sound positive, IDC's research led it to conclude: 'Canon managed to gain share in the United States at the expense of nearly all other vendors with the exception of Sony, which gained a slight share in the ILC segment.'"
Had hoped to shed more light on Sony's sales figures...guess not :-)Again thanks
coroander: Let's look at apples and apples, since the article provides so many incomparable numbers. income from sales of ILCs:Canon -1.7%Nikon -6%Fuji (unknown, ILCs not reported separately)Olympus +5%
It's quite possible (even likely) mirrorless sales income has increased over the past 12 months, while income from DSLRs has decreased.
Recently DP ran an interview with Nikon execs wherein they stated that mirror-less sales in North America were disappointing.
Surprised that IDC did not include figures for Sony.Since they are all the little darling of all the posts lately it would be niceto know how profitable, or unprofitable, mirrorless is for them.
Not fully understanding the buying public and the economy it looks like Nikon in particular is in a state of contraction and is playing it safe with new investments. (my opinion)
It is rather telling when their big hit is a retro looking/functioning DSLR. Form trumps innovation weird, but who can argue with buyers.
ski542002: Interesting camera, but very specialized for ultra-high image quality. Low light focusing issues, and shutter vibration make this camera a one-horse pony for the shooter that knows how to mitigate these issues. Not optimized for handheld shooting. I am very surprised that a mirrorless camera, with no mirror-slap to worry about, would have such huge vibration issues coming from a shutter. The M240 is about the same size and doesn't have these issues. I don't shoot Nikon (Canon & Leica), but I've heard the same vibration issues to a lesser degree with the D800.
Just Ed: Have looked at the camera twice (don't own one) and just can not imagine using it with a lens like the Canon L 100-400 or 400 DO or even the 70-200 f 2.8 (also Canon), just too small for that.
The evf flickered in both shops I tried it at (don't own it). Both had fluorescent lights and one also had a fair amount of daylight coming in from the store windows. Am presuming the evf reacted either to the low(ish) light level or to the source. While it did focus "fairly" quick under those conditions I can not image using it for bifs or indoor sports. It might however make a nice carry around camera with a decent compact lens for scenics and general photography.
An interesting design deserving of recognition, but the thing that bothers me is how the for profit mags and reviews are all hyping the A7/A7r with such similar superlatives. That doesn't mean it's bad, it just means that I don't trust the impartiality of the reviews. The latter is not focused at DPR.
By, I agree with your overall sentiment. You rather made my point about the size of the A7/A7r it doesn't appeal as much to the long lens using DSLR user. It may however cause Canon and Nikon to step up their game. That works for me!
I agree rockjon.
FriendlyWalkabout: I was hoping canon would launch a new competitive mirrorless camera...
I suspect that Canon will be more focused on video capabilities of existing designs than on new mirrorless bodies.
Canon has been pretty quiet about any forthcoming offerings in ff DSLR's or new lenses. Am fine with my 6D but am waiting to see if there will FINALLY be a replacement this year for the 100-400L. I love mine but would be willing to invest in a updated design which has weather and dust sealing and is not a push pull design. An IS version of the 16-35L or 17-40L might turn my head and open my wallet as well :-)
Have looked at the camera twice (don't own one) and just can not imagine using it with a lens like the Canon L 100-400 or 400 DO or even the 70-200 f 2.8 (also Canon), just too small for that.
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).
Yabokkie hit the nail right on the head.Am so tired of the pulps pushing stuffas innovative when it is just cripple ware.