Lack of touchscreen (specifically, touch to select focus point) is a frustrating gap. Why Sony?
Great video post! Really enjoyed it and learned a lot.
SKPhoto12: This is not photography. It is design, which any good PS commercial designer could do. You don't have to go there, just buy a stock image and work on it. Pure nonsense, if you ask me. and people pay to go take pictures with this guy! Might as well just take a good PS course and save a lot of money, because his workshops are not cheap. The "Emperors new cloths" never fails to impress the naive!
Yeah it really is photography. If you don't like it, do a better one - that's how art works: the only entirely credible critic is the artist who does surpassing work.
FuhTeng: I've had my a6000 (my avatar looks just like my camera!) for a year and a half and it's been terrific. First lens (outside of the two kit zooms) was the 35 mm f1.8 SS and it its been great for family, travel, and baby pictures. I added the 50 mm f1.8 SS along with some fun old MF Canon lenses and its been great. Combined with my RX100M3 there's not much they can't do! I wanted the small size and I got it.
Except for wildlife shots (or sports, but I haven't shot sports yet). I rented a D7200 and the new 200-500 and I was completely smitten. I now own a D7100 and Tamron 150-600 (thanks honey!) and I'm very happy and fortunate that I have both.
I can't imagine mounting the 150-600 on the a6000 and the OVF has been wonderful. But at the tracking abilities of the a6000 (and the rare times I can use eye-AF with a subject who's not crawling constantly) have been perfect for catching my son as he explores the world and shots of the rest of my family.
I'm glad we have both!
I'm sorry, but a post this reasonable is unacceptable in this forum.
Old Cameras: I still think you get more bang for the buck with a DSLR, especially at the low price end of the range. And I hate the word "mirrorless": defining something by a feature it lacks. Surely there's a better term for describing such cameras.
Although I'm a mirrorless user, I would agree that a DSLR is a better all-rounder today, per dollar; i.e., wide range of affordable "native" lenses with great AF and low-light performance. But the price is as discussed in the article: more weight/size, modal mirror behaviors, etc. But the trend is clearly towards mirrorless.
Charlie Jin: Combined with Lenses and adaptors the mirrorless cameras have only very negligible advantage sacrificing other important factors. It is like comparing the two gun systems - one with 1 meter 30 centimetre long (DSLR) and another with 1 meter 25 centimetre long (ILC). After attaching accessaries on them, you just can't distinguish on the basis of original size and weight alone. If you really need the small and light, just carry a hand gun.
For this reason, I think that mirrorless is only a fad created by Sony and DPReview combined, and will disappear in the future - unless they come up with much smaller and lighter lenses - uhh -- "Glassless lens", that is ....
As 57even said, why would you even think of introducing a mirror into a modern digital camera? It seems much more likely that as EVFs will get more and more refined, the mirror gets more and more obsolete.
Randy Veeman: Panasonic continues to be the most innovative and affordable ILC company.4K ILCs under $1000, DFD that works better than most OSPDAF, 4K stills and now this. While other companies are selling $3300 camera bodies and abandoning APSC, Panasonic is innovating in ways the masses can afford.
This is a really interesting point. The other vendors are getting really expensive and increasingly out of reach of the masses - e.g., Sony FE, Fuji, etc. I'm a big Sony fan but I am no longer their target customer as they go to the high end. Fuji as a system is also pretty expensive. And yet I really want at least APS-C in terms of light capture, DoF, etc.
yahoo2u: ....."All three lenses will feature a Sony E-mount for use with full-frame Sony cameras sans an adapter.".It is "without an adapter".If you want to throw in french expressions while writing english go to france.
"sans" is such a cliché.
Some of the commenters here need to chill a little and get some perspective.
Writing as an "enthusiast" photographer... I recently upgraded from an iPhone 5 to 6S, and the jump in picture quality is significant. For a mundane but practical example, I frequently capture whiteboard discussions at work on my camera, so I can review or write up the content. The 6S shots are much sharper and more reliably in focus, too. It's not art photography, but it's extremely useful. I'm sure I'll take some nice outdoor shots with my phone, too.
Indoor, well, that's why I coughed up for a Sony NEX 5n a while back and a couple of nice lenses. And by the way, I'm in no hurry to upgrade that either. It's really a fine camera for what I need.
Gazeomon: Use the NX500 since April as a travel camera and street shooter. Fantastic when paired with decent lenses like the 30mm f/2. On par or better with the best APSC cameras on the market. I also shoot Pentax and Nikon.
@FodgeandDurn... I'm in the market for mirrorless + great primes... I never had an SLR, but am a committed amateur photographer, and I get a ton of value out of a much smaller and lighter setup than an SLR - in my case a Sony NEX + 2-3 lenses on a typical trip.
Ironically I just bought a new Sony lens (35/1.8) for my trusty NEX 5N on the same day as this announcement. I have been assuming that Sony was bound to produce a great next-generation "back" such as the alleged a7000... The article doesn't go so far as to say they will stop innovating in the APS-C line, but it does give me pause. Maybe I'll switch to Fuji after all, for the long haul.
Dimitris Servis: Hydrophobic
No, hydrophilic, I think. Hydrophobic would make water bead, whereas this makes it spread thin.
The Squire: Just shows how much Apple has changed in the last 10 years.
Their business was built on niche markets, particularly media, creative and agencies. The creative users propped up their core Mac business, when everyone else was using Windows.
Today, their market is primarily kids downloading apps.
Right, including everyone on this thread, obviously
Joed700: Major differences that really matter when it comes to choosing between APS-C or FF is the DOF. If shallow DOF is a must for you, FF is the only way to go. For example, my Fuji XF 56mm f1.2 can produce shallow DOF that's equivalent to an 85mm F1.8 only. Most people don't realize that 56mm f1.2 (85mm equiv) is somewhat misleading. It should be read as 56mm f1.2 (84mm f1.8 DOF in FF). A typical DX lens with an aperture starting at f3.5 at 16mm can give you max shallow DOF of a 24mm @ f/5 in FF. By the time you get to f5.6 at 55mm, you would have the same DOF as a FF 85mm @ f/9. Camera manufacturers should label their product as such: 16-55mm f/3.5 -5.6 (24-85mm f/5 - f/9 DOF in FF). Anyone who's serious about isolating their subjects will think twice when they see the DOF equivalent--f/5 - f/9....
This is definitely the main envy I have of FF, having committed to APS-C mirrorless. By compariso, resolution or low-light performance are rarely a significant issue for me. [Edit: added second para]
MPA1: If it had been possible to make FF sensors at reasonable cost when the first DSLR's came out, APS-c etc would not even exist. They were only made for that reason - full frame cost too much and/or wasn't possible in the quantity required.
Personally I would like to see all non-FX DSLR lines discontinued and the removal of huge amounts of confusion and duplication as a result.
You are not representative of the whole market for high-quality photo gear. I, for one, have no interest in carrying a camera and lenses at FF size. Or even an APS-C SLR. My mirrorless APS-C camera + 3 lenses can go everywhere with me.
ttran88: All marketing money and physics are leading to full frame, the consumers will follow.
Evidence for that claim?
marc petzold: Nice Info about that particular picture background, i was happy to read it,more of that, please. That composition looks very good to my eyes.
Apart from that, the Canon 16-35 L II Lens wasn't that good reviewed at lenstip, for example:
Canon EF 16-35 mm f/2.8L II USM11. Summary
solid, sealed barrel, excellent image quality in the frame centre, chromatic aberration sensibly controlled, only slight distortion, taking into account the focal lengths range, low astigmatism, low vignetting level, very quick, silent and accurate autofocus, lens hood and a case included.
unacceptable image quality at frame edge in the aperture range from f/2.8-4.0, average work against bright light, bad price/quality ratio.
Erez, I have learned a lot from your articles. Thanks for sharing. By revealing your uncropped panoramic, you open up an interesting discussion of composition. I hope you don't mind: I downloaded your photoshop comp and made an alternative crop that, to my taste, creates a compelling context at the edges. I'd appreciate it if you would take a quick look and comment on why you preferred to remove this context? Please let me know if you would prefer me not to post a crop of your work, and I will remove it - I certainly don't mean any disrespect. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwM3NbOCw4HcS1dpVGJ6aFdGMFk&authuser=0
G1Houston: Please add built-in flash and touch screen (with touch AF) to the next version of the A7, and put a bigger battery in. In terms of battery life, the Nikon D750 rated with the flash on can shoot 1200 shots ...
Agree re: Touch. I use a NEX 5N and love the touch feature for selecting the focus point. I'd really miss it.
The Winners are winners! Hey, DPR, isn't it about time your photo viewer offered a full-screen mode with lots of pixels and prev/next nav using arrows and arrow keys... like basically any self-respecting photo journalism site? It's painful squinting at these (on a Retina MBP) and I'm sure we're missing a lot at the res offered here.
Marcus Beard: This doesn't solve the main problem which is the non-destructive edits that most of us Aperture users have done over several years and tens of thousands of images. Fingers crossed that Photos.app will allow this
Indeed. Am I right to say that Lightroom will import rendered images (post-processed versions) because it can't replicate Aperture's effects?