xlotus: Since NEX 3N has been on sale for $329 and NEX 5R is currently on sale for $439, would anybody still prefer to buy the A3000? and why?
You keep forgetting that prices you are mentioning are street prices of old cameras. $400 is MSRP price. An year later when they are clearing stocks of A3000 (like the cameras you mentioned) this will be selling for $250 and less.
iudex: Great pictures, ISO3200 is perfectly usable, I also appreciate variable environments (indoor, outdoor, portraits, landscape...).Btw. is there any DSLR taking better picture than K-500 in entry-level segment or for this price? I doubt it.
"any DSLR taking better picture than K-500 in entry-level segment or for this price? "
Yes, according to dxomark, D3200 is slightly better
wlad: why do the lenses appear so huge ? The 50mm looks really long.
50 mm is also stabilized. The only 50mm stabilized lens.
dynaxx: Done in a rush, obviously, but saying "Perhaps the most glaring miscue is that there's no infrared proximity sensor to switch between the LCD and EVF " is just silly when the feature is of trivial significance and was dropped by Sony on some of their high-end cameras. Wouldn't it be a shock to all of us if you fitted the gubbins of a Nex camera into a much fatter body and it didn't feel hollow ( it is hollow) !
The poor rear screen/viewfinder vs the price is the real trade-off that potential buyers will grapple with but if you prefer to hold something more substantial than a pack of cards behind your Zeiss lenses then this is a very attractive option. The SLT Alpha mount adaptor for Nex will look more at home on this body, too.
The real problem is that the reviewer ( like the rest of us ) has no point of reference for a "sort" of DSLR camera at this price point ; let's give Sony some credit for shaking up the industry again ( as with the RX1 at the opposite end of the price range ).
Really Shawn Barnett? 230K LCD is that bad now? I swear a few years ago I couldn't tell the difference between A550 (930K) and A500 (230K) LCD when I tried to spot a difference in a camera shop. Maybe there are other reasons why this particular LCD is bad.
230K LCD was norm on lower end cameras until recently. Nikon D3100 (not that old camera) had a 230K LCD.
bcalkins: Nice set of compact primes - Pentax seems to get what is possible with APS-C in terms of offering small, dedicated primes with focal lengths that make sense for a 1.5 crop sensor...
Zvonimir Tosic "Only competitor doing something similar is Leica"
Why Leica? What's wrong with all the primes Olympus makes for M4/3?
peevee1: Good price, but if you think about it, for the same amount of money you can buy Panasonic G5 with lens, a better all-around camera: better EVF, better screen – and fully articulated one, better controls, faster sequential shooting, faster focusing, more powerful flash… Just slightly worse sensor, assuming A3000 has the same unit as in A58.
Once again, G5 was launched at $700 one year ago. They failed to sell it, so now they are clearing stocks (probably at a loss losing money). That's not the same as launch price of $399
ntsan: At this price I guess Panasonic G5 will be the direct competitor to this model ($399 with kit and $299 body on Amazon)
G5 is one year old camera, and the launch price of G5 was $700. It obviously didn't do well in market, so they are selling it cheap now to clear stocks. That's not comparable to $399 launch price.
Blake Willis: More like Sheep in Wolf's clothing...
I assume that this was launched at the same time as more huge E-mount lenses so that there is finally an E-mount camera that doesn't look & handle ridiculously behind them.
But an EVIL camera bigger than Canon's SL1? Might appeal to the ultra-budget-conscious, but not to me...
Just think, if Pentax had priced the K-01 at $400 they could have beaten Sony to the punch long ago :-)
With slight problem that K01 used K-mount. That meant that that camera had ZERO lenses that were optimized for CDAF, the only AF system available on K01.
There was no EVF either, but lets ignore that. The first argument above (no CDAF optimized lenses) was a serious flaw by itself.
stuntmonkey: Here's a question... this is basically an e-mount dressed up to look like an a-mount. That's fine and all, price will find it the right customers... but in principle, how is this any different than dressing up an NEX-7 into the Hasselblad Lunar? Both seem to be gilding the lily here... if you want small and e-mount, working off of something like the NEX-3 seems like a more logical idea. Unless, of course, you want to "play" at shooting a "real" DSLR....
Your Hasselblad reference was idiotic. Now to answer your question about the differences between Nex-3 and this camera, some people prefer larger camera with better grip. Others prefer smaller and lighter cameras that are are less conspicuous. It's a choice.
Second, some people use Nex cameras to mount manual focus lenses via adapters, some of which are large full-frame lenses. The larger body with better grip might be more balanced with large full-frame lenses, for those users. Again a choice. Sony should release higher spec A5000 for those users, especially for users who use Metabones Speed Booster adapter.
So there. I answered you.
yabokkie: okay Sony still need time to get Canon style dual-pixel PDAF but it doesn't say high-speed imager CDAF either. why not they just get a Panasonic sensor?
Sony has their own technologies. They can make their own on sensor PDAF better. The rumors are that that is exactly what Sony is planning for their A-mount cameras next year.
"how is this any different than dressing up an NEX-7 into the Hasselblad Lunar? "
Seriously? Are you for real? Hasselblad Nex-7 version costs $6,000. The original Nex-7 is $1,200. This is cheaper than Nex-3n. D you not see a difference in that?
Jim Salvas: Huffington Post has announced that all new commenters will be required to use real names. I always have, but I wonder what that would do here.
If HP asks users to use real names, that doesn't mean people will use real names! How are they going to enforce it? Would they demand that internet users submit valid licences so that they can verify names? Even that can be faked, as you can generate IDs in photoshops.
Sean Nelson: Too little, too late. I've been waiting for what seems like forever for Canon to get with the 1080p60 video programme, but I just bought a Sony RX100M2 because it's the first compact to have both that and a flip LCD.
Sorry, Canon - you snooze, you lose!
"60 fps will make video look too much like TV vs. movies"
60p will give you SLOW MOTION when played at 30 fps.
Biowizard: The funny thing is, with today's technology (which of course has come a LONG way since then), this might be doable. Using low-energy WiFi or BlueTooth to connect/control the device while in-camera, for example. And of course, a full frame sensor. I'd love to get some more life out of my OM-1 and Contax S2 and film is such an expensive way to go these days ...
The link in the article details all the reasons why it won't work
lester11: The Paul Smith watch told me everything I wanted to know (for my particular taste in snaps). How the letters were sharpened (or not), how the dial ticks were resolved (or not), how the particular glittery blue of the face was smeared (or not), how the second hand suffered aliasing (or not), how the glass reflections affected the render. Every time I saw a better rendering, I bought the camera and dumped the previous (smile) or lived with the difference 'cos it was smaller than the bank balance... Can you not tuck it into a blank space somewhere, please?
No, because this scene is so much larger than the old one, the watch would be tiny. It won't look anything like the last scene. Just look at the Queen of hearts in previous scene and compare how much smaller the cards look in this scene.
petr marek: Comparsion with older cameras is crucial. Older test scene was good enough, I think better (especially shaded things in box) and not so flat.
"Older test scene was good enough"
No, it wasn't. That's why it was replaced.
The older scene was too small, requiring the cameras to be too close to the scene. That introduced focusing and DOF issues.
Another problem was that some lenses (like RX100 lens) didn't perform optimally as not all lenses are optimized for close focusing performance. That meant the older scene was not representative of real world performance.
RX100 easily out resolves cameras like XZ2 in real life performance, but the older scene wouldn't tell you that.
sadwitch: Pretty impress with the GX7 it's clearly showing nex 6 has no advantage even though its equipped with a larger sensor and EP5 don't look so hot against it. Even the RX100II is impressive. Would be the second panasonic camera I really like to own after the L1.
Funny when you were trolling in favor of D600 several months ago, you were constantly telling people how IBIS doesn't help when you need faster shutter speed to stop motion blur.
bzanchet: Excelent work DPReview!I am very happy to see the RX-100 II slightly better than the m4/3s up to ISO 400! The best pocketable camera ever!
"Look at the RAW files - I don't think that's true"
Put the kit lenses on all three larger sensor cameras and reshoot this scene, RX100 will probably beat all three.
Steen Bay: Looks good, nice work. The only remaining problem now is that the exposure (the amount of light/photons hitting the sensor) can vary quite a bit between the tested cameras. For example, according to DPR's ISO accuracy tests, then the 'measured ISO' on e.g. the E-M5 is 1/3 stop lower than indicated, and on e.g. the NEX-6 the measured ISO is 1/3 stop off in the opposite direction (1/3 higher than indicated). That means that if comparing the two cameras at e.g. ISO 1600 with the OOC JPEG brightness matched (like DPR does), then the exposure will be app. 2/3 stop higher for the E-M5 than it is for NEX-6, and that's of course not quite fair (because the exposure determines the amount of shot/photon noise in the image). The problem could (theoretically) be solved by matching the exposure (the lighting, shutterspeed and T-stop) instead of the OOC JPEG brightness, and then adjust the brightness of the RAW/JPEG images afterwards.
"The problem could (theoretically) be solved by matching the exposure (the lighting, shutterspeed and T-stop) instead of the OOC JPEG brightness, and then adjust the brightness of the RAW/JPEG images afterwards."
Yeah, and then you have to first measure the T-stop of lenses and then tons of work in post, just for 1/3 stop difference?
1/3 stop is within specs, and so tiny that I won't lose sleep over it.