SeeRoy: There's always a market, in rich societies obsessed with status, for products that actually feature reduced functionality and increased prices in exchange for the promise of some subtle cachet which will attach to the purchaser. This usually happens in markets which are becoming saturated with feature-rich examples of the commodity in question. Of course this effect is always short-lived - and usually unsatisfying - which means that the exercise can be repeated regularly with minor variations. So now we have these throwback cameras with fixed prime lenses and optional add-on viewfinders. The laughable prices actually enhance their desirability in just the same way that high-priced mechanical wristwatches which offer nothing functionally superior to inexpensive quartz models, continue to sell. And there's Leica of course, from whom Sony have obviously learned something. But the most important characteristic of the camera is still what it's pointed at.
Nikon D600 with a 35mmn F1.4 is more expensive than RX1. So why exactly RX1 is expensive but that Nikon combo isn't?
marike6: This RX1 is obviously very capable camera which I guess should get a Gold Award on IQ and implementation alone. But so too should have the Fuji X100 (and X-Pro1 for that matter) which at the time did not many peers in term of total package: Hybrid VF, build quality, IQ, except the much higher end Leica M9.
The original X100 had slow AF, but absolutely superb IQ. Sound familiar? Unlike the RX1, it had the innovative Hybrid VF. The VF, wonderful lens, IQ and beautifully crafted metal body alone deserved a Gold Award, but for some reason, Fujifilm doesn't get much love on DPR.
The original X100 had a buggy firmware and DPR had a whole article on "firmware" suggestions.
That's why it did't get Gold.
HowaboutRAW: I just handled a Sony RX1 again this afternoon. And I was reminded of a big annoyance: To mount a filter, say simply to protect the lens, one needs to purchase 180usd lens shade/filter mount.
Not cool, how like Leica, and well the RX100 which doesn't have an official filter mounting system. (Yes, I know there's an after market one that can be glued in place.)
He is probably confusing RX100 and RX1
Ionian: First things first, Sony needs to stop putting a nice orange ring around the mount and then putting cheesy text on it about the lens or sensor or whatever that cheesy looking garbage text is. They did the same cheap move to the a99. They take a nice camera and in one cheeseball move they make it look like a cheap Chinese knockoff. At this rate why don't they just do it 100% and write some Japenglish text instead like, "Please enjoy now your happy photo life".
So this clown's problem with the camera is that it has some text on orange stripe. See his further comment below about wanting an extra battery and charger with the camera ...
This guy is a well known clown on the forums ...
CameraLabTester: What is Sony putting in their diet?
This is the second such rubbish (after the RX100) that you have to charge the battery while INSIDE the bloody camera!
What is this? An iPhone?
This is a great indicator of how this is NOT a serious camera...
Really nice gear, terrible user interface... trademark Sony,
"But at the price Sony is charging for the camera, it should be included. "
The camera COMES with ONE battery and one charger that charges the battery inside the camera.
If you are buying another battery extra (the only reason will need an external charger), buy the $10 charger with it. Big fKin deal. Get a life
You can buy two batteries PLUS the charger on Amazon for $15
So much hot air out of your mouth for $15?
This preview should have mentioned a few important points: the main target for this adapter are videographers who own FS100 and FS700.
(1) AF is irrelevant on FS100/FS700. The Canon lenses don't AF even on Canon's own C100/C300/C500 (and no AF on 1Dc - 5D Mark III in video mode. These two cameras don't even have focus peaking)
(2) Video (even 4K video) has lower resolution. So slight corner imperfections would not be visible for most video work
(3) The price is relative. The adapter might be expensive for someone how owns Nex-3, but it is pretty cheap for people who own video cameras like FS100/FS700.
The preview should have mentioned these points.
JackM: f/2.8? yawn.
Is it macro lens?
rocklobster: Hmmm...imagine what f-stop improvement you could get if there was one for the Pentax Q system but, then again, massive (relatively) lens on tiny body.
No, Pentax Q has a tiny sensor, so an adapter that can shrink FF (or even APSC) lens image circle that tiny would be VERY large and expensive.
It might not even be possible.
fatdeeman: I know they used this apprach on some early dslrs and I assumed that growing pixel counts made it impractical and that they stopped doing it because the image quality would have suffered but looking back they probably did it because people wouldn't buy full frame cameras if they could get the same field of view on a crop sensor with a stop more light.
No, it was not possible to make them for DSLRs as the space needed is occupied by the mirror itself.
Heie2: The Pentax K-01, while many hate on the basis of looks alone, is BY FAR the greatest value for money to hit the world of photography in a very long time.
The Pentax K-30 mirrors that sentiment for DSLR's.
How is K-01 the greatest value? It was launched at $800. After Pentax failed to sell many, and after bad reviews, the prices dropped to $400. Even at $400 street prices, it's still more expensive than Nex-C3, Nikon V1. Panasonc G3, etc
MikeStern: You know what's so unacceptable?The company who manufactured the sensor inside the so called "the camera of the year", also designed a camera which made it to "50 best inventions of the year" by Times magazine. It was the only digital camera made it in the list.
I will listen to Times magazine and i do find dpreview: ridiculous to be listing Oly as the camera of the year.
Grow up, moron. The results are from the DPR poll. These cameras were not picked by DPR. Read before posting.
fisherman_lol: where is Pentax k-5II in that list? oh I got it, It is Pentax.
They are also missing all Nex models ...
FranciscoJG: Pentax K-5II for me.Yes, it's just an APS-C, but it is a product made with care and quality. Exceeds the Nikon D7000 in everything, is better than the D600 in build quality, ergonomics and handling, autofocus, and only slightly lower in image quality, at a price that is nearly half.Best buy yes.
That's a weird claim, given K5-II is identical in every way to the two-year old K-5, except tweaked AF.
The only real difference is that the two-year old K-5 costs 1/2 the money on streets
Bobby72: I use my A99 for about 50% in video mode. Before I bought the camera I watched many movies of Canon 5D.3 and Nikon D800 as well. And Panasonic as well. They had one thing in common. They all have lack of emotion. Only for this part it makes easy to choose for Sony. I love movies and I want my videos to look fimish. I hate wenn the video look clinical. Wenn you use the best plasma screens you can easiliy see the difference in how they look between all the brands. Nikon still has a lot to learn in this part. I think Nikon and Canon lovers have to be happy Sony is competing in the same area. This will make there cameras better and more complete in a shorter time. Now there is the need to change even faster than in the past. Be happy!
Yes, and the Sony-made X-E1's EVF is superior to the crappy (limited with zoom lenses) hybrid viewfinder in XPro1. What good is the OVF part if it works with only a few prime lenses? That's why Fuji is dumping the POS viewfinder now. It's inferior.
Funny that DPReview rated A99's viewfinder identical to 5D Mark III and D800 viewfinders (both superior OVF than Fuji ever made) in the conclusion.
Overall, A99 is rated higher than both D800 and 5D Mark III -- all three cameras rated higher with better image quality and faster AF than any camera Fuji ever made.
Fuji knows how make viewfinders? Funny then that Fuji is using the OLED viewfinder made by Sony in X-E1
Bobby72: Also making highend Panaorama photos is a nice bonus. I did it a lot and makes my hobby a lot more pleasant. The video quality really impressed me. With the xlr inputs and Rode Video mic pro the end results are stunning. It is much more complete compared to Nikon and Canon. I would say give the Sony A99 a try and make your own comparison with the camera you use now.
D800 has crappy video quality. Ugly moire. It's not better than A99. 5D Mark III is better, but if video is important, something like FS100, which is about the same price, blows the crap out of D800 and even 5D Mark III. D800 is a joke for video
marike6: On page 10, the review talks about Continuous Shooting. I thought the advantage of SLT was that the mirror didn't have to flip out of the way for each exposure allowing extremely high FPS. So why does the A99 shoot a max of 6 fps full res images instead of the 12 fps like the A77?
Since, as DPR mentions, the A99 buffer gets cleared "twice as fast as the 5D and D600" why "only" 6 fps like the Canikon? Clearly the Boinz processor is capable of moving data quickly, why is the A99 not like other SLT cameras with blazing fast FPS? And ideas?
marike6. get educated. The image processor (such as Boinz) is just one of the factor. The sensor itself has to be able to handle 10 fps in ful resolution. A77 sensor is capable of that, but obviously A99 sensor isn't.
57even: Nice to see Sony committed to this path, because otherwise we would not have alternatives. I don't get the resistance to different ideas. Don't like EVFs? Buy Canon or Nikon. I like to see innovation in the camera market.
Since using EVF CSC cameras I have no issues with them. The elimination of lens tuning and mirror lockup is a big bonus. The inability to see real-time tracking info for high speed burst, is disappointing but is the only real downside. Hopefully in future a live video feed will be possible in high frame rate modes, even if not full resolution...
Conversely SLT cameras are a far more successful crossover design for combining stills and video. If you have used an EVF camera for shooting video, and video production was a key part of your work, I assure you you would give the A99 a very serious look.
Sadly in the UK, Sony charges silly prices for their glass, and not many people sell it. Less third party support as well.
There is no "tearing" on OLED EVF. More crap from marike6. Will this guy ever stop?
falconeyes: Strange, DPR gives the A99 a better low iso rating than the full frame cameras w/o light absorbing SLT mirror and same sensor tech. Must clearly be a mistake. Moreover, DPR finds no nice words for the A99 AF system. Still gets the top score. Strange I find.
marike6 , boy, DPR has used all these cameras and concluded A99 is just as god -- if not better. You are just a Nikon fanboy.