Guys, first have a look at these hacks before negatively commenting!One of the most ridiculous restrictions on DSLRS and MILCs is the tax-driven 30 minutes-limit of video recording. One of those hacks has actually successfully overcome this limitation on the A7s, which is most welcome for all those who want to record a talk/presentation in high quality.Of course does Sony legally need to distance themselves from that. On the other hand: It's their very own press release that was the greatest advertisement for this hack and making more people want/buy an A7s which is certainly among the most affordable pro-level video cameras available today
was there a specific reason for omitting the Nikon D750? Its price is consistently below 2000 USD and it would probably be among the best cameras on your list.
browndt: Obviously we have an interview as part of the marketing phase. The question is why would anyone buy the a6300 without any decent small lenses. I get that these lenses are for FF, but why would they copy Nikon, by not making many good lenses for APS-C. This seems to be where camera companies are heading, go FF or use your phone.
browndt wrote: "Obviously we have an interview as part of the marketing phase. The question is why would anyone buy the a6300 without any decent small lenses."
Well, there *are* quite a few decent small native E-mount lenses: --->SEL 10-18mm f/4--> Zeiss Touit 12 mm f/2.8--> Zeiss 24mm f/1.8--> Zeiss Touit 32 mm f/1.8--> SEL 35 mm f/1.8 OSS--> SEL 50 mm f/1.8 OSS--> 16-70mm f/4 zoom
@ all the dudes here complaining about sample pictures being "uninspired" or in whatever else way "not good enough" to their standards:.Apparently, you guys forget that this was NOT a professional fashion shooting, where ONE photographer was shooting ONE model thousands of times over several hours, just to pick the best 5 pictures from perhaps 500+. Not to mention lack of control over lighting, model acting/posing etc.Moreover, you guys conveniently forget that the reviewers here were given equipment they never before had in their hands (entirely new lenses and to some of them possibly even the cameras) without any chance to get accustomed to the new tech. Tell me ONE professional photographer who gets entirely NEW gear, gets out, takes 20 shots and all them are masterpieces? In what delusional world are you living, or are you just hating for no reason?
And I always thought that fanboy-ism was constrained to the guys < 16 years of age.....
Jonathan F/2: What's the point of mirrorless if the lenses are the same size as DSLR lenses? Sony doesn't even have proper pro-oriented repair facilities like Nikon or Canon. At most these will be expensive toys for the well-heeled, amateur tech geek who likes to match their Sony TV, PlayStation 4 and Sony Alpha camera! Their idea of serious shooting entails sipping Starbucks ordered at the drive thru and shooting urban blandness of generic suburbia!
Jonathan wrote: "What's the point of mirrorless if the lenses are the same size as DSLR lenses?".Well, the initial FE-lenses were all fairly compact at the cost of limited max aperture (e.g. 24-70 f/4, 35mm f2.8) and many users were requesting faster lenses, even at the expense of large size.What Sony are doing here is a direct reaction to requests of their user base.
Poweruser: Yay, another 85/1.4... yawn
....which other already existing 85mm f/1.4 lenses for E-mounten are you referring to?
Don Diafragma: WOW! Another Sony Story....
DPR says they are independent press, but sometimes I unfortunately get the feeling they are an extension of the Sony PR machine.
LOL for complaining at a digital photography gear site publishing articles on digital photography products (cameras, lenses).
Next time you gonna complain about "USA Today" writing dayly news articles. Hahaha.....
At all those people disliking the IQ of the RX1mII:
According to sonyalpharumors, Sony has reportedly halted RX1m2 production due to (yet unknown) issues.Stevehuffphoto.com reports stellar IQ and points out that there might be some serious sample variation issues, if other users experience bad performance issues.That being said, the current results may NOT be reflecting what the RX1R2 is truly capable of, but rather be skewed by some technical problems that may vary between different body samples.
ChrClowes: Soft, soft interview - though I appreciate the breadth of questions, the interview itself seemed to follow a well tread path and it never really deviated from politician style answers where they never *really* answer the question - it's lost in sales jargon and reiterating the same point over and over again, except this time it drags on for over half an hour.
Personally, I think *most* of the issues you brought up could have been pressed for more definitive answers. There was continual deviation from Kenta to actually give those definitive answers and it was disappointing (I've seen videos of him to this before, no amount of smiling is going to hide the fact he lacks substance when he speaks). He's not much of a salesman unfortunately, and the soft-jelly type approach to the questioning never really got us anywhere either. This isn't investigative journalism, but hell - a bit of bravado and audacity to press the hard issues goes a long way sometimes.
Better luck next time, Dpreview
@ ChrClowes: I get your point but we need to consider that camera development ist an extremely volatile and competitive business: usually, they are developing several variations of prototypes of one and the same camera model and they certainly don't want their competitors to know what exactly they are eventually going to bring tot the shelves. Most of the time, they don't know either: they want to stay flexible in an extremely competitive and fast changing market - so they cannot tell you "we will bring out camera xy in 12 months from now and camera abz in 6 months. People need to understand how this industry is working.
Can the lens be operated in full manual focus mode, i.e. for zone focusing?
By the way, I fully agree with Mike Fewster that the IQ of the RX1 cameras is outstanding; IMHO it's not only the presicision/alignment of lens and sensor, but the sensor itself that makes a difference.I read somewhere, that the sensors used for the original RX1/r were selected "best" 24 MP processors, while the rest of the yield was used for the A7 series. This may also explain why RX1 got better sensor ratings at DxO compared to A7/II.
If the new RX1rmII also uses only the Hand selected "best of the best" 42 MP sensors, and if the lack of IBIS will lead to better heat dissipation (lower electronic noise) then we might expect the IQ of the RX1 mII surpassing that of the A7rII.
@ at all the haters here lamenting about test methodology or insinuating the tests were "bought" by Sony etc.:
The low-light AF tests presented here show what the A7R II is capable of doing when it's paired with lenses that MATCH the capabilities of the sensor! Just like you won't pair a poor lens (that maybe resolves 10 MP) with a 40+MP-sensor when investigating the resolution of a sensor.
So, the test presented here by Rishi/DPReview shows how well the sensor of the A7Rii is capable of autofocusing in low light - and the A7Rii seems to excel at that. That it needs a very bright lens for performing so well is the second main finding of this test.
I really don't know why some people feel bothered by that.
Disappointing low-light performance for a 1" sensor! Even the old and venerable Nokia 808 shows a substantially better image quality in the low light-simulation of the studio comparison scene.
Sangster: Would using a bigger light gathering lens to concentrate the photons onto the sensor reduce noise, ceteris paribus?
That's exactly what "speed boosters"do: they "concentrate" the light from a larger FF lens to the smaller area of the APSC sensor.
Ron Poelman: ETTR ?Well trolled, DPR.Since when is noise the primary reason for selecting exposure level ?Aesthetic considerations have nothing to do with exposure, right ?Just get the noise right and it's a masterpiece every time. Bizarre.
In case you haven't noticed, this DPR article is about NOISE!!And yes, ETTR is a means for getting quite a few things right, including but not limited to SNR.
Angrymagpie: Steve Huff claims the optical performance of the 35/1.4 easily surpasses the FE55/1.8. He did not specify this beyond "rich rendering" in his preview, but do you guys think we might soon be able to get a 35 AF lens that's both faster and visibly sharper than the FE55/1.8?
@ AngrymagpieYou are totally right that "rendering" is a very non-scientific and generally poor parameter to be used when trying to quantify the quality of a lens. Nonetheless, last time I watched steve Huff's site (where he reviewed the A7II) there were a few pictures taken with the Leica Noctilux which just blew me off my chair. They were neither partiuclarly sharp or anything but they had some "magic". In know, I know, "magic" is an even poorer word than "rendering", but I guess that we are talking here about very complex perceptional phenomena that somehow contribute to either like a picture or to be emotionally untouched by it. Or this is all just placebo )
I am sceptical because of two reasons:
In rangefinder cameras the VF is optical. Some people do really prefer to have direct optical view. This camera however is supposed to have an electronic rangefinder, which may turn off some potential customers.
Secondly, a FF sensor with a DR of 11 stops is quite mediocre as per today's standards.
So, the only truly compelling strength of this camera might be an affordable price that's not only much cheaper than LEICA but that also would compete with today's entry level FF cameras such as the A7 (mark I), which sells for a grand.
Anyways, competition is always a great thing, so let's sit back and see what this new gem will actually bring to the table.
Guys, this is an awesome video!!! Very well done and produced. It was a pleasure to watch. Please go on posting more of these real world video reviews!
ottonis: First of all: terrific job with that comprehensive and sophisticated review, DPR! Hats off!
I have one question, though:
When using the studio comparison tool it appears to me that the D750 is on par or even slightly better than Sony A7s in low-light up until ISO 6400 -12800. THis is a huge feat, IMO, considering the A7s has been specifically designed to provide top-notch low-light sensitivity, low noise floor and high-ISO IQ.
I don't know how to read out the exif data, so someone may help me out: have the aperture and shutter speed been the same across the D750 and A7s for this particular studio comparison?
Thanks in advance and keep up the great job, guys!That being said:
@ Steen Bay: thx a lot! very helpful.
First of all: terrific job with that comprehensive and sophisticated review, DPR! Hats off!